Wednesday November 14, 2018
Mar-16-2010 13:13TweetFollow @OregonNews
'THOU SHALL NOT CIRCUMCISE' The ABOLITION OF CIRCUMCISION BY THE Second Commandment(*)M. H. Navoiseau-Bertaux for Salem-News.com
The Second Commandment BANS SEXUAL MUTILATION.
(PARIS, France) - John the Baptist and Jesus died for baptism by water rather than by the trauma of the “original” punishment, intended to prevent the famous “sin”. Queen Jezabel and King Achab, the Seleucids (many of whom have been slaughtered by the circumcising Machabees), Spinoza, Olry Terquem, Bernard Lazare, Freud, Bettelheim, Wald, Alice Miller, Derrida, and Tobie Nathan also stood up against circumcision.
A very accomplished criticism came from German Reform rabbis in the 19th century. They based on socio-political and juridical motives (the criminal and segregationist custom is the deep cause of Judeophobia), and also on religion: circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses, the Book of Deuteronomy (Moses's book, and the Ten Commandments) does not order it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised as long as he was the Hebrew's chief (it was set back into practice in Gilgal, for men only, after his death – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls. (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).
Prior to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine equivalent, the Egyptians practised – they still do – upon children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality.
Spanking already chastises the back for the gentle caresses done in front, as illustrated by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus” (Ludwig Museum, Köln), where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin.
But sexual mutilation adds up to it, castrating the human person from the specific organs of autosexuality (the clitoris and the foreskin). It had been imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement and Moses the liberator could not tolerate it. Considering that these ablations make the phallus a fetish and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry, the Second Commandment denounces chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis.
Similarly, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism, praised by present day Jewish writers, rather than the genocide of his Canaanite brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites.
Similarly qualifying circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Rabbi Abraham Geiger and his mosaicist, democratic and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision.
The community responded with an outcry orchestrated by Hirsh (a founder of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the Orthodox rabbis attacked their arguments, most dissidents, after twenty years resistance, came back to circumcision. But the “heresy” had reached the United States where many practise non-mutilating nomination.
But the Second Commandment:
“You shall have no other God than I. You shall not make yourself idols, nor whatever image... for... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generations for those who offend me, and who extends my benevolence up to the thousandth for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus: 20: 4-6 – literally translated translation of the French Rabbinate. Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999),
forbids circumcision and God obviously changed his mind between both Covenants. But Orthodox rabbis do not interpret it in the light of verse 20: 22 (a little further):
“If... you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay.”,
in which Moses seems to be mocking the fanatics who refuse burial in cemeteries to the intacts, or profane corpses in order to bury them "within the Alliance".
They read it as if it said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but,
- if the sentence had this meaning, it would also have this construction,
- for them, “the crime of fathers” refers to criminality in general. But on the one hand, it would be improbable that there should be two commandments, the Second and the Sixth (“Do not commit homicide.”), condemning common criminality,
- on the other hand, the text would then either say “the crime of the father” or “the crimes of fathers”. “The crime of fathers” can only be the well-known crime upon children: sexual mutilation, indeed:
- how could the terms “whatever image” not include circumcision?
- and how could the conjunction “for” not mark the link of cause to effect between the ban of idols and images and “the crime of fathers upon children” that alters the image of the human body,
- the Second Commandment brings out mass paedo-sexual criminality as particularly reprehensible. Stigmatizing sexual mutilation as a crime against creation (humanity), it punishes it in an imprescriptible way,
- the dissymmetry between a boundless reward and a limited in time punishment is due to the dissymmetry between ascendants and descendants; one does not at all see why, if it were the descendants, the divine wrath would stop at the fourth generation whereas in the other way round, the issue does not arise,
- the orthodox interpretation gives the term “jealous” the immoderate meaning of "suspicious" till the injustice of condemning irresponsible children. But God can only be jealous of his creation, which man cannot modify without usurping his place,
- the version of the Second Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9), a book of priests which was easy to modify, rubs the terms: "children up to” out, which suggests that the chastising would aim at descendant generations.
But who could admit that the most sacred text of the Torah, carved in stone by God in person would have varied? This physical falsification has favoured the intellectual falsification of the Book of the Exodus, impossible to alter since it was well-known to the people.
The blue-pencilling could have been operated at the return from the exile of the Jews in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled re-establishing circumcision that had to be given up in captivity; it was a custom of the Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar's worst enemies, from whom it was vital to be distinguished (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002),
- at last, through abolishing sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion from the people” of the opponents; an identity of particular sign through a so-called divine order had instituted discrimination and segregation with the "elected".
The divine periphrasis: “the crime of fathers”, was therefore denatured. Moses abolished Abraham’s commandment because law may not speak against life (the foreskin is a very erogenous organ and a protective lid). Against the alliance through submission (Gen., 17), he contracted the alliance between equals (Deut., 5: 4) of the great Judaism, authentic and universal.
The legislator founder of a judicial system with three degrees of jurisdiction decreed the first historical abolition of the death penalty and the first ethical condemnation of sexual mutilation.
So, the Second and Sixth Commandments make the Decalogue, the first declaration in history of the duties and rights of man, a declaration of the human person’s very first, indivisible, inalienable and sacred right: the right to the body. We are requiring its inscription as article 1 of the Universal declaration of the rights of the human person.
For a thorough demonstration, see:
(*) This text is summarized in an 15.01.08 e-letter of Sigismond to the editor of the British medical journal:
bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180#183746 (towards the bottom of the page)
4 September 2008, it has been given as a lecture in the University of Keele (UK), during the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC (nocirc.org/symposia/tenth/symposium08.pdf), organized with NORM-UK and the School of law of the University.
Articles for March 15, 2010 | Articles for March 16, 2010 | Articles for March 17, 2010