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."

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/116618063.html?1



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I did it again?

What you're saying is irrelevant. Austrian economics isn't the Constitution, which, like it or not, protects governmental intrusion into how religion is practiced in America. Your personal opinion isn't consistent with the practice of Judaism. If you don't like it, legally, your only option is to amend the Constitution to disallow religious freedom. Why can't you accept that?

Concentrate on educating people, not the law, to prevent circumcisions, and you'll be happier and more productive.

Ruth: You are still not "seeing" it

Gov't (who wrote the Constitution) and who either ignore it (as the Founders did) or uphold it (as the Founders did) cannot protect an institution that seeks Gov't Intervention - Licensure - Rent-Seeking - Tax-Breaks. The latter (in fact) makes one (individual or organization) beholden to said Gov't. Organizations who function thus become "poolers" and "shepards" of political thought (Ballot Box + Bingo Night)

The notion of separation of Church and State ends when you authorize the Gov't as both Regulator and Protector.

You are pick and chosing which Constitutional laws or authority is used.

Protection of the Individual -- That's in the preamble. There's no mention of Church or Religion in the preamble.

"General Welfare" and "Blessings of Liberty"

There's no "welfare" nor "liberty" in being amputated based on a 2,000+ belief system, where there is no concensus of interpritation.

Our Gov't does not allow this practice here in the States:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPkP1tbJFSk

There are plenty of examples of religious practices NOT allowed here in the states: From Islam to Tibetan.

Tibetan have a ritual where they hack up the bodies of the departed and feed them to Vultures -- it's far more sanitary then embalming fluids, ground burrial, or cremation.

But it's not allowed here.

In many religious-cultures you must cremate bodies along rivers and allow the ash to flow down stream. In some you must burry the dead (un-covered and un-treated bodies) near rivers. Our Gov't does not allow this because the practices interfere with other peoples rights to health (thus welfare and liberty).

In some Muslim countries (according to Islamic Law) children can have there hands broken for stealing as little as crusts of bread. Should this be allowed in a free-society (or our society)?

Come on Christians would line up against this from Savage to Church Street.

In fact our Gov't prevents A LOT of religious practices determined un-necessary or barbaric or just plain "gross."

Circumcission is un-necessary and given the above NOT protected under the Law or the Constitution (given that "law" in practice seldom matches up with "law" as dictated by the Constitution).

If Ron Paul uses the Constitution to protect the Un-born from harm why not extend it to protect the born from harm.

Are Fetuses and Adults the only ones to be protected from harm and babies and children tortured by whim and myth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPkP1tbJFSk

Once again,

you miss the point. In the Bible, circumcision is specifically decreed by God, so it can't be compared to a practice that is more cultural than it is religious. You do not have the ultimate authority to decide for a Jew it can't be done in accordance with their religion because you've decided it's too cruel.

Is breaking childrens' hands some sort of sacrament Allah ordered in the Koran? If it is, let me know and I'll reconsider my position.

Ruth: Religious practices are not all based on

"sacrament" level beliefs since no religion can prove that "God" had any hand in the writting of their texts or that their best-of-the-best were men of God.

There's just no way to prove it what-so-ever.

Religious belief does not have to be based on an old system either nor do it's authors have to claim that God wrote it -- If it falls under their Religious Law then according to you it must be observed and admissable.

What I'm telling you and you cannot deny is that there are 100's if not 1000's of religious practices not allowed in the United States and I'm telling you it's because the government picks and choses how licensure (allowance) is given out.

This we know as a fact -- that there is no way to prove that God ever created a convenant with man.

The joy that comes from Prayer or Meditation is not proof that the words written in the Bible came from God or that he truly favors the Jewish people over all others. It is written from an ethno-centric perspective (Jewish authors saying Jews are chosen and most blessed) and (Muslim authors saying Muslims are the chosen and most blessed).

Hindus say Hindus

Christians say Christians

Buddhists say Buddhists

Oh yes, I can deny it!

There are not 100s or 1000s of religious practices disallowed in the United States. There aren't even dozens. You're just making stuff up as you go along.

And you can't deny circumcision has been practiced for tens of centuries and is fundamental to the Jewish faith. A handful of Jews may reject it, but it's almost universal.

You might as well be a teetotaler who's supporting a bill that doesn't allow people under eighteen to take Communion because that's constitutes giving alcohol to minors. That's how seriously you're trying to impose your own beliefs on others!

Up at top

No parent should

be forced to circumcise, like with vaccinations.

But, most people are not going to call it barbaric torture either.

Just like piercings, tattoos, cosmetic surgery, and vaccinations are typically not thought of as child abuse.

In fact, I have a hard time imagining any situation where I would forcefully step between a child and parent.

