1 vote

SanFran to ban circumcision?

"If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Which is more important to America?

Sometimes I wonder if we've got a problem of conflicting freedoms? Right to private property (one's own body) and right to religion...

Whose rights gets to trump others' rights? Do parents have the ability to trump the baby's rights to life if that baby has insulted their religion? Does my freedom of speech trump your freedom of religion?

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled on things like this?

equality under the law

It really is very simple. The golden rule is all we need. Your rights end where my rights begin. Do anything you want to your own body in the name of religion but leave me and my body out of it. It is illegal to circumcise girls in the USA for religious reasons. Boys should be afforded the same protection. The owner of the penis should get to decide its fate.
The baby should be considered to have a right to genital integrity, bodily autonomy and self-determination. The baby's religious freedom must also be considered. The baby of course can have no religion until it grows up and makes up its own mind. But say it grows up to reject the religion of its parents? Perhaps the child will become an atheist and want to keep all his body-parts. Perhaps the child will become a Sikh and be opposed to all body alterations.
We must start considering infants and children as individuals in their own right and not the property of parents or the state. Parents have certain rights with respect to how they raise their kids but they also have certain responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to protect the child from harm and abuse. Circumcision for cosmetic or non-medical reasons is an unprovoked assault upon the person and the psyche. We recognise this instantly when it is done to little girls. Boys should be afforded equal protection under the law.

Ruth: If there were ONLY

12 practices denied per religion and there are 100's of religions then that would be 1000's right there.

Hinduism and Yoga Sutras alone I could name 100 practices not allowed here in the states. Especially Yoga.

Well we do not allow American children to enter into monastic societies here (on U.S soil), hahaha. That covers 3 or 4 major religions and bars 100's of practices right there alone, smile. We used to allow it though -- back in the 30's and 40's. As young as 13 or 14 years of age, in Hindu based Yoga societies -- as nuns.

Ruth we know that one sip of alcohol does not impare minors plus most religions do not give actual alcohol during services, at least not to minors.

My argument is against amputation of healthy tissue -- it is a barbaric practice.

In fact my argument has little to do with circumcission but rather a proper understanding of what liberty means.

Christianity says "thou shall not kill" -- So, why can't Christians against the death penalty get death-row inmates who convert to their religion put into life-without-parole? Because the State Law supercedes the religious comandment.

You are pro-choice (death is okay if chosen by consenting individual) -- "thou shall not kill" -- Full-body Amputation

You are pro-circumcision-choice -- Partial-body Amputation

I said that it doesn't matter how long a religion has been around, that's not your argument nor is that written in the Constitution. I could create a religion today and create an earlobe amputation or piercing / tattoo ritual and claim "God" said it was the new convenant.

According to you that amputation is admissable (separation of Church and State) and the member body of said church could perform it on it's member children -- right?

What about the Muslim practice I showed the video of -- That's a Shiite ritual; why is it not allowed in the United States?

Will you admit that the Constitution does not "back" Convenants but rather religious practices -- As the Founders nor the Gov't are qualified to determine whether a convenant is made by God or writ by men? If so, then why don't we allow (ALL) religious practices including the Muslim one?

How do we determine the difference between Cultural practices from Religious -- who gives "allowance" / "regulation" -- who decides (what groupist organization with monopoly power)?

This will be

my last bump, because you're just plain tiresome. Religious practices that are called for in the holy books and are practiced universally can't be compared to cultural practices that are only loosely tied to religion at best and are unique to one sect. They're two different things.

religious circumcision of infants is a violation of rights

Not all Jews circumcise their sons and a male does not have to be circumcised in order to be Jewish. The Torah contains 613 rules and regulations, most of which are no longer observed by modern Jews. Circumcision can be relegated to the bronze age, along with child stoning and animal sacrifice.
Furthermore, the circumcision commanded in the Torah (one version of the Torah contains no such commandment) is not the modern practice. Periah Metzizah is not mandated in the Torah. The original circumcision of the Jews was removal of the acroposthion.
Another point to remember is that many Jews who practice circumcision today are not even observant Jews. Many are atheists. So they are not even performing circumcision for truly religious reasons, but for cultural ones.
Circumcision is an assault upon the person and the psyche. A baby should not be considered as property of its parents (or the State) but as an individual in its own right. That boy may grow up to reject the religion of its parents and be an atheist who wants to keep all of his body-parts. He may become a Sikh and be opposed to all body mutilations. Judaism and Islam are themselves opposed to body mutilations except circumcision. So go figure.
His penis. His choice. Your rights end where my rights begin.

