Two more babies stricken with herpes after ritual ultra-orthodox Jewish oral blood sucking circumcision in New York City

  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Mar 16, 2015 4:32 PM GMT
    Two more babies stricken with herpes after ritual ultra-orthodox Jewish oral blood sucking circumcision in New York City

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 4:39 PM GMT
    This is as disgusting as it is deadly - and states about a good a case for Conservative or Reform Judaism as there is! Oy vey!
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 16, 2015 4:53 PM GMT
    Wow, issues of: religious freedom, consent, child abuse, medical ethics, and disease all rolled into one.

    This issue is ripe for me to walk away and say "no comment." I wouldn't touch this powder-keg of a topic with a 10 foot pole.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 6:00 PM GMT
    Finally, something metta8 and Southbeach can agree on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 9:13 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidFinally, something metta8 and Southbeach can agree on.

    It has Obama written all over it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 2:34 AM GMT
    How is 5000 years of religious history any justification for allowing this????
    Jehovahs Witness parents aren't allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children. How can Jewish parents be allowed to put their children's life at risk over this??? Some religions and cultutes think it's OK for a 40 year old man to marry a prepubescent girl. As a society we say we don't allow that.
    We should not allow parents to put a child's life at risk uunnecessarily in the name of religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 6:15 AM GMT
    Wyndahoi saidHow is 5000 years of religious history any justification for allowing this????
    Jehovahs Witness parents aren't allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children. How can Jewish parents be allowed to put their children's life at risk over this??? Some religions and cultutes think it's OK for a 40 year old man to marry a prepubescent girl. As a society we say we don't allow that.
    We should not allow parents to put a child's life at risk uunnecessarily in the name of religion.


    For the record, I think a cut cock can be gorgeous though I've seen as many weird ones of those as I've seen of the odd looking uncut Mr. Snuffleupagus.
    d87e2993_ClassicMrSnuffleupagus.jpeg
    (and not that I haven't had fun with Snuffles).

    Blood sucking is to me certainly disgusting, unless I just cut my own finger while gardening and then I'm just trying to not bleed on myself.

    I'd be surprised to learn most Jewish people, BiC (before internet communication), even knew about the practice, never mind that they also wouldn't find it abominable. So your phrasing of "how could Jewish parents" might be a little misleading. Our Jewish mothers aren't exactly known for being non anal retentive, ya know. Our mothers clean before their cleaning ladies show up.

    [url]http://jewcy.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/shtickball-5-sweepin%E2%80%99-up-the-chametz-baseball-style[/url]
    As Passover approaches, anal-retentive Jewish mothers across the globe will be concocting elaborate plans on how to clean every crumb of chametz in their respective households.

    So what makes you think the typical Jewish mother would let a mohel slobber on her infant's dick. Try that on me and my mother would have shot him.

    So I think you have that wrong in that sense and I am lead by your description to be suspect of your characterization, even if I might think your conclusion correct (though perhaps even that could be fixed with some pretesting of the mohel so that sect could do what it wants without so harming the child and with respect for religious freedom). Also I think you are wrong as to its place in history. This is not a procedure written in Torah. But derives from Mishna, likely 2nd century CE. So not 5000 years old as you claimed in however your enlightening of us might have been motivated.

    So this is not at all characteristic of the overall religion as you seem to imply. This is not even something of a very small sect of the Jewish religion but rather it is only done within a small segment of that small sect**.

    And not that I'm qualifying anything. I certainly think that part of this type of circumcising ought to be stopped (at least voluntarily as I don't know all the issues regarding rights). However, I'm not certain you are correct on applying that Jehovah Witness standard because as I understand that one and especially as it relates to Christian Scientists, the authorities can't step in (and someone feel free to correct me as I'm going on memory here) unless life is imminently at jeopardy.

    I don't even have the mind to think of where blood sucking fits into that. I leave that for the more morbidly inclined.

