Banning Circumcision is Simply Banning Judaism
by Yaakov Kirschen

A bill to ban circumcision of all males under the age of 18 will be on the ballot in San Francisco this November. This is alarming because circumcision of all males is the single most basic ritual of Judaism. Banning circumcision is a direct attack on the practice of Judaism, even if it is presented as having other motives. In fact, history shows us that viral anti-Semitism always comes to town in disguise, usually portraying its motives as a need to protect innocent victims from demonic Jews.

In the past, violent lynch mob pogrom attacks on Jews and Judaism were launched to protect the peasants and townsfolk from Jews who had “poisoned the wells.” The Nazis were just trying to protect racial purity. More recently, Jew-hatred has been packaged as an attempt to protect the “Palestinian” natives from the evil colonialist Jewish State, and now, in 21st century California, the attack on Judaism is being promoted as protecting Jewish babies from their demonic Jewish parents.

A second characteristic of the behavioral virus we call anti-Semitism is its compulsive use of cartoons in spreading its libels. Anti-Semitic movements from Nazism to Fascism to Stalinism to contemporary Islamism all share a surprisingly intensive use of anti-Semitic cartoons in their campaigns. And so it is with the framers of the anti-circumcision bill.

The bill was written by a private non-profit organization based in San Diego, California with chapters in sixteen states. It is led by someone named Matthew Hess. Their goal is a nation-wide ban on the practice of circumcision and, sure enough, Matthew just could not resist the compulsion to draw those standard Nazi blood-libel caricatures of fiendish Rabbis sacrificing innocent babies. Hess, to push his campaign for the anti-circumcision bill, wrote and edited a propagandizing comic book called Foreskinman. The work is incredibly rich in Nazi ideology and filled with vile anti-Semitic imagery. The shockingly blatant anti-Semitism of the piece was so obvious that, in response, the woman who had been a proponent of putting the same bill onto the ballot in Santa Monica has now withdrawn the measure from consideration.

The comic book stars a blond, Aryan-looking superhero that interrupts a circumcision ceremony, beats up the fiendish, grinning Rabbi (named Monster Mohel), thrashes the Rabbi’s machine gun-toting Jewish accomplices, and takes the Jewish baby from his Jewish father. The child’s father shouts “Give me back my son” but our Nordic hero flies the terrified baby off to safety.

The baby, now rescued from the Jews, is taken on a two-day trip to a group of beach-dwelling pagans and given to them. As the pagan woman who has been given the stolen Jewish baby announces at the end of this touching saga, she is now free to “raise him as one of our own.”

The history of the attempts to destroy Judaism is punctuated with anti-circumcision laws. In 167 BCE the Syrian Greek occupiers of the Land of Israel banned circumcision. A few hundred years after that the Romans occupiers of the Land of Israel banned circumcision in their attempt to destroy Judaism. The Nazis banned circumcision, as did the Stalinists. Banning circumcision is simply a synonym for banning Judaism.

And while we’re at it, here’s a question for you. Why does the Christian calendar start on Jan. 1? Shouldn’t the Christian calendar start on Dec. 25?: the day of Jesus’ birth? What made Jan. 1 so important? It’s simple. Jan. 1 (when baby Jesus was 8 days old) was the day of his circumcision.

©2011Yaakov Kirschen. This column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate and is licensed to run on TMV in full. Yaakov is an internationally syndicated editorial cartoonist, political analyst, blogger, and popular speaker. His “Dry Bones” cartoons have commented on the Middle East and the World since 1973. He may be reached at [email protected]

CAGLE CARTOONS
Sort by:   newest | oldest
Degrance
Guest
Degrance
5 years 2 months ago

“Why does the Christian calendar start on Jan. 1? Shouldn’t the Christian calendar start on Dec. 25?: the day of Jesus’ birth? What made Jan.1 so important? It’s simple. Jan. 1 (when baby Jesus was 8 days old) was the day of his circumcision.”
Utter nonsense.
Dec 25 is Christmas because early Christians borrowed the date from a roman festival called Saturnalia. That festival was on that date before Christianity even existed. Neither the date of Christmas nor the date of the beginning of the new year have anything what-so-ever to do with Judaism or circumcision.

Bub Snikt
Guest
Bub Snikt
5 years 2 months ago

If the basis for your entire religion is genital mutilation, that’s pretty damn sad.

