Intactivism is about genital integrity for all children, regardless of religion
Intactivists seek genital integrity for all children. This means we want to see male infant circumcision end in the United States and do not want female circumcision to be reinstated in the US. Cutting the sex organ of a child, boy or girl, is barbaric and has no place in the modern world.
Some religions still practice the ritual of genital cutting. Jews practice ritual circumcision of infant boys. Muslims practice ritual circumcision of both boys and girls. In Indonesia, female circumcision is widely practiced on infant girls. Generally, only a sliver is removed.[1]
Recently, the second issue of the Foreskin Man comic book became news because of its imagery. Foreskin Man Number One has the hero fighting an evil doctor to save a boy's foreskin from amputation. Foreskin Man Number Two has the hero, a blond-haired strapping male, fighting "Monster Mohel," a bearded, black-hatted man wearing a prayer shawl.
When the second comic came out late last year, I was surprised that there was not more of an outcry against it. Perhaps the intactivism movement had not garnered enough attention where the comic was considered worth speaking up about. With two cities in California considering banning infant circumcision, the comic was put in the spotlight. The controversy was enough for the backer of the Santa Monica, California, effort to drop out. The ballot measure to ban infant circumcision in San Francisco, California, continues.
The controversy stems from the imagery used in the second issue of the comic. To me, the hero is a blond haired Southern California surfer dude. To many others, he is a stereotypical Aryan. The mohel and his cronies are Jewish caricatures. Together, the Aryan hero and the Monster Mohel conjure images of antisemitic propaganda used against Jews in the 1930s and 40s. That many are offended by the imagery in the graphic novel is sufficient reason to condemn the comic.
Just to be clear, I am offended by the second issue of Foreskin Man. The comic book with its antisemitic imagery should be condemned and put to rest. There is no calling the comic back from the Internet, but the author should speak up and apologize for any offense caused.
Many intactivists agree with me. The comic should never have been published. Unfortunately, many are painting all intactivists with the same brush used to condemn the comic's author. Just to set the record straight, I am not antisemitic. The vast majority of intactivists are not antisemitic. Our goal is to protect children from genital cutting. Intactivists do not have a hidden agenda with respect to any religion.
What troubles me, along with many other commentators,[2] is that so many fail to recognize the antisemitic symbolism in Foreskin Man. More than 60 years have passed since the Holocaust. Many of the younger generation do not see the parallels the Aryan hero and the monster Jews has with the oppression of the Jews in the last century. Our education system is failing us. That, to me, is a larger travesty than the imagery in the comic.
Also, based on what I know of the author of Foreskin Man, I do not believe that he intentionally used antisemitic imagery.[3] In correspondence I have had with him he has defended others who were being discriminated against. He strikes me as a very open minded man. The author lives in San Diego, California. The blond-haired, muscular surfer dude is the stereotypical figure for that area. I believe that it was just an unfortunate circumstance that the Foreskin Man comic includes antisemitic imagery, although there are some who think that the imagery is consistent with the style of graphic novels.[4] I think the author would have done better to be sensitive to those who would read the comic and avoid any appearance of antisemitism, since none was likely intended.
The Foreskin Man controversy has riled up many. Last week Russell Crowe tweeted his belief that male infant circumcision is barbaric.[5] He then bantered with a friend, who was Jewish. He was immediately condemned by the press for making antisemitic comments. His friend came to his defense and said everyone was overreacting. Russell Crowe apologized for any offense he may have given and removed the offending tweets. He did not apologize for his belief that circumcision is barbaric.
Russell Crowe did the right thing by apologizing, even though he was unjustly accused of being antisemitic. I think it is time for Matthew Hess to step up to the plate and apologize for offending anyone by the imagery in the Foreskin Man comic. Only then can we put this behind us. Intactivists as a group are not antisemitic.
Related Posts:
- The New York Times: AAP Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option
- Get Religion.org: Anti-Semitism and the ‘intactivists’
- The Daily Caller: Foreskin Man’s antisemitism may only be skin deep
- Joseph4GI: The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes
- Zap2It: Russell Crowe's anti-circumcision Twitter rant: 'Stop cutting your babies'
- Rolling Doughnut: Opposition to Circumcision and Anti-Semitism
- Tally's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
#1 Foreskin Man is not antisemitic
Antisemites hate Jews.