Ruth: There (ARE) religious practices that

are banned here in the States -- Even if it's only one per religion you are missing the point.

The point is this: Who get's to chose what's a convenant and what is not #1 Where in the constitution does it say only convenants shall have the "separation of church and state" moniker #2 If the latter is not specific then can you agree that the Constitution (according to you) protects "religious practices" #3

If you can answer those questions then you will "see" why the Gov't is already in either the Covenant Allowance or Religious-Practice Allowance / Certification business -- where did they get this power and is it applied fairly and evenly? If it is not (and it is not) then there is precedence for Gov't stepping in and determining whether or not a Covenant or Religious Practice is permit-able.

Because they have Licensing and Tax Authority.
---We know this much is true

Further we know (and this is a regular argument on DP) that the Constitution is either upheld sparringly or ignored altogether and my uppermost point is that there has never been "pure" competition or "pure" allowance for all religious practices (covenant or not). That the latter has always been in the pervue of Gov't (as Licensor).

Why this is not obvious to you can only be explained by the fact that you are not in-line with your own religious faith -- "thou shall not kill" (abortion - full-body amputation).

Good Luck with your study of Liberty and the "real" application/interpritation of the Constitution.

Questions for OctoBox

How is passing laws forbidding circumcision in all boys under eighteen consistent with the separation of church and state? Such a law stands to change the way Judaism is practiced through governmental force.

If there's an intellectual debate on this within the Jewish community, how is the government promoting the pro-circumcision side? There are no circumcision requirements to attend public school, or join the military. Child protective services don't go after parents who don't circumcise.

The decision to circumcise or not is currently being left up completely to the parents. If they're bowing to pressure within their religious community to circumcise, how is that the government's fault? Because the government licenses synagogues and mohels? That doesn't give gramma and grampa more authority to pressure mom and dad into circumcising little grandboy if it's still perfectly legal for mom and dad to say, "no."

BTW, it was not the fundamentalist Christians who got Bush elected. That was just the cover story. Diebold got Bush elected.


At one time, I believe, the military forced recruits to get circ'd while in the military. I believe, too, that wisdom teeth are out.

We don't allow murder and other radical religious beliefs in America, hence our despise for radical Islam. We have banned polygamy, pologyny and polyandry. We have banned (at one time) the Sun Dance, the use of eagle feathers, peyote... We have also violated their religious burial grounds. Oh let's not forget the Rastafarians.

Thanks Michael

You said it true and concise

Ruth: These are easy questions to answer

#1 There has never been separation of Church and State (before the Constitution was dry it's tenents were circumvented: Slavery continued, Naval-backed Transatlantic Slavery Continued, Treaties were Signed and Broken, Forced Indian-Relocation, and only Wealthy WASP men could vote.
---Big Church (like Big Union or Big Corp) are groupists who seek economic-rents, licensure, lobbying (bribery), and special Tax-status. This makes them beholden to Gov't.
---The Gov't has the DUTY to protect all Americans (even if the Constitution does not force them too) and American Babies are American's. No Baby wants to be amputated.
---The Gov't authorizes Big Church to mutilate; this goes against (Life, Liberty, Happiness pursuit), in the same way we do not like direct gov't force (immunization) we should not tolerate the privatization of amputation

#2 There are "debates" not absolute opinion. Big Church gets a good tything for performing these ceremonies -- there is equity value in it. Especially in the more Orthodox communities that put pressure on members to participate.
---Gov't supports it by Licensing Big Church or AMA Medical Doctors to perform it. I never argued that it had anything to do with Big School (public education).
---CPS would go after parents who slap their children or kissed their genitals -- But Gov't Licenses amputation of God-Given body parts based on 9th Century intperpritations of adopted Pagan and Sumarian mythical philosphies.

#3 Prove your cover story commentary. I have heard and listened to Big Church (especially Evangelicals) argue the devilry of every candidate running against Bush -- so maybe it's "favor" via demonic opposition. Hahahahahaha. This was not subtle by-the-by.

