SanFran to ban circumcision?
Submitted by The_TSA_Is_A_Fraud on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 00:46in
"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."
»
- Login to post comments
Foreskins have to be removed
Foreskins have to be removed otherwise male children will remain contaminated with the blood of the mother and will need to remain in hiding for 2 months as penance, like the daughters do, and like women do every month for a week (you know..women's dark). The foreskin is the sacrifice to God that needs to be made to shed this evil.
..Leviticus.
How can one argue for a law against that? Its God's own words.
This is an elective surgery,
This is an elective surgery, that has no PROVEN benefit. It is cosmetic and does not fall in the category of medical exigency.
If parents wish to have their female children (clitoris hood)
circumcised — as they do in many African rituals — should we not object to that practice as well?
It is all pointless mutilation and should be discouraged altogether.
This is the proper role of government; to protect the liberty of the individual. And this is the proper constitutional role of State governments to protect its citizens; especially those that cannot consent or object.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
Not if it
violates the Constitution, which this law does.
This law will be struck down on the first challenge.
please
educate us. what portion of the premise of this law would be in contradiction with the constitution. Please be specific, and if you could use cites that would be even better.
sarcasm not even intended. if you could prove that is true with absolution it would kill any further need for 'discussion' on this entire thread.
Okay,
since you are so desperately in need of it.
The First Amendment to the Constitution(Bill of Rights);
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Please note the portion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Circumcision is a REQUIREMENT in certain religions such as Judaism, and also with Muslims. Many Christians also observe this religious law. It's not "optional" to these people and their religions.
People from these religions that observe this requirement would be unable to live in the city limits, while this law was in force, because it would criminalize a basic requirement of their religions.
This is the basis of the meaning of that portion of the First Amendment. And making a law that abridges this freedom to express their religion with their own families is a clear violation of the Constitution, and will not withstand challenge.
And, in reply to your comment down below about the Bohemian Grove notwithstanding, this religious practice has been established for about 4000 years, and deeply rooted and in place all around the globe. It could not be construed as some recent "crackpot" religious scheme. Religious practices don't get much deeper than this one, anywhere on earth.
so lets break it down.
first amendment reads - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
free - "2 : made or done as a matter of choice and right
: not compelled or restricted [no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof "U.S. Constitution amend. I"] [a and voluntary confession] "
exercise - "1 : to make effective in action [exercising power] " (source is findlaw dictionary)
it reads as everyone should expect it to, no tricks in definition terms that i can find.
5th amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
it would appear that a person's right to life, liberty and property are only guaranteed against the state and in accordance to legal procedure. (aka in the constitution itself, there is no guarantee that god has given you inalienable rights and sovereignty - this is the basis of the declaration of independence). In context the constitution can only inhibit government powers, not declare inherent rights as a sovereign being.
amendment 9 would appear to support that the people do in fact have other rights that may not specifically be listed as those things that the constitution specifically indicates nor should they be 'belittled' or slighted.
So basically the constitution cannot grant you the rights given to you by god. However we have penal codes built into the law of the land that do stipulate your punishment for taking someone elses life/property/freedom. Im not a law buff but i would assume this would be the basis of 'common law'
Question: At what point do religious 'laws' and 'rites' supercede the law of the land, or common law? If religion has 'free exercise' protection, what is to stop an established religion from sacrificing peoples property, limbs or lives at a young age or without consent?
At best - i will concede that while the constitution does not explicitly protect an individual from religious 'exercise' (since the terminology there is particularly vague and broad) it may be that there is ruling that proper 'free exercise' of ones religion does NOT include actions that influence others, PARTICULARLY if they are in fact under federal jurisdiction (are they 14th amendment citizens?)
what does this mean i concede? At best, bris ceremonies could be construed as exempt from any law made to protect an individual's specific body part from being taken, or other similar religious practices NOT exercised in hospital facilities under the auspice of HEALTH or other pretense.
What we need is further legal and lawful clarity on whether religious law does in fact supercede common or state/federal law as it relates to property which falls under federal/state jurisdiction.
Correct.
The Constitution does not grant any "rights".
The Constitution is a document which limits what the government may do, and particularly and specifically prohibits them from infringing on certain rights.
I think as long as a religious exemption clause is written into the law, they might get away with this law staying put.
As long as they steer clear of Constitutional violations, they may enact laws locally, no matter how stupid those laws might be.
I can't wait for the lawsuits from secular victims of this law, claiming they were forced to keep their foreskins when then wanted them off in the neonatal stage, and the city mandated that they keep them, and now they have "pain and suffering" due to the city law. It will happen.
