Russell Crowe Bashes Circumcision, Praises Jews' 'Funny Little Hats' UPDATE: Apologizes, Calls Out Journalists

UPDATE: Crowe went back on Twitter to issue a series of clarifications and apologies:

wasn't intending offense, certainly wasn't intending to provide fodder for lazy journalists. I can't appologize for my heartfelt belief

This is a great forum for communication,I,like any human have my opinions and you all have yours, thank you for trusting me with them

I have a deep and abiding love for all people of all nationalities, I'm very sorry that I have said things on here that have caused distress

My personal beliefs aside I realize that some will interpret this debate as me mocking the rituals and traditions of others. I am very sorry

_____
PREVIOUSLY: Quick tip: don't invite Russell Crowe to your child's briss.

The Oscar-winning actor went on a Tweeting spree hitting out at male circumcision late Thursday night/early Friday morning, making clear his feelings on foreskin and those who would remove it from a newborn baby.

"Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect," he said to begin his rant.

After a number of retweets of supportive fans and responses to those critical of his position -- including one in which he said, "Hygenic? Why don't you sew up your ass then?" -- Crowe reached out to his "Jewish friends," asking them to reject their long tradition of ceremonial circumcision.

"many jewish friends, I love my Jewish friends, I love the apples and the honey and the funny little hats but stop cutting yr babies @eliroth" he wrote, tweeting at the horror director specifically and yarmulke-wearers more generally.

Crowe then brought his own holy phallic beliefs into the picture.

"I will always stand for the perfection of babies, i will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires," he wrote, before continuing, "last of it, if u feel it is yr right 2 cut things off yr babies please unfollow and f**k off,I'll take attentive parenting over barbarism."

Staying on the subject of babies, Crowe clarified his position on abortion, too.

"Abortion should always be a woman's choice, there is no benefit to 'forced' motherhood...you got it? don't like it then bye," he wrote to a fan.

He then switched gears, introducing a new topic: "anyway, Newfoundland folk festival, think about it."

PHOTO:

Comments

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

10:02 PM on 08/08/2011

I think the function is most all for the son to remember that his parents agreed to do one of the hardest things a loving parent can do by cutting and mark their son irrevocably with the sign of his faith and people. So he can never grow to deny who he is. From generation to generation...le dor ve'dor. That is what I think circumcision is meant to be. That is why I think it is done so shortly after birth. I think it is more a right of passage for the parents during the ceremony than it is the baby who will become a man and either resent the mark or accept it but he can never deny it.

The baby suffers for a moment but parents anguish over it! They suffer... they remember but baby does not. I agree with Russell Crow, abortion is painfully/wowfully a woman's right that should not be taken from her but he disgrees so strongly with circumcision, which if done correctly, kills no one. So, on circumcision I belive it is the parent's right. le dor ve'dor!

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

10:01 PM on 08/08/2011

It has been argued that the removal of the foreskin caused the penis to be less sensitive and the boy or man less hyper-sexual. This final point is a disturbing one for me but it really does no actual harm to the man in the end with modern sanitized techniques and instruments. So, the usefulness could have been in facilitating fidelity to G-d and wife(s) but the Europeans were the ones who pushed for monogamy. In the polygyneous societies that Islam and Judaism emerged from, I do not know if that was a purposeful reason.

The hygiene argument is a good one until one argues that this problem can be overcome by just teaching the young boy how to clean himself. In the end it is only faith and tradition that keep this practice going. There is no way around it. It is the mark of the Jewish and Muslim man who's parents made the sacrifice to raise him Jewish or Muslim as it once was also for the Christian parents.

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

10:00 PM on 08/08/2011

It is still a big deal, this circumcision!

It is one major reason Christians are no longer Jews/Hebrews. Christians just stopped the bris/circumcising new converts and 8 day old boys in their quest, zeal and thirst for new converts (hard to convince non-Jewish mothers of Greece and Rome... to cut their infant boys and also their husbands had to be cut, fact that was hard to get around).

However Muslims, a much larger group of people, now-a-days, continue this tradition (in Arabic called khitan) only the boys can be from 7 days-12 years old and it is not a requirement upon converting to Islam as it is to a convert to Judaism, to be circumcised. Interestingly, during Mohammed's life Jews and Christians were the ones practicing male circumcision.

It took hundreds of years for Christians to discontinue the practice and separate themselves so viscerally from the Jewish/Hebraic way of live. I understand that some people see it just as a mutilation of a baby and it is but there were and presumably are, practical reasons for the practice beyond hygiene and religion that might be more disturbing, still to so people.

[brucemar1960]

08:26 PM on 06/27/2011

Aren't there more important issues to deal with than circumcision like homosexual peodophile Catholic priests raping choir boys and being transferred from parish to parish instead of
spending the rest of their lives in jail ? Let's put our priorities in order here people.

[Gadgetman]

10:53 AM on 06/24/2011

To say that criticism of circumcision is anti-Semitic is BS. I'm Jewish and need to ask, why is it that Whenever Jews don't like some valid bit of criticism they decry it as anti-Semitic? Such weak arguments weaken the legitimate use of the term.

