Lloyd Schofield Hates the Covenant

San Francisco, land of alleged tolerance and real discrimination, is now the home of an effort by supposed “civil rights advocates” to outlaw Judaism. Not to mention parental medical choices according to normal US custom.

Under San Francisco’s proposed law, nobody would be allowed to circumcise any male under 18, regardless of parental permission. The circumciser or mohel would be subject to a year in prison and a $1000 fine.

Meanwhile, San Francisco is all in favor of abortions, tattoos, and piercings on minors without parental permission, not to mention legalization of psychotropic drugs, polygamy, sex with minors, using public parks as public bathrooms, female ‘circumcision’ (because it’s multicultural!), and every other form of filth. All religions are to be legal there — except traditional ones. Everything goes — except doing what’s right.

It’s happened before. Remember 1st Maccabees?

“The king also sent edicts by messenger to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah, directing them to adopt customs foreign to the country… profaning Sabbaths and feasts; defiling the sanctuary and everything holy; building altars, shrines and temples for idols; sacrificing pigs and unclean beasts; leaving their sons uncircumcised; and prostituting themselves to all kinds of impurity and abomination; so that they should forget the Law and revoke all observance of it. Anyone not obeying the king’s command was to be put to death… Yet there were many in Israel who stood firm… they chose death rather than… profanation of the holy covenant….”


Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “Lloyd Schofield Hates the Covenant

  1. Matthew

    Schofield Hates The Covenant ??

    Excuse me ?

    Circumcision is ABHORRENT sexual torture, and its sole purpose is to decrease sexual sensation. People who endorse the surgery for their baby boys (and the doctors that do the cutting) never admit to the real reason.

    I’ve never been able to understand how parents can agree to do it.

    The babies scream when it is done. That is because it is horrifying and painful, and we keep doing it generation after generation because of sexual taboo. Purely optional, with deadening of the member the only result!

    Come on folks, let`s not kid ourselves anymore. This ancient and barbaric custom is dying out, even amongst Jews. It`s a practice only fit for the Arabs and the Aussie Abos, plus some warlike African tribes. Nobody else is cutting chunks of healthy living flesh from their newborns. It`s simply RETARDED behavior and would be outlawed if only the Jews, who guide the hand of western Law, would stop it.

    But you do have to wonder about the sanity of the people who came up with this practice and what they were thinking. It must have been something like:

    “What do we do as an initiation ritual for prospective fellow-tribesmen?” “I know, let`s slice of a piece of penis.”

    And all of the elders of the tribe shook their heads in agreement. And for good measure they threw this into the bible and, to intimidate people into compliance, they said that it was the “word of God”

    Jeez, comedy writers could not come up with crazier stuff!

    Finally, why would a loving and intelligent creator design you with something he wanted sawn off immediately? Wouldn’t he just omit it in the first place?

    I truly despair sometimes…

    • Mat

      Considering you and the rest of the deviants spend most of their time putting semen up their asses what the hell do you know about what is natural or not?

      • Matthew


        What on earth are you talking about? And what is it with the ad hominem? I’m not even gay!

        It always amazes me how people who supposedly circumcise out of faith have to dole out all the supposed “medical benefits” of circumcision, when, benefit or detriment, circumcision is this non-negotiable “covenant.”

        Is religion simply not enough anymore?

        Look, you’ll notice that there is no “female circumcision” task force. No “taskforce on trephination.” No “taskforce on neck stretching” at the AAP. That’s because the absence of virtue in mulling these things would be immediately obvious.

        The time has come for us to call out circumcision for the QUACKERY that it is; doctors and “researchers” need to be looking for ways to displace circumcision, not ways to see it continue. “Studies” that seek to necessitate surgery in the healthy defy all logic and reason.

        Let the Jews debate this idiotic ritual among themselves.

        A doctor’s duty is to medicine, not to blood rituals. They need to be searching for ways to prevent needless surgery in children, not necessitate it. Charging to perform medically unnecessary procedures is medical fraud. In helpless, non-consenting infants, it is, irrefutably, child rape.