#4 Big Church (as I said) is given the authority by Big Gov't (to whom they lobby and rent-seek) to mutilate babies -- to perform un-necessary medical procedures. The latter being the exact language 99% of the religious community argues against abortion.
---Abortion is Full-Body Amputation
---Circumcision is Partial-Body Amputation

The Gov't is precisely responsible for creating laws that protect LIFE and LIMB of all American Individuals.
---This is the Individualist Non-Aggression Axiom.

None of this means I'm any less spiritual -- I'm a fiery individualist.

Role of Gov't: 1) Protect Life, Liberty and Limb of American Individuals (forced amputation falls in this category), 2) Naval Oversite (protect our waters, harbors, coast), and 3) Print Money for Free (no interest charges).

Those are the major roles of Gov't according to the Constitution -- No Tangling Aliances (non-foreign intervention) etc etc etc.

I hope this is clearer.

If you are a Groupist - Welfarist - Corporatist you are not a "free-enterprise" entity and your status can be revoked, you do not fall under "life - liberty - happiness" as you've abdicated your right to self-rule (as an organization). As a secondary argument.

Gov't can create laws against un-constitutional organizations -- Jesus if this were not the case we'd never be able to get rid of the Fed.

The end circumcised by means.

If supporters of circumcision cannot admit that the act is an assault, it is pointless to continue.
To cut into another persons flesh without their consent is most definitely an assault. To cloak it in the guise of religion is dishonest at best; at worst, it is enabling criminal practices, so long as they fit the broadest interpretation of what the offending group believes is moral.
Ones religious beliefs do not protect them from prosecution in assault or battery charges.
This is the area in which the rights of the individual should trump religious zealotry.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

This isn't clear at all

Obviously, these aren't easy questions to answer, because you didn't answer them!

#1: I didn't ask, "has there ever been a separation between church and state?" I asked, "how is passing laws forbidding circumcision in all boys under eighteen consistent with the separation of church and state?" I'm starting to think because, in your mind, there's never been a separation between church and state, you're perfectly O.K. with that as long as it suits your purposes.

#2: Once again, you didn't answer my question. I asked, "how is the government promoting the pro-circumcision side?" All you're saying (I think) is "trust me, it does." The rest is just gibberish.

#3: Please. If you've got any idea at all about how the media works, you know how it's designed to distract us from the truth.

#4: I don't even know what question of mine you were trying to answer here. It's just more gibberish.

Sorry, but clarity is not your strong suit. I'm more baffled by what you're trying to say than ever! Why can't you just answer my questions?

Ruth: I did answer it clearly just not clearly enough for you.

#1 "how is passing laws forbidding circumcission....."

This is an SF (or States "rights" issue not a Federal issue). I never said the Federal Gov't should pass a specific "law" just uphold states-rights and protect American's from harm. There's no need for a law. Circumcission is "forced" Amputation by Gov't Agents (privatized for-profit or non-profit licensed and rent-seeking organizations certified by gov't).

Religions that seek Gov't recognition as a religion, non-profit, or any other type of licensed authority are beholden to Gov't Regulation and Determination as are all Corporations (who function thusly).

Haven't we been arguing here on the DP that Gov't buying out automotive giant debt, saying "now Gov't is in the automotive business" as being anti-constitutional?

Of course I argued Gov't was already IN the automotive business because Gov't effects pricing on automotive trade inputs (steel - oil - plastic) and engages in foreign wars to secure "better" (or worse) trade agreements. Gov't also aids in foreign contract resolution between U.S corporations and foreign nations when dealing with base inputs, arms, energy, etc etc etc.

#2 Gov't is promoting "pro-circumcission" because they derive income from the licensing process -- how is this not clear to you that Gov't has always been deeply involved in the religious process - allowance - licensor - protectionism.

Health laws

There are 759 statutes, laws and judgements in Scripture (this includes the 10 Commandments), which can be divided into 133 areas of subject matter for convenience. Today we'll be covering the Biblical Health Laws, with a special eye on diet and disease.



Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

And here's a video...

to show the flip side of Octobabble's video. Just as credible, who is right & who is wrong?

And interestingly, according to these doctors, 1 in 1000 circumcised boys are reported with a urinary tract infection. Reason enough NOT to circumcise there, right?

Unless you consider that 1 in 100 UNcircumcised boys have with urinary tract infection. 10X as many!

Sure, your science is better than mine, or your video is right because you posted it. Bottom line, there is doubt as to whether it's so bad or not.

