Babies Dying After Contracting Herpes Orthodox Jewish Rabbis

CPR has a medical use and is performed by people who are trained to do it, not rabbis who could use a much safer, hygeinic method to do it. If they would rather put their mouth to a child's penis when there are alternative methods I think there's a good reason to be suspicious of them.

If someone who wasn't religious did this to a child they would be prosecuted for sexual assault so I don't see how this is any different.

They would rather do it that way because that was how it has been done for millennia. Surely you've noticed that religions are slow to change their traditions?

Suppose the circumcision act involved making a cut in the baby's forearm and the ritual was to suck a bit of blood from that wound. Would you still be suggesting they did it because they're secret pedos? No. But would they still be insisting that they continue to perform the rite the way its always been done. Of course.

Yeah I'm aware it takes a while but that doesn't make it right, especially if there is irrefutable evidence that it is seriously harming babies. If innocent children who had no choice in it are being harmed I think the government has the right to step in.

I don't think you should be making assumptions about how I feel about anything, I am guessing you are Jewish? I have respect for religion but only if it doesn't harm people and in this case it has. How would cutting a baby's arm be in any way relate to a circumcision, again if a non-religious person did this they would be prosecuted for abusing the child. It's irrelevant where the injury is, if it's unnecessary and putting the baby at risk the government should put a stop to it, it's as simple as that.

I'm referring only to your assertion that this practice is a cover for paedophilia. I am asking you to consider the hypothetical scenario if, instead of circumcision being what it is, it were instead an incision on the arm followed by sucking out a drop of blood. I am suggesting that the Rabbis would be exactly as opposed to changing the way they perform the ritual. Yet, despite this there would not be anyone claiming that their opposition was based on paedophilia. I am using it as a method to show that the reluctance to change the way a ritual is performed is independent of the details of the ritual. Therefore, the suggestion that they won't change it because they are paedophiles is completely baseless.

I see what you're saying, and I take your point. If the ritual were different and it didn't involve what it actually does it probably wouldn't be considered paedophilic but would still be classed as child abuse in many people's eyes.

Totally agree. People jump to "ooh they're paedophiles" because it involves the penis and while I personally think these Rabbis are wrong and stupid, I think its also wrong to start casting baseless aspersions on them like that.

I understand that the practice probably did not have origins with sinister intentions. However, what others are trying to say that in present day some people who agree to performing such rituals may have such prior intentions. Now I'm not saying this is the way it is but I can see why it may seem this way to certain people.

On to your other point, yes it is being considered sinister because it is the infant's penis. Similarly, a stranger touching a child's penis as opposed to their hand would have a different implication.

Yes, you're right. It is perfectly conceivable that someone trains to perform circumcisions so that they can enjoy a second of sucking a drop of blood from a baby's penis. However, this is as akin to saying that some midwives do it so they can see vaginas.

The point is, that people should be at least a little hesitant before chucking around baseless aspersions against other people which they know are going to be hurtful and offensive.

Well, I partially agree with you that it seems unlikely that a Mohel simply gets into that due to sinister intentions but as I said, to some people it can seem likely. I doubt their intention was to cause offense but simply disgust at what they see as a barbaric practice.

If they were catholic priests, I would have still said cock sucking.

I think it's pretty disgusting how this ritual is still performed, probably done so to disguise their paedophillic intentions.

However, this is as akin to saying that some midwives do it so they can see vaginas..

Tell me how it can't have paedophilic connotations for a rabbi to continue with the process when he knew he was carrying a blood-borne disease?

This is a complete non sequitur.

By the way, you do realise we're talking about cold sores, right?

Yeah. Which in any other instance would be fine when a human being has developed a bloody immune system.

Most vaccinations aren't performed until after 2-3 months for a baby to do so.

Babies are dying but you don't care do you?

Very hard to justify complaining so much about letting parents be informed of the risks. There's no attempt to stop the practice only that people should know there is a risk.

Having said that, did OP really need to say "cock sucking rabbis"? Other than to grab attention and offend Jews. (FYI, I'm a Jew and I was offended by the implications)

EDIT: The moderators have since removed those words from the thread title, if you're wondering what I'm talking about.

Over the past decade, at least one other newborn died after contracting herpes from the rite, in which the rabbi draws blood from the penis with his mouth.

Don't remeber that bit in the Torah........

Methinks we have a Rabbi Glitter over here.....

It was a rabbinical enactment made at least a millennia and a half ago in the belief that it was better for the child that some blood be drawn from the wound.

How does that justify it anymore than being a paedophile?