    **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah
    ...The Rabbinical Council of America, (RCA) which claims to be the largest American organization of Orthodox rabbis, published an article by mohel Dr Yehudi Pesach Shields in its summer 1972 issue of Tradition magazine, calling for the abandonment of Metzitzah b'peh.[50] Since then the RCA has issued an opinion that advocates methods that do not involve contact between the mohel's mouth and the open wound...
  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 164

    Mar 17, 2015 9:51 AM GMT
    Wyndahoi saidHow is 5000 years of religious history any justification for allowing this????
    Jehovahs Witness parents aren't allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children. How can Jewish parents be allowed to put their children's life at risk over this??? Some religions and cultutes think it's OK for a 40 year old man to marry a prepubescent girl. As a society we say we don't allow that.
    We should not allow parents to put a child's life at risk uunnecessarily in the name of religion.



    Because whenever anyone has the chutzpah to suggest that the barbaric 5000 year old religious practice of infant male genital mutilation should be banned they are immediately accused of Antisemitism, and viciously attacked for being, "genocidal Jew-haters", "Jew-hating tyrants", "Nazi sympathizers", etc., etc, etc. icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/ban-male-circumcision-antisemitic

    http://www.jta.org/2014/07/08/news-opinion/world/u-s-intervenes-in-europes-circumcision-wars

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/jacuse-shame-on-germany-f_b_1861252.html

    http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/blogs.php?Itemid=2756
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 1:53 PM GMT
    Jeepguy2 said
    Wyndahoi saidHow is 5000 years of religious history any justification for allowing this????
    Jehovahs Witness parents aren't allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children. How can Jewish parents be allowed to put their children's life at risk over this??? Some religions and cultutes think it's OK for a 40 year old man to marry a prepubescent girl. As a society we say we don't allow that.
    We should not allow parents to put a child's life at risk uunnecessarily in the name of religion.



    Because whenever anyone has the chutzpah to suggest that the barbaric 5000 year old religious practice of infant male genital mutilation should be banned they are immediately be accused of Antisemitism, and viciously attacked for being, "genocidal Jew-haters", "Jew-hating tyrants", "Nazi sympathizers", etc., etc, etc. icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/11/ban-male-circumcision-antisemitic

    http://www.jta.org/2014/07/08/news-opinion/world/u-s-intervenes-in-europes-circumcision-wars

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/jacuse-shame-on-germany-f_b_1861252.html

    http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/blogs.php?Itemid=2756


    Oh look, he used the chutzpah word. Isn't that adorable? From a guy just coming to terms with his sexuality in his 40s. Chutzpah?

    Feh!

    Seemed especially honest an appraisal when combined with "viciously attacked". What a lovely shit soup you've made for yourself. How considerate of you to offer some to everyone.

    So what you've spitted out is especially true, one might presume, when those same suggesting scumbags -- this is the correct use of the term scumbag, isn't it? It's not Yiddish so I'm not sure -- never say a word about a parent piecing their baby girl's ears, never mind all the physical changes parents make to their kids' neurological networks when they inflict them with the same shit yours did to you.

    Way to turn a thread about blood sucking, I assume unapproved by the AMA, into a thread about the circumcision practice of the Jewish people.

    Let me see if I know the appropriate Yiddish phrase for what I think of your post, oh yes, I've got one: Go fuck yourself.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 17, 2015 2:52 PM GMT
    Circumsizing a penis is not "genital mutilation." Genital mutilation occurs, sometimes, in a few African tribes where they take the woman when she's 13, and use rocks to scrape off her clitoris.

    Snipping a LITTLE skin from an infant's penis for sanitation purposes is not mutilation. Uncut penises stink like sh*t, make smegma (head cheese), and are otherwise aesthetically unattractive like a turtle with its head in its shell. Nobody's hating if you are uncut and have a cheesy penis, or otherwise prefer that in others, but to say others who want to be clean more easily and to have a lower risk of spreading and acquiring STD/STIs are not akin to genital mutilators.

  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 164

    Mar 17, 2015 8:00 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidCircumsizing a penis is not "genital mutilation." Genital mutilation occurs, sometimes, in a few African tribes where they take the woman when she's 13, and use rocks to scrape off her clitoris.

