This was posted originally May 23rd, 2010. As I go through and update old posts I found this one and the same days for the weekend fell on May 21st, 22nd, and 23rd.
2010
2022
A caller has a misunderstanding of what a friend is. This allows Dennis Prager to explain to him [and us] what a friend should be.
I heard Dennis Prager mention he hadn’t mentioned kids under 18 having top surgery when discussing The Young Turks mentioning of his article. I wasn’t sure if he didn’t have a solid example or if he just didn’t think it necessary for the article. So on PragerU’s Facebook I posted this video with this comment just in case he needed a solid example:
Dennis Prager, here is an example [for future use] of a child butcher: a surgeon operating on 12-to-14-year olds — Scott Mosser
non sequitur challenge/statement
I got this reply… JOE M.:
I will share my response while in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the 405, as well as adding more for my readers. RELIGIO-POLITICAL TALK (RPT) TO JOE M:
MY 405 FREEWAY RESPONSE
The Bible prescribes certain things… things that end up being healthy or beneficial to the person themself. Often not realized A millennia or more later. For instance:
OR
The Book of Leviticus in the Bible was probably the first recording of laws concerning public health. The Hebrew people were told to practice personal hygiene by washing and keeping clean. They were also instructed to bury their waste material away from their campsites, to isolate those who were sick, and to burn soiled dressings. They were prohibited from eating animals that had died of natural causes. The procedure for killing an animal was clearly described, and the edible parts were designated.
Gwendolyn R.W. Burton and Paul G. Engelkirk, Microbiology for the Health Sciences, 6th Edition (New York, NY: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2000), 9.
And really your point is a non sequitur for the most part.
That was it. Mind you, I am responding merely with the seemingly advanced knowledge of germs the Bible tells Israel to avoid through ritual. Here are additions for my readers:
HEALTH BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION
….The preventive and public health benefits associated with newborn male circumcision, however, “warrant third-party reimbursement of the procedure,” including Medicaid, says AAP. It goes on to recommend that circumcision in infancy be performed by “trained and competent providers, using sterile techniques and effective pain management.”
Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin, a flap of skin that covers the tip of the penis. The first revision of its circumcision stance in 13 years, the AAP’s new policy takes into account significant studies, including a recent one from Johns Hopkins, that link circumcision to decreased risk over a lifetime for some forms of cancer, including penile and cervical, and the spread and heterosexual acquisition of HIV, human papilloma virus (HPV), genital herpes and syphilis. Much of the new scientific research, since the previous AAP policy of 1999, has taken place in Africa, where the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections, HIV in particular, is high and increasing.
Such newly and widely documented health benefits, says the AAP in related literature, are great enough that the insurance should cover the cost of circumcision, “which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it.”
A recent Johns Hopkins study (Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, online, Aug. 20) goes further. Declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision will lead to dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and related cancers in men and their female partners, researchers warn, and add up to more than $4.4 billion in avoidable costs if circumcision rates in the U.S., now averaging 55 percent (down from 76 percent in the 1970s and 1980s), drop to levels now seen in Europe (around 10 percent on average) over the next decade….
8th DAY?
Why doe the Bible prescribe the eight day as the day to be circumcised?
This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. (Genesis 17:10-12 NASB)
Abraham followed this prescription with his son Isaac:
Then Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. (Genesis 21:4 NASB; cf. Acts 7:8)
Some 600 years later Yahweh gave Moses the same instruction for the Israelites:
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. (Leviticus 12:3 NASB)
Why did Yahweh order circumcision on the 8th day for Abraham’s male descendants? Why not sooner or later? Why did it need to be on Day Eight?
#SCIENCE
Good question. The same article at EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE responds:
….In the 1930s, Danish researcher Henrik Dam and American researcher Edward Doisy found that which was required for blood to clot. They shared the 1943 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this research.
The human body has 2 blood clotting elements. One of them is called Vitamin K. Vitamin K is not formed in the body up until the 5th to the 7th day.
The 2nd clotting factor which is essential is called Prothrombin. It surprisingly enough develops to 30% of normal by the 3rd day of life and after that with seeming in-consequence, peaks at 110% on the 8th day, just before leveling off at 100% of normal.
If vitamin K is not present when a baby boy is circumcised, the baby will bleed to death. The reason why Yahweh established Day Eight for circumcision is that vitamin K peaks in a newborn at 8 days of age. The 8th day is the optimum day for circumcision because of the highest presence of the clotting factor vitamin K.
Today when baby boys are circumcised within a couple of days of birth, they are administered vitamin K to help with blood clotting….