Foreskin Man rescues a Jewish baby.
Because antisemites hate Jews, they do not rescue Jewish babies.
So ergo, Foreskin Man is not antisemitic.
Basically the sexual genital mutilators lie when they claim that Foreskin Man is antisemitic just because he prevents Jew-On-Jew violence.
#2 "Foreskin Man" isn't the same as Foreskin Man
Walabio:
Your reductio doesn't make sense. Your 3rd item isn't obvious. It could just as easily be theorized that anti-Semites would "rescue" Jewish babies to "correct" them or some other such offensive absurdity. It's not a provable statement. There is no ergo from that.
On the 4th item, it's a reasonable debate that Foreskin Man is not anti-Semitic. However, "Foreskin Man" the comic undeniably uses imagery easily associated anti-Semitism. Whether or not Matthew Hess is anti-Semitic is a relevant question. I think the answer is likely "no", but that doesn't change the inexcusable caricatures used in issue #2. They are wrong. Additionally, they are damaging to those who seek to protect the rights of children to decide for themselves. Rather than debate the merits of protecting boys, we're now having to defend ourselves from blanket accusations. That's a predictable distraction we have to address because of this, no matter how foolish the charge is as a blanket assumption.
Finally, we can't call people "sexual genital mutilators". Yes, circumcision is mutilation. But there's more wrapped up in the term you use. It's also awful marketing for us. It makes us sound rabid. Nor is "lie" a good word choice. People claim "Foreskin Man" is anti-Semitic because it uses such imagery. They are not lying. They may not be thinking by applying it universally to all activists, but to accuse them of lying is to make a much bolder, more offensive claim that is unlikely to be true. (I made this mistake once without thinking of the implication of the word "lie". I meant to state that someone's claim was incorrect, which it was. I wrote "lie". I was justifiably admonished for it.) And we're not going to get anywhere using antagonistic, inaccurate terms like "Jew-on-Jew violence". We're challenging "parent-on-son" genital cutting for whatever non-therapeutic reason it's imposed. It is a violation of personal autonomy and bodily integrity. That is our argument. We have to make that obvious and not give any reason for people to suspect sinister motives that do not exist for most us.
#3 Antisemites do not save Jewis babies from mohelim.
Let us look at 2 historical examples:
Imperator Romanus Publius Ælius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus, better known as Hadrianus because Imperator Romanus Publius Ælius Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus is a mouthful, was the third of the 5 good Emperors.
Let us be clear, one needs a certain level of ruthlessness to become Emperor, so Hadrianus is not perfect, but he went around the Empire making improvements, the most famous of which is Vallum Ælium, whics is a great public work in the British Isles, still standing today. He also worked on slavery:
Unfortunately, he could not abolish slavery because the Empire depended on slavery, but he made it harder to have to become a slave, easier for slaves to earn their freedom, improved the living and working conditions of slaves.
Hadrianus banned circumcision for all people in the Empire, including Jews. Everyone agrees that his intentions were good.
Hitler was not a good man. I shall not get into why he is bad because I assume that you know why he was a bad man. He did ban circumcision for gentiles because he did not want parents jewing Aryan babies but he let Jews circumcise. His allowing Jews to circumcise fit into his long term plans:
Short term:
Confine Jews to the Jewish Ghettos while building concentration-camps.
Midterm:
After the camps are ready, transfer the Jews to the concentration where they will be worked to death. Gas Jews who cannot work.
Long Term:
No more Jews.
Allowing circumcision in the Ghettos make it very easy to identify escaped Jewish men. Nazis who were definitely antisemitic were not known for saving Jewish babies from mohelim.
Saving a Jewish baby from a mohel is good evidence that Foreskin Man is not antisemitic. If he would be antisemitic, he would prevent others from circumcising, but allow Jews to do so so that when it is time for the Final Solution, he can identify Jewish males.
#4 I disagree because I think
I disagree because I think your point is too broad. Consider the de facto ban implemented by the Soviets. Most Russians wouldn't circumcise anyway, so it was targeted at religion. But I'll concede it for the sake of the argument because I don't want to debate it further. It's ultimately not what's key here.