And even if YOU call it barbaric torture, you cannot deny that infant circumcision(not routine) reduces the cost and trauma to the individual. The adult will lose work hours, will be plagued with anxiety before hand, will have a much longer recovery time(compared to an infant) during which there is no sex, and will pay ~20x as much money.

I think if you were to ask those guys who decided to be circumcised at 18 they would tell you and San Francisco to shove it.

.

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.

Jruss: Just blogging -- didn't mean ruffle your feathers ;-)

What a person does at 18 is their business.

I'm very happey to stand against abortion so they can get to 18 so they CAN make tissue-altering decisions.

It is mutilation of healthy tissue #1

There is no scientific reason to do it #2

It is forced upon the baby #3

If you are in favor of partial-birth liberty -- meaning the baby has the "right" to life but not to limb, then cool.

Do it to 5 year olds -- Ask a 3 year old to stand in a line of other kids and as he watches the first one forced through if he wants to do it and you will see the 30 boys following the first break for the hills, smile.

It's not a spiritual practice it is a religious one.
---religion means to bind or bound; which is what you'd have to do to get a five year old through this hazing process.

My feathers...

completely unruffled. :-)

Parents are not fined or punished for tattoos, piercings, or vaccinations.

Am I to understand you are also in favor of punishing parents for extreme cases of those things as well?

Babies have no "right" to not be vaccinated. Babies have no "right" to not be pierced or tattooed.

What makes you think they have a "right" to a foreskin?

You say there is no scientific reason for circumcision.

But that is pure speculation on your part.

"It's not a spiritual practice it is a religious one."

I'm not sure what distinction you are making, but let me repeat...

Genesis 17:11-14

You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. And an uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, his life shall be cut off from his people – he has broken My covenant.

.

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.

Hi

Octobox elaborates on his "religion vs. spiritual" angle in some of his other posts here, but I don't see the relevance to the issue. One of the men I personally know who opted to circumcise as an adult did it for highly spiritually reasons that had little to do with his religion (though he is a practicing Muslim) and he's nothing but happy he had it done.

I know there are folks here who will argue my example doesn't apply, because the man in it is an adult, but my point here is it isn't possible for others to judge the procedure as not being a spiritual one.

Your third bullet point

doesn't make sense. Separation of church and state means the government can not tell you how to practice your religion, which means the government can not tell you that you can't circumcise your boy.

I connect far flung dots (points of reason) and assume

others can too -- this is a regular folly of mine (hahahaha)

Here's what I mean.

States / Central Gov't "grant" 501c-3 status #1

States / Central Gov't "determines" via licensure who can perform circumcisions #2

Religious groups Lobby Gov't to protect their rights as a unionized consumer group (a religion is a collectivist organization -- by nature and decree) #3

Owing to these points (and if you can connect the dots) Gov't and Church are "wedded" on skin chopping "rights" -- this is NOT constitutional.

What IS constitutional is the Gov'ts responsibility to protecting LIFE - LIBERTY - PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Circumcision is the OPPOSITE for the baby. It's an abortion of healthy tissue and is barbaric and holds NO scientific necessity. It's dark ages thinking.

What cracks me up is religious people dispising tattoo and piercing shops -- yet they pierce their little girls ears and chop their boys foreskin.

It's all a joke.

so your idea of separation

involves the government outlawing a religious practice? really? under NO REASONABLE CIRCUMSTANCE does that mesh.

the easiest way to get something done isnt to change the behavior; its to change the meaning of existing behavior. like a cut isnt a cut, torture isnt torture, its enhanced interrogation. war isnt war, its kinetic military action. declaring war now appare

Religions seek Gov't Licensure

They Lobby (bribe)

They seek tax-breaks.

Either the doctors or church licens the amputator

They ARE wedded to gov't folly (fundamentally)

This is NOT a spiritual practice it is a religious one (bind and bound -- religare latin for religion), the latter being what you'd have to do physically to anyone over 3yrs of age to perform this minor surgery.

I'm against mutilation and abortion by Gov't Licensure and as free-will (free-market - free-enterprise) people, so should you be.

So all this is to you

is contempt for religion.

Religions are Collectivist Organizations

with a smattering of good and trying-to-be-good people inside of them.

Individuals in Powerful unions are not inherently good or evil (correct)?

The Union itself (in the long-run) becomes evil because they eventually Lobby (bribe) and resort to force.

A long-run Union is by nature the antithesis to indvidiualism -- by definition actually.

Religions are long-run abdication toward a powerful Union.

Spirituality is not Religion

One can be very ethical while never attending a long-run union participation - right?

So a man can be very spiritual while never attending a church.

Thanks

for proving my point.

Ruth: Are you religious or spiritual?

Because one does not beget the other.