Isn't it better to err on the side of freedom, not force of law, for the parents?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Those statistics are based on a limited sampling pool

my argument was not based on urinary tract infections.

God (nature) creates foreskin.

Man creates God Inc -- cuts off foreskin.

Man discovers power of collectivism.

Man gets bit on the butt for the latter.

Man learns about individualism -- but does not let go of religious-collectivism.

Man still argues for circumcision based on bit-butt collectivism.

Man discovers Ron Paul (anti-abortion -- abortion being a full body mutilation)

Man says no to partial-birth "full-body mutilation" (abortion)...yet argues in favor of partial-body amputation based on collectivist writings claiming to be the work of God (nature).

Like I said...

my science is bad, but yours is OK because you're the one who found it. This was based on perfectly good statistics... enough to show that uncirc'd have more infections.

Point is, there is a real reason that circumcision is preferred by parents, and not just for religious reasons. The parents have an obligation to make choices for the baby. This is a decision that should be made by the parents, not the government.

Ron Paul does prefer that the Federal Gov cede control to the State, but that doesn't mean that he approves of laws on the local level that infringe upon freedom & privacy of the family.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

circumcision damages the penis

They are not perfectly good statistics because they are taken from a contaminated sample pool, namely the USA. Care-givers in the USA (doctors, nurses, parents) often do not know how to care for intact boys. Premature forced retraction is not uncommon. This can cause infection, among other problems. It is likely that intact boys with infections were the result of PFR.
The majority of the world's men are intact and have no problems, just like the majority of the world's women. Circumcision of boys and girls was started in the USA in the 19th century to prevent, punish, a cure masturbation.
There is obviously no health benefits to removing healthy functional tissue, and even if there were, the foreskin is there for a reason and it has functions, so shouldn't we let the owner of the penis decide for himself?
The US government has already ruled it illegal to circumcise baby girls. Boys should be afforded equal protection under the law.
You speak of freedom and privacy of the family (i.e. parents) but what about freedom and privacy of the child? Doesn't the child have a right to an intact body? Doesn't the child have a right to privacy of his own in propria persona? We recognise this immediately with little girls; what makes boys' bodies any less important?

If Ron Paul looks the other

If Ron Paul looks the other way on circumcision, he is a fool, and an immoral one.

However, still, there might be hope for him: he changed his mind on capital punishment.

I think Good ol' Ron might have issues regarding circumcision: he is an ob-gyn and they are the biggest baby-mutilators around.

solely speculation

We do not know what Ron Paul's opinion of RIC is. Until someone asks him, all we have is speculation. I personally believe that he would deem it unnecessary and possibly a violation of individual rights without medical cause.

The non-violent axiom is one of the first tenents

in Austrian Economics.

Circumcision violates it.

God "saw that it was good" -- he did not make a mistake in creating foreskin.

MAN - wrote the Bible; there's no question that this is the case, only blind-belief would tell you otherwise.

People should not be allowed to bring harm on an innocent based on "choice" or "religion" -- that IS a role for Gov't.

Freedom of one individual cannot interfere with the freedom of another. If you asked me to slap your child and a cop saw it I'd be arrested -- you do not have the right to "license" another man to harm your child. Amputation of healthy tissue is far far far more extreme.

I'm curious

does anyone here know Ron Paul's position on circumcision? He was an OB/GYN, so he probably has one.

Ruth: He is a Christian so he would likely favor Circumcision

He would not want the Federal Gov't involved in the State or Local decision.

Thus SF banning it would fit within his model of local determination of "rights" and protection by law.

However -- Religions are protected by Federal Law to perform these non-scientific medical procedures. Religions seek out Gov't Licensure to do so.

Religions are thus collectivist organizations who use Lobbying (force - bribery) to make politicians favor one form of cruelty and ban another.

Spirituality is not the same thing as Religiosity or Churchianity.

Ron Paul's views on circumcision unknown

I don't think it's fair to say that Ron Paul would favour circumcision just because he is a Christian. I have no doubt that he would not endorse many rules and customs and events in the Old Testament. The New Testament makes it very plain that circumcision has no spiritual value for Christians.
Many Christians do not endorse circumcision and the majority of Christians world-wide are not circumcised. There are many different kinds of Christians and I find Dr. Paul to be among the most intelligent of Christians I am aware of.
I think it is very possible that he would be open to considering non-therapeutic circumcision of minors as a violation of individual rights and personal liberty.

