The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever


January 7, 2006 | 22 Comments

Your tax dollars at work:

Mayor Bloomberg intervened yesterday in a holy war between the city Health Department and Hasidic leaders who are battling over a controversial mouth-to-penis circumcision practice that health officials claim infected five infants with herpes — one fatally.

Bloomberg agreed to negotiate with rabbinical leaders after they marched out of a meeting with Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden last week.

“It was an open and frank dialogue,” said a Bloomberg spokesman.

A source who attended the meeting with the mayor said, “It’s still at an impasse,” although he noted that yesterday’s sit-down was not as heated as the earlier meeting.

In a sane world, grown men who chew the foreskins off little babies, infect them with diseases and kill them don’t get to arrogantly walk out of meetings with health officials. They don’t get to create impasses with powerful mayors. In fact, they don’t get to meet with health officials or mayors. They’re dragged out of their beds at 4 a.m. by police officers, locked up in prison for life and, if they ever get out, forced to register as sex offenders until they die.


22 Responses to “Hasadistic”

  1. Woad Muddle
    January 7th, 2006 @ 11:45 pm

    Does correspondence with truth matter to you? Or is sensationalism sufficient? I presume that the normal rules of journalistic integrity do not concern bloggers?

    The men in question do not “chew the foreskins off little babies” and it has only been alleged, not proven, that the procedure in question (which involves stopping the bleeding after circumcision with oral contact) has been a cause of herpes contamination.

  2. Tom
    January 7th, 2006 @ 11:59 pm

    No doubt it’s more likely that the rise in infant sexual promiscuity is responsible for the increase in herpes among that demographic.

  3. Tony
    January 8th, 2006 @ 12:17 am

    Does correspondence with truth matter to you? Or is sensationalism sufficient?

    Is that a rhetorical question?

  4. thickslab
    January 8th, 2006 @ 1:11 am

    Oh yeah, they don’t chew the foreskins off. They only suck the blood off it. MUCH better.

    Sick freaks.

  5. Choobus
    January 8th, 2006 @ 1:21 am

    Hmm, three infants who had their dicks sucked by the same rabbi all got herpes, but it hasn’t been proven that there’s a link! I wonder woad fool, would you let that guy suck your son’s dick? I seriously doubt it, unless you’re fucked in the head.

  6. Mutt
    January 8th, 2006 @ 2:37 am

    To echo other comments: they don’t chew the penis off, just suck the blood, which of course makes it muuuuch better. Believe it or not, there was a whole debate about whether using a drinking straw would be theologically acceptable.

    I wholeheartedly agree with your views, RA – circumcision of any child should be classified as child sex abuse. (I live in a country where circumcision of males is NOT commonplace as it is in the USA.)

  7. SpecialEdTeacher
    January 8th, 2006 @ 10:23 am

    What ever happened to the good ol fashioned mini-guillotine?

  8. Marni
    January 8th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm

    God that’s sick. The first comment was fucking ignorant.

    Pointless: (which involves stopping the bleeding after circumcision with oral contact)

    Yeah, that makes it so much better. Right up there with priest fucking alter boys.

  9. mnuez
    January 8th, 2006 @ 6:15 pm

    Yah, your posters are right, you really sensationalized the matter with all of that penis chewing and sexual referencing – not to mention the fact that the folk who walked out of the meeting are probably not the blood-suckers themselves.

    Anyhow, the matter actually is a very logical medical one… in the pre-medical age.

    It was believed that the excess blood that collects at the time of the circumcision was dangerous for the baby and therefore must be removed. And of course the only way to do that is by sucking it out (can you think of any other?).

    Now, y’can argue that circumcision itself is ridiculous or immoral (though by what an atheist references immorality remains in question). You can also claim that the procedure is unnnecessary or can be done in another way or that all circumcisors must take tests for STDs before they’re allowed to circumcise any babies – but writing up the matter as penis-chewing or in terms of being a sex crime is somewhat disingenuous.


  10. Mookie
    January 8th, 2006 @ 7:30 pm

    Nothing like fresh baby blood to make you feel holy!

  11. Choobus
    January 8th, 2006 @ 8:35 pm

    supposing I came from a religious tradition in which is was customary to masturbate 11 year old boys to completition to prove that they have come of age. Since it is a religious faith based hand job would this be acceptable under the law? I suspect it would not be, so I am not sure why this dicklicking is considered to be kosher.

    I hope the parents of the herpes kids (a future offshoot of the mickey mouse club perhaps?) are planning to settle the matter in court.

  12. The Atheist Jew
    January 8th, 2006 @ 10:22 pm

    I just shake my head at this kind of stuff. This is the 21st Century, and this ritualistic crap is embarrassing. You’d be surprised at how many Jews think the earth is less than 6,000 years old. For a people that is perceived to be educated and intelligent, the percentages of ignorant Fundy types is staggering.

