home
RSS
San Francisco's proposed circumcision ban galvanizes religious opposition
Evidence has shown mixed risks and benefits of circumcision, a procedure that removes the foreskins of infant boys.
June 10th, 2011
02:33 PM ET

San Francisco's proposed circumcision ban galvanizes religious opposition

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - The nation’s largest evangelical Christian umbrella group has come out against San Francisco’s proposed circumcision ban, evidence that the voter initiative is beginning to galvanize national religious opposition.

Thursday’s announcement from the National Association of Evangelicals was noteworthy because unlike Jews and Muslims, Christians are not religiously mandated to practice circumcision.

“Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham,” said National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. “No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."

"The proposed ban violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to exercise one’s religious beliefs," Anderson said in a statement.

How much of a national issue the ban becomes is yet to be seen. An effort to put a circumcision ban on the ballot in Santa Monica, California was abandoned last week.

Many Jewish and Muslim groups have come out against San Francisco’s proposed ban on the procedure that removes the foreskins of infant boys.

Jewish groups have suggested anti-Semitic motives behind the ban. Here’s Nancy J. Appel, associate regional director for the Anti-Defamation League:

This is a sensitive, serious issue where good people can disagree and which the Jewish community feels is an assault on its values and traditions going back thousands of years and centered in the Hebrew Bible.

And here’s influential Los Angeles Rabbi David Wolpe:

Some involved are simply opposed to religion (there are after all some misguided Jews arguing for the ban as well), some wish to target both Muslims and Jews. But can anyone doubt that there are anti-circumcision advocates who seize on this as a chance to hurt Jews and the Jewish tradition?

Many Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, alleged that a comic book called “Foreskin Man,” created by the proposed San Francisco ban’s author, draws on centuries-old stereotypes about Jews.

Just as the National Association of Evangelicals did Thursday, some Muslim groups have called the ban an attack on religious freedom:

A ban that specifically targets a religious practice of Muslims and that has been proven to be medically beneficial is a violation of First Amendment rights that guarantees all Americans the right to religious freedom.

The proposed ban would make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco.

Violators could be jailed for a year or fined up to $1,000.

The group that drafted the ban's language says the procedure has adverse physical and psychological effects and likens it to female genital mutilation, a claim that doctors generally reject.

In November 2010, CNN reported that medical evidence had shown mixed risks and benefits of circumcision:

Apart from the San Francisco proposal, circumcisions are under scientific scrutiny.

While widespread in the United States, circumcision rates could be falling, according to recent surveys. About 65 percent of American male infants born in hospitals were circumcised in 1999, according to latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While nationally the circumcision rate has remained steady, the most dramatic decline occurred in the West, where it fell from 64 percent in 1974 to 37 percent in 1999.

Earlier this year, there were unconfirmed estimates that the circumcision rate had fallen to fewer than half for boys born in U.S. hospitals, The New York Times reported last summer, citing a federal report at the International AIDS Conference.

The American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision has been reviewing recent research before it issues an official new position on the issue, probably next year, one panel member said.

"In the past, we've said newborn circumcision has benefits and risks," Dr. Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, told CNN last year. "Given the fact that neither the risks nor benefits are particularly compelling, this is a decision to be made by parents."

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: California • Islam • Judaism

soundoff (297 Responses)
  1. AtheistSteve

    Obviously I don't give a hill of beans about the religous reasons for doing this operation to an infant. I figure it's up to the parents to decide. My sister chose not to do it to her son only to have to put him through it at age 6 when medical issues forced their hand. Poor little guy had a completely shocked expression for a week afterwards. Retrospectively I think not having any memory of the cutting might have been less traumatic but whatever. It's a choice issue and I'm all for pro-choice.

    June 10, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
    • Greg

      Yes, it should be the choice of the person receiving it. No one is arguing against that.

      June 11, 2011 at 1:47 am |
  2. John Richardson

    Once again, the Evangelicals come out squarely on the side of stupidity and intrusiveness. NO religious liberty is at stake, since males who come of age can choose to be circ-umcised.

    June 10, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Do not the parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit?
      Heck, if the baby in question was a month younger and in the womb, you would be fighting for the woman's right to kill it.

      June 10, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • John Richardson

      No, Lycidas, I don't condone eight month in abor-tions except in truly dire circ-umstances. I've posted elsewhere about my disgust with the pat black-and-white answers that both sides o the abortion debate give to questions involving the grayest of all possible issues.