See more via Apologetics Press (PDF) as well as the 3rd edition of the book, None Of These Diseases. Speaking to the eighth day this excellent summation is well worth the read. Again, APOLOGETIC PRESS:
CIRCUMCISION
The inclusion of this medical, surgical practice provides another excellent example of the medical acumen of the biblical text. Two significant aspects of biblical circumcision need to be noted. First, from what modern medicine has been able to gather, circumcision can lessen the chances of getting certain diseases and infections. Pediatrician, Dorothy Greenbaum noted in regard to the health benefits of circumcision: “Medically, circumcision is healthful because it substantially reduces the incidence of urinary tract infection in boys, especially those under one year of age. Some studies cited in the pediatric policy statement report 10 to 20 times more urinary tract infection in uncircumcised compared with circumcised boys.” She further noted that sexually transmitted diseases are passed more readily among men who have not been circumcised (2006). In addition, circumcision virtually eliminates the chance of penile cancer. In an article titled “Benefits of Circumcision,” the text stated: “Neonatal circumcision virtually abolishes the risk [of penile cancer—KB]” and “penile cancer occurs almost entirely in uncircumcised men” (Morris, 2006). [NOTE: Morris’ work is of particular interest due to the fact that it has an evolutionary bias and was in no way written to buttress belief in the biblical record.]
Not only can a litany of health benefits be amassed to encourage the practice of infant circumcision, but the day on which the biblical record commands the practice to be implemented is of extreme importance as well. The encyclopedic work Holt Pediatrics remains today one of the most influential works ever written about child care, pediatric disease, and other health concerns as they relate to children. First written in 1896 by L. Emmet Holt, Jr. and going through several revisions until the year 1953, the nearly 1,500-page work is a master compilation of the “modern” medicine of its day. One section, starting on page 125 of the twelfth edition, is titled “Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn.” The information included in the section details the occurrence of occasional spontaneous bleeding among newborns that can sometimes cause severe damage to major organs such as the brain, and even death. In the discussion pertaining to the reasons for such bleeding, the authors note that the excessive bleeding is primarily caused by a decreased level of prothrombin, which in turn is caused by insufficient levels of vitamin K. The text also notes that children’s susceptibility is “peculiar” (meaning “higher”) “between the second and fifth days of life” (1953, p. 126).
In chart form, Holt Pediatrics illustrates that the percent of available prothrombin in a newborn dips from about 90% of normal on its day of birth to about 35% on its third day of life outside the womb. After the third day, the available prothrombin begins to climb. By the eighth day of the child’s life, the available prothrombin level is approximately 110% of normal, about 20% higher than it was on the first day, and about 10% more than it will be during of the child’s life. Such data prove that the eighth day is the perfect day on which to perform a major surgery such as circumcision.
How did Moses know such detailed data about newborn hemorrhaging? Some have suggested that the early Hebrews carried out extensive observations on newborns to determine the perfect day for surgery. But such an idea has little merit. McMillen and Stern noted:
Modern medical textbooks sometimes suggest that the Hebrews conducted careful observations of bleeding tendencies. Yet what is the evidence? Severe bleeding occurs at most in only 1 out of 200 babies. Determining the safest day for circumcision would have required careful experiments, observing thousands of circumcisions. Could Abraham (a primitive, desert-dwelling nomad) have done that (2000, p. 84)?
In fact, such amazing medical accuracy cannot be accounted for on the basis of human ingenuity in the ancient world. If circumcision was the only example of such accuracy, and the Hebrew writings were laced with incorrect, detrimental medical prescriptions, such an explanation might be plausible. But the fact that the entire Old Testament contains medical practices that would still be useful in third world countries, without a hint of error in regard to a single prescription; divine oversight remains the only reasonable answer.
PRAGER U’s “Kari Lake” section is HERE
The column Prager mentions is here: “Questions to Determine Whether a Friend or Relative Is a Liberal or a Leftist“
In the aftermath of every mass shooting, we hear calls for “commonsense gun control.” But how do you determine which gun laws are commonsense? Jason Riley, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explores this loaded question.
EBONY MAGAZINE:
….“I believe the reason we’re seeing more women of color joining this movement to use firearms is because they’re realizing this in not a political issue,” she said. “It really never has been. It’s about personal safety and protection.”
Washington went on to say, “a firearm is an equalizer for women because women have a harder time defending themselves when they’re attacked by a man; men have more body mass.”
Women protecting themselves against potential dangers is always something to think about and consider when you’re going out or if you’re in an unfamiliar environment.
Ector thinks the spike in women owning guns is due to the issue of rape in Michigan. He says women make up half the classes he teaches…..
AMMO LAND:
….The history of Black women arming themselves dates back to our earliest years in this country. Harriet Tubman even carried a gun for protection on the Underground Railroad. She also used her rifle to threaten runaway slaves who wanted to turn back, telling them, “You’ll be free or die.“Black women activists (in the 1960′s and 1970′s) first ”used the gun as a bid for equal power within their often sexist movements, “ says Laura Browder, author of Her Best Shot: Women and Guns in America.
Black women are arming themselves and putting criminals on notice. As this trying year progresses, expect to see more and more Black women choosing the gun as a means of self-defense and self-protection for themselves and their families…..
Biden says not accepting an election a threat to democracy. Here are Democrats and the media not accepting Trumps election in 2016:
Biden says political violence a threat to Democracy. To Wit: here is over 15-minutes of democrat political violence.
