ADL Condemns 'Grotesque' Anti-Semitic Foreskin Man Comic (PHOTOS)

A sensitive debate in San Francisco over a possible ban on circumcision has brought the salacious Foreskin Man comics back to the public light. The Anti-Defamation league has condemned not only the circumcision initiative as unconstitutional, but also the Foreskin Man comics for grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes.

Foreskin Man, a comic book series created by MGMBillorg president Matthew Hess, features head of the Museum of Genital Integrity Miles Hastwick, who doubles as the aforementioned Foreskin Man.

The general premise of the comic is Hastwick trying to raise awareness of the evils of circumcision while doubling as the circumcision fighting Foreskin Man.

He fought doctors in the first issue and African tribal leaders in the third issue, but it's the second issue that has generated the most heat.

The issue features Foreskin Man fighting off Monster Mohel from performing circumcision on baby Glick, a young Jewish boy. Hess draws Orthodox Jews as machine gun toting terrorists, intent on circumcising no matter what the costs. Not surprisingly this has upset many within the Jewish community.

This comic has drawn the serious ire of the ADL for a multitude of reasons, but one of the main reasons is the Monster Mohel depiction. In Jewish faith, the mohel is the person that performs the traditional Jewish circumcision and is generally highly respected within the community.

The ADL said, The comic book portrays mohels -- those specially trained to perform the traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony -- as rapacious, bloodthirsty and bent on harming children.

The comic's climax is when Foreskin Man triumphantly battles Monster Mohel and his goons. Foreskin Man is able to fight through all of the goons and save the young boy before delivering him to a safe community.

The comics have come back into the public light after San Francisco announced an initiative to ban circumcision for anyone under 18. The initiative ignites a furious debate as to whether circumcision should be allowed, especially for religious traditions, or whether it should be banned until a man is old enough to decide whether he wants it or not.