SD on 5/3/2012 at 23:16

---

(http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/infant-death-maimonides-hospital-linked-circumcision-article-1.1032432#ixzz1o9PjIGHO)





...the fuck?

BrokenArts on 6/3/2012 at 00:22

---

At a loss for words, and no one has stopped this guy? *sigh* God damn cocksucker rabbi. Oh that's filled with so much goodness, isn't it?

Renzatic on 6/3/2012 at 02:36

---

BILL! YOU GET THE STAKES! BOB! ARE THOSE EGGS KOSHER? NO? GOOD!

THIS ENDS...:cocks stake shooting shotgun:...TONIGHT! :mad:

demagogue on 6/3/2012 at 05:27

---

You are all Nazis.
Just kidding. Sometimes even the rules of faith need to bend to the rules of hygiene.

Which reminds me. French: pasteurize your cheese; Scots: wear underwear under your kilts; Germans: your beer is missing "preservative additives"... I understand your point, but this is the road you're going down with this criticism. Can we throw out all traditions just in the name of clinical hygiene? How do we pick?

Edit: Still lol at the title though.

Edit2: For the record, I'd stop the rabbinic cocksucking and French non-pasteurization, but the Scots & Germans can keep their things. The line I think is when you push it on the public without them realizing that there's a real risk, however small, or they don't have another option and feel pressured into it. (The first two are things with verifiable risks. I might bend on the French cheese though, if the risk is labeled and there's pasteurized cheese.)

demagogue on 6/3/2012 at 05:53

---

I added an edit there. I wasn't directly comparing them no. I was just looking for other examples to bring out what the issue was, for discussion. I said in my edit which traditions seem good for staying and which ones good for going. And at least the French pasteurization debate is a well known issue that's been debated for a long time. Non-pasteurized cheese is well known to be risky, but go into a traditional French town and try to argue its more sensible to toss out the tradition because there's no good reason for the risk!

Food law has a lot of examples, where there's a risk vs tradition argument ... pasteurizing milk and cheese, risky eggs, uh I have to think of some more, but there are other examples.



Granted but who decides? Is it the place of the government to tell religions how to do their practice, or farmers how to raise their food, or consumers what they can and can't consent to? Or should everything just be clearly labeled and people can choose which one they want? And how far can they go? How much risk is too much? I agree it seems too much in this case, but unpasteurized cheese is riskier, and like I said that's still legal in France, but not in the US.

Edit: Ok I think this is the point I'm trying to make. I agree that the mohel practice should be changed. But if it should be changed then absolutely unpasteurized cheese needs to be banned in France as well. It's just as risky. Some people might be so ready to toss this out because it's foreign and ungodly sounding (not saying you guys, I know most of you guys are equally appalled at all freakish religious behavior, not just singling out this one), but are you really prepared to go against the entire French culinary juggernaut. I think you have to if you want to be consistent.