Anti-circumcision prop targets Jews?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 22 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 214

Thread: Anti-circumcision prop targets Jews?

  1. #1
    Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    322

    Default Anti-circumcision prop targets Jews?

    Here's an interesting Op-Ed piece about San Francisco's anti-circumcision proposition that will be on the November ballot.

    My question is, do you think the intactivists are really bigoted against Jews and Muslims and are using the circumcision issue to target these two groups, or do you think the author is using the race/bigot card to deflect readers from the other issues surrounding circumcision?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,45960.column

    In November, the residents of San Francisco will not only cast their ballots on pressing state and local issues, they also will decide whether to approve a proposition banning the circumcision of male children.

    The immediate temptation, of course, is to roll the eyes and dismiss the measure as another reminder that, along with the wild yeast that produces terrific sourdough bread, a strain of lunacy floats on the Bay Area breezes. Moreover, even if it were to pass, the proposal does such obvious violence to the 1st Amendment that its chances of surviving constitutional review are even more improbable than Donald Trump's hair color.


    Still, there's something so breathtakingly wrong about the presence of such a proposition on any ballot that its implications are worth at least a few minutes of reflection. On one level, it's simply the most recent and egregious example of how California's long experiment with direct democracy has gone stunningly wrong at every level of government. Simply because more than 12,000 residents signed a petition, you have the people of an American city voting on whether or not to proscribe one of the central rituals of an entire religious community — in this case, Jews, who have been required to circumcise male infants within eight days of birth since the time of Abraham. Many Muslims also practice circumcision for religious reasons, while significant numbers of other American parents elect the procedure for hygienic or health reasons. The San Francisco measure proposes to make the circumcision of males under 18 a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail.

    Will such a ban ever survive a legal challenge based on the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause? No, but California has no mechanism for short-circuiting these wasteful and painful exercises in communal willfulness.

    That's true even when, as in this instance, a measure clearly is aimed at a particular part of the community, and there's no doubt that this proposition knowingly targets Jews. Marc Stern, a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, had the matter exactly right when said: "This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States. It's unprecedented in Jewish life."

    While the measure's promoters speak about circumcision in general terms — insisting it constitutes "mutilation" — it's clear from the language of the proposed statute whom they have in mind: "No account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual."

    Jews are understandably affronted and alarmed by this proposition, but we all have a stake not only in the protection of religious freedom but in understanding how it is that this sort of thinking infects our politics. America is hardly the only country in the world with an extra share of eccentrics, contrarians and holders of just plain odd ideas about every aspect of life. For all its reputation for restraint, reticence and moderation, for example, English society throws up a lake full of odd ducks in every generation. But Americans are the rare people who regularly come to believe that their private moral revelations ought to be ratified in law.

    It's a particularly virulent form of self-righteousness, one that's been with us since the earliest days of the Puritan settlement, when the legislation of virtue and prohibition of vice was supposed to usher in a new Eden. Good Augustinians that they were, the Puritan fathers shared his delusion that "error has no rights." Convinced that they alone possess the truth — however eccentric or novel — some among us have gone on believing that to this very day.

    Somehow, we never seem to learn: Privately practiced, temperance is a virtue; the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were social insanity.

    What's at work here is a kind of narcissism empowered by the particular moral authority our current outlook grants to those who count themselves aggrieved. In this instance, the group behind the San Francisco proposition is made up of people who call themselves "intactivists" — you really can't make this stuff up — and all seem to bear some sort of simmering resentment over a choice they believe their parents usurped from them.

    That's the sort of issue you work out in therapy, not at a polling place.

  2. #2
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    I don't believe it is motivated by bigrotry towards Jews and Muslims, although I also don't think that it shows any sort of sensitivity towards them either. I do, however, agree with this:

    But Americans are the rare people who regularly come to believe that their private moral revelations ought to be ratified in law.

    It's a particularly virulent form of self-righteousness, one that's been with us since the earliest days of the Puritan settlement, when the legislation of virtue and prohibition of vice was supposed to usher in a new Eden. Good Augustinians that they were, the Puritan fathers shared his delusion that "error has no rights." Convinced that they alone possess the truth — however eccentric or novel — some among us have gone on believing that to this very day.