      On this matter, meanwhile, an infant brought to term should not be subjected to an invasive medical procedure unless there is a medical reason for it. If the medical community simply reversed their longstanding practice of making it the all but universal default option, this issue would likely recede. But utterly unjustifiable bull-headedness will always inspire attempts at coercive, ie legal, corrections.

      Oh, by the way, there is a wound care product made from the cells of foreskins harvested from circu-mcisions. Think that might have something to do with why the medical community has continued to make this needless, invasive procedure the all but universal norm?

      June 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • John Richardson

      http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/St-Wr/Wound-Care.html Note the entry on apligraf under cellular treatments.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
    • Lycidas

      I am sorry for putting you into that camp. I am so used to ppl being one way completely or total opposite, I forget to give ppl the benefit of the dooubt.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Lycidas

      "Think that might have something to do with why the medical community has continued to make this needless, invasive procedure the all but universal norm?"

      Would you put discarded embryos into that same grouping when they are used for medical stuff? I'm just curious, I'm not wanting to seem like I trying to put you into a corner if it seems like it.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Lycidas That would depend on the age of the embryos. If we are talking about stem cells from very, very early embryos, I say harvest away. If we are talking harvesting the organs from a so-called partial birth abortion, I'd be livid. And no, there is no magical point where things suddenly switch from acceptable to unacceptable. Development happens on a cline, hence the moral issues acquire a darker shade of gray on the same cline. I wish it was easy, but it just plain isn't and it isn't helpful when people pretend that it is.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
    • Keith

      JR, you have no right, none, to tell me what I can or cannot do to my child. You are the one who is intruding here.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Keith I am not claiming a personal right to tell any parent how to treat his or her child. This is a matter of whether the gov't has a legitimate right to limit your freedom based on the child's right not to be treated in certain ways. Anyone who believes in ANY anti-child-abuse law agrees that the gov't DOES have such a right. OK, so then we ask, does that right extend to this case? I gave my reasons for feeling that it does.

      But I also reiterate that if the medical establishment simply stopped making circu-mcision the reflexive norm, there'd be a lot less pressure to ban it altogether. And I also reiterate that the medical community has a financial interest in the procedure, since these foreskins are used for a medical product. So let's sniff out the money trail a bit more closely and see what turns up. It surely has to be part of the discussion.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • BG

      @ Lycidas

      It seems Richardson would be comfortable denying burn patients and others needing skin grafts made from foreskins. Yeah, those regular Dr.Frankensteins in the medical community... they're not to be trusted. I wonder if John ever saw a real burn patient 'in the flesh.' I have, at BAMC, Ft. Sam Houston in San Antonio. It's one of the leading military burn centers in the world. God bless foreskin donations, especially now. But no one should get those precious foreskins that the medical community is stealing away....

      I'm not sure about John's stance on donated kidneys, hearts, livers, eyes, or marrow, etc... you can ask him if you want. It seems we don't think highly of each other, so I disregard him and he does me the same kindness.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
    • Keith

      JR, Yes. The old money trail is a good indicator in almost every case. Agreed. But the guy who is pushing the peti-tion also wrote the "foreskinman" comic. Read that thing and tell me it's not anti-semitic.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      HotAirAce
      So Keith, in the extreme, you are free to harm or even murder your children until they reach the age of majority? Clearly this is not the case, and this really is about what are reasonable limits. But many want to duck behide "religious freedom" rather than admit this is a barbaric tribal custom unsupported my medical necessity.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @BG Since you've actually managed to raise a couple of real issues for a change, here is my response: (1) Why would you think that I have any problems at all with donated organs? Yeah, I'd have all sorts of problems with organs being harvested from a living patient without their consent, which I what foreskin harvests are. But as far as I know (constant conspiracy theory rumors to the contrary notwithstanding). organs are harvested only from dead people who died for reasons other than someone wanting their organs; (2) There ARE other woundcare treatments, including other cellular treatments that don't involve harvested foreskins. Anyway, you can certainly make the case that using the foreskins for something helpful is better than throwing them away. I am just raising the issue that I have never seen in a discussion of this issue that the medical profession has a commercial interest in keeping this procedure widespread. This should be kept in mind when the med profession tries to BS the necessity or even advisability of the procedure, It is always wise to follow the money before drawing final conclusions.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • Eric

      See, Lee, everyone can goof up.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Keith I don't doubt that there are anti-semites pushing this issue. But I also don't doubt that there are a lot of people pushing the issue who aren't anti-semitic at all and who consider it a basic child and indeed an adult male human welfare issue.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh, I should also note that there are CONSENSUAL live donors of certain organs like kidneys as well as blood, bone marrow and such. Nonconsensual live donation of ANYTHING seems pretty much unheard of outside of foreskin harvesting. If anyone has other examples, let me know. (I must say that when I was in the hospital a couple of years back, so much blood was taken so frequently that I honestly wondered what was really going on, especially given my knowledge of how relatively little blood is needed for sophisticated veterinary bloodwork. And yes, IF it turns out that hospitals are building blood or serum stocks by treating patients as unwitting and therefore nonconsensual live donors, I'd have a problem with that regardless of how laudable the treatments to which the blood or serum might be applied may be.)

