San Francisco Circumcision Ban: A Potential Violation Of Religious Freedom? (VIDEO)

A proposal to ban the circumcision of male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a private family matter.

But even in a city with a long-held reputation for pushing boundaries, the measure is drawing heavy fire. Opponents are lining up against it, saying a ban on a religious rite considered sacred by Jews and Muslims is a blatant violation of constitutional rights.

WATCH:

Comments

[Rodrigo Girao]

03:54 PM on 07/14/2011

Jews whine about religious freedom.

Jews brand newborns as part of their group.

What's this noise? Oh, it's the contradiction alarm ringing!

[Uncutistheway]

02:41 PM on 07/04/2011

The Foreskin is not just some extra skin but a part of the penis which rolls back when erect, adds girth, has nerve endings and works in unison with the penis during intercourse.

[Phillyfox]

07:45 AM on 06/15/2011

His body, his choice

[drummer510]

06:04 AM on 05/30/2011

This is not worth commenting on, accept the fact these people should seek professional help. There is no other exclaimation for this.

[JewishPhysician]

03:10 PM on 05/24/2011

This is not liberalism gone wild. This is pacifism and pacificm only.

[Jcray]

09:35 AM on 05/23/2011

Don't most doctors consider circumcision to be healthy?

[ramp613]

12:17 PM on 05/23/2011

No, "most" doctors do not. 80% of the world's men are intact (not circumcised), and that includes most doctors, too. No medical organization in the entire world (not even here in the USA) recommends circ.

[Jcray]

12:41 PM on 05/23/2011

What? 80% of American males are circumcised. Doctors do consider it more healthy, that is a fact. Were do you get your facts?

[Alaskanpoet]

06:06 PM on 05/21/2011

Once again San Francisco who Nancy Pelosi it continues to elect
Stands in the forefront of the religious bias we all should reject
At least two faiths as part of their creed male babies circumcise
As do many parents for heath reasons deemed wise
I accept the right of this minority to seek with ballot to impose
A ban which each and all of us should rise up together and oppose
Sadly many do not trouble to vote and fanatics like these often carry the day
Only in this case for any court in a New York second to overfule and hold them at bay
Too bad that as part of this insane quest
Another issue was not placed to meet the voters' test
To no longer have to be exposed to botox and surgeries on Pelosi's face
And no more exemptions in her district to Obamacare she put in place.

[William Sherman]

09:10 PM on 07/18/2011

The only fanatics and freaks are those who would subject their child to this primordial blood ritual.

Female genital mutilation is also a sacred tradition in many religions as well, yet it is banned in this country, with no religious exemption whatsoever. Do you support a lifting of this ban? If not, what makes one form of genital mutilation any more sacrosanct than another.

[Irene Solnik]

12:58 PM on 05/21/2011

The man you people worship was (I guaranty you) was circumcised.

[ramp613]

06:11 PM on 05/21/2011

I don't worship any man, intact or not.

[Uncutistheway]

02:54 PM on 07/04/2011

I can guarantee you that the man you worship was uncircumcised since he made the foreskin on all human males and animals.

[Clevelandinwi]

10:05 AM on 05/21/2011

Of course it's a violation of constitutional rights but I would like to see the Big Five on our Supreme Court deal with it. That would be interesting.

[ramp613]

09:51 AM on 05/22/2011

I'll give you that this ban would be a violation of religious rights. It's just that, circ is also a violation of rights - the human rights of the baby.

And when religious rights conflict with human rights, human rights have been deemed by our courts to be the one that counts more.

[knightoftheroundtable]

09:54 PM on 05/20/2011

Yes, I was circumcised, had no say, was done when I was born. If I had my rights I would of objected, been a few inches longer with more sensation. It is a cruel practice, does not belong in modern society. Do we have to keep this stone age practices alive? I certainly hope not.

[Homer Doh]

09:19 PM on 05/21/2011

been a few inches longer. not likely.

[ramp613]

09:52 AM on 05/22/2011

How would you know, Homie?

[Jcray]

09:36 AM on 05/23/2011

No you would just have some more skin not be any longer, it seems you have a problem with you size.

[ramp613]

12:19 PM on 05/23/2011

A lack of shaft skin can make a man's erection smaller in length (or even painful). And the lack of a double layer of foreskin makes it all smaller diameter, too.

Cut part of something away, and you are left with less.

[ramp613]

08:16 PM on 05/20/2011

The foreskin has value. It is a sensative, normal, healthy, functional and FUN part of the male anatomy.

It should be up to the owner of the foreskin to decide if he wants to give it up.

[Hassanista]

03:35 PM on 05/20/2011

It's funny how history repeats itself. The modern "west" is similar to the Roman empire in many respects, including an over-obsession with youth, nudity, and androgynous beauty. The Romans were ALSO against circumcision. In fact, they would inspect every Jewish child, and if it was Circumcised they would cut it in half in front of the parents, because circumcision was a "violation of natural human perfection".

[Acert]

03:51 PM on 05/20/2011

No one, except you, is talking about killing circumcised infants.

[ramp613]

08:03 PM on 05/20/2011

And no one is against circ for adults. You should get to choose for yourself.


And so should that baby boy on the operating table.

[intactive]

09:40 PM on 05/20/2011

This has nothting to do with youth, nudity or androgynous beauty. Unlike Roman times, 97% of US circumcision is not Jewish. This is about the human right to ownership of one's own body.

[irt2ltee]

09:11 AM on 05/20/2011

the weirdos in SF are at it again, the full baggies wants all the newborns to join them in their uncircumsized state. circumcision is not only a religious right of passage to many Catholics, Christians and Jews but this procedure allows for more hygenic way of cleansing the excess semen or any body excretions and dirt that gets in the way. The foreskin is simply snipped to make it flexible for cleaning. Think of it like a lipstick that you can push up or down. The full baggies dont have this advantage. hahah ..you boys get it done..SF boom, bag or bust

[Acert]

02:00 PM on 05/20/2011

You're making no sense. Except in rare circumstances, uncircumcised males can retract the foreskin to was under it, after it has separated from the glans.

[Acert]

02:20 PM on 05/20/2011

*to wash under it

[intactive]

09:48 PM on 05/20/2011

Newsflash! Catholics are Christians.
The Catholic Catechism (Item 2297: Respect for bodily integrity) says:
... Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Pope Pius XII said "From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way" All Popes since Peter (and maybe one or two after), and the vast majority of Catholics, are not circumcised.

For the other Christisans, Gal 5:2 "... if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.

And you badly need an anatomy lesson.

[Jesse P. Steinberg]

08:14 AM on 05/20/2011

While they are at it, they should also ban marriage.

[bercola]

08:45 AM on 05/20/2011

They did, only homosexuals can get married,
What can you expect from Liberals???

[pkafin]

02:51 PM on 05/20/2011

From "liberals" I can expect the intelligence, honesty and respect for others that your post lacks. This particular proposition is misguided and will not likely pass. But still, the people behind it can argue their point cogently. You? not so much.

[kulapo]

06:52 AM on 05/20/2011

The proposal to ban circumcision in San Francisco is a blatant abomination of religious rite of the people. This law to circumsize did not come from man, but from God Himself and to ban it is a complete defiant to the universal law given by God.

[ramp613]

07:17 PM on 05/20/2011

So, if someone's god commands that girls get their bits and pieces trimmed up, that's OK?

[el127]

07:37 PM on 05/29/2011

You have just proven that your holy book is a fairy tale by saying god commanded it because god is the one who made the foreskin on humans and other animals as well so it makes no sense why he would want something that he created to be cut off. You have no proof if it was god commanding or just some person who made up this story to try to control society.