Politically Correct Persecution

Iranian holocaust

Probably the best (and worst) example of the Secularist utter tin ear for religion, expressed everywhere in lawsuits, billboards, and ridicule, is the attempt by some to do away with circumcision on the grounds that it constitutes mutilation of infants who have no say in the matter. (I will not pursue the irony of such protests being made by people who regard a human fetus as no different from a tumor. I cannot figure how an abortion activist thinks he/she deserves the epithet “humanist” any more than an “Earth First” eco-terrorist.)

If circumcision were comparable to the horror of female circumcision (clitorodectomy—and worse), then maybe there would be a legitimate issue here, but it isn’t.

“Oh, but the clipped baby boys cry!” So what? You are being a bigger sissy than they are if you think this is important.

If there are detrimental health effects, they are so marginal as to be negligible. At a recent secularist conference, an atheist, secularist MD gave this opinion only to receive protests from the peanut gallery, from laymen who figured they knew her specialty better than she did. You know, just like anti-vaccination zealots. Besides, given the artistic, intellectual, and other achievements of Jews, the greatest circumcisers of all, I can’t think being circumcised has hurt them all that much.

Here’s what I think it finally comes down to: Those who want to prohibit infant circumcision (in Germany and here, too) are following in the infamous footsteps of the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanies who forbade Jews circumcising their children. It was a subtler version of Pharaoh’s strategy in the Exodus legend. Yul Brynner tried the clumsy way of eradicating Jewry: butchering Hebrew babies fresh from the womb. Antiochus realized you didn’t need to get blood on your hands. Just prevent circumcision, because that way kids would not grow up being Jews. Circumcision was (and is) the initiation into the covenant of Abraham. If you prevent a Jewish boy being circumcised, you are assimilating him to Gentile ways from square one. If this strategy succeeds, no more Judaism. Jews yes, but in name only, and then even Jewish ethnicity is doomed to extinction as assimilation results in intermarriage, and secularism follows on its heels.

My impression is that today’s secularists do not even realize what’s at stake. It seems not to occur to them that their so-superior opposition to circumcision is a direct assault on the Jewish religion, that Jewish identity is at stake here. To them, religion is so far from mattering that they do not realize it matters to anyone else. They certainly would not mind if Judaism (and all religions) were to vanish from the earth, and if you remind them, as I am trying to do here, that an attack on circumcision is an attack on Judaism per se, they will react with irritation as if you are making a mountain out of a molehill, trying to stop the Secularist freight train because a mouse is on the track. Secularists seem to think getting rid of circumcision is just another job of gender rectification, like eliminating non-inclusive language.

This is a terrible time for Jews. Vocal and virulent anti-Semitism is on the rise in once-civilized Europe. But of course it was cultured, enlightened Europeans who sent Jews to the gas chambers, wasn’t it? And it was effete, ever-optimistic, naïve Europeans who allowed the annihilation of Jews because they could not believe “Mister Hitler” could actually be such a medieval barbarian as he proved to be. Today things are no different. Bubble-headed Presidents and Secretaries of State assure us that Iran is just kidding when they repeatedly announce their intent to wipe out Israel in a repeat of the Holocaust they disingenuously claim never happened. What happened to “Never again!”? More like “Ever again!” As long as liberals with no spine to stand up to evil feel free to use Israel as a guinea pig in their experiment in diplomacy, the train continues chugging toward Iranian Auschwitz. Even certain Republican FOX TV hosts wave a scolding finger at Mike Huckabee when his voice on Israel’s behalf uses the word “Holocaust.” They didn’t like Mike speaking the blunt truth about Israel’s peril at the hands of Iran and America. Such PC prissiness only oils the rails for the hellbound train. How can they not see that? It is a fantastic irony when our ludicrous hyper-sensitivity produces a kind of pre-Holocaust denial.

And while the “enlightened” opposition to circumcision is not directly related to the looming Iranian Holocaust, it must be seen in light of this larger picture of resurgent anti-Semitism. I beg you to keep this in mind.

Just leave the Jews alone, okay?

So says Zarathustra.


SEINFELD The Bris – Season 5 – Episode 5
Featuring Shakey the Mohel

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Politically Correct Persecution

  1. bahumuth says:

    I’ve gotten pretty used o the insanity that is the Republican Party but it is absolutely despicable that you and Huckabee use the Holocaust to try and score political points on the Democratic Party. It was the Republican Senate who didn’t want to enter WWII because they were more afraid of the Soviets than the Nazis, so if there’s one party that should stop using Hitler analogies, it’s you guys.