The gov'ts will never learn to keep their snouts out of people's personal business.
im glad we agree for the most
im glad we agree for the most part but there are still unanswered questions to be had that answers what ultimate authority protects an individual under the law from unsolicited harm. please consider that the argument you present would in fact allow further dubious harm against an individual under religious pretenses, if in fact religious law truly trumped federal law or other types of law. which is precisely why im not sold that the religious freedom card is really a blanket protection from local laws like this becoming legitimate law
And you are advocating
harm to people at the hands of the state.
Even though the Supremacy Clause clearly describes that the state and local laws may not violate the Constitution.
You are doing what liberals like to do. Twist things around trying to find a way to force your personal agenda into everyone else's lives.
Don't you see that?
no i did not advocate that at all
in fact, youve yet to answer any question ive asked.
does religious law trump personal liberty?
are children possession of ownership of their parents?
do children have the same rights as an adult?
please answer.
a judge would have to ultimately interpret and determine what 'free exercise' of religion explicitly means in regards to this case for your claims to be true.
quit deflecting and start answering or admit that you are blindly arguing against local law and attacking me as being a statist leftie.
How about Freedom of Religion
Where do you think circumcision originated from?
The Winds of Change!
I would love to hear..
your defense of Leviticus as a freedom of religion. Ill follow it with a defense of the flying spaghetti monster and we'll see who ends up looking like the biggest idiot.
Sorry,
but "looking like an idiot" is subjective, and isn't a factor in law.
You look like an idiot to me.
I can't prosecute you for it.
Sorry back
If trying to defend the mutilation of a child in court amounts to 'God told me I need to do it' then they would look like an crazy idiot for trying.
Not suggesting one should be prosecuted for being an idiot, just that they would look like an idiot during the prosecution!
Back at ya!
Anyone in a court setting, attacking people's religious freedom(regardless of your emotion-charged term of "mutilatiom") looks like an idiot, in court.
Because any law attacking their Constitutionally protected freedoms to exercise their religion within their own families, is breaking the Constitutional law.
Constitutional right
to exercise religion on yourself I have no problem with. What about the freedom for the child not be be indoctrinated?
Well,
perhaps you should tell us about "indoctrination" since you are so heavily indoctrinated.
Is your "indoctrination" better than any other?
Look, you're tripping up on your own arrogance.
You don't have a position that holds water.
The law is clear, whether you like it or not. You don't have the option to determine how they can exercise their religion within their own families.
well since..
I'm such an arrogant indoctrinated idiot maybe you can help out this poor soul and point me to where I can learn about the laws supporting religious freedom that trump the laws protecting children from harm. Harm, for instance, like performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery during the sensitive formative years? Don't forget to add another label to me in your response.
"Unnecessary" being your word
why is your opinion of what is necessary better than someone who believes, through their religion, that circumcision is necessary?
the idea that you should use force to implant your philosophy unto others is anti-libertarian. the idea that you're protecting liberty is wrong; you are merely exchanging one liberty for another. hate it and condemn it all you want, but dont use the force of law to prohibit it.
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
Unnecessary is not my words
Its a term used by the medical industry to imply a procedure that is not medically necessary.In some instances there are non cosmetic reasons for the procedure i.e. medically necessary. However, the majority of times the procedure is done for cosmetic and religious reasons. Does the child get a say? What if I believe in clitoradectomy, neck stretching or similar religious/cultural beliefs that involve none medically beneficial (ie unnecessary) procedures? Do I get to have them performed on my child in the name of liberty and religious freedom?
"Unnecessary" IS your (also) word
like it or not, children are unable to exercise their rights. its up to the parents to raise their children how they see fit (until they are able to do that on their own), and religion is a huge part of that.
the "fix" for that problem involves the government to alter religion, something that is and ought to be out of their jurisdiction.
your examples, circumcision, and ill throw in polygamy just cause, are all things that i abhor, but yes, they should not be touched by government.
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
that doesnt cut it. if a cult in the bohemian groves started severing fingers of newborns under the guise of religion does that make it legal, or even righteous?
no!
So you don't believe in Freedom of Religion!
Sorry you’re sorry.
The bottom line is YOU DO NOT BELIEVE in the Constitutional right to Freedom of Religion.
All three mainstream world religions come from Abraham’s bloodline. First there was Judaism (God’s covenant with Abraham, where Circumcision originates(Genesis 17:10-14)). Then the Muslim religion emerges (Abraham’s banished son Ishmael’s blood line). Then comes Christianity thru Jesus Christ, who was also from the bloodline of Abraham.