      • No, I think you’ll find that child rape is child rape. There are plenty of helpless infants out there who really do get raped, so let’s not bring in the hyperbole.

        My brothers aren’t Jewish, but they were circumcised when they were born for medical reasons, just like my father and his father before him. It may or may not have been necessary, but it didn’t hurt ’em any. It’s a lot like having your tonsils out or not — is it useful or not? Medical opinions go back and forth over time, and some people seem to get more good or more hurt out of it than others. Reasonable people can reasonably differ about what is best. But if somebody starts shrieking that tonsillectomies are intrinsically a psychotic act of mutilation, pretty much everybody is going disagree with that.

        As for Jewish circumcision, I think most reasonable people who aren’t Jewish still want Jewish parents to be able to circumcise their baby boys on the statutory day, just as they want the freedom to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values. Similarly, most reasonable people who aren’t Jewish or Muslim and even who are vegetarian, support the existence of kosher and halal butchery and food production, if only to protect their own reasonable right to eat foods that follow their own beliefs. As for religious freedom in the US, Jews have been in the US since before the Revolution, and guaranteeing their rights has always been part of religious rights in this country.

      • Washington’s letter to Touro Synagogue is a pretty good example of a reasonable American view of religious practices not his own, and which he would never be particularly eager to follow. The man raised pigs, but he doesn’t sit there telling the synagogue members to eat pork if they want to be American. “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” The ideal of the pursuit of happiness in America is for everyone, even members of small religions which have often been persecuted, is “to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while ‘every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid’.”

        Prohibition didn’t work because it decided that, to protect the American people from the ravages of alcoholism, nobody should be allowed to have a vine. I find your idea to be more of the same but more repulsive, because you wish to remove both religious expression and parental rights. However, I expect the vine, the fig tree, and the safety to all disappear when one is removed, just as they did in Prohibition.

    • Robert Gelfand

      You are an ass and do not know what you are talking about. I am circumsized and can promise you that my sensations have not been diminished. At the same time I can tell you I am happy to have it done when I was a baby because if it was left up to me to do when I was 18 then I may not want to undertake the procedure. I’m not sure how many circumcisions you have been to but the ones I have been to, the babies usually did not even cry and if they did it was usually only for an instant, usually less than my baby daughter cried when she would get an injection at the doctor’s office. For that matter if you think it is so criminal to force things on children until they are 18 and can make up their own mine then I wonder why you aren’t suggesting it become illegal to cut a child’s hair or nails. For that matter when I was a child I hated shots so lets outlaw those too until the child can make up their own mind at 18 whether they should have them or not because that is painful and punishment as well. In fact, I didn’t like going to school either so heaven forbid that parents or governments should make that decision for a child as well as it is one that most children would be against. I think you are probably right, we should outlaw doing anything and everything to children till they are 18 years old and can make up their own minds. I’m so glad that you brought up this point.

  2. Maureen

    Female “circumcision” is abhorrent sexual torture. It’s fairly common for girls to die of it, either right away or later.

    Male circumcision is less of a serious surgery than getting one’s wisdom teeth out. Not particularly pleasant for a grown man or a baby, but easily done safely and without infection by pre-industrial (indeed, Stone Age) technology. You might easily question why one would put that much into a covenant (although at that, it beats having a finger cut off or other popular oathswearing or tribal initiation commitments, particularly among men of all cultures), but it’s clearly not as dangerous or hurtful as all that. Which, given the nature of where it’s being done, is curious in itself.

    • Matthew


      Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human body into a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a function and purpose. Evolution has determined that mammals’ genitals should be sheathed in a protective, responsive, multipurpose foreskin. Every normal human being is born with a foreskin. In females, it protects the glans of the clitoris; in males, it protects the glans of the penis. Thus, the foreskin is an essential part of human sexual anatomy.

      As for the religious, again, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe that “God” requires people to mutilate their children as a sign of faith or tribal identity.

      But let’s put all of that aside for a moment.

      Shouldn’t the decision to be circumcised (whether for medical or religious reasons) be made as an ADULT?