The important point is that Foreskin Man the character doesn't have to be an anti-Semite for "Foreskin Man" the comic to be anti-Semitic, or at best, to play foolishly and offensively with anti-Semitic imagery. It unarguably does the latter. That's the problem, not that Foreskin Man himself is protecting a child. It's the comic as a whole, not just the parts we like. Those who disagree with us are not going to just look at the parts we like and ignore the rest. We have to be smart, not arrogant and stupid.
We shouldn't have the burden of proof because we're not the ones who want to circumcise healthy children. But our society isn't perfect, so unfortunately that burden is on us. We have to acknowledge that reality and work within it to demonstrate the logic and truth of our position. We can - we must - make our points without being pointlessly offensive. "Foreskin Man" #2 fails.
Think of it this way: if you think our opponents are lying, why would creating material that is easily and obviously interpreted to be anti-Semitic help us in any way? Wouldn't it be better for us if they were "lying" about anti-Semitism if "Foreskin Man" #2 didn't exist? Wouldn't we have an easier time of rebutting that sweeping generalization if we could rest on the plain text of the proposal rather than having "Monster Mohel" in the discussion? Again, I believe the number of people who are actually lying about anti-Semitism is very small, approaching zero. But this debate is already heated. Why stoke the tangential issues and make them the focus?
#5 The cat is out of the bag.
I agree that the sexual genital mutilators will try to use Foreskin Man # 2 against us. I agree that it would be better if Mister Hess never published Foreskin Man # 2. That does not change the fact that the cat is out of the bag. When confronted with Foreskin Man # 2, we need to look the mutilators in the eye and state that Foreskin Man saves a Jewish baby. This will be easy to do because it is the truth:
Foreskin Man saves children. In the first issue, he saves a baby from gentile-against-gentile violence. In Foreskin Man # 2, he saves a baby from Jew-against-Jew violence. I have a feeling that in Foreskin Man # 3, which will be about tribal circumcision, he will probably stop violence between members in a tribe. We can honestly say that he saved a Jewish baby.
We can honestly say that Foreskin Man # 2 is not antisemitic, but the victim of a smear-campaign. It is the truth.
We must deal with the cards dealt. Many intactivists seem to want Mister Hess to build a timemachine and stop himself from publishing Foreskin Man # 2. This gets us nowhither fast. we need to deal with the current situation rather than yelling at Mister Hess. What is done is done. If we deal with the situation with our conviction and the truth, we can partially salvage the situation, but dumping on Mister Hess does not benefit us.
#6 Of course we must deal with
Of course we must deal with where we are rather than where we wish we were. But on this, Mr. Hess is part of the problem. I and at least several others contacted him when issue two came out last year and told him that it was not helpful and we shouldn't be using it. He kept it available instead. So, while I doubt heavily that he is an anti-Semite, he is very bad at marketing and is actively hurting us. I will not stand by and let that go just because we're on the same side. The mistake is - and should've been - obvious. We shouldn't have to salvage anything because this fiasco is entirely self-inflicted. The sooner we all acknowledge it, the sooner it will be behind us.
I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that Foreskin Man #2 is not anti-Semitic. I'm willing to grant that it merely engages in such imagery rather than being its intent. It's not meant to attack Jews exclusively or to suggest their reason for circumcising is any worse than other reason offered. It's meant to be a series that, as a whole, addresses the flaws in the various reasons parents circumcise. Issue one was medical, issue 2 is ritual, and so on. I get that. But it's inexcusable carelessness, at best. That imagery is not acceptable. Anything with "Monster Mohel" and his armed gang forcibly circumcising a child against one of the parent's wishes is offensive. It engages in stereotypical caricatures that have well-known implications. Mr. Hess is trying to be Christopher Hitchens but doesn't have the talent. Few of us do, but the rest of us wisely don't try.
When confronted with Foreskin Man # 2, we need to look the accusers in the eye and state that Foreskin Man #2 is inexcusable. In doing so, we can eventually make our principled case against non-therapeutic child genital cutting again. We will demonstrate that we recognize the difference between challenging circumcision on minors and attacking religion. Anything else prolongs the damage and permits those who wish to apply blanket assumptions the "evidence" they need to continue assuming that we all accept and endorse the imagery in issue two.
People like Andrew Sullivan and others, who agree openly and often with us, are abandoning the initiative in SF because of this. I disagree with that action and wish they wouldn't, but I understand why. We are thankfully in an era where anti-Semitism is not tolerated. Any whiff of it disgusts people. This is not surprising.