This is how President Carter was able to win over the hearts of two archenemies at the time, Egypt and Israel.
Carter (a devout Christian) gave both leaders (Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Mister Begin) a history lesson showing them both that Abraham was their Great Great Great… Grandfather. And how they were actually fighting arched great grandsons of Abraham, rather than true arched enemies.
As a result both these leaders hearts were deeply touched, and formed an alliance of peace (1979) that lasts to this day. After the signing of the peace treaty in Washington DC, all three leaders quoted from their perspective bibles. President Sadat quoting the Quran (Muslim), Israeli Prime Mister Begin quoting the Tora (Judaism) and President Carter quoting from the Bible (Christianity)
The Scripture President Carter chose from the Bible was Mathew 5:9 “blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God”
The Winds of Change!
no youve got it wrong. i do
no youve got it wrong. i do believe in religious freedom and its practice... until the religions practice involves sexually maiming infants who are unable to exercise their rights. everyone keeps saying the parent exercises and protects a childs right. this is in a legal sense incorrect. while parents are legal guardians or custodians of the child, the state is ultimately responsible for the overall well being of the child. this is why some parents find their children taken away from them and they are surprised and outraged. they incorrectly assumed the child was 'theirs', ie their proprety. one way to avert this would be to claim and live as a sovereign individual which would be outside of fed and state jurisdictions
Okay, turn it around.
Let's say some zealot decides having foreskin is bad because they have some emotional jihad against it(sort of like you do on the other side), and then passes a law that if you don't circumcise your child that you are guilty of child abuse, and they put you in jail if you don't. Everybody must conform to what they decide they want. Just like you are doing.
How would you like that?
You are advocating exactly that, except you are the zealot that's demanding other people to dance to your tune.
There are probably billions of circumcised people in this world, with no problems with it, and are happy with it, and it has never caused them any problem in the least.
Including me.
We're not "maimed".
I think you are so totally carried away with your personal emotional crusade, to the extent that you want to put people in jail for not dancing to your tune, that it's clouding your thinking process.
If you don't want to circumcise, then don't circumcise.
Other people do want to.
i dont even have to finish
reading your reply to assess that you and i are arguing two different issues.
you are defending: 'freedom of religion'
im defending freedom of individual rights (given by god that they deserve to retain their fully functional body parts)
in your case study - you claim that a law made to PUNISH TO PRESERVE someones god given right to their body is some how comparable to a law made to PROTECT an individuals god given right to retain their fully functioning body.
its ironic that the example youve stated, being 'illegal' to retain ones body part (assigning this to a jihadist scenario) is exactly what JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW states. So no i would not advocate that jewish law should ever be instated as state law. that would be silly. However since you proclaim that religious law trumps individual liberty thats essentially what YOU believe, not what I believe. get it? (of course you dont).
Sorry to inform you, while you may not identify yourself as maimed, a medical definition of mutilation would label you that way.
Just because the majority of people dont identify themselves as 'damaged' by circumcision, doesnt mean there are those that are not seriously affected by it (please google botched circumcisions for starters). again, i dont know how many times i have to state this... but in a republic such as ours (or what its supposed to be) the law protects the individual, not the popular majority. im surprised this isnt sinking in to a guy as smart as yourself.
omg logic!
thank you! its sorely missing in this entire thread. please brace yourself for some very bizarre retorts!
i want a little logic
you say its governments job to protect individual liberty. please tell me how a government law that interferes with your ability to practice your religion in the manner of your choice not an infringement on liberty?
and please dont go into the whole "Barbarism" argument. i get it. i agree with you. your solution is AT LEAST as wrong. i would argue more so.
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
the misunderstanding is this.
the misunderstanding is this. you define religious practice to include acts (of what can medically be defined as mutilation) performed on essentially someone else besides yourself. i think the state would claim that a child is not the posession of the parent but are rather custodians of the child. because your religious practice can be medically proven as damaging the normal amd healthy function of a vital sexual organ, there must be some entity that would act to protect a childs best interest besides the parent in case the parent is negligent or worse. now let me say this. i dont like that this is the case. i dont like the idea of the state being the final protector of individual rights or at least how that authority is abused today.
but...
even just as 'custodians', isnt it the parents job to raise them under any religion they so choose? and if they believe that circumcision is necessary to their future well being, then why should that right be infringed upon?
you make a very good point, that it is medically damaging. i agree to that point, but can you prove that no circumcision isnt spiritually damaging as well?
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