      June 10, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
    • BG

      BG Since you've actually managed to raise a couple of real issues for a change,

      , that's where I stopped reading.

      June 10, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • There are better ways

      Keith, I definitely have a right to tell you you cannot se-xually molest your children or whip them or tie them up or kill them. You are a parent, not a tyrrant. They are humans, not slaves. You do not and should not have absolute control over them to that extent. There are lines that you should not cross, and those parent who do suffer legally for their actions, including prison and having their chldren taken away.

      Yes, I know that the Old Testament lists law after law that lets you do whatever you want to your wife and children, including stoning them to death, but maybe, just maybe, there are a whole lot of religious traditions that would be better honored in the breach, like permanently mutilating your son's pe-nis. And maybe you should view your role as a father to be something other than absolute autocrat. Though I imagine you in real life are probably more decent and humane than your post implies.

      June 10, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • Keith

      This covenant between God and Abraham has been in practice for thousands of years. Now, all of a sudden, you profess yourselves to be moral supermen and obviously more highly educated(obviously because your brains evolved) and take it upon yourselves to put a stop to this! You somehow know better than God? You are certainly an arrogant bunch, aren't you? The more I read these posts, the more I realize this nation is in deep $h1t. You people are morally bankrupt and totally anti-God. You know God really exists, yet you shake your fist at him on your death-bed, much like Joseph Stalin did. Simply amazing and truly sad. You truly have been given over to a reprobate mind.

      June 11, 2011 at 7:31 am |
    • DoTell

      Lycidas / Keith, I bet you don't even know what reprobate really means. You just heard Glenn Beck or Rush say it once, rite?
      .
      So sad to see anyone as verifiably insane as you out in public doing your best to harm everyone you meet.
      Pathetic, too.
      Rabid liars like you should be shot. You are no better than a mad dog.

      June 11, 2011 at 7:52 am |
    • Keith

      Do Tell, reprobate mind=one incapable of making decisions their own best interest. I don't listen to drug addicts, by the way.(Let's see the first 3 letters of as-sume are?) As far as me being shot? Are you the one who is going to have the guts to do it personally? Or will you send someone else? You'll have to take the gun out of my hand first to do so-but you might want to wear gloves because the barrel's going to be hot. Eliteist pig.

      June 11, 2011 at 9:51 am |
    • JohnR

      @DoTell Do shut up! We don't want any threats of violence in these parts!

      June 11, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • Keith

      John R, Thanks.

      June 11, 2011 at 10:58 am |
    • Sean

      @Keith
      "You truly have been given over to a reprobate mind." It's amusing to see a dimwit like you use this term, considering you have no morals of your own (you need to steal them from a book). I mean "amusing" in a nauseating, considering-a-child-to-be-property sort of way.

      June 11, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • Keith

      Sean, I damn sure don't need someone of your superior intellect educating or raising my children. I love my kids. If I hated them, then I would let them listen to the likes of you. Go away.

      June 11, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • For Keith who is too stupid to look up a word he heard someone else use just as cluelessly

      World English Dictionary
      reprobate (ˈrɛprəʊˌbeɪt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

      — adj
      1. morally unprincipled; depraved
      2. Christianity destined or condemned to eternal punishment in hell

      — n
      3. an unprincipled, depraved, or damned person
      4. a disreputable or roguish person: the old reprobate

      — vb
      5. to disapprove of; condemn
      6. (of God) to destine, consign, or condemn to eternal punishment in hell

      [C16: from Late Latin reprobātus held in disfavour, from Latin re- + probāre to approve 1 ]

      June 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Keith

      I thought reprobate meant bopping my baloney, as in "I haven't had a girlfriend in 12 years, so I reprobate 7 times daily."

      June 11, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Sean

      Sean
      @Keith
      I'll "go away" when you stop spouting inanity inspired by superst-ition. So I'll still be around for a while.

      June 12, 2011 at 2:21 am |
    • Lycidas

      @John Richardson- With that I agree, most of the important issues are never solved easily.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @DoTell- I know it's a few days past but what the heck are you talking about?