Ultimately, we're not going to convince those who disagree with us enough to mindlessly call us anti-Semites because opposing circumcision. We're not going to convince people who have a closed mind. That'll happen only culturally and over time. But we can educate people who haven't yet grasped the offense of child circumcision but aren't convinced that it's essential. Those who think this is a non-issue are the people we can reach. This initiative in SF wasn't going to pass before issue two became the story. But the initiative had the chance to educate some people, to do some good work at changing the culture. There is no scenario in which issue two could've helped us. What we're seeing now was entirely predictable. If we don't reject it, it lingers and damages us longer.
#7 We seem to disagree primarily about ¿what to do?
We seem to dis agree about ¿what to do about Foreskin Man # 2? Maybe we should just compromise:
We condemn Foreskin Man # 2 as being easily misconstrued as antisemitic, but when pressed on the issue, point out that Foreskin Man rescues a Jewish baby in Foreskin Man # 2 and what makes it so easily misconstruable is that the antagonist is also Jewish. We can point out that the Jewish and the guests about half of whom are Jewish were cool with a Brit Shalom and objected to a Brit Milah.
We should only go on to analyzing the true meaning of Foreskin Man # 2 if pressed. Otherwise, we just condemn it as being easily misconstrued as antisemitic.
¿Is this an acceptable compromise?
#8 No. We must condemn issue #2
No. We must condemn issue #2 for engaging in anti-Semtiic imagery. It's obviously construed as anti-Semitic, even though I doubt it was intended that way.
The problem rests in the obvious, predictable offense caused by the imagery. I don't think it was intended to offend out of malice but rather to offend as an attention-grabbing tactic. That's less problematic than if I thought Mr. Hess to be anti-Semitic, but not by much. It makes us look like attention-seeking fringe lunatics, not the reasoned advocates for equal rights we can and must be. Condemning issue #2 as "easily misconstrued" rather than obviously construed suggests that the problem with interpretation rests with the reader rather than the creator. It doesn't. "I'm sorry" is different than "I'm sorry you were offended." Only the former is acceptable in this case. Anything less prolongs and deepens the damage.
#9 Foreskin Man #2 must be condemned
Tony makes some very good points.
Many who are not involved in the circumcision issue recognize the antisemitic imagery in the Foreskin Man comic. The Foreskin Man comic does not represent what I believe as an intactivist. I believe in genital integrity and bodily autonomy for all children. Intactivism is about protecting children's rights, not religion.
Intactivists should condemn the comic. The comic is indefensible. If pressed, we need not defend it. The Foreskin Man comic is the work of one man who does not speak for everyone. He definitely does not speak for me.
#10 I find it hard to condemn Foreskin Man # 2.
It was definitely a mistake to publish Foreskin Man # 2, but Hess was truthful about the Mohelim:
Certainly, Foreskin Man # 2 was cartoonish, but the way Monster Mohel thinks is typical of Mohelim:
Some small Jewish communities sometimes results to making the job of mohel hereditary so that they will be assured of having a mohel —— ¡that is a terrible job to inherit! —— but most mohelim are self-selected. That is ¿why mohelim fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) babies?:
Mohelim like to fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) babies because they are sick perverts. In 2005, a mohel killed babies with herpes from fellating them (Metzitzah B'Peh). He probably got the herpes from practicing Metzitzah B'Peh on some teenaged runaway in a filthy back alley in the dead of night after giving the boy 20.00 U$D. Only perverts would want a job where they sexually stimulate babies, sexually mutilate their genitalsa and then fellate (Metzitzah B'Peh) them.
I shall condemn Foreskin Man # 2 as being easily misconstrued, but when pushed, I cannot condemn the truth. I shall have to defend it on the grounds of Foreskin Man saving a Jewish baby and mohelim as being perverted pædophiles like Monster Mohel. I shall point out the guests, half of whom were Jewish, and the Jewish mother are fine with a Brit Shalom, but oppose a Brit Milah.
I shall only expand mine answer if pressed on the subject. Otherwise, I shall condemn Foreskin Man # 2 was being easily misconstrued and leave it at that. That is what I shall do.