    Snipping a LITTLE skin from an infant's penis for sanitation purposes is not mutilation. Uncut penises stink like sh*t, make smegma (head cheese), and are otherwise aesthetically unattractive like a turtle with its head in its shell. Nobody's hating if you are uncut and have a cheesy penis, or otherwise prefer that in others, but to say others who want to be clean more easily and to have a lower risk of spreading and acquiring STD/STIs are not akin to genital mutilators.



    Too funny! Only an American would find an anatomically correct penis aesthetically unattractive.icon_lol.gif

    If circumcision is not genital mutilation then what the WTF is it? Sanitation purposes??? Seriously dude how often do you take a shower? All of that BS about a lower risk of acquiring and spreading STDs/STIs has been thoroughly debunked. Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns. The most recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics reads as follows: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." Circumcision is in fact rarely practiced anywhere outside the US, Israel, and the Muslim world.

    I hope some of the HOT European guys here on RJ who are uncut and have "cheesy penises" that "stink like sh*t" and are "aesthetically unattractive" will chime in. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 17, 2015 8:31 PM GMT
    "Thoroughly debunked."

    By whom? The scientific consensus is that undergoing circumcision provides health benefits re: STI/STDs, the only questions science is trying to answer is precisely 'why' (currently thought to be attributable to less bacteria on the penis) and to 'what degree' is the increased protection.

    http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/why-circumcision-lowers-risk-of-hiv/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2309466/Circumcision-lowers-risk-HIV-sexually-transmitted-diseases-half-changes-bacteria-levels.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 8:35 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidCircumsizing a penis is not "genital mutilation." Genital mutilation occurs, sometimes, in a few African tribes where they take the woman when she's 13, and use rocks to scrape off her clitoris.

    Snipping a LITTLE skin from an infant's penis for sanitation purposes is not mutilation. Uncut penises stink like sh*t, make smegma (head cheese), and are otherwise aesthetically unattractive like a turtle with its head in its shell. Nobody's hating if you are uncut and have a cheesy penis, or otherwise prefer that in others, but to say others who want to be clean more easily and to have a lower risk of spreading and acquiring STD/STIs are not akin to genital mutilators.


    Great! Another uncut hating American. If there is anything more disgusting in our body, it is the asshole which excretes shit everyday. As a guy who tops and rims, I have had more hazardous experience with a stinky ass than a cheesy dick(which I don't remember ever). Enough with this dirtiness bullshit. There is no substitute for cleanliness.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 17, 2015 8:43 PM GMT
    I am a known advocate for multiple showers per day (1 at a minimum, 3 should be about max) and douching/enemas before sex for bottoms like myself.

    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 11:01 PM GMT
    Oh God. First cheese and now ass? I couldn't possibly be more grossed out if you added blood. YIKES. This fucking thread. lololol. Ya'll are makin' cunt sound delicious. EWWWWWWW.

    Meanwhile, the above way-back-machined-statement by chutzpahguy2** is from 1999
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full
    Pediatrics Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1, 1999
    pp. 686 -693

    Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision


    The more current policy seems this one...
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

    Published online August 27, 2012

    Pediatrics Vol. 130 No. 3 September 1, 2012 pp. 585 -586

    This policy is a revision of the policy in 103 (3): 686.
    From the American Academy of Pediatrics
    Policy Statement
    Circumcision Policy Statement
    TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION
    Abstract

    Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.


    **
    Jeepguy2 said in error that...The most recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics reads as follows: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 164

    Mar 18, 2015 4:31 AM GMT
    "Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."

    This is the biggest bunch of quackery ever! icon_lol.gif

    Prevention of penile cancer. So these quacks advocate cutting off the foreskin because someone MIGHT someday develop squamous cell carcinoma of the penis?? Squamous cell carcinoma is much more common on sun exposed parts of the body (like the ears) than it is on the foreskin of the penis. By this logic maybe we should just whack the ears off all newborns as a preventative measure. It won't affect their hearing all that much but it WILL prevent skin cancer from ever developing on their ears!icon_rolleyes.gif

    Prevention of Urinary Tract Infections. Plenty of men who ARE circumcised get UTIs. UTIs are easily treated with antibiotics, or for that matter easily prevented by simply increasing the acidity of the urine by drinking cranberry juice. Surgery is not needed

    Prevention of STDs. Whatever! Plenty of men who are circumcised catch and transmit STDs. HIV infection is much less common in Germany where circumcision is not routinely practiced than it is in he US where most men are circumcised. It would be interesting to know what the rates of other STDs are in European countries where most men are not circumcised. I am willing to bet they are less than in the US.