    Somehow, we never seem to learn: Privately practiced, temperance is a virtue; the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were social insanity.

    What's at work here is a kind of narcissism empowered by the particular moral authority our current outlook grants to those who count themselves aggrieved.
    So true. Unfortunately, not just in the case of the circ debate, either.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  3. #3
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    I don't think that it is being done to target Jews, but I also don't think that the authors stance is necessarily "playing a card", either. Its a legitimate issue as circumcision IS a very important covenant/ritual for Jewish people.

    I get why "intactivists" don't care that it is a religious ritual, and probably every single one will bring up human sacrifice or something being a religious ritual in some religion somewhere that is banned. I also honestly believe that some people see human sacrifice being the same as circumcision (obvs I disagree with them) but surely there is a precedent for laws which preclude religious freedom.

    That said, I'm fine with circ, my boys are circ'd, I don't live in SF, and I feel pretty certain that little to nothing will come of this.

  4. #4
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,336

    Default

    No, of course not. This isn't preventing adult religious practicioners from choosing circumcision for themselves, is it? It's only preventing those who cannot choose themselves from having an irreversible choice thrust on them.

  5. #5
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,355

    Default

    Will such a ban ever survive a legal challenge based on the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause? No, but California has no mechanism for short-circuiting these wasteful and painful exercises in communal willfulness.
    I disagree with this. The 1st amendment has limits. Like blather posted, it's one thing to make a decision for yourself, it's another to make this kind of decision for others.

  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blather View Post
    No, of course not. This isn't preventing adult religious practicioners from choosing circumcision for themselves, is it? It's only preventing those who cannot choose themselves from having an irreversible choice thrust on them.
    We thrust lots of irreversible choices on our kids....immunizations, haircuts, and even the dreaded formula. As parents we are forced to make choices that WE think are best for our children until they are grown and able to make choices for themselves.

  7. #7
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    Like blather posted, it's one thing to make a decision for yourself, it's another to make this kind of decision for others.
    I make lots of decisions for my kids. Doesn't everyone? Honestly I'd say that a ton of those decisions (like, deciding to be in a stable relationship before having them, or being able to financially provide for them), impact my kids a TON more than the decision regarding their foreskin. I wonder if the state is going to move in to also ban children being born into impoverished or unloving homes or the like, as the children can't choose.

    Either way, I'm pretty sure a pretty important part of the "covenant" is the 8th day thing. Banning infant circumcision would in fact ban the religious rite as mandated by G_d according to the Jews, no?

    Tara? Lana?

  8. #8
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,356

    Default

    Sure we make a lot of decisions for our kids...

    but there are some choices we can't make for our kids...even if we think they are best, so that argument alone doesn't really stand up well against circumcision.

  9. #9
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    I make lots of decisions for my kids. Doesn't everyone? Honestly I'd say that a ton of those decisions (like, deciding to be in a stable relationship before having them, or being able to financially provide for them), impact my kids a TON more than the decision regarding their foreskin. I wonder if the state is going to move in to also ban children being born into impoverished or unloving homes or the like, as the children can't choose.

    Either way, I'm pretty sure a pretty important part of the "covenant" is the 8th day thing. Banning infant circumcision would in fact ban the religious rite as mandated by G_d according to the Jews, no?

    Tara? Lana?
    This. I would guess that the vast majority of decisions that I make while he's growing up will ultimately matter more than the circ decision - even small stuff like what to have for dinner each night (when you take the culmulative effect of all of those dinners.) I don't really get why circing is the beach that people are willing to die on when it comes to "Not forcing your decisions on your children."
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  10. #10
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    This. I would guess that the vast majority of decisions that I make while he's growing up will ultimately matter more than the circ decision - even small stuff like what to have for dinner each night (when you take the culmulative effect of all of those dinners.) I don't really get why circing is the beach that people are willing to die on when it comes to "Not forcing your decisions on your children."
    While I'm not willing to figuratively die on any beach over the issue, i see a logical argument for it that i don't see a clear cut argument against.

    As for the minor impact, we have lots of laws in our nation that seemingly have a small impact compared to larger issues....that doesn't mean they weren't based in reason....it simply means they aren't big issues.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 22 1234511 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions