June 4, 2004
DON'T TELL LYNDON LAROUCHE
The circumcision decision: On The Cutting Edge (Edgar J. Schoen, Moment, October 1997)
Odly [sic] enough, circumcision has long been associated with non-Jewish upper classes and with royalty. Ancient Egyptian priests were circumcised. King Louis XVI of france and Queen Victoria of England popularizes the proceedure among their subjects. Louis XVI was circumcised at 22 to cure phimosis, a permanently unretractable foreskin, which caused painful erections and unsuccessful intercourse with his wife, Marie Antoinette. Queen Victoria, convinced that the British royal family was decended from King David, had her male offspring circumcised. This tradition continued through Edward VII, the Duke of Windsor, and Charles, the current Prince of Wales, who was circumcised by a well-known physician and mohel, Dr. Jacob Snowman. This tradition of British royalty has now ended, however. The young princes William and Henry are "intact," in keeping with current fashion.It's amazing what you can find out on the internet. Posted by David Cohen at June 4, 2004 11:10 PM
Clearly, it proves that Charles is a Muslim. Muslims circumsise at puberty, unlike Jews who have more sense and who do it when the baby is too young to conceptualize. However, by that time Chales and Diana were separated and he could not arange the ritual.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 5, 2004 2:21 PMThe Defense of Circumcision Act (DOCA)
I would like to suggest new legislation for the purpose of protecting and preserving the sanctity of circumcision.
Traditionally, circumcision has been a sacred institution honoring the covenant between God and the Children of Abraham set forth in Genesis 17.
Only recently, gentiles began emulating the motions and mechanics of circumcision, but violating its sanctity by conducting it without religious ritual, on non-Jews, in secular, medical contexts.
The act of circumcision was defined thousands of years ago as a sacred rite performed upon a Jewish child, for the purpose of sanctifying a man before God. This is older even than the tradition of limiting “traditional Judeo-Christian Marriage” to one man and one woman.
To reduce circumcision to a mere clinical procedure, requiring only a scalpel and some Betadine, is a mockery of Judaism and of God Himself.
Furthermore, The Bible and millennia of tradition explicitly forbid duplicating the act of circumcision, without ritual, upon non-believers:
“Circumcise then your heart, and stiffen your neck no more” (Deut. 10:16).
“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My wrath go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds” (Jer. 4:4).
And not just in The Bible, but in The New Testament as well:
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Rom 2:28-29).
I remind you, this tradition is even older than the tradition of marriage between one man and one woman. It is not only older than marriage, but in Jewish law it is a prerequisite to marriage. Without the sacred ritual of circumcision to sanctify a man before God, marriage itself is not sacred.
And above all, we must preserve the sanctity of marriage.
Therefore, I ask that the state recognize this millennia old definition of circumcision. We must amend our constitution to officially define circumcision as a privilege reserved solely for Jews to sanctify themselves before God. We must forbid non-Jews from changing and corrupting the definition of circumcision, and by extension, the institution of marriage upon which our civilization depends.
We need to lobby our legislators to put this amendment before the citizens for a vote as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Rev. Ian Brumberger
The National Association for Stupid Acceptance (The NASA)
http://www.imwithstupid.org