ShannonLeee
Guest
ShannonLeee
5 years 2 months ago

While I believe there is antisemitism behind this “movement”, I find this article a bit silly. Degrance makes a very valid point about Christmas day.

That being said….I do know people that are against circumcision because it cuts out many nerve endings in that part of the body. Apparently, in comparison to having foreskin, being circumcised is like wearing a condom. The feeling just isn’t the same.

Tom Tobin
Guest
Tom Tobin
5 years 2 months ago

Yaakov, you don’t sound like a man upset because his religion is under attack. You sound like a boy, whose mother is threatenting to take a toy away.
You can kid yourself all you want, that circumcision is done out of love. It’s not.
No one does an act of violence, severing healthy flesh, out of love.
Yes, it’s an anti-Semitic cartoon. It’s ugly.
What is uglier? The free speech in an ugly cartoon, or actually cutting up the genitals Jewish people? I find it peculiar. People complain about Mengele, and turn around and do the same kind of thing to their own flesh and blood. I just don’t understand how people can ignore the well being of their infant, for the purported well being of their G*d.
This is the voice of moderation? I don’t think so. I agree with Bub Snikt, if the basis of the religion is partial ritual genital amputation, it’s not a lot to go on.
Russian Jews have their foreskins, and are totally accepted as full Jews in Israel, and the world over. Perhaps, if you are that attached to the surgery of Abraham, you should adhere to his example. Voluntarily cut off the tip of your own foreskin, when you are 99. Bottom line, it’s his body. He should be the only one to decides which healthy parts to keep.

James Loewen
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

The title says it all, that this writer, Yaakov Kirschen’s grasp on religion is entirely based on his cut genital status and his need to perpetrate this onto others.

Carving religion into the genitals of an infant is both a very weak and very bullying act. By legal definition it is an aggravated sexual assault.

I am fortunate to know many good Jewish people who have given up on forced circumcision of their boys, while retaining all the good aspects of their religion and culture.

jdledell
Guest
jdledell
5 years 2 months ago

Circumcision is another rite where Judaism and Islam intersect. Both religions practice circumcision “religiously”. The San Francisco ban has been actively opposed by Jews, Muslims AND the Christian Evangelicals. While the comic book may be anti-semitic, the law as proposed had nothing to do specifically with Jews. It was an outgrowth of the crazy liberals who populate that city and their ideals on health and environment etc.

kurt_t
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

You know, if you talked to my Christian ancestors in Germany and Poland 150 years ago, they probably would have told you that participating in pogroms was part of their religion, and laws to prevent pogroms were an attack on Christian culture. I like to think that humanity has evolved past the point where we think that a belief in the supernatural gives us the right or the obligation to hurt somebody. I like to think that we live in a world where your right to practice your religion stops somewhere before you draw another person’s blood.

ShannonLeee
Guest
ShannonLeee
5 years 2 months ago

I wonder if moving this ritual to the fetal stage of development would make a difference?

Say a procedure at the 8 month stage?

The left would have to defend a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body.

The right would have to defend the fetus’ right to not be mutilated before birth.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

Yaakov, except for the final paragraph (which is interesting, but certainly not substantiated here in the article, and isn’t even really relevant to the point of the article), I found you post to be a very important point of view in this debate.

While I do think that many in the movement to end circumcision do have good intentions, and only want to make sure the decision is supported by the boy himself, the fact and history of anti-semitism cannot be discounted. I’m frankly a little shocked at those on this thread who would never deny outright that a law that overwhelmingly affects black people couldn’t possibly be racist are making that exact argument here. I expect that sort of “logic” from our TMV commenters on the right, but not from those on the left.

As the post correctly points out, there’s no doubt at ALL that there is some ugly, anti-semitic crap going on with this campaign. That comic that is brought up is truly jaw-dropping in its blatant racism, and you are right that it looks very much like Nazi propaganda. The guy who came up with that is either a blatant anti-semite or is so shamefully ignorant about the history of his own issue of choice that he belongs nowhere near any sort of activism at all.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

“Yaakov Kirschen’s grasp on religion is entirely based on his cut genital status and his need to perpetrate this onto others”

No. This is just silly. He says it’s the most important ritual. It doesn’t say his entire grasp of the religion is based on circumcision. C’mon, disagree with his point if you want, but don’t just lie about what we can all clearly read for ourselves.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

“While the comic book may be anti-semitic, the law as proposed had nothing to do specifically with Jews.”

