Lakewood Votes BIG For Steve Lonegan (Best area was 99.5%) To Fight Against Toevah

Following the Psak From R Shmuel Kamenetsky amongst others Lakewood Voted overwhelmingly for Steve Lonegan.  Lakewood appears to have have been Lonegan strongest support.

It appears Lonegan's 2 best EDs (voting booths) in New Jersey were in  Lakewood 294-2 (99.3%) and 413-2 (99.5%).

Remember this includes non Jewish areas

full results for Ocean County
Williamsburg This is what Rav Yoelish ZTL would have wanted his kehilla to vote like

R Shmuel Kamenetsky And Other Rabbonim Say It's A Chiyuv To Vote For Steven Lonegan

Cory Booker Implies That Not Allowing Same Gender "Marriage" Is Like Communism

Remember to VOTE AGAINST Cory Booker this Wendsday, for senate!

Pewresearch Poll Shows 3% Of "Orthodox" Jews Won't Admit To Believing In God, Or Worse

Pew Research Poll

Why The Anti Bris Milah Movement Is Growing! And How It Copied The Homosexual Movement

How Circumcision Broke the Internet

A fringe group is drowning out any discussion of facts.

By Mark Joseph Stern (yellow is our additions) 

 

 

 

The anti-circumcision voice is a disproportionately loud one.

There are facts about circumcision—but you won’t find them easily on the Internet. Parents looking for straightforward evidence about benefits and risks are less likely to stumble across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention than Intact America, which confronts viewers with a screaming, bloodied infant and demands that hospitals “stop experimenting on baby boys.” Just a quick Google search away lies the Circumcision Complex, a website that speculates that circumcision leads to Oedipus and castration complexes, to say nothing of the practice’s alleged brutal physiological harms. If you do locate the rare rational and informed circumcision article, you’ll be assaulted by a vitriolic mob of commenters accusing the author of encouraging “genital mutilation.”

An example of the types of comments

How did it come to this? For years, circumcision was a private decision, encouraged by many doctors, practiced by most families (in America, at least), but little discussed in the public sphere. Yet in the past two decades, a fringe group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” which is what homosexual activists were even into the 70s has hijacked the conversation, dismissing science similar to the homosexual movement denying the health risks of homosexual behavior, slamming reason, and tossing splenetic accusations homophobe anyone? at anyone who dares question their conspiracy theory. For doctors, circumcision remains a complex, delicate issue; for researchers, it’s an effective tool in the fight for global public health. But to intactivists, none of that matters. The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, where human reason leads the best ideas to triumph. There are plenty of other loud fringe groups that flood the Internet with false information, but none of them has been as successful as the intactivists at drowning out reasoned discourse. In the case of circumcision, the marketplace of ideas has been manipulated—and thanks to intactivists, the worst ideas have won out.

Like most fringe groups, the anti-circumcision faction is almost comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia. The intactivists also obsess about sex mostly of the homosexual type to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd. The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)

Advertisement

Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost cultic devotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexless existence.

Intactivists gain validity and a measure of mainstream acceptance through their sheer tenacity. Their most successful strategy is pure ubiquity, causing a casual observer to assume their strange fixations are widely accepted. Just check the comment section of any article pertaining to circumcision. When Slate’s Troy Patterson wrote a piece thoughtfully weighing circumcision’s pros and cons, he was attacked for supporting a “barbaric practice” of “mutilation” that “ought to be illegal.” A lighthearted Dear Prudence column suffered the same fate. Intactivists pummeled the Amazon rankings of a book about the history of AIDS that mentioned circumcision as a proven preventive measure. Check any Internet message board this is also true of homosexual activits and you’ll find the same ideas peddled as unimpeachable fact: Circumcision is amputation, a brutally cruel and despicable form of abuse. It damages penises and violates human rights. And it irrevocably, undeniably ruins male sexuality for life.

The problem with these arguments is that they’re either entirely made up or thoroughly disproven. None of intactivists’ cornerstone beliefs are based in reality or science; rather, they’re founded in lore, devilishly clever sophistry dressed up as logic. The facts about circumcision may be hard to find on an Internet cluttered with casuistry—but they are there. And they prove that even as intactivists dominate the Internet, the real-world, fact-based consensus on circumcision is tipping in the opposite direction.

