Proposed Circumcision Ban Struck From San Francisco Ballot

It's too bad there is so much religion around this cutting away a part an infant's penis. It makes no sense to me at all. How such a practice can have arisen much less be sustained in either of the two major Abrahamic religions is beyond me. Plenty of rules ostensibly set down by God in religious texts are considered unbreakable and will either see you damned to Hell or constitute a breach of covenant between God and Man but these religions have dropped such requirements (and for plenty of good reasons) by the wayside as time has gone on. Why they insist on this one remaining I have no idea.

Actually there is a saying that comes from Judaism that goes like this: Beware who you make your enemy for you shall surely become just like him (or words to that effect). There's a lesson in there someplace but I am not sure where. Perhaps it just means "Pick and choose your battles." Looking into my crystal ball I see that these two religions will increasingly grow factions within them that specifically want to see an end to circumcision (actually they already exist). As anyone who feels persecuted (like a minority faction in a religion) can tell you, the persecution only makes them more resolved. I say, good luck to these folks and I hope that it doesn't get too nasty in there for them. As for intactivists and these religious leaders, well, it's already nasty, so there's no stopping that.

The Jewish hold too much power in mass media, the muslims are just bending over. The leason to be learned is that all bases have to be covered, the initiative should have excluded religious practices, that way a precedent could be set and further on it can be extended to other aspects of the barbaric practice, which if I may add, should be practiced only under cases of extreme medical conditions, after all, it's an amputation.

I disagree. If there is one Jew (and it's "Jew", not "Jewish") in a position of decision-making power in mass media then for every one of them there are 3 or more non-Jews. In any case for each Jewish person in a position of authority in mass media, this does not necessarily mean that that individual agrees with circumcision or even has it on his or her radar. The issue here is with certain very influential leaders of these religions (Judaism and Islam) who insist that circumcision is perfectly fine when done either for medical reasons or religious ones. In the case of medical reasons, IMJ they would have to be quite compelling because as you say, it's an amputation. But in the case of religious reasons, there is no excuse. Reason being, human rights for person B trump religious rights for person A when they come into conflict each and every time. Religious rights are not fundamental rights; ie, they do not give one license to do as they so deem necessary to preserve them. Fundamental human rights do however, but even then, these have a limit: one may not violate person B's fundamental human rights to preserve one's own (ie, Person A's). It's pretty clear and the precedents are well-established. The arguments being used by these religious leaders hold no water.

This sounds somewhat paradoxical, but when I objectively look at religion, the only conclusion I can come to regarding circumcision is that God was testing us. He wanted to see if we would be barbaric enough to do that to our own sons just because he told us to. Unfortunately, few have clued in that this is not actually God's will. There is even a part of the New Testament that says "circumcise your hearts, not your bodies", officially making the practice of circumcision obsolete. It pretty much says don't mutilate yourselves, just open your heart.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

the precedents are clear and well established, and the "very influential" religious leaders' argument hold no water, yet the initiative was struck, in which point exactly do you disagree with me???

unified front Matt, unified front.

I was addressing your comment regarding Jews holding too much power in the media. That is what I disagreed with you about. I don't deny however that certain religious leaders in the Abrahamic religions are very influential and indeed I don't doubt their objections to the placing of the initiative on the ballot for San Francisco was part of the judge's consideration despite what she said her stated reason was. Looking at it, from a purely legal perspective it was on its face a defensible decision - nonetheless what it also shows was the inconsistency of judicial decision-making, for if this had been a wildly popular idea among religious leaders and among other influential interests, I have no doubt that no one would have challenged it or if they had, the judge would have allowed it on to the ballot anyway - therein lies the rub and is why the judge's decision was, IMJ, a pre-emptive strike against intactivism. I also think she had a sneaking suspicion that it would have been voted into effect, something influential groups did not want to see happen.

As for your "united front" comment, well, expect me to disagree with you or anyone else who says/writes something that I disagree with and I hope that you will also, since disagreements and challenging of one another's ideas is the only way anyone is going to think through thoroughly their own positions or be given a chance to change them. One thing I believe that we can be united about though is that circumcision needs to come to an end and that religious arguments indeed hold no water for the reasons I have already discussed. I believe the only way MR activism is going to succeed, given the varied ideas of how the world ought to be and what makes it that way, is if we focus on building coalitions - agreements on net outcomes and less focus on whether or not the guy next to me believes exactly as I do. That ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Finally I want to say that a lot of attention is being paid to religious leaders on this topic not just because they are indeed very influential but also because it's a hot button. When you consider that the vast majority of circumcisions are done in hospitals as 'routine' and without a religious reason, I believe intactivism should be primarily focused on dealing with secular circumcision. Intact America is doing just that. Once those numbers are substantially reduced and the word is out there that circumcision is unnecessary medically and indeed it is damaging to the victim, then the religious pillars will inevitably fall. Secular circumcision first needs to be taken down, then the rest comes.