Laws that state marriage is between a man and a woman also don’t mention LGBT people. Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting rights never said “because we don’t want the negroes to vote”. It’s just that certain laws overwhelmingly negatively affect certain groups more than others. You don’t have to have a swastica on your arm to support racist laws.

James Loewen
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

Kirschen’s statement, “circumcision of all males is the single most basic ritual of Judaism” indicates that he thinks Judaism is entirely resting on this act of violence upon a helpless infant. If this barbarism is the most important act…? Judaism needs to evolve.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

I’ve never read of any studies saying there’s that much difference either way, especially with modern sanitation and medicine.

I don’t know of any practical reasons for opposing the practice. Would any of these new posters care to enlighten the rest of us as to what’s so horrible about it that it deserves to be called “mutilation”?

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

No, it indicates exactly what he says it does: that it’s the most basic *ritual*. Surely you know the difference between a ritual associated with religion and the religious belief system itself? Surely this is not a difficult concept. Purposeful density and strawman arguments do not help your cause. Perhaps the most basic ritual of Catholicism is the eucharist, but saying that does not mean that the entire religion is based on bland crackers.

I’d also suggest that it’s pretty heinously arrogant for someone on the outside to tell an entire cultural and religious system that they need to “evolve”, as if Jews were some sort of semi-human simians. You might want to work on your talking points if you want to come off as righteously angry instead of blatantly racist. You might want to make sure you haven’t mixed the two ideas up in your own mind first.

foreskin
Guest
foreskin
5 years 2 months ago

Thank You Tom Tobin, You said it better than this Jew could have. I AM HARMED !!! Where are my most basic of human rights to be free from harm ? Freedom of religion stops at some one else’s body. Children are not chattel. Brian Levitt.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

“I AM HARMED !!!”
I was circumcised also. Everything seems to work just fine, thank you. Exactly what consequences do you think you’ve suffered?

kurt_t
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

ProfElwood, first person accounts of the harm of male genital mutilation are all over the internet these days. Here’s one from a young man named Shea Levy…

http://blog.shealevy.com/2011/05/17/an-open-letter-to-mohel-michael-henesch/

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

He has a scar. Since most Christians have been circumcised, I’m guessing that it’s rare, since there’s no such requirement for Christians.

I asked what consequences you suffered. Unless you’re scarred like Shea, you haven’t made your point.

dduck
Guest
dduck
5 years 2 months ago

And of course, ancient Arabs also practiced circumcision as did Egyptians. Mohamed was rumored to have been circumcised.
It is also performed in South Africa and some parts of Asia.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

dduck — many pre-western-era polynesian cultures also did. The difference there is that they’d wait until they were going through their “becoming a man” stage, in which a group of similarly-aged boys would go through a long period of study and learning (including physical tasks), followed by the final ceremony in which they got circumsized…using a sharp shell…in the salty ocean. Ouch! Their reward, though, was that then they would be tended to and ultimately shown the ways of sex by some of the older women in the group over the next weeks.

James Loewen
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

The proof of the harm is a scar now exists where a mobile erogenous body part once exited. Mutilation is surgery without consent.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

I’m also an “innie” instead of “outie”. Perfectly intact flesh was killed without my consent. I’m sure that the procedure is occasionally botched.

We must stop umbilical cord clamping!

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

While I do think that many in the movement to end circumcision do have good intentions, and only want to make sure the decision is supported by the boy himself, the fact and history of anti-semitism cannot be discounted…. As the post correctly points out, there’s no doubt at ALL that there is some ugly, anti-semitic crap going on with this campaign.

So what? This is a question of balancing legitimate interests: some people’s freedom to practice a religious tradition versus other people’s freedom to keep their body parts intact. Both sides are invoking cartoons in an attempt to demagogue the issue, but cartoons and historic injustices are irrelevant. Neither side should get more weight because of anything that went on in Syria in 167 BC.

dduck
Guest
dduck
5 years 2 months ago

Absent strong scientific evidence of harm, I support freedom of choice, without the religions hyperbole.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

“So what?”

Really, Dr J? Think a little here, please. Saying “people should be able to read in order to vote” can sound non-racist, but we all know that the purpose of literacy laws were specifically to keep black people from voting. It was the point of the law, not some unintended side-consequence. Therefore: racism. One cannot talk about issues that overwhelmingly negatively affect one particular group without discussing the possibility that the writing of said law is has not only harmful effects, but harmful intent. Drawing on the history of discriminatory laws is not only valid but is necessary to understanding whether a currently proposed law will be discriminatory.