Religious -- Circumcise, Tithe, Correct Force-agency, Organization, and Go-along with "normative" practices that were born in the dark ages

Spiritual -- To Meditate, to Pray, to partake in positive social endeavors (acts of goodness and kindness). In a group or alone; with no force-agency.

One can be spiritual and not be religious.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I do not think Organizations that seek Gov't Licensure - Tax-Breaks - Regulation - or who Lobby should have "rights" over life - liberty - pursuit of happiness.

Long-Run Unions use "force" and "authority" to dominate their members -- why can't we see Religion as a long-run union?

How do you see this if I'm talking about the UAW but you refuse to see it regarding religion?

From the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The wording is clear: "religion" not "spirituality." Your spirituality argument is based on nothing more than your personal emotional bias against religion, and it's just plain silly.

The 'Church is tied to Gov't

......how can you not see that that aspect of the Constitution was never known (even back then).

The Founding Father's agreed reluctantly to that document, none of them were pleased withit; after all the boose they drunk that was the best document they could come up with.

Adams and Paine (the greatest Founders -- my opinion) were highly displeased with it, but it was the "best" they could agree too.

I look at that document as archaic - Most of the Founders as the ink was drying went back to their slave holdings and worked hard to kill of a few more million Indians and forceably relocate them on reservations.

Oh we "know" these things are evil now. But the Bible that justified it then was mis-interprited; so in the future the mutilation of healthy tissue will be looked back on as a barbaric practice participated by people who asleep at the wheel.

Meditate on Individualism and develop Spirituality not Religiosity -- it will become clear that Man and not God created this practice of amputation for a man-created convenant.

Fine

Then amend the Constitution.

Ruth: You don't want to amend the constitution

to force federal pervue over a state social issue, do you?

This is SanFran's issue and it should be handled there, of course if it passes here it will be pushed to the state level.

If I smacked your baby for any reason I would be arrested, even a light smack. But what you are saying it's okay for others (licensed by the Fed Gov't) to cut healthy tissue off an infant.

It's just an absurd notion -- any other circumstance and you fine religionists would be boycotting or picketing, hahahaha.

I'm against Licensed "harm" -- I don't want full body amputation (abortion) so I do not want partial-body amputation; in this regard you might call me an absolutist, in the defense of Life - Liberty - Pursuit of Happiness.

No,

I don't want to amend the Constitution. You're the one who's trying to get around it with your inane arguments, not me.

to the people who wish to outlaw

this practice, the common theme is that children have the same rights as adults, and while that seems reasonable enough, it doesnt take into consideration the special relationship between parents and children. children are incapable of having liberty. they are completely reliant on other human beings. parents HAVE TO make decisions that they feel are in the childs best interest, and that includes religious decisions. now, when they get older, the future adults might not agree with the decisions made prior, but not being able to make those decisions at the time, is a consequence of nature.

parents can morally do things to their children that they cannot do to other adults. parents can confine them to their room, but they cannot do that to their neighbor. is grounding a child morally objectionable?

parents control what they eat, when they sleep, where they go, what they watch, but they cant do that to their neighbor. are any of those things morally objectionable?

now, you point out, and rightly so IMHO, that it is mutilation and not medically relevant. but, you cannot assert that it isnt spiritually relevant. that isnt to be determined by you. thats to be determined by each individual, and dually so, by parents. they are in charge of a childs upbringing. they are in charge of the childs initial religious choices. parents dont have that done out of some perverse enjoyment. they have the childs best interest at heart.

i said it below, but i will say it again; an important part of freedom is tolerating things that you object to.

the easiest way to get something done isnt to change the behavior; its to change the meaning of existing behavior. like a cut isnt a cut, torture isnt torture, its enhanced interrogation. war isnt war, its kinetic military action. declaring war now appare

sorry to bring this loathsome topic up again

but i need to address some questions that will hopefully illustrate the key questions to answer for those who believe that it is constitutionally acceptable to have 'free exercise' of religion.

Does freedom to exercise your religion include exercising it on another individual?

Does a child have the same rights as an adult?

Does a parent hold 'ownership' of their child's body.

Does the state/law have a responsibility to protect the freedoms and liberties of an individual?

for the constitution protectionists, and dont get me wrong i think ALL of us here are (thats what brought us here to begin with), but this is the core question. does practice of your religion extend beyond practices that affect just you? In addition! does religious law trump federal/state/local law? (ie. if a religious ritual called for animal sacrifice, does that trump animal protection laws/statutes that may exist?).

Well,

no. A child does not have the same rights as an adult. He has some rights, but some are witheld from him until age of majority.

No, but the parent owns parentship, or the guardian owns guardianship, and they make the decisions for the child.

Yes, laws have responsibility to protect the freedoms and liberties of an individual, but only insofar as it doesn't break the Constitutionally protected rights of others.