      Isn’t it HIS body?

      • Mat

        Shouldn’t children be allowed to lay in traffic? After all its their bodies?

      • Shouldn’t a child be allowed to decide what food he eats, what bed he sleeps in, what schooling he receives, and what language should be his native tongue? Heck, let’s just get rid of parents altogether, and let babies shift for themselves!

        Oh, wait. That’s not how we evolved to learn and grow, us humans. Nope, it’s parents and culture deciding and guiding pretty much everything for us until close to adulthood, because otherwise we’d never develop enough skill in using our brains to function as independent human beings or be able to communicate in more than the simplest animal ways. We don’t operate as much on instinct as animals do, because our cultures have replaced that. So if you want to go by a materialistic view of the universe, then you should be more in favor of tribal initiation practices than otherwise. They are everywhere and found in all ages, so they must be invaluable to the survival of the species and of individual groups.

        Given the survival of the Jewish culture, values, and literatures over thousands of years and thousands of miles, while cultural groups from the same area like Phoenicians, Assyrians, and Babylonians have all left their gods and literatures and histories to be forgotten by everyone except scholars, I would say it’s pretty clear (even without entering into anything religious) that Jewish male infant circumcision is a highly successful group practice.

  3. Matthew, you seem to have a very shortsighted view of evolution.
    Taking from your own words, “Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human body into a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a function and purpose.”
    Homo sapiens have been around for about 195,000 years, and the first member of our taxon, Homo to walk up-right was around 4 million years.
    Evolution takes TIME, a lot of it. Why do you think we still have “wisdom teeth” or an appendix. These two things are regularly removed via surgery and have no purpose in having.
    Evolution takes many many generations to really do anything noticeable. Recorded history has only been around for about 32,000 years (first cave paintings) and we have changed very little anatomically in all those years.

    As for the religious, again, I find it bizarre that anyone could believe that “God” requires people to mutilate their children as a sign of faith or tribal identity.

    • Matthew

      Aaron wrote:

      “Why do you think we still have “wisdom teeth” or an appendix?
      These two things are regularly removed via surgery and have no purpose in having.”


      What an absurd comparison!

      These two things are regularly removed via surgery for VALID medical reasons when something goes wrong with them – when wisdom teeth become impacted and when appendicitis develops. Impacted wisdom teeth can be excruciatingly painful (and may lead to potentially much more serious abscesses) and appendicitis, if it leads to peritonitis, can be rapidly fatal.

      They are not removed routinely, as a matter of course, as foreskins are.

      • I did not bring up wisdom teeth and the appendix in regards to it being removed for no reason. Quote from you- “…with every part having a function and purpose.”
        Wisdom teeth, have no purpose in our lives today, as well as the appendix. These are interesting examples because they both can cause serious health problems if left alone, which you mentioned.
        I brought these two example up to show you that evolution is not perfect and not fast enough to respond noticeably to the massive change in our lifestyles that has happened over the past few thousand years.
        Why do we have body hair still? We have been wearing clothes for THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of years.
        In your opinion, shaving must be against the law as well since we will be modifying our “evolutionarily perfect bodies”

        You seriously need to study up on evolution, because it seems like you don’t know what you are talking about.

        Also, I feel like your attack on religion is unfounded and ignorant.

    • Matthew

      Suburbanbanshee wrote:

      “As for Jewish circumcision, I think most reasonable people who aren’t Jewish still want Jewish parents to be able to circumcise their baby boys on the statutory day, just as they want the freedom to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values”


      People could manage quite well without a great many things which might be considered superfluous – earlobes, for instance. We don’t consider that a rational, valid justification for slicing them off at birth or soon after.

      Any god who demands that his believers be mutilated and branded on their genitals is a god of questionable ethics!

      Things shouldn’t be removed from children unless there are GOOD MEDICAL REASONS to do so.

      Do you understand?

      Adults can make there own choices about body modification.

      What is it that you don’t understand about this?