LOGAN PENZA
Member
5 years 2 months ago

It is revealing that when it struck down literacy laws, the Court did not simply assume they were intended to be racist, but required specific findings from the legislative history (e.g. floor statements from sponsors of the laws) and details of how the tests were applied before making that conclusion.

Therefore, some people’s current practice of simply assuming racist intent whenever they don’t like something or someone is not as well supported by the example of literacy laws as you say, roro.

It is also revealing that the first literacy test laws were designed not to discriminate against blacks, but rather against Irish. http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

It was the point of the law, not some unintended side-consequence.

But I believe you’ve already agreed that’s not the case here, that the anti-circumcision side is representing a legitimate interest of well-intentioned people. Their interest doesn’t become less legitimate because someone drew an antisemitic cartoon.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

So, let’s look again at the statistics and hard facts that the above anti-circumcision posters have presented in order to make their case:

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

“But I believe you’ve already agreed that’s not the case here, that the anti-circumcision side is representing a legitimate interest of well-intentioned people. Their interest doesn’t become less legitimate because someone drew an antisemitic cartoon.”

That “someone” (who commissioned it, not physically drew it, of course) is the main driving force behind the movement in California to enact this sort of ban. It’s the main dude, running the main campaign, distributing racist propaganda. I’m sure there were and are those who genuinely thought the democratic process would work better if only those with a certain level of literacy could vote, too, when it was put into those terms by the racists who thought up the idea. And Dr J, if you’ll read my comments from earlier, my point was not that the law has no merits, and it was not that everyone involved is an anti-semite. It’s that there are anti-semitic forces driving the law, and the point of view being expressed by the OP is an important part of the debate. I expressed disbelief at the first few commenters who out-of-hand dismissed the point of view of the people who will be most directly negatively affected. Saying that the most affected group has nothing to bring to the debate because they are Jews who think the practice of their religion is important is, indeed, a discriminatory act. This was my point.

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

Saying that the most affected group has nothing to bring to the debate because they are Jews who think the practice of their religion is important is, indeed, a discriminatory act. This was my point.

On that point I agree with you. It’s just a bit of a strawman, as no one above claimed Jews have nothing to bring to the debate. Most of the criticisms above are that specific claims in Yaakov’s post are inaccurate, irrelevant, or overstated.

Where I think we disagree is whether it matters who drew the cartoon. IMHO one must decide issues like this by considering both sides’ legitimate interests, not their illegitimate ones.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

Um, what do you think Jews in particular (as opposed to others) would have to bring to the conversation besides that it is an important ritual of their religion, and its banning has been and continues to be something attempted or acheived for racist purposes? Because that’s what the article said. There was an short, possibly irrelevent aside at the very end of the article, but that doesn’t make his other point incorrect or useless.

And if you don’t think it matters if the group pushing the hardest to get this passed is doing it for racist reasons, then you are correct that we disagree on that. It makes it fundamentally impossible to distinguish those who have legitimate concerns with those who do not, unless those who do not are stupid enough to draw up cartoons that looks like Nazi propaganda.

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

I think the message that it’s an important ritual of their religion is exactly what Jews would have to bring to the conversation. It’s a legitimate point. I thought Yaakov’s presentation of it was overstated and accusatory, and it deserved the heat it drew.

Of course person X’s right to his foreskin or person Y’s right to his religious ritual are not contingent on person Z’s motivations for starting a debate on the topic. If they were, then the more antisemitic cartoons come to light, the less right I have to keep my foreskin. And conversely, the nicer the intactivists’ campaign literature is, the less right Jews have to preserve their religious ritual. That’s an unworkable framework for balancing people’s rights.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

I think it’s pretty hard to overstate the reaction a long-persecuted cultural group might have to laws and propaganda that have long been used to persecute that same group. In the long history of Jews in the world, laws and propaganda that targeted them have been damn near 100% based on anti-Semitism. (Hopefully that’s not controversial?) One might forgive Jews for a certain level of disbelief that finally this one law (why is this law different from all other laws?) is different and well-meaning. Might one not?