    The whole point of putting sanctions on Iran was to get them to the negotiating table and now that a deal is struck, Republicans feel the need to hate on it for their political campaign, but they, like you, cannot and will not name one thing you have against the plan itself. Just like with global warming, the problem isn’t that this is Republicans vs Democrats. This is Republicans vs. the World. The U.N. is not going to go along with perpetual sanctions without any attempt at negotiations forever.

    You just take the assumption that any deal means that somehow a country with nuclear weapons is going to submit to Iran and allow its population to be carted off into the ovens? What kind of crazy fever dream is that?? Do you remember the Red Scare? How we were all going to get nuked by them? But now that the country will hundreds of nukes is no longer threatening us directly, we have to quiver in fear over a country that has some tiny fraction of a chance of getting nukes sometime in the distant future? And once that happens, there’s apparently no MAD anymore. I guess that’s based on the Republican talking point that the Iranians are so crazy that they don’t care if they die. But that still doesn’t explain how they are going to march the Israelis into ovens without even having to use the nukes. I guess predicting a nuclear war between Israel and Iran isn’t one-sided enough, so you have to go with World War II analogies because that’s what sells.

    Don’t forget that Republicans have been predicting that Iran was getting nukes in “2 or 3 years” for the last 14 years, and now that we have inspectors making sure that doesn’t happen, it’s even worse. And why is Iran our enemy anyway? Because Eisenhower couldn’t allow Iran to become a secular Democracy because that would mean their oil would get nationalized, so we installed the Shah. When 9/11 happened, Iran had candlelight vigils while our “ally” Saudi Arabia had people celebrating in the streets.

    Why is that the same people that couldn’t wait for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs in Iraq and pulled liberals into the Iraq War kicking and screaming, who have finally, ever-so-slowly admitted that maybe the Iraq War was a bad idea so many years after Baker-Hamilton and Rumsfeld gave up on it, still thinks they have any credibility with foreign affairs? Don’t you remember that defeating Iraq was supposed to help change everything for the better in the region?? Just admit it. You’re addicted to war, so ANY prospect of a peace deal must be met with Holocaust projections.

  2. bahumuth says:

    One last question, do you really think Huckabee would have paid for a commercial like that if he wasn’t running for president?

  3. randy says:

    Why should a secularist mind if Judiaism or any other religion were to “vanish from the earth”? What exactly would our species be losing that you apparently think so essential and that only religion can provide?

  4. randy says:

    “But of course it was cultured, enlightened Europeans who sent Jews to the gas chambers, wasn’t it?”

    It wans’t Europeans in general who did this. It was specific Europeans – Germans. And, no, they were not enlightened. Wherever did you get the idea that those who committed these heinous acts of savagery and barbarity were enlightened? They were, it should be obvious, exactly the opposite of enlightened.

  5. randy says:

    “This is a terrible time for Jews. Vocal and virulent anti-Semitism is on the rise in once-civilized Europe.”

    True. To be sure some of this antisemitism is coming from Europeans. But fairness and accuracy dictates that it be pointed out that much, if not most, of this antisemitism is coming from the growing Muslim population in Europe based in part on their religious beliefs. This alone is reason enough for a secularist to hope for the demise of this religion and work to maintain and strengthen secular society to keep any and all religion’s from wedding themselves to the power of the state and doing what they are so adept at doing when there is little or no separation of church and state: oppress people.

  6. Kapitano72 says:

    Dr Price, this isn’t an essay – it’s a rant. To take your points in order:

    Can you name a single pro-abortionist who’s compared a foetus to a tumour? Do you imagine that those who place the rights of a pregnant woman over the rights of her unborn baby dispise the baby?

    The purpose of circumcision is the reduction of sexual pleasure by removing tissue with nerve endings, while leaving the reproductive function intact. The loss to male sensation is ~60%, that of the female ~95%. The difference between male and female circumcision is therefore one of degree, not kind, though the degree is great.

    The paragraph about “sissy” and crying baby boys is just rather silly, and I think you know this.

    The health effects, if any, are not the issue.