And for the last question, the religious expression is protected expression by the Constitution Bill of Rights, which trumps any and all other laws, according to the Supremacy Clause.
The issue you raise about "just you" includes minors under your stewardship/parenting, as they are your family.

There are child abuse laws which have been used to "pierce" the veil of family activities when the life of the child is at risk. If a law was made that declared this to be child abuse, that could be done. It could also be challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, and IMO it would be struck down. Because there is no right to declare a law which infringes on the guaranteed rights of religious expression, particularly when there can be no bona fide case presented that harm is being done.

And that is where a big issue comes. There's 4000 years of history documenting that no harm is done. Just because some advocates come along and declare that "they think it's harmful and unnecessary in their opinion" and show some sexual preference reasons is not a basis for a law that abridges the Bill of Rights.
So, it's doomed.

Nobody is saying that you have to circumcise, and you are free to not circumcise if you don't want to. Clear as day.
The only restrictions being discussed here are restrictions on the family, with a very thin basis, that they should be prevented by law and force, from observing their religion.

Now, it is stated in the early part of the Bible, which is also the Jewish Torah, that
"And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.".
To a religious person, this is a very serious thing.
So, here we have a conflict, because he is either going to have to go to jail, or he is going to have to make his child suffer the ultimate punishment of his religion.
And in the conflict, the exercise of religion is trump, because it is a primary protected right in the Bill of Rights. There is no such protections for foreskins, or even any child abuse. That's a state law matter.
When state law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution trumps, according to the Supremacy clause.

Can he kill the child? No, and he's not killing him.
You can make a claim it's abuse. You are going to have to convince people that 4000 years of non-injurious history of this is not valid. You'll never do it.

So, it's a real can of worms, but in the end, you are going to lose.
This nation is not going to repeal the 1st Amendment, so it's basically hopeless.

The only way out is to make a religious exemption in this law. And I don't think that the proponents of this law want to do that, because IMO this law is more about chinking away at religion, than it is about foreskins. But that's my personal view, which holds no sway.

I notice a strong tendency on this site, for people to adopt a philosophical position, and then attempt to insert that in place of the real world, and declare themselves "correct".
That's all fine and good for philosophy, but that philosophy is not law. You have to deal with the real world, and a wishful philosophy is not in control. You can work to try to change it to the way you want it, if you like. But it is dangerous to confuse fantasy with reality, and it's all too prevalent here on this site.

I have to deal with these issues regarding abortion. I think abortion is murder, but I have to concede that current law does not comport with my views. I can work to try to change it, but I don't confuse my view with the way the law is. I can make sweeping declarations that "I am correct" in my view, but the law isn't changed by it.

Quote:

"The only way out is to make a religious exemption in this law. And I don't think that the proponents of this law want to do that, because IMO this law is more about chinking away at religion, than it is about foreskins."

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for pointing this out.

The Only Law On Planet Earth Is Contract

Sons and Daughters of free men have no enforceble rights as they cannot contract with anyone yet.
These young people are the property of their Father.

Now, what is screwy is that since about 1913 the Fathers in America have been tricked into giving the Bankrupt British Crown Corporation a title to their Son or Daughter's labor. This is called an Application for live Berth. On it the Father signs over his interest in his son or daughter to the Crown for care.
The mother lists her maiden name thus disavowing the Father and the Father is tricked into disavowing himself.

So the so called rights of children are just the Crown Corporation protecting it's interest in it's slave.
Nothing more, nothing less.

A CHILD is a legal term to describe a CHILD of the State - Crown Bankster property.

The Crown can dispose of it's property as it likes.

If you feel you made a mistake selling your son or daughter for "benefits" you can undo it and reclaim the TRUST (CHILD) that was created by the Berth Certificate.
No fuss no muss, obviously the whole thing is a scam to finance the NWO Banksters. The people are the Stock/collateral for the feudal reserves disgusting pound of children's flesh "notes".

I hope this clarifies the situation we find our families in.

By the way....
Do you have a HOME?
Only wards of the STATE can reside in a HOME.
No I am not kidding, had this one on a "Test" in "Court".

The Oracle

I could spend all day

I could spend all day deconstructing that diatribe — it really does deserve a thorough fisking, but I don't think you're intellectually honest enough for me to make an effort. So, I'll just pick out one of the more ridiculous statements to hit you over the head with.

"You can make a claim it's abuse. You are going to have to convince people that 4000 years of non-injurious history of this is not valid. You'll never do it."

It has already been shown that it is injurious. If the amputation of a blood and nerve rich portion from the most intimate and sensitive parts of the human anatomy isn't injury, then what is?

If you can't grasp that concept, then there really is no point in discussing it.

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

You're right.

There's no point in discussing it with you.

Good luck with your 1st Amendment repeal efforts.
I'll be there to work against you.