Perhaps, then, it should be noted that person X and person Y can have a civil argument on the topic, and person Z can keep his bigoted racist opinions out of it. Pushing back against person Z, and being suspicious of persons A B and C, whose arguments are identical to person Z’s arguments, is a totally valid reaction. Not, I would say, an “overreaction”.

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

Sure, Yaakov’s reaction is valid. In fact, everything you’re saying is valid.

I don’t see the relevance to the specific question on the ballot. You still seem to be arguing that I should be more willing to part with my foreskin because of antisemitism’s long history. That doesn’t make any sense.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

“IMHO one must decide issues like this by considering both sides’ legitimate interests, not their illegitimate ones.”

I haven’t seen a single legitimate point made by the measure’s supporters here. Normally, when someone has facts on their side, they present them somewhere. Yes, both sides will also put up emotional arguments and unprovable anecdotes, but they normally mix in a legitimate point somewhere also.

Did you see something that I didn’t?

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

What facts are unclear, Professor? Many men who were circumcised at birth would prefer not to have been. I apparently have to vote in a few months on whether to stop the practice. Yaakov and Roro believe history from 167 BC should weigh into my decision somehow.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

Yes, religious freedom does have some weight, and requires some real consequences to override. Parents make all kinds of decisions about their kids, including nutrition, education, medical, and emotional care. All of these have permanent consequences. If you’re going to ban a religious practice, you need have something more than a lot of screaming about mutilation and “preferences” on the other side.

Binding feet would be going to far, because it causes permanent disabilities. Removing the foreskin isn’t.

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

One can certainly approach the matter that way, Professor. You’re defining religious freedom or parental latitude or the status quo as the natural state of affairs. And you’re saying the burden of proof should be on the intactivists to show material harm.

Or one can define body integrity or personal autonomy as the natural state of affairs. You have a right to keep the parts you’re born with. If someone wants to lop bits of you off without your consent, they must show that leaving you intact would cause material harm.

Neither side of this issue can point to a lot of material harm. Circumcisions occasionally have complications, but the death rate is about one in a half million, which probably puts it way down the list of childhood perils. Loss of sensation or pleasure from lack of a foreskin is difficult to show.

Likewise, instances of God smiting people down for leaving foreskins intact seem are difficult to document. So circumcision defenders like Yaakov resort to slippery-slope arguments like the one above, claiming that outlawing circumcision is the first step to pogroms and genocide. It seems a bit of a stretch.

So the issue ultimately does come down to preferences. One side prefers to keep their rituals, the other side to keep their foreskins.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

“God smiting” vs religious freedom. Sorry, Dr. J, that’s now two anti-religious cartoons in this debate.

If you want to talk slippery slope, how about the one concerning loss of parental rights?

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

The point remains, Professor. The circumcisionists have not demonstrated any material harm if they were to end the practice, and they’re stretching to do so. Yaakov stretched back to 167 BC.

I share your concern about parents being trusted less and less to make good decisions about their kids. On the other hand, to defend circumcision on the grounds of parental autonomy rather undercuts the religious argument. Yaakov’s post is arguing that the ritual is critical, and Jewish parents *don’t* have discretion in the matter.

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

Or, to put it another way, parental discretion seems to be missing from too many circumcision decisions. I think a lot of kids get circumcised by default, because of religion or custom or both, but not because of an active choice of their parents. An outright ban is a little heavy handed, but some serious stand against the practice is probably necessary before people start thinking about it more critically.

LOGAN PENZA
Member
5 years 2 months ago

If the ban had a religious exemption, it would be a lot less problematic both legally and morally. As it is, I think it is legally problematic under the First Amendment and morally problematic because the steadfast refusal to even consider a religious exemption raises legitimately strong suspicion that anti-semitism actually is a contributing factor.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

“Or, to put it another way, parental discretion seems to be missing from too many circumcision decisions.”

I’m sorry, but you’ve veered off the road again. All non-emergency medical procedures require approval. This law is a ban. Are you saying that Jews are forced to accept their religion and its practices?

You’re trying to frame a loss of freedom as a gain.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

“You still seem to be arguing that I should be more willing to part with my foreskin because of antisemitism’s long history. That doesn’t make any sense.”

No, I said nothing of the sort, Dr J. The history argument comes in when you are listening to the arguments on either side. Someone who is trying to practice their religion vs someone with pernicious motives concern trolling about baby mutilation because they don’t like Jews. The history (and things like Nazi-esque propaganda on the issue) make it clear that at least some of those people painting themselves as saviors of poor baby boys’ giblits are really just anti-semites who want to take away the ability of Jews to practice their religion. This will certainly help to do so. I know you may have different standards on whose passionate arguments to side with, but I tend to go with the non-bigots as much as possible.