  13. jahrta
    January 9th, 2006 @ 9:43 am

    Well, I was raised in a jewish household (although the religious teachings were very relaxed and we rarely went to temple). I was circumcized as were my brothers, and no one ever licked the area. I’ve never even heard of such a practice. Every mohel i’ve ever seen perform a bris has used topical antiseptic, so this “old-school dick licking” thing must be indicative of a small sect of ultra-religious fundie idiots, as there are subsects within the Hasidim and this must be one of those deals. The whole issue reminds me of blood libel (the ridiculous medieval notion that jews bake matzah with the blood of non-jewish children). I went to brandeis university (jew u) and i knew a few shomer n’gia sect jews, one of whom refused to spend the night over at my girlfriend’s place because I lived there too. That’s the kind of flagrant ignorance and disrespect that I would not hesitate to call someone on nowadays. Back then i just nodded and crashed at a friend’s place so that she didn’t have to feel “unclean” staying over.

    I still consider myself to be an atheist to the core, but for what it’s worth this insane practice is news to me.

  14. coyote1284
    January 9th, 2006 @ 11:02 am


    At least they aren’t militant fundamentalists (i.e. Islam).

  15. godsarefake
    January 9th, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

    Speaking of Islam, I think their worst practices actually make the the Hasids look great in comparison. Baby blow jobs are one thing. There once was a wide spread practice, which has fortunately faded away to only the most back remote parts of the islamic rural world, of removing a woman’s clitoris at or near birth and then stitching her labia together, leaving little more than a small hole for urine and blood (when she comes of age) to discharge through. This, of course, is all to “guarantee” virginity for her future huband (who, incidentally, slit open his new wife with a knife on their “honeymoon night” right before consumating the marriage). I hope you all can still sleep after reading that.

  16. Jill
    January 9th, 2006 @ 8:17 pm

    “There once was a wide spread practice, which has fortunately faded away to only the most back remote parts of the islamic rural world…”

    Just a little quibble — it hasn’t faded away. There are still numerous countries, concentrated mostly in Africa, where this practice is still very common.

  17. Yahweh Is A Sick Fucker
    January 9th, 2006 @ 11:05 pm

    What makes me angry are all the people who seem to think infant circumcision is perfectly acceptable as long as it’s done in a sanitary environment. Let’s get one thing straight here: cutting off part of a child’s sexual organ for any reason other than medical necessity is wrong no matter who the perpetrator is and you can bet it would be prosecuted as a criminal offense if it weren’t for the influence of organized religion in this country…..

  18. tomwright
    January 10th, 2006 @ 12:00 am

    What Jill said, it has not faded away, and is very common in many parts of africa. There was a case within that last 2 or 3 years of a woman seeking asylum in the US in order to avoid this hideous procedure. I do not recall the outcome.

    So far as this blood-sucking circumcision thing goes.
    This may be a vampire cult protected under the first amendment, you never know. not that there is anything wrong with it. (sarcasm)

    It is amazing what religions get away with. If any other organization had hidden criminals as the catholic church did, ther would be a full blown fbi investigation under the rico act. but a church? nah.

    Look at what the fundi mormons get away with. treating young girls like chattel property, child rape and incest. They do get targeted by some state agencies, but not often.

    Het, what’s a little child rape between gods?

  19. jahrta
    January 10th, 2006 @ 6:18 pm

    And it’s things like that (clitorectomies performed by tribal leaders while the girl’s relatives restrain her and ululate) which makes me scoff at their so-called “culture.” I think we can do without this bullshit in general. Of course, no sooner do I say this than I am attacked for being narrow-minded or of possessing a myopic worldview. Fuck ‘em – how many chicas out there would submit yourselves or a loved one to a good ol’ fashioned clit-hackin’ hootenanny? Anyone? Any takers?

  20. jahrta
    January 12th, 2006 @ 10:48 am


    The act of circumcision was originally performed for health reasons. Without proper hygiene, it is very easy for smegma to build up in the foreskin and cause infection. Obviously, hygiene is no longer the primary concern but many jews and non-jews alike still do it because of several reasons, not least of which is that it’s psychologically beneficial for a child’s penis to resemble his father’s. Another reason it’s still done is that it makes condom application easier, and also girls don’t like to go down on guys who aren’t circumcizes.

    The downside is that it’s been estimated that a circumcized penis has 20 percent less sensation in it due to the loss of the nerve endings in the foreskin.

    If done within the first 8 days, there is little to no pain involved with the procedure as the nerve endings wouldn’t have developed in that area yet. When a baby cries during a bris, it’s because it’s cold and there are weird people all around, including the mohel. The incision is treated with topical antiseptic and heals quickly. This having been said, I’m still not sure if I’m going to insist my son has one, if I ever do have a son.

    It’s not as barbaric as you may like to believe

  21. Yawning in the Flatlands
    January 14th, 2006 @ 7:29 pm

    Slaved from Reality

    Part of the ongoing discussion.
    I have been accused of following Bob Avakian as some sort of atheist cult leader for simply posting excerpts of his writings on this blog. Therefore I have composed the following which represent my views on a number o…

  22. tuiw
    January 14th, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

    I wonder how much these people paid to have a rabbi suck their baby’s bloody cock.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links