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

10:08 PM on 08/08/2011

I don't think rejecting circumcision is anti-Semetic, you right but his tone can be seen as volitile and hateful and therfore misinturpreted as anti-Semetic.

I don't think think this New Zealander is anti-Semetic he just equates Jewish and Muslim practice with child abuse. That is the way he believes without any hatred for the people just the practice of circumcision on babies.

[fastrack111]

07:33 AM on 06/24/2011

Well Russel, your comments are simply boorish. Circumcison has been a religious rite for thousands of years, currently 30% of the world's population, according to the "W.H.O.". You obviously think that followers of this practice haven't considered your narrow arguments. Well the 5 cents of thought & research u put into this equals the 5 cents worth of conclusions you reached. Here is just one article by W.H.O (ie. World Health Organization) to show you (w/ going deeper into this subject) how wrong you are re; circumcision: after which you can eat "Crow". > New Weapon Against AIDS? Circumcision Gives Men up to 60% HIV Protection; WHO, UNAIDS Urge Adult Surgery; By Daniel J. DeNoon WebMD Health News. Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD. Circumcised men are up to 60% less likely to get HIV, and now the World Health Organization and the UNAIDS program recommend adult surgery to slow the AIDS pandemic. The recommendation comes only weeks after the WHO and UNAIDS officials asked an expert panel for advice. The advice is based on three clinical trials suggesting that circumcised men are 50% to 60% less likely than uncircumcised men to get HIV during heterosexual sex. Circumcised men can and do get infected with the AIDS virus. There is, yet, no evidence that male circumcision protects women. But widespread circumcision would have a major impact on the AIDS pandemic, says Catherine Hankins, MD, chief scientific officer for the UNAIDS.

[Hugh7]

07:23 PM on 06/25/2011

So tell us, who was in this "expert panel"? Did it, for example include Daniel Halperin, who thinks his descent from a ritual circumciser means he's "destined" to promote circumcision? Or Prof Brian Morris, who thinks it should be "mandatory"? Or any of the small group of influential people who have been advocating circumcision for decades for everything from "bathroom splatter" to "zipper injury"?

"Up to 60%" is like the "Up to 60% off" at sales - it's not what it seems. 50% is equivalent to a man tossing a coin every time he has sex, with heads meaning "no AIDS this time" and tails meaning "same risk as before". It only applies to female-to-male transmission, one of the rarer kinds, while there's evidence that circumcised men are at GREATER risk to women. And its based on trials held by that same small group.

In any case, babies don't have sex. Plenty of time for a man to decide if he wants (the best) part of his penis cut off for the sake of partial protection.

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

10:22 PM on 08/08/2011

50% is 50%. That is a great sale!

In cultures where teaching "safe sex" has been so unsuccessful and the spread of AIDS even to babies (long story but some shamens were telling men that a cure for AIDS was to have sex with virgins, surest way to find a virgin is the younger and younger... babies) has been so fast and killed so many... 50% less is 50% fewer dead and or orphened!

[lawdini]

05:53 PM on 06/23/2011

The man is entitled to his opinions. No story here. Moving on . . .

[joeinvt]

05:32 PM on 06/16/2011

I'm opposed to haircutting also. It is completely unnatural. And that goes for shampoo also.

[snippylee]

01:15 PM on 06/24/2011

Oh, well, now that's a great analogy! Not exactly apples to apples.

[Hugh7]

07:24 PM on 06/25/2011

When foreskin grow back in two weeks, it will be a good analogy.

[joeinvt]

05:28 PM on 06/16/2011

Crowe should not be lecturing anyone on what to do with their putz after the places
his has visited.

[soothwriter]

02:35 PM on 06/16/2011

Citing religion as a reason for mutilating infants is false.
If it was valid then the Roman Catholic Church could have used that as an excuse for abusing children and been free and clear.
Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, claiming “God told me to do it” should also be ignored if we want to be a nation of laws.

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

10:55 PM on 08/08/2011

One of the things Jews are accused of most is being "too legalistic". There are not 10 commandment but over 600 if your Jewish. If Jews are anything they are a nation of laws many which are the foundation for the laws of this country. I beleive in the seperation of church and state and the freedom to practice one's faith.

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

11:00 PM on 08/08/2011

I'd agree w/you if it were possible to prove/show that circumcision not only has no use in modern life but also actually harms the person/baby. Is there actual negetive outcome to a properly done male infant circumcision? Do the boys experience pain through out their lives as a result of this ceremony? Does it limit them as men in any way?

Sexual abuse of anyone is absolutly not the same as circumcision. Even though I know, if 1 argues from a purely athiest perspective, abuse/mutilation for the sake of faith seems to be the same across the board.

Not even the "break away" Mormons sects can hide behind faith to marry grown men w/little girls which used to be accepted practice in most cultures thoughout the world when life expectance was less and younger brides could produce potentially more babies and helpers on the farm. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Mohammed had many wifes & some were very young. This was a practiced but it was bc. of faith but more for need to support the family. Therefore, Jews discontinued polygyny easily(still don't know why the Mormons brought it back to life... out in the old West it was a tough life though... it may have served the same purpose).