As Prof mentioned earlier, also, parental rights are an important issue here too. In this country and most others, we allow parents to do things to their kids that we don’t allow other people to do. If my boss were to say I was too fat for my outfit at work, I’d sue the company and likely win. Yet I grew up with my mom saying that stuff to me all the time. Parents sometimes do things to their kids that aren’t that great. If you miss your foreskin (if you don’t have it any longer), I suggest you take that up with your folks, who asked that it be removed (it’s not random evil people coming after your junk, after all — it’s your own parents), and make sure not to subject your own kids to that procedure. Just like I have told my mother she’s not allowed to comment on my weight ever, good or bad, and I’m going to make a point of not fat-shaming my own children into disordered eating and body dismorphia. Closer analogies can be made — say, the fairly common practice of piercing ears of girls a few days after they’re born — but really, it boils down to parental rights, and the rights of those parents to make religious decisions on behalf of their children.

And again, I think there are some good arguments for the other side. I see that Prof disagrees, but I think the letter written by the Jewish man (linked above) was a totally valid argument too, even if it is a really very small number of circumsized men who feel that way.

roro80
Guest
roro80
5 years 2 months ago

“I think a lot of kids get circumcised by default, because of religion or custom or both, but not because of an active choice of their parents.”

It’s possible that this happens in many parts of the country, where not circumcizing your kid would be extremely rare. It’s really common in SF, and according to my maternity nurse friend, it’s become something that maternity wards are extremely sensitive to. While cirumcising a child with parental approval is obviously still legal, doing so without approval means huge numbers of lawsuits. (Non Jewish people who want their sons circumcised will often have it done right away, not 8 days later.) I think this is important, as the law is for SF. Perhaps in other areas of the country, where they don’t have the activism we do on the issue, there should be laws that make sure that the parents specify to any medical personel one way or the other.

dduck
Guest
dduck
5 years 2 months ago

Please leave my package unopened unless my parents sign off and say “off with his head”. And, religious parents shouldn’t have to worry about a law or regulation. For sure, parents make plenty of decisions for us while we are young, and we can debate it all later when we grow up (screwed up or not).
BTW: Don’t the government people in SF have more important things to worry about?

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

All non-emergency medical procedures require approval.

Yes, but not necessarily much consideration.

This law is a ban. Are you saying that Jews are forced to accept their religion and its practices?

Whether “indoctrinated into Judaism from birth” and “forced to accept it” are meaningfully distinct is a question I won’t weigh into. But according to the counterexamples Tom and James cited above, circumcision apparently isn’t as inseparable from Judaism as Yaakov’s title claims.

LOGAN PENZA
Member
5 years 2 months ago

Dr. J, if religious practices are subject to limitation based on outsiders’ opinion about whether they were accepted only after sufficient consideration, all meaning of the Free Exercise Clause would be destroyed and it is not an overstatement to say that religious liberty would not exist.

roro, the fact that Jews are an even smaller minority in SF than in other reason is cause to be MORE concerned about potential for anti-semitism there, not less. If a law was passed banning the playing of hip-hop and it was accompanied by stereotypes about black people, would it be less of a problem is the city passing it had very few black people living there?

Dr. J
Guest
Dr. J
5 years 2 months ago

I know you may have different standards on whose passionate arguments to side with, but I tend to go with the non-bigots as much as possible.

Sorry, Roro, I’m still hearing the same position from you. Either you feel that evidence of proponents’ antisemitism should incline one to vote for this measure, or to vote against it, or isn’t relevant either way.

You seem quite committed to the second point of view. Which makes perfect sense, if you’re willing to ignore the legitimate stakeholders and their legitimate interests, as if antisemitism on “their” side invalidates their interests.

ProfElwood
Guest
5 years 2 months ago

Dr. J, this is the first time that you’ve advocated for a nanny-state. No significant harm has been established, which would be required for normal ban. Parental choices are being eliminated, not added. You’ve attacked other people’s reasoning, but have yet to back up your arguments with anything practical.

You have, however, mentioned “anything that went on in Syria in 167 BC” and “God smiting people down”, which sure sounds like anti-religious sentiment to me.

wpDiscuz