Take, for example, the key rallying cry of intactivists: That circumcision seriously reduces penis sensitivity and thus sexual pleasure. Study after study after study has proven this notion untrue. Some men circumcised as adults actually report an increase in sensitivity, while many report no appreciable difference; virtually none noted any notable decrease. Men circumcised as adults also almost universally report no adverse effect in overall sexual satisfaction following the procedure. (That fits with what my colleague Emily Bazelon found when she asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) And genital sensitivity in response to erotic stimulation is identical in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Don’t trust individual studies? A systematic review of all available data on circumcision came to the same conclusion. Intactivists, then, aren’t disputing a few flimsy studies: They’re contradicting an entire field of research.

So much for circumcision’s supposedly crippling effect on sexual pleasure. But what about its effect on health? Intactivists like to call circumcision “medically unnecessary.” In reality, however, circumcision is an extremely effective preventive measure against global disease. Circumcision lowers the risk of HIV acquisition in heterosexual men by about 60 to 70 percent. And circumcision reduces HIV risk over a man’s lifetime, unlike condoms, which must be used during each sexual encounter. It’s no wonder that the World Health Organization has pushed circumcision as a key tool in the fight against HIV.

But that’s not circumcision’s only benefit. The procedure also protects men against a variety of other STDs, significantly reducing their odds of contracting herpes and syphilis. Moreover, circumcision is highly effective in preventing transmission of HPV in men, which in turn reduces their risk of penile cancer. And circumcised men are far less likely to contract genital warts or develop urinary tract infections. Fewer circumcisions mean more STDs and infections—and billions more in health care spending.

As both a personal and public health matter, circumcision is clearly in men’s best interest. But intactivists, predictably, aren’t having any of it. Like anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, anti-circumcision activists reject all science that doesn’t fit their angry, victimized orthodoxy. Does circumcision truly prevent HIV? Probably not, they say—but even if it did, it would ultimately increase risk of HIV by lulling men and women into a false sense of complacency. (Never mind that this is emphatically false.) Plus, they claim, circumcision has such high rates of complication that its benefits couldn’t possibly outweigh its drawbacks. (Again: simply incorrect.) Anyway, to intactivists, mutilation is mutilation; what does it matter if it’s for the greater good?

Thus far, intactivists’ ideological warfare has remained largely—though not entirely—toothless. Municipal ballot measures in America to ban circumcision have collapsed under the weight of their own weirdness; a German court’s anti-circumcision ruling was reversed by the legislature.  However they keep on getting farther along in the process, On the Internet, though, it’s a different story. A generation of future doctors, scientists, and parents has now been exposed to a constant stream of acrimonious and unscientific lies about circumcision. remember it took 2 generations for the homosexual "community to get "marriage" Men across the world have been told their parents mutilated their genitals and ruined their sex lives. (Some even try to reverse the “damage”—for a price.) Conventional wisdom is starting to hold that even if circumcision is medically helpful, it’s also sexually harmful. Intactivists, in short, are winning the online battle. Is it only a matter of time until they win the greater war?

remember homosexual "marriage" is much more of a historical anomaly then banning bris milah is!
(Slate)

Things that are not mentioned ?purposely? in the original article
1. The gay "communities" support of banning Milah


2. That this movement is run very similarly to the toevah movement, (which was changed by television)

3. They ignore the political side for the most part, and how their "losses" were really gains.

Wall Street Journal Reports On The Threat Of Gay Terrorism

Some Businesses Balk at Gay Weddings

Photographers, Bakers Face Legal Challenges After Rejecting Jobs on Religious Grounds

Colorado baker Jack Phillips declines on religious grounds to work on gay "weddings". Matthew Staver for The Wall Street Journal

Laws in Conflict

Same-sex "marriages" have highlighted tensions between anti"discrimination" and free-speech measures:

• Laws in many states ban businesses from "discriminating" against people based on their sexual orientation.

versus

• The free-speech clause in the First Amendment may protect people from being compelled to speak in favor of issues with which they disagree.
• The First Amendment also protects the right to 'freely exercise' one's religion.
• Laws in some states restrict the government from hindering the free exercise of religion.