Circumcision isn't just a practice of tradition it is a tenent of faith. Otherwise put, to not circumcise is to no longer be Jewish. Christians chose this 100's of years ago & they are no longer Jews.

[Mools]

10:05 PM on 06/13/2011

Here are the facts

1) The Royal Australian College of Physicians states that the currently available evidence, frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, level of protection offered by circumcision and complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. Members of the AMA have stated that the AMA would support a ban on circumcision for non-medical, non-religious reasons.

2) The Canadian Paediatric Society says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" and after reviewing the scientific evidence does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.

3) The Royal Dutch Medical Association stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting.

4) The British Medical Association recommends that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.

5) The American Academy of Pediatrics states the data is not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

6) The American Medical Association support statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.

FACT: According to the WHO, only 30% of males in the world are circumcised.

[Debora Weksler Lmt]

11:49 PM on 08/08/2011

How did you get so much info in one post!?!?! LOL!

YOU WROTE>>>
FACT: According to the WHO, only 30% of males in the world are circumcise­d.

I FOUND>>>
FACT: The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised
(30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim.

>>> 30% of documented circumcision in and/or out of hospitals?

Statistics from different sources give widely varying estimates of infant circumcision rates in the United States.

Edgar Schoen states that the "80% to 85% US circumcision rate observed in practice contrasts with the 55% to 65% rate reported in statistics collected from birth centers across the nation". The explanation he offers is that "the published results of national statistical surveys represent only coded diagnoses obtained from birth centers; the reported figures do not include males who are circumcised at a later date for religious, medical, or personal reasons or who received newborn circumcision that was not coded."

Statistics can be misleading if the paramiters and limitations are not recognised, included or undestood. These are just the US states that can be brought into question.

Culturally, I think people think circumcision is only/mostly a Jewish "thing" but it is not.

FACT: Jews make up 0.235% of World population or about 15,143,912.
FACT: the number of Muslims in the world ranges between 1.2 to 1.57 billion.

[theroundearth]

07:07 PM on 06/13/2011

There is big money to be made in the foreskin business.

Parents of North American baby boys should know that it's not just the $200 to $300 they have to pay for the circumcision, there is a lucrative trade in human body parts behind this.

Removed foreskins are not disposed of. They are sold to bio-engineering and cosmetics companies and used to grow and cultivate new cells that are then also used to make cosmetic creams and collagens.

Think of it when you kiss a woman with beatiful lips.

[ms ariz]

07:01 PM on 06/15/2011

Maybe that's how their lips grow! LOL!

Kidding aside, it's hard to believe that knowing this, people STILL think their infant's foreskin is a "non-vital" piece of skin.

[joeinvt]

05:26 PM on 06/16/2011

Urban legend like the one that they are the secret ingredient in Sabrett's.

[Hugh7]

07:30 PM on 06/25/2011

http://www.apligraf.com/professional/what_is_apligraf/how_is_it_made/
(They say "informed consent" but they don't mean the informed consent of the foreskin's owner, of course.)

[Hugh7]

07:39 PM on 06/25/2011

http://www.plasmetic.com/skin/skin-care-cosmetics/foreskin-face-cream-from-skinmedica-promoted-by-oprah-winfrey.html

[Morgantheaxe]

02:53 PM on 06/13/2011

Couple link for you so you can get an idea what these groups are like.

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2011/06/some-proof-that-sfs-anti-circumcision.html
Shows how anti-semitic they are. Take a look at the type of literature they pass out.

http://www.circinfo.net/anti_circumcision_lobby_groups.html
Shows just how cult like these anti circucision groups are. It also highlight how they absolutely twist facts and attack real science. It also points out how some in the cult are participating by blaming erectile dysfunction on circumcision and therefore scaring people in to believing circumcision leads to E.D. Which of course it doesn't. Here is a tip for ya....fat uncut middle aged guys take viagra also.

[soothwriter]

02:27 PM on 06/16/2011

It’s a bizarre twist to accuse anti-circumcision groups of being “cults” when religious groups use circumcision as a form of gang tattoo on infants who have no say in the matter just to keep them in the tribe.

[Hugh7]

07:59 PM on 06/25/2011

That comic (which would have stayed obscure but for the uproar) is a distraction from the real issue, the right of men to grow up without having had healthy, normal, non-regrowing, funtional parts cut off their bodies before they could resist.

circinfo.net is the personal site of a professor of molecular biology who never saw a reason to circumcise he didn't like, and his speculations about the movement come mainly out of his own head.

[Morgantheaxe]

02:41 PM on 06/13/2011

I would suggest looking at some of the groups sponsoring this garbage. Looks like an attempt to alienate the Jewish vote from the left wing. The Jewish vote has been moving steadily left, so they cook up an astroturf movement and label it leftwing to alienate people who would be truly offended by this nonsense.

[oldwarhorse]

10:49 AM on 06/13/2011

Who cares what Crowe thinks or spews about anyway.

[Morgantheaxe]

02:42 PM on 06/13/2011

Well he was smiling when he said it....must have finished that anger management class.