      June 13, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  3. Colin

    Islam and Judaism are the beliefs that an infinitely-old, all knowing being, powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies and then live for another 13,700,000,000 years, has a personal interest in how much skin I have on my p.enis.

    Atheism is the belief that the above beliefs are silly.

    June 10, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • David

      Atheism is a belief for spineless losers

      June 11, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • Godlite

      "Atheism is a belief for spineless losers"

      You have that backwards. Atheism is difficult because it means accepting that you have no magical sky daddy watching out for you, nobody to help you when you're in need, and no eternal slavery to the magic sky daddy.

      The religious are the weak among us.

      June 11, 2011 at 2:25 am |
    • Sean

      @David
      "Atheism is a belief for spineless losers"
      I'd rather be a spineless loser than a superst-itious doofus. I'm not really sure why, but I would.

      June 12, 2011 at 2:29 am |
  4. frank

    The screams of the little ones are pleasing to The Baby Jesus/The Almighty Fearsome Locust Master/The Holy Raping Poltergeist. Cut the skin from the little one's penis and burn it with fire or locusts will attack the fields again and there will be no grain for pita!!!

    June 10, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • Mr. Fluffy Bunny Buys Some Spiffy New Shoes

      I thought it was because if we didn't cut off the foreskins, God would be angry and punish us by making the pizza delivery guy really late again.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
  5. On Behalf of all the Unborn Boys . . .

    DON'T TOUCH THEIR JUNK ! ! ! ! !

    It's THEIR foreskin, NOT YOURS ! ! ! ! Leave them alone!

    June 10, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • Electric Larry

      What side is religion on? The mutilate the genitals for no good reason side?

      Creepy, but not at all surprising.

      June 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • Mr. Fluffy Bunny Conquers Delaware

      What is the matter with religious people? A bunch of freakish bronze age bearded Middle Eastern guys got their knickers in a twist about foreskins many centuries ago, and that makes cutting them off right forever? Does this not set off anyones' bullsh!t detectors? Does this not sound like a whole lot of other things in the Old Testament that we fortunately don't do anymore?

      How can anyone think this is a good idea? Do note that the operative word in that question was "think," which does NOT mean unquestioningly obeying an ancient supersti-tion just because it is a tradition.

      June 10, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "How can anyone think this is a good idea?"

      How is it a bad idea? Beyond your personal feelings that is.

      June 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • Mr. Fluffy Bunny decides Delaware Wasn't Worth Conquering and Goes Out for Pizza Instead

      Medically, it makes as much sense to cut the breasts off of 12-year-old girls to prevent breast cancer. Religiously, it's downright creepy, right down there with selling your daughter into slavery (Biblically sanctioned) and killing ga-ys (Biblical law).

      The removal of perfectly functioning tissue is ethically dubious at best, especially when the subject rarely if ever has a say in the matter. If a parent has the right to circ-umcise, then don't they also have the right to Botox their daughters? You should have the right to mutilate your own Mr. Winkie, and feel free to do so, but you should not be able to medically mutilate anyone else – even if he is your child.

      Here are some results of studies:

      "circ-umcision encodes the perinatal brain with violence and negatively affects infant-maternal bonding and trust"

      "high rates of PTSD among Filipino boys after either ritual or medical circ-umcision."

      "There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circ-umcised without a-nalgesia experience pain and physiologic stress."

      "P-enile sensation and se-xual satisfaction are decreased for circ-umcised males."

      "The foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the p-enis, noting that these parts are lost to circu-mcision."

      The official position of a few national medical agencies:

      Australia: "the level of protection offered by circ-umcision and the complication rates of circ-umcision do not warrant routine infant circ-umcision in Australia and New Zealand"

      Canada: "Circ-umcision is a "non-thera-peutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary"

      Netherlands: "conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity."

      That's how it is a bad idea.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
    • Sean

      @Uncouth Swain
      "How is it a bad idea? Beyond your personal feelings that is."
      The 100-plus parents in this country who lost their sons last year to the procedure can answer that question.

      June 12, 2011 at 2:32 am |
  6. Keith

    This is an anti-semitic issue, plain and simple. Hopefully, the church isn't doing this with universalism in mind.

    June 10, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • EagleClaw Kung fu

      This is an anti-child-mutilation issue. Any religious aspects are brought into it by those who are doing it for religious reasons.
      Child abuse is illegal. Using your religious beliefs to justify child abuse is disgusting and still illegal.
      The First Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to abuse children.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • Dan

      Your claim that this is driven by anti-Semitism is just the perfect proof of what I've been saying for some time now: religious belief is a trump card, called upon when no legitimate basis can be found to engage in immoral behavior.