As more states permit gay couples to "marry" or form "civil unions", wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state anti"discrimination" laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state anti"discrimination" laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's "commitment" ceremony.

Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Religious-rights advocates argue that the Constitution affords people the right to abstain from a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. "It's an evisceration of our freedom of association," said John Eastman , the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Supporters of gay "marriage" argue that the businesses objecting to working on same-sex ceremonies face an uphill battle, as courts are likely to view the cases as a matter of civil rights. They say the U.S. Supreme Court has already addressed the issues in question on several occasions when it rejected arguments against laws requiring businesses to serve African-Americans.

"This really isn't a new fight," said Jennifer Pizer, a director with Lambda Legal, a nonprofit civil-rights organization that advocates on behalf of same-sex couples seeking the right to "marry". 

In the New Mexico case, the state Supreme Court rejected a claim by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin , the owners of Elane Photography , who argued that they shouldn't be forced to create images that tell "a positive and approving" story about a ceremony they find objectionable.

The couple declined to discuss the case. Jordan Lorence, their lawyer, said he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Americans are now on notice that the price of doing business is their freedom," he said.

Vanessa Willock , who filed a discrimination complaint after learning that Elane Photography wouldn't photograph her "commitment" ceremony, said in a statement that she was grateful that the New Mexico Supreme Court "has ensured that we may all walk with "dignity"."

In Colorado, baker Jack Phillips , the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood outside Denver, is facing state sanctions for refusing to work on same-sex "weddings", after he acknowledged telling about a half-dozen patrons that his Christian beliefs prevented him from baking wedding cakes for such ceremonies.
"We were "mortified" by the experience," said David Mullins , a gay man whose offer of business was declined by Mr. Phillips last year and subsequently filed a discrimination complaint.

Mr. Phillips declined to be interviewed. In an email he sent to friends earlier this year, which his lawyer confirmed was authentic, he wrote that his refusal to bake cakes for same-sex weddings is not motivated by a "hatred of gays" but rather "a desire to live my life in obedience to [God] and His Word."

In Oregon, bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein learned in August that a state complaint had been filed against them because they had refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian " couple". A lawyer for the Kleins, who declined to comment, said the couple has done business with gay people for years, but didn't want to be forced to participate in an event contrary to their Christian beliefs, especially given that same-sex "marriage" still isn't legal in Oregon.

"My clients are simply saying that we have the right to live, work and operate our business according to our principles," said the lawyer, Herb Grey .

The lesbian couple who filed a complaint against the Kleins declined to comment. Their lawyer, Paul Thompson , said his clients "were humiliated and treated unlawfully."

In Washington, the state attorney general sued florist Barronelle Stutzman after she declined to provide wedding floral arrangements for a gay couple. The couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, sued as well, despite having been loyal customers of the Richland, Wash., business, Arlene's Flowers, for years.

"We had to do something," said Mr. Freed. "No one should have to go through the kind of hurt, disappointment and embarrassment that we went through."

Ms. Stutzman countersued Washington in August, claiming the U.S. and state constitutions protect her from being forced to perform actions contrary to her "religious beliefs and her conscience." She also argued that the state, in forcing her to "use her artistic skill to personally craft expressive floral arrangements" for a same-sex "wedding", violated her free-speech rights.

"There are plenty of florists who could provide arrangements for same-sex "weddings"," said her lawyer, Dale Schowengerdt . "The state has no good reason to cause my client to violate her own conscience."
(WSJ)

Swedish Ombudsman (Commisioner) For Children Urges Sweden To Ban Milah

Swedish Ombudsman calls for ban on circumcision

Posted: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:17

Commisioner

The Swedish Ombudsman for Children has written to a newspaper calling for the country to outlaw the circumcision of boys.