    If your argument is that Jews circumcise, therefore to oppose circumcision is to be antisemitic, then that is simply illogical. If your argument is that circumcision is the cornerstone of the jewish faith, then the obvious counter-argument is that however admirable judaism is in other ways, it’s cornerstone isn’t.

    A cornerstone of Islam is abjection to Allah. If I oppose abjection, does that mean I hate muslims, or does it mean I think muslims should get off their knees?

    When you say “Just leave the Jews alone” you’re conflating objection to a practice with hatred of the practicioners.

  7. Pecos B says:

    You said, “Just leave the Jews alone, okay?” That is good advice. So, how come we don’t follow that? In other words, let the Jewish nation fight its own wars, make its own treaties and spend their own money. Will Israel drop an atomic bomb on Iran in order to defend herself? Probably, but that would be their decision and they would have to live with it. Will other countries drop nuclear bombs on their neighbors or enemies? Who’s going to stop them? So, the bottom line is, it looks like we are headed for another holocaust much worse than anything previous and the victors will be those who survive. All because people are hell-bent on being religious fanatics and using that as an excuse to kill others. It’s one thing to believe in God as the Deists do, but it’s quite another to say God is only on our side because of our ritualistic beliefs.

    As of today, I believe the US has no treaty with Israel.

  8. Pecos B says:

    You said, “Just leave the Jews alone, okay?” That is good advice. So, how come we don’t follow that? In other words, let the Jewish nation fight its own wars, make its own treaties and spend their own money. Will Israel drop an atomic bomb on Iran in order to defend herself? Probably, but that would be their decision and they would have to live with it. Will other countries drop nuclear bombs on their neighbors or enemies? Who’s going to stop them? So, the bottom line is, it looks like we are headed for another holocaust much worse than anything previous and the victors will be those who survive. All because people are hell-bent on being religious fanatics and using that as an excuse to kill others. It’s one thing to believe in God as the Deists do, but it’s quite another to say God is only on our side because of our ritualistic beliefs.

    As of today, I believe the US has no treaty with Israel, yet we send billions of U.S. taxpayers money to them.

  9. Gene says:

    Greetings and salutations Dr. Price, from a fellow one percent-er. No, I’m not outing us as members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. I’m referring to the one percent difference between our homo sapien DNA and the DNA of chimpanzees. Just think, if it weren’t for that one percent, instead of surfing the internet and eating pizza from our favorite pizzeria, we’d be picking lice off of, and throwing poo onto, each other. Hey, speaking of such behaviors, doesn’t that remind you of some of the replies that make their way onto your blog?

    I find the issue of circumcision to be a difficult one because it goes straight to the limits of religious freedom and parental authority over their children.

    I do try to see things as they are. From your opening statement, no attempt is needed. Circumcision does constitute mutilation of infants’ penises. That’s what circumcision is. By definition.

    mutilate [myoot-l-eyt]
    verb (used with object), mutilated, mutilating.
    1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

    I do not think you are implying that an action taken under the context of religion magically changes the essence of that action. And if not, then what beliefs are clouding your mind that you don’t think cutting off the foreskin of a baby’s penis is not mutilation?

    And if Judaism becomes extinct without circumcision, how relevant can Judaism be?

    David Silverman, president of American Atheist, makes a good argument for Judaism being only a religion – not a culture, not an ethnicity, and not a nationality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NQOnjswuFI

    The noted atheist Richard Dawkins is very much against circumcision. It is interesting that he and many other anti theists advocate no rights for the unborn child, but almost no rights for the parents after the child is born. For example, he is adamant that a mother has total authority over whether or not her unborn baby will be aborted or not aborted. However, once that baby is born, Dawkins is totally against that mother calling her baby a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or any other religious name. You can kill it, but you can’t put a Jesus sticker on it if you let it live.

    I do agree with Richard Dawkins in that the best way to approach religion is with education.

    There used to be 2 reasons for anti semitism, Christianity and Islam. Today there is a third, liberal anti theism. At least here in the USA, Christianity has a lot of political power and that’s a tough battle. Islam has their threats of violence and it will not do you any good to have your head cut off. That leaves Judaism – an easy and safe target of anti religious fervor.

    As I said, this is a difficult issue. When does the state step in and protect the child? And protect the child from what?

    Leave Jews alone should be the easiest thing for everyone to do. It’s the Christians and Muslims that are causing so much more nightmares in this world.

    Thank you for another post that has gotten me to think a bit more than I had been.

    Gene

Leave a Reply