Why was the whole part about the inversion of this trope IRL removed? That section is painfully true, you know, and all the points listed there were pretty damn important.
Fragite omnia. http://israblog.co.il/573275
BadAss
The other day I read this article and was kinda surprised to find, under the Comics section, the statement that "Foreskin Man"— which is overtly anti-semitic— was a good example of "Don't Shoot the Message." Finding this kinda hilariously erroneous, I commented, saying that "Except in Don't Shoot the Message, you agree with the message, and the message of this comic is against allowing people to raise their children as Jewish, as well as the anti semitic 'Monster Mohel' character.'" Almost immediately after this, my comment was deleted, reasoning it was "Flame Bait natter."
Though I don't think my comment would be particularly flame-y, given that I don't think many tropers would disagree with those statements (arguably, for example, the entire Glen Beck page is much, MUCH more flameful, but all the tropers pretty much agree on him, so it doesn't matter if it would start a flame war on a conservative forum), I don't really care if my comment is deleted. What I DO care about, though, is the idea that the comment that the MESSAGE of an overtly antisemitic comic is stated to be right, and THAT is not considered flame bait. So, is it okay for me to put my comment back (hence, when people read this, at least the initial antisemitic statement is debated) or to delete the initial comment altogether?
I've never had to use the discussion tab before, so if this is the wrong place to ask about this, then please do tell.
"Let's be bad guys." -Serenity (Jayne) I'd rather be free than safe. Hide / Show Replies
I'm the one who deleted your comment in question - partly because, if it were left there, it would certainly have spurred several responses and might have started a really long argument that could have been ugly, partly because - whether you intended it or not - your phrasing was extremely defensive.
The reason the message of the comic - which, by the way, is: "neonatal circumcision should be illegal, in any and all circumstances" - is considered right by some people (who are called intactivists), is basically because they see it as a human rights issue, noting that the western world outlaws FEMALE neo-natal circumcision, in any and all circumstances, including religious ones. The reason it's "Don't Shoot The Message" is that this point is couched in frankly reprehensible WWII-style dehumanizing propaganda. THAT isn't the message, it's the DELIVERY of the message, which is what that trope is all about.
For the record, Jewish identity is not dependent on circumcision, and there are even certain Jews who oppose it - usually they partake in an alternate ceremony called "Brit Shalom". In other words, the message is NOT that raising children is Jewish is wrong or not okay, it's that neo-natal circumcision, for ANY reason, is wrong; the argument here being that if Jewish (and Muslim, etc.) babies were not protected by human rights legislation just like everyone else, that would be unethical. Unfortunately, whoever drew the cartoon seems to be living in the 1930s, and that's why it's Don't Shoot The Message.
It's a very ugly, very thorny debate, and that comic does nothing but make the anti-circumcision side look bad. But the message is unequivocally NOT "children should not be raised Jewish", and that's basically why I deleted your comment. After having written this, I think it CAN be said that "children should not be raised Jewish" is an Unfortunate Implication, so you could probably say that.
EDIT: I went ahead and reorganized the entry to incorporate your valid concerns about anti-semitism and hopefully indicate that those who oppose neo-natal circumcision are not inherently anti-semetic themselves. Hopefully, the point is more clear now.
Edited by Brainbin
I'm fine with you deleting your comment- you're reasoning is correct, as I was essentially taking a side (although I did so because I felt you were taking a side).
Perhaps to remedy the situation, the line should be changed from ".... Don't Shoot The Message." to "Don't Shoot The Message for intactivists."
As a side note on the whole Jewish thing, as a Jew myself, I can say that you are sorta wrong about that bit. There are a few Jews (so few that I have never met any, despite being a reformed Jew in America, who knows mostly agnostic and secular Jews) that oppose circumcision. There is also a "Jews for Jesus" organization, but it wouldn't be right to say the believing in Jesus is part of being Jewish, would it? In fact, pretty much all mainstream reform rabbis as well as conservative and orthodox rabbis agree that the brit milah is just about one of the most important parts of being a Jew- more so for the parents, even, than the child itself. It has to do with the covenant with God- our half of the covenant IS the brit milah.
I'm not saying that I don't accept Jews whose parents (or themselves) have chosen to do Brit Shalom instead- modern reform judaism pretty much accepts everyone from the most orthodox conservatives to that fellow over there whose uncle is half jewish and so he wanted to come over for dinner- but the fact of the matter is that for most Jews, trying to take away the brit milah would basically be making one of the most important aspects of their religion illegal! This would symbolically take away the idea of our people being able to pass down Torah and our traditions through the generations (the whole brit milah thing sort of includes the idea of passing on something to your son), while also being a terrible sign that we are no longer accepted in whatever country makes these laws (for no country that listens to our complaints would ever make that law in the first place), and so we'd probably end up emigrating elsewhere.
"Let's be bad guys." -Serenity (Jayne) I'd rather be free than safe.
I meant deleting my comment at the top.
"Let's be bad guys." -Serenity (Jayne) I'd rather be free than safe.
I don't know if you caught the edit to my reply - I did already change the entry and I think it better fits with what you want now.
It’s not even anti-Semetic. Notice how other Jewish characters, who don’t support circumcision, are seen as perfectly normal, while the doctor is even more monstrous than the Monster Mohel is. Jews (especially here in Israel) often have a tendency to interpret anything as racist, and often compare opposition to this ceremony to Nazism, going so far as calling Israel’s Ministry of Health’s denouncing of the metsitsa bape* ‘anti-Semetic’.
Edited by AnCatDubh Fragite omnia. http://israblog.co.il/573275
Talking to people who have married into the Jewish religion - and I admit my research base is only two people so it may not be rperesentative - neither of these guys was especially bothered about the necessary loss of theor foreskin. They saw it pragmatically as a fortnight or so of discomfort and the need to take erection-supressing drugs after a simple straightforward operation. And then that was it. Both guys, however, took a very deep breath and said the real price for wanting to marry a Jewish girl and become a part of her religion and community, was going to be a really seriously big sacrifice and a big wrench. This was having to give up pork and bacon and to never touch a bacon sandwich again as long as they shall live. Think about this. Losing your foreskin - no biggie. Just a vestigial flap of skin the body can do without. Never being able to eat bacon again. That's a REAL sacrifice and something you're really got to love the girl a lot to be able to contemplate. I wonder how many converts to Judaism hit this same hump? And what sort of psychiatry Freud might have developed had he contemplated this?