#11 The gist of what I'm getting
The gist of what I'm getting at is exemplified in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's Huffington Post essay today. Every time he uses the word "lie" to describe those who oppose circumcision, does it make you angry because that's incorrect? We know we're not lying, that we're stating what we believe. If some of what we state is wrong (emphasis on "if"), is that an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead others into choosing genital integrity?
His essay makes me angry because I know that I'm honest in what I state and am capable of comprehending the argument made for circumcision, even though I recognize that argument's fatal weaknesses. The overwhelming majority of genital integrity activists are the same. Regardless of that, the word "lie" is too loaded and does nothing but inflame the conversation if we let it. I'm not interested in letting it because I'd rather get dinged temporarily on unfair assumptions that I can disprove with logic and reason than get bent out of shape and demand that my view be accepted, period. This is all "hearts and minds". We need to leave the flamethrower mentality out of it whenever possible.
#12 I understand your frustration.
Just remind yourself that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach ius a mohel and the mohelim are self-selected pædophiles. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach knows perfectly well that if we would be antisemitic, we would have a religious exception in the bill so that when the time is right, we could identify all of the male Jews for the final solution. You are reluctant to call people liars, but I am not:
¡Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is a liar!
I know a little about self-selecting assholes —— Excuse my French —— because my mother is the site-manager for some factory-outlet-malls:
Some people applying for security are on power trips. They go to customers doing nothing wrong interrogate them, and order them to leave. These customers never return. These sorts of guards must be identified and fired before they cost the mall too much money. These little Dictators make up about 10% of applicants.
About 10% of applicants are perverts:
They pat down teenaged boys or girls depending on what floats their boats on the grounds of catching shoplifters. While patting, they grope. Mall-Security is not the TSA. Not only does this cost business, but it causes expensive lawsuits and terrible publicity. These perverts must be fired as soon as identified.
About 10% of applicants are both perverts and dictators. They must be fired too.
The Founding Fathers understood about self-selecting people:
Although most cops are are alright working Joes trying to protect us from criminals and helping people in need (to protect and to serve), a few bad apples who are little dictators would arrest people and go through their property for shits and giggles —— excuse my French —— even though they do not suspect these citizens of doing anything wrong. That is why we have the 4th Amendment. Police need probable cause for arresting and enough probable cause for a judge to grant a search-warrant for searching property.
Do not let the lies of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach get you down because one should expect no better from a mohel anyway.
#13 Obviously construed vs. easily misconstrued
I'm stunned. All mohelim are pedophiles? One should expect no better from a mohel? Both of those statements are offensive and suggest otherwise when you write against charges of anti-Semitism. If you insist on believing or stating that, please do the boys you want to save from circumcision a favor and stay out of the debate. That kind of garbage is the problem here, and is unacceptable. You damage our cause with that nonsense and make it harder for those of us who don't hold such beliefs to debate and convince others.
#14 You do not know the power of self-selection.
Let us suppose that a hitman tried to get off by claiming justifiable homicide on the grounds that when he took the job, he was unemployed when he took the job. If I would be on the jury I would not buy it because I would rather beg on the streets than be a hitman.
Hitmen market themselves to get the job. They are violent thugs self-selecting themselves for the job.
Another example are dictators. From early childhood, these people want power. As adults, they claw their way to the top by any (and usually violent) means necessary and then do whatever it takes to stay on top.
¿What sort of a man do you beli4eve wants a job where one sexually stimulates infant boy to erection, sexually mutilates their genitals, and then fellates these poor defenseless babies? Please think about that for awhile.
I did not state that all mohelim are pædophiles. I acknowledged that in some small Jewish communities, to insure that they will always have a mohel, they make the job hereditary. I commented about what a terrible job that would be to inherit.
Although mohelim and other circumfetishists would construe my statements as antisemitic, they are not. I simply point out that both violent criminals self-select a career of violent crime. Unfortunately, this is how the world works. This has implications for strategy of convincing Jews to not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children:
As a policy, we should not bother trying to convince mohelim to not sexually mutilate the genitals of babies unless the mohel is 1 of the unfortunate mohelim who inherited the terrible job. A mohel who chose the job of mohel chose the job specifically for sexually assaulting children and will not give up the job willingly. Instead, we should target the Jewish parents:
The Jewish parents, although they dare not admit it publicly, are probably not happy about letting someone sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, but allow it because they feel that it is a requirement of Judaism. If we can show it is not a requirement of Judaism, many, if not most, can be persuaded to stop.
