Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
(RNS) The National Association of Evangelicals is siding with Jews and Muslims in opposition of a proposed ban on infant male circumcision in San Francisco.
"Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham," NAE President Leith Anderson said in a statement. "No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."
The proposed ban, which does not include a religious exemption, would prevent circumcision of male children in San Francisco. If passed, circumcisions would be considered a misdemeanor that could carry a fine of up to $1,000 or a year
And people of religious and non religious backgrounds have this done. So if you want to start a discussion on this I don't think this forum is an appropriate forum because the pros and cons go beyond anything having to do with religion. I also think all it ends up doing is bashing religion when circumcision goes beyond religion.
It the United States the majority of babies are circumcised in the hospital and it is not for religious reasons. I don't know if that trend is changing.
The proposed ban, which does not include a religious exemption, would prevent circumcision of male children in San Francisco. If passed, circumcisions would be considered a misdemeanor that could carry a fine of up to $1,000 or a year ...
I am wondering if such a law was passed, who would be charged with the crime (misdemeanor) and fined?
The doctor or mohel who performed the procedure? The parents who requested it done? The hospital where it took place? The baby? All of the above? None of the above?
If Muslims and Jews who practice circumcision for religious reasons insist on doing it, is it not possible that it will be done in secret? How will the state enforce this ban? Will they start raiding synagogues and mosques?
How about female circumcision? Is that OK? Fair is fair....There is no good reason to circumcise anyone, male or female...In fact there are reasons that it shouldn't be done, not the least of which is the infant's death....The are an average of 117 circumcision related deaths annually in the US.
Not many ritual circumcisions take place in hospitals any longer with the circumcision taking place on the 8th day after birth (including the day of birth), except for medical reasons that would delay a ritual circumcision, and the mother and baby leaving the hospital in 3, give or take, days.
I love how the NAE uses the "religious freedom" exercise and takes a stance on human life as coming from the moment of conception. This is a ticket to understanding the general hypocrisy of the evangelical movement. They want to scream and cry and complain about the abortions of a zygote but have no problem with the genital mutilation of a living, breathing human being.
Even worse, they claim it is a matter of religious freedom but the child has absolutely no choice in the matter. Within the first few hours or days of his entrance into the world, this baby has had the first of religious traditions shoved down his throat - they cut the foreskin of his penis off. How on Earth is that religious freedom for anyone but the parents and the sick society that promotes such a thing as a positive?
If this were about religious freedom, why don't we let the child grow up to be 18 or 21 and then let him decide if he wants to have his penis mutilated. Wouldn't that be the greatest amount of religious freedom... Letting him decide for himself?
Finally, I can't believe we live in a day and age where the bronze-age morals and traditions of a delusional psychotic who nearly killed his own son are even thought of as valid arguments. I say "Bravo" to San Francisco for instilling this ban and I call the NAE a consistent group of lying, thieving, conniving idiots who want nothing more than to promote a sense of ridiculous oligarchy of ancient ritual and superstition to appease an imaginary celestial dictator.
If this were about religious freedom, why don't we let the child grow up to be 18 or 21 and then let him decide if he wants to have his penis mutilated. Wouldn't that be the greatest amount of religious freedom... Letting him decide for himself?
That is exactly what we did w/ our boys. Good points in your post, too.
Looks better that way. Women I've known prefer it that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