"Circumcising a child without medical justification or his consent contravenes the child's human rights," wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with representatives from the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Swedish Society of Health Professionals, the Swedish Paediatric Society, and the Swedish Association of Paediatric Surgeons, and published in the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter. "The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications."

Mr Malmberg, said the practice of circumcision violates the basic rights of boys and is against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Circumcision was legalised in Sweden in 2001, when a new law permitted religious practitioners to perform the operation if the child is under two months old. After that it has to be done by a physician with the full consent of the parents, who must be fully informed of the implications. It is estimated that some 3,000 boys are circumcised every year in Sweden.

Ombudsmen from across Scandinavia are scheduled to meet today (Monday 30 September) in Oslo, Norway, to discuss the issue.

Last year, an attempt by the far-right Sweden Democrat party to ban circumcision was rejected.

(secularism.org)

Calls to ban circumcision resurfaced in Sweden last week.

The right-wing Sweden Democrats tabled a bill to criminalise non-medical circumcision, and the children’s ombudsman — together with representatives of several healthcare bodies — published an opinion piece in the newspaper Dagens Nyheter claiming that circumcision contravenes human rights.

Björn Söder and Per Ramhorn of the Sweden Democrat Party submitted the parliamentary motion, which notes that “outdated religious traditions aimed at mutilating small boys and girls… do not belong in a modern society governed by the rule of law”.

“I understand the Jews’ point of view and we have freedom of religion in Sweden, but sometimes it goes against human rights… Circumcision can affect one’s sex life. It is a form of mutilation,” said Mr Ramhorn.

“Outdated religious traditions aimed at mutilating small boys and girls… do not belong in a modern society governed by the rule of law”

“It is of course an unacceptable attack on what we as Jews see as a fundamental right to carry our tradition on to future generations,” said Lars Dencik, a Swedish-Jewish professor in social psychology at Denmark’s Roskilde University.

“Any demand for the prohibition of brit milah is a frontal attack on Judaism,” said Göran Rosenberg, a prominent Swedish-Jewish author. “In Sweden, this demand is most aggressively pursued by the Sweden Democrats… This should worry those liberals and others who use the same arguments and who choose not to notice that there is an agenda of cultural and religious intolerance lurching beneath them.”

Benjamin Gerber, a pedagogue with the Jewish community in Gothenburg and the son of Sweden’s only non-medically trained mohel, criticised Sweden’s Council of Jewish Communities for avoiding the debate around circumcision. “This will not go away. Instead of keeping a low profile, it’s time for us Jews to come out and say that we have no problems with our bodies… We don’t have thousands of Jews and Muslims in Sweden complaining about feeling violated. Instead, the critics come from outside these communities.”
In Scandinavia, the campaign to ban circumcision has supporters across the political spectrum. In 2011, a number of medical doctors, academics, humanists and priests backed the Swedish Association of Health Professionals’ bid to outlaw circumcision, arguing that the practice violates personal integrity.

In Denmark, an organisation was formed earlier this year to campaign against non-medical circumcision following a debate sparked by a doctor who argued that circumcised men have poor sex lives.

In Norway, a number of organisations and politicians failed to push through a law last year to ban ritual circumcision; it can now only be carried out at hospitals there.
(JC.com)

Norway’s children’s ombudsman reacted to the Op-Ed by reiterating the position that non-medical circumcision of boys is a human rights violation — a stance also held by counterpart organizations in Finland, Norway and Denmark.

Last week, a motion calling to ban the practice was submitted to Sweden’s parliament by two lawmakers from the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party. Earlier this month, Denmark’s left-leaning Social Liberal Party passed an internal motion in opposition of ritual circumcision of boys.

(Foward)

Sweden Recently Introduced A Bill To Ban Bris Milah

Motion to ban non-medical circumcision introduced in Sweden

September 24, 2013 11:38am

(JTA) — A motion to ban the non-medical circumcision of males younger than 18 was presented to the Swedish parliament.