    I am not advocating a total ban on circumcision, just neonatal circumcision. I think that every male, regardless of the religious beliefs of his parents, should be given the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether he wants to have this surgical procedure done on his penis once he reaches the age of 18.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2015 3:46 PM GMT
    Jeepguy2 said"Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."

    This is the biggest bunch of quackery ever...

    ...I am not advocating a total ban on circumcision, just neonatal circumcision. I think that every male, regardless of the religious beliefs of his parents, should be given the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether he wants to have this surgical procedure done on his penis once he reaches the age of 18.


    Oy! Ye with the undescended testicle, the not quite chutzpahguy2, the morphing into schmegeggyguy2, look, you can't inhale proudly to your breast breath that lauds the AAP as authority when you thought what you cited of theirs backed your argument only to denounce on exhale the docs as ducks once you realize they've actually come to a conclusion other than yours while basing themselves scientifically upon the most current evidence. Seems you're the one waddling.
    5690.gif
    Try letting that ball drop one day and see if you don't walk upright like a mentch.

    (and just to note that I've never even read this before but it says almost just what I've been saying all along. In fact, I might just call that author for a date. Think I just found my soulmate...)

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/237.full

    J Med Ethics 2004;30:237 doi:10.1136/jme.2004.009001
    Symposium on circumcision

    S Holm, Cardiff Law School & University of Oslo

    Is the opposition to circumcision partly driven by cultural prejudices?

    In this issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics you can read a minisymposium on circumcision, mainly dealing with the circumcision of male children at an age where they cannot consent, but also touching upon issues of female genital mutilation.

    When reading the papers I found it strange, but of course not really surprising given its symbolic importance, that we are so worried about interventions on the male penis. Why are we not equally worried about other irreversible bodily and mental interventions to which parents subject their children? I will not dwell on the irreversible mental imprinting (did I not just mention that in my prior post), apart from mentioning that upon becoming a father (oh crap, he's str8 lol oh well, the search continues) I was amused to find that certain Danish lullabies and children’s rhymes had apparently been stored in my mind for the last 40 years, just waiting to be activated by the sight of a baby.

    What about other irreversible bodily interventions, however, such as ritual or cultural tattoos and scarification, or ear piercing for earrings? Where is the serious ethical discussion on these issues? Let us take ear piercing of very young girls as our example. This procedure is painful and often performed without anesthesia or analgesia, and because of the pain it constitutes an immediate harm. It is not without risk of serious complications, mainly infections, which may in severe cases lead to permanent damage to the auricular cartilage with lasting deformity, and it aims at and produces an irreversible bodily change. When performed in very young girls it is not performed for the immediate benefit of the child, but for the benefit of the parents (“she looks so cute lying there in her cot with earrings”), or to make the child fit in better with the parent’s culture (as far as I know no one have ever claimed that ear piercing had any positive health benefits). For exactly the same reasons that are marshalled against circumcision, ear piercing can therefore not be claimed to be in the immediate best interest of the child, and given the risk of permanent damage it seems prima facie questionable whether it should be within the protected area of parental discretion. We also have to take account of the fact that the child might grow up and reject her parents’ culture in which earrings and by extension ear piercings are positively valued, perhaps later seeing them as instruments of patriarchal oppression, or as irredeemably bourgeois. It is thus by no means certain that the ear piercing will be in the child’s long term best interest, even if there are no complications.

    Does all this mean that ear piercing should be prohibited until the child is old enough to consent herself?