Like it or not,

you can cry all day long about how "spirituality is not the same as religion," but that will get you nowhere in legal circles.

The only way a law banning circumcision on any level has a snowball's chance in hell is if there are religious and medical exemptions available, or if you amend the Constitution to disallow religious freedom. Good luck with either of those options.

You may be doing the right thing, but you're going about it in the wrong way. Do not underestimate the approach of educating the parents instead of attempting governmental coercion.

Ruth: Gov't Coercion (protects) Circumcision

Religion LOBBIES to have this authority
---Church Groups are Collectivist Organizations

How can you not see that the Church is NOT separate from the State -- They "seek" out Licesnure - Tax Exemption - and Political Might.

When you are a collectivist organization you are meeting requirements (by gov't) to maintain that status. Thus you are NOT a free-enterprise, smile.

Therefore the Gov't can DICTATE to you as it would a for-profit "privatized" corporatist organization.

BESIDES this is not a Federal (constitutional) issue, it is a local issue -- which is free-market thinking.

The Constitution does not ALLOW for direct intervention in Religion -- But our Gov't and our Churches CIRCUMVENTED that recommendation.

The Constitution is a Federal Document that the Founders were not pleased with -- it was the best they could agree upon in such short and drunken time-table.

When they went home from the convention they went back to their Christian justified slavery and reservationism (force relocation).

Ron Paul would argue that "religion" should be decided at the local level not the Federal -- including "marriage" which he argues all the time.


this is protected by the Constitution, and rightly so. If you want to stop licensing religious organizations, and stop offering them tax exempt status and stop governmental marriage licensure (that's a position with which I agree) that's not unconstitutional, but preventing people from practicing their religion as determined by their holy books, is unconstitutional.

Ruth: The Constitution protects religion

ONLY in so far that religion does not impede on an individuals rights to Life - Liberty - Pursuit of Happiness.

Amputation violates "liberty" or self-ownership of ones entire body, it violates the pursuit of happiness as all torture and forced-medical procedures do.

From an Austrian Economics perspective (Ron Paul) circumcision violates the non-violent axiom.

Besides -- The separation of Church and State only exists for organizations that are not licensed / regulated by(or seeking welfare from) the U.S Gov't.

Churches do not operate in a free-enterprise; they are a collectivist organization and as such come under the control of Gov't. Which is why churches cannot end abortion (aside from focusing on the wrong issue and being un-willing to innovate; why would they on the latter collectivist beg gov't they do not innovate).

Remember I'm not against God or Christ -- I'm not against temporary unions based on free-market voluntarism either.

I think

the Constitution is pretty clear on this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If circumcision were nothing more than a cultural tradition, and not mentioned in the Bible, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but it's a religious practice, and a law banning it completely would violate the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.

Ruth: The Constitution is "clear"

on the rights of the individual to persue Life - Liberty - and the Pursuit of Happiness.

You are right in your quote; however, the Gov't IS regulating the free-practice of every religion by forcing Licensure -- Let me tell you there are super-religions who LOBBIED to have this economic-rent put in place.

Regulation and Licensure benefit the Super Corporations within each industry or some large unionized force of voters.

A Religion is wedded to gov't -- They are a huge lobby. They are Corporatists and as such have an cubist view of the constitution.

Let me ask you this question: Do you agree that if someone is certified under your system (say coaching) that YOU (being that your name is on it) will retain the authority on who is certified, how much they pay, and what violations lead to expulsion?

The answer is OF COURSE -- because they "lobbied" you for support -- they "bought into" your schema and thus they are partially beholden to you because although you sold them your program you did not sell them your branding -- so they represent you.

So the Church (lobbied) -- they unionized and (bought into) the Gov't schema -- and thus abdicating free-enterprise are now "beholden" and their Constitutional amendent is forfeited.

If you are a welfare mother (on the doll) does it seem prudent that the gov't control the plan to getting you off, wouldn't expect that of a gov't?

Religion is the "welfare mother" to the Political Class
---They are vote poolers
---They are Lobbiests

This is all very obvious.

The Constitution was written to "work" in free-markets, the notion of which evaporated before the ink dried as you cannot have a free-market and Gov't Subsidized Transatlantic Slavery and Reservationism.