      • noam

        reply to ‘a god of questionable ethics’ speak their language if god said then that is accepted. medical reason is ignored if they think god said cut. even if god said kill like in the book of samuel killing is justifed cuz god said kill. the real response to freedom of religion is the parents are free to think and even educate while the child must have freedom of religion to deny parents faith.

  4. Matthew


    You are avoiding my question.

    Why should we allow people (including the religious) to circumcise their infants without GOOD MEDICAL REASONS ?

    Again, why are we stil doing this in the yearr 2011?

  5. Regarding me avoiding your question, I just came on here to point out that your view of evolution is plain wrong. I never attempted to answer your seemly condescending question

    But, here we go:
    Circumcision is not forced, it is a decision for the parents to make. Also, it is not necessarily “medical” as it does not have to be performed by a doctor. Brit milah, or a Bris is performed by a Rabbi traditionally. It has been proven that Circumcision is an extremely low risk operation.

    I don’t understand why you are trying to take away parents rights to their children via government action. It borders on intolerance rather than an attempt to “protect the infants from mutilation”

    First you vote to remove toys from happy meals, now you are voting to ban circumcision to minors. It seems like no one in San Francisco trusts parents, might want to ban parents and save yourself some time. I bet the city government can handle all those children to take care of on top of the highest homeless rate in America.
    Kudos to San Francisco, THE CITY OF THE FUTURE!
    I am so happy I moved out of there while I still could.

    • Matthew

      Aaron wrote:

      “Circumcision is not forced, it is a decision for the parents to make”

      It is forced on the infant boy, which is the whole point. Parents are not circumcising themselves – they’re IMPOSING it upon a subject (their son) incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore it is forced.

      “It has been proven that Circumcision is an extremely low risk operation.”

      Were there zero risk it would STILL be wrong.

      “I don’t understand why you are trying to take away parents rights to their children via government action.”

      People who are against circumcision don’t see it like that. The parent NEVER held any such right in the first place, in order for it to be ‘taken away’. The only right was THE CHILD’S right to not to have bits cut off them needlessly, and this is being protected rather than ‘granted’.

  6. noam

    reply to ‘to outlaw Judaism. Not to mention parental medical choices’ a. not outlaw judaism everything else jewish is intact and even the cut, if and only if the son shares that belief at age 18 and group jews-against-circumcision dot org rejects the cut. b. medical is wrong because medically unnecessary. c. normal is wrong as cdc research shows less than 1/3 or 32% cut and most do not cut anymore. the hebrew mal in bible means ‘full’ opposite of cut which removes. d. constitution the son’s freedom of religion to choose if his faith includes the cut and religious bigamy was banned in court (action not faith) so protect the helpless crying babies from loss of healthy protective skin like eyelids.

  7. In response to all those “Jews oppose circumcision” links, primarily to the anti-circumcision folks’ newsletter:

    Well, obviously in the past there have been plenty of Jews-by-heritage and persons claiming to be religious Jews, who have opposed their perfectly clear Covenant with God. Both Books of Maccabees spend a lot of time on that point. Indeed, so do many books of the Old Testament. If you don’t want to be part of God’s Chosen and you do want to get smote in great numbers instead of by yourself, encouraging other people to break the Covenant (and Gentiles to make you break it) would seem to be the way.

    It’s rather difficult for me to be sympathetic, given how many Christians argue that plain old Baptism of infants is child abuse, and how many atheists claim that any child being taught anything at all about religion is child abuse; and how many folks of the same persuasion then go on to pierce their babies’ ears just so they can wear jewelry. It is obvious that everyone agrees that small operations causing babies small amounts of pain but doing them no harm are acceptable as ways of integrating them into our culture; we disagree on what constitutes harm.

    If Jews want to leave the Covenant, they should:

    a) join the New Covenant through Baptism, the Eucharist, and all the other Covenant acts.
    b) make up a totally new monotheistic religion.
    c) just become atheists or secular Jews, without all this passive-aggressive shillyshallying.
    d) try to persuade other Jews to quit the Covenant, instead of trying to force them through the state. If you’re having a family argument, handle it among yourselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.