      June 10, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Keith

      Dan & EagleClaw, Have you looked at the comic "Foreskin Man"? It was created by the same guy who is pushing this peti-tion. Read the comic-it's anti-semitic plain and simple. There's no trump card being played-unlike someone who criticizes the president is automatically dubbed a racist-now that's a trump card(no pun intended).

      June 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
    • Eagle Claw Kung fu

      I read both comics. They aren't anti-semitic at all. The guys an "intactivist" not a Jew-hater. There's nothing anti-semitic about the comic books at all, but they are definitely anti-circ-umcision-ist regardless of religion or other reason for child mutilation.
      Sorry, Keith. You are just getting worked up over nothing. The guy is against child mutilation. If your religion or culture requires child mutilation, it's likely the guy will feature it in his comics someday.
      That's not anti-semitism, that's anti-circu-mcision and nothing more.
      Why don't you get a clue? Clues give you internet kung-fu. Your rant is bullsh-it.

      June 11, 2011 at 1:48 am |
    • Keith

      Eagle, spoken like a true reprobate.

      June 11, 2011 at 7:09 am |
    • DoTell

      What's wrong, Keith the Stupid? Nothing happening over at Fox News?
      Why don't you look up the word reprobate instead of repeating a word you don't know?
      p.s. When you die, I'm sure your family will be very relieved. That's the way it is for people like you.
      Go on, little fellow! Take that last trip to the bathroom and go to see your fake god in person.
      Afraid? Just another coward who cannot face death. Go on, I dare you. Face it and tell me you really believe all that crap.

      June 11, 2011 at 7:58 am |
    • Keith

      Do tell, ????? You are one bizzare individual. I'm good with meeting my Maker anytime. Are you prepared to meet Him? I have total confidence in my eternal destiny. Do you?

      June 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
    • Educate yourself if you aren't going to let anyone else do it

      Here someone is inviting you onward and you decline? How rude.

      June 11, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  7. JohnQuest

    I think they are both mutilations (male and female). If you God requires you to have a needless medical procedure done on your child I think I would question it. What is the point, it does not benefit the child, it is very painful, and in the end it is something that can wait until the child is old enough to decide. The only way this makes any sense is if it were only done for the benefit of the parents, and that is a very selfish reason to mutilate a child.

    June 10, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  8. Marie Kidman

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGSvqMBj-ig&w=640&h=360]

    June 10, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  9. Reality

    From the topic write-up:

    "Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circu-mcision begins with Abraham,” said National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. “No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake.”

    Hmmm, according to 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis including Rabbi Wolpe, Abraham (and Moses) probably did not exist.

    To wit:

    origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

    "New Torah For Modern Minds

    Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

    Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now.

    The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument. "

    "The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel – not one shard of pottery."

    So apparently circu-mcision is not an Abrahamic (god influenced) procedure so where did it start?

    We have this short summary from Wikipedia:

    "The oldest docu-mentary evidence for circ-umcision comes from ancient Egypt.[6] Circ-umcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples.[7] In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circu-mcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.[8]

    Circu-mcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.[9]"

    And maybe just maybe evolutionary forces will eliminate said foreskin? Do chimps/ apes et al have foreskins?

    June 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Thank you for all your usual copy/paste crap.

      June 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Reality

      Reiteration is a fundamental learning tool. For those who are "reading challenged":

      From the topic write-up:

      "Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circu-mcision begins with Abraham,” said National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. “No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake.”

      Hmmm, according to 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis including Rabbi Wolpe, Abraham (and Moses) probably never existed.

      June 10, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
    • David

      you my friend are gay

      June 11, 2011 at 12:20 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @David

      And *if* he is, there's something wrong with that?

      June 11, 2011 at 1:05 am |
  10. walter

    okay male C* is mutilation to a point. being that they teach doctors to do it with out any local or putting the baby under. this is tramatic to the infant. there are reasons to remove it other than religious. if left on and not taken care of it can get infected and all sorts of things can happen. and to every one who says let them chose then okay let me tell you that when done to a grown man they use nothing for pain either. and if you want to know what it is like to have the choice to keep it and then decide you dont want it when your old enough to decide then go get a piercing down there right through the head so you can see what the pain is like. i had my son C. but he was put under b/c he had to have surgery on his hands. i am thankful we got a doc who doesnt believe in doing it while they are awake. and his pain was managed if he had any after. i think some people are taking it to far. i chose to do it for my son so he wouldnt have to watch it so much and worrie. not b/c i am religious.

    June 10, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  11. Fight for the children not against them.

    What about the