    We could try to answer this question very quickly by saying that any irreversible procedure which is not in the child’s best interest and which is harmful and/or carries any risk should be prohibited. That, however, seems much too fast. Parents make numerous decisions that have these characteristics, and it is unclear whether childhood would actually be any better, if they were not allowed to make any.

    No, just as in the case of circumcision the question of whether ear piercing is allowable must very much depend on the risk and magnitude of permanent harm, both physical and in terms of later conscious rejection of the procedure (it is important to note that a person may later wish that the intervention had not been performed, but not be really bothered about it, so that the amount of harm may be negligible even in cases of later conscious rejection).

    It is therefore very interesting that the piece of evidence we really need to have in order to be able to assess the status of circumcision is singularly lacking. We simply do not have valid comparative data concerning the effects of early circumcision on adult sexual function and satisfaction. Until such data become available, the circumcision debate cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and there will always be a lingering suspicion that the sometimes rather strident opposition to circumcision is partly driven by cultural prejudices, dressed up as ethical arguments.


    That excellent argument was written in 2004. Well, now we do have the information the author notes we lacked then. Confirming satisfactorily in 2013 that...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2515674/Its-official-Circumcision-DOESNT-affect-sexual-pleasure-according-biggest-study-issue.html

    It's official: Circumcision DOESN'T affect sexual pleasure, according to biggest ever study of the issue

    Australian scientists analysed nearly 40 studies and concluded that the procedure had 'no effect on sensitivity or satisfaction'

    While some studies have previously reported a negative outcome, these were found to have flaws - and their reliability has been called into question by this latest research.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2015 3:47 PM GMT
    Further

    http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html
    March 08, 2013
    The study, published in February in the British Journal of Urology International, found that circumcised men reported less sexual sensitivity than their uncut brethren.
    But several experts say the study has too many weaknesses to draw any conclusions from it.

    "The study is pretty flawed," said Douglas Diekema, a pediatrics professor at the University of Washington, who was part of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 task force on circumcision. "I read the conclusion and then I read the study, and I said, 'Wow, they went overboard in what they're concluding.'"

    The study used a biased sample population, didn't measure sensitivity changes before and after circumcision, and found only a tiny difference between the two groups, which is clinically meaningless, making it impossible to conclude from the results that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity, several experts said.

    … And a January study of about 10,000 German men found no difference in erectile function based on circumcision status….

    Flawed sample

    But the sample population may be problematic, Diekema said. Belgian men typically only get circumcised for medical reasons, meaning circumcised respondents may have problems unrelated to circumcision.
    People who are willing to spend two hours filling out a questionnaire on penile sensitivity probably don't reflect the general population, he said. And the fact that the number of circumcised men in the study was higher than in the general population suggests the population was biased, researchers said.

    Miniscule difference

    In addition, the differences in sexual sensitivity only appeared for some parts of the penis and were so minuscule — at most a few tenths and sometimes just three-hundredths of a point on a 5-point scale — that they probably have no clinical relevance, several researchers said


    And for the RJrecord, here's another group of ducks docs saying pretty much the same thing...

    [url]https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fhtml%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fH-60.945.HTM[/url]
    H-60.945 Neonatal Male Circumcision
    Our AMA: (a) encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision; (b) supports the general principles of the 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV." and (c) urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions.

    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2011-11-15-ama-adopts-new-policies.page
    Stop Legal Prohibition of Male Circumcision
    Ballot and other legal initiatives have recently been proposed in California that would ban infant male circumcision and penalize any physician who performed it. The AMA voted today to oppose any attempt to legally prohibit male infant circumcision.
    "There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. "Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2015 10:33 PM GMT
    metta8 saidTwo more babies stricken with herpes after ritual ultra-orthodox Jewish oral blood sucking circumcision in New York City

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html


    For the record, it's not an "Ultra-orthodox" practice-- it's not even orthodox. It's one group of people who do it that all come from backwards countries with little education. It's called metzitza, and it's done with a sterile tube. And it's supposed to be symbolic.

    The Hareidi community is like the Mormons of Jews- and they're not mainstream! You really can't judge the rest of the mainstream orthodoxy by that group.

    It'd be like criticizing Anglicans for what Mormons do!