Two lawmakers from the rightist Sweden Democrats party, noting that female genital mutilation is illegal in Sweden, submitted the motion to the Riksdag on Tuesday. A vote on the motion has not been set.
Bjorn Soder and Per Ramhorn wrote in the measure that “boys should have the same right to avoid both complications of reduced sensitivity in the genitals, painful erections, increased risk of kidney damage and psychological distress by permanent removal, and the tremendous violation of privacy that circumcision actually means.”

The motion proposes to scrap legislation from 2001 that says circumcision of newborns is permissible if it is performed by a “licensed professional.”
Jewish ritual circumcisers, or mohelim, in Sweden receive their licenses from the country’s health board, but a nurse or doctor must still be present when they perform the procedure.
The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats party was established in 1988 but only made it into parliament following unprecedented gains in the 2010 elections, when it garnered 5.7 percent of the votes, or 20 seats out of 349 in Sweden’s parliament. The opposition party is the sixth largest faction in the Riksdag.
Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the European Conference of Rabbis, said the proposal “betrays a dangerous ignorance of what is involved in the practice of milah as compared with the abhorrent practice of Female Genital Mutilation.” The motion’s authors “seem to have overlooked the fact that if circumcision were to be banned, that would itself represent the most serious violation of human rights in recent memory,” he added in a statement.
Ritual circumcision of underage boys increasingly has come under attack in Scandinavia, both by left-wing secularists as well as right-wingers who fear the influence of immigration from Muslim countries.
The opposition follows a ruling last year by a German court in Cologne that ritual circumcision amounted to a criminal act. The ruling was overturned but triggered temporary bans in Austria and Switzerland.
Sweden has about 20,000 Jews and 500,000 Muslims, according to a U.S. State Department report from 2011.

(JTA)

European Council Passes Anti Bris Milah Resolution

European council passes anti-ritual circumcision resolution

A resolution that calls male ritual circumcision a “violation of the physical integrity of children” was passed overwhelmingly by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The council, a pan-European intergovernmental organization, debated and passed the resolution on Tuesday based on a report by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development led by German rapporteur Marlene Rupperecht. The resolution passed by a vote of 78 in favor and 13 against, with 15 abstentions.

The resolution calls on states to “clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys.”

It also calls on member states to “initiate a public debate, including intercultural and interreligious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on the rights of children to protection against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards” and to “adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted.”

Practices covered by the resolution include female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children, corporal punishment, and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.

Large majorities rejected five amendments that sought to remove or alter references to the circumcision of boys. An amendment that removed a reference to the “religious rights of parents and families” was supported by a large majority of members.

“Although the adoption of this report is non-binding and does not represent any direct threat to milah, we are troubled at the readiness of the Parliamentary Assembly to dismiss the points made during the debate about religious freedom,” the Milah UK organization told JTA.

The ritual circumcision of boys younger than 18 has come under attack increasingly in Scandinavia and German-speaking European countries both by left-wing secularists and right-wingers who fear the influence of immigration from Muslim countries.

(JTA)

 

City Sets Date For Hearing On The Williamsburg Stores

Signs the City "thinks" are "discriminatory"

The city’s battle against Orthodox Jewish retail shops that require “modesty’’ of their customers should go to trial, an administrative judge has ruled.
Both sides have been fighting for months over signs that Satmar shops in Williamsburg put in their windows saying, “Entrance here only for those with modest attire. No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, NO Low Cut Neckline ALLOWED IN THIS STORE.”
The city argues that the signs are discriminatory against women, non-Jews and the non-religious by making them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in the Lee Avenue stores.
“The whole key is, ‘How does that sign make someone feel? How would a person feel looking at that sign and [about] whether he or she is welcome in that store?’ ” Clifford Mulqueen, of the city’s Commission on Human Rights, said to The Post.
But the shops say the signs are geared toward both sexes — and don’t single out anyone any differently than a posh eatery that requires a coat and tie.
“Frankly, it’s very troubling that the commission thinks it’s OK for the Four Seasons restaurant to impose a dress code but not a bakery owned by a Hasidic businessman,’’ said lawyer Jay Lefkowitz.
The trial will consist of a two-day hearing in administrative court in January, officials said.
(NY Post)

And What Does Bill De Blasio And Joe Lohta have to say on this issue???