The only way we can get the mohelim to put down the knife is to convince the Jewish parents not to hire the mohelim.
#15 Whoa!
Prejudice describes an unfavorable opinion formed without facts, thought, or reason, often directed toward a racial, religious, or national group. An antisemite is one who has hatred toward Jews, individually and as a group, based on their Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. A pedophile is one with a psychiatric disorder typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. These are simplistic definitions, but they convey the basic meaning of the terms.
Walabio, I do not know you other than through your comments here. But based on what you wrote here, you, sir, are prejudiced and antisemitic. You are painting a picture of a mohel that is not based on reality and you are applying it generally. I find that offensive.
Infant circumcision is a violation of the child's bodily autonomy. But the belief that circumcision is wrong is no excuse to assign unfounded motivations to the practitioners. You make unqualified statements that apply to all mohels (with one minor exception). To accuse every mohel to be a pedophile goes beyond the pale. Without facts, your statements are only opinion that appear to have no foundation in reality and indicate a strong prejudice against Jews.
Based on your strong feelings regarding Jewish circumcision, it would be best if you limited yourself to addressing only secular circumcision. Your assertions that you are not antisemitic are contradicted by what you say. Your statements provide justification to the charge of antisemitism and reflect poorly on all intactivists.
#16 We reached an impass.
I see no point in this thread continuing, but I shall leave you with a thought:
I shall drop believing that mohelim are self-selecting perverts, if you start defending hitmen as morally and ethically good people only murdering for money because they need the money, rather than the murderous self-selecting thugs they truly are.
I truly cannot understand ¿how you cannot see that someone who _“*CHOOSES*”_ a career where he sexually arouses babies, sexually mutilates their genitals, and then fellates them as anything but pervert? You have your head in the sand.
I cannot understand ¿how you can believe that I am antisemitic? Mohelim make up less than < 1% of Jews. The vast majority of Jews are not sexually deviant. Low single digit percent of all people regardless of race and religion have criminal paraphilas. I do not get ¿how you get from me pointing out that less than < 1% of Jews being pædophiles to believing that I believe that all Jews are pædophiles?
I guess that this is where we part company. Please keep up the great work. Although we disagree about the motivations of the mohelim, I have great respect for your efforts for protecting children from sexual genital mutilation. Your blog is a great resource. I wish you the best.
#17 Comparing mohelim to hitmen
Comparing mohelim to hitmen is silly, and bargaining away anti-Semitism only if we agree to the silly comparison helps no one. That includes the children you claim to want to protect.
I think the flaw in your thinking is that you select an explanation that works for you and then assume that must be the explanation for every case. It's why you assume that Foreskin Man's motives can only be viewed as pure because he seeks to protect a Jewish baby from circumcision. No other interpretation is possible to you, even though I offered one.
The same applies to assuming all mohelim are self-selected pedophiles, an offensive, flawed belief. I think it's exemplified in your assertion that all mohelim perform metzitzah b'peh, To be clear, it's an unacceptable procedure for many reasons, but it's not performed in every case. You seem to think that because a minority of mohelim perform it, they all do. That mistake allows you to then generalize extreme behavior for all involved. Facts matter. You're not using them.
Do I think we could find a mohel somewhere who is a pedophile? Probably. Same with a religious figure from any other faith. But that doesn't impugn every mohel (or priest or ...) for the actions of a small minority. It doesn't excuse holding an offensive position. Most importantly, it doesn't justify you spreading that incorrect, offensive message to others, harming the work of those of us who do not believe such nonsense. If you care about protecting children, you'll behave in a way that maximizes the opportunity to promote genital integrity. Engaging in anti-Semitic drivel is the opposite of what you should be doing as an activist. Either figure out and correct the flaw in your thinking, or stay quiet. Those are the two options for you doing any good in this topic.
#18 Matthew Hess is an attention whore
I would think he knew what he was doing: getting people's attention at any cost. Doing something offensive and outrageous was bound to get him and his cause a lot of publicity. It wasn't the good kind, but perhaps he believes in the old axiom that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Although Hess himself may not be able to live this one down, he's at least got people talking about the circumcision issue.