SEE ALSO:
I edit in some evidence to Kari Lake’s excellent response to a reporter, which BREITBART writes out for us:
Lake, a former Fox 10 phoenix anchor, asked the reporter. She continued:
As a journalist for many years, I was a journalist after 2016 and I distinctly remember many people just like you asking a lot questions about the 2016 election results. And nobody tried to shut you up. Nobody tried to tell Hillary Clinton to shut up. Nobody tried to Kamala Harris when she was questioning the legitimacy of these electronic voting machines to stop.
We have freedom of speech in this country and you of all people should appreciate that. You’re supposedly a journalist, you should appreciate that. So, I don’t see how asking question about an election where there are many problems is dividing a country. What I do see as dividing a country is shutting people down, censoring people, canceling people, trying to destroy people’s lives when they do have questions.
Lake added that “we’re going to save” the “constitution, and we’re going to bring back freedom of speech, and maybe someday you will thank us for that.”……..
SOME RESOURCES USED (AND OTHERWISE)
EMPOWERING ELECTION DENIERS:
Here’s 10 minutes of Democrats questioning election results
Over the past 20 years, Democrats have on three separate occasions objected to the validity of electoral votes on the floor of Congress. Wednesday, Jan. 6, will mark the first time Republicans choose do so in the past two decades.
My sons and I have discussed the January 6th issues, and, some historical aspects as well. Firstly, people saying Trump should be impeached are just as radical as the people breaking into the Capital. The throwing around of the “sedition” label is funny, and shows how people are not aware of the recent history of the lawful process of debate in Congress about just such topic. Here is one blogger noting Chuck Todd’s biased lack of awareness:
…NBC host Chuck Todd, who is always in the running to overtake CNN’s Brian Stelter as the dumbest newsman in the news media, had it out with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) over a number of Republican members of Congress who are planning to dispute the certification of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election due to questions of massive election fraud.
After being accused of trying to thwart the democratic process, Johnson hit back by telling sleepy eyes Todd that they are trying to protect it.
“We are not acting to thwart the democratic process, we are acting to protect it,” Johnson said to Todd.
[….]
Todd and others in the Fake News media are acting like the Republicans contesting the election results is an unprecedented affair.
Let me remind them that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won.
Lest they forget that the House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and President Trump’s win in 2016.…
(DJ-MEDIA)
PJ-MEDIA however has an excellent notation of this history when they point out Democrats outrage that Republicans objected to the certification of electoral votes. “It’s ‘conspiracy and fantasy,’ says Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.” PJ further states,
“The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic,” the New York Democrat said. “The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting.”
“This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on the fact and reason—not conspiracy and fantasy,” he added.
There’s only one problem with Chucky’s “argument based on fact and reason.” Democrats have been challenging the electoral vote certification for two decades.
The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin appears to be even more incensed at Senator Josh Hawley’s plan to object to the Electoral College vote.
“The political equivalent of barking at the moon,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Hawley joining the challenge to electoral slates. “This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.”
Brave Sir Dick seems to forget he was singing a different tune in 2005. Then, it was Democrats questioning the results of the Ohio vote, which went narrowly for George Bush.
Durbin had words of praise for Boxer then:
“Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate,” Durbin said on the Senate floor following Boxer’s objection, while noting that he would vote to certify the Ohio electoral votes for Bush. “I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”
In fact, the Ohio electoral vote challenge was only the beginning. Rumors and conspiracy theories swirled around the outcome on election night that saw Bush winning Ohio by a close, but the surprisingly comfortable margin of 120,000 votes. So why are so many of these headlines familiar to us today?
And THE BLAZE also referenced it’s readers to the same issues in their post (BTW, these are the two videos I used for my upload):
TheBlaze’s Chris Enloe noted this weekend that while Democrats are rebuking Republicans for planning Wednesday to oppose the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory due to fraud concerns, Democrats themselves have a robust history of doing that very thing.
And a damning, resurfaced video underscores what’s already on the public record.
The video is a compilation of clips from congressional sessions following the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, both won by Republican George W. Bush — and in the clips Democrats launched protests against Bush’s electoral votes.
[….]
That wasn’t all. The Washington Post reported that during the January 2001 session, words such as “fraud” and “disenfranchisement” were heard above Republicans calling for “regular order.”
More from the paper:
The Democratic protest was led by Black Caucus members who share the feeling among black leaders that votes in the largely African American precincts overwhelmingly carried by [then-Democratic presidential nominee Al] Gore were not counted because of faulty voting machines, illicit challenges to black voters and other factors.
“It’s a sad day in America,” Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said as he turned toward Gore. “The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but . . . ” Gore replied.
At the end of their protest, about a dozen members of the Black Caucus walked out of the House chamber as the roll call of the states continued.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson breaks down the implications of President Biden’s ‘soul of the nation’ speech on ”Tucker Carlson Tonight.’
(Hat-tip to Anthony C.) great explaining and discussion on what “Let’s Go Brandon” is really saying, and it is at it’s core supporting language, fiscal responsibility, common sense, and the like. And is a verbal way to counter or signal opposition to the progressivist attacks on them.
“Mike – Your thoughts on Let’s Go Brandon should be shared far and wide. Best thing I’ve heard in years. Thanks for keeping it apolitical, but real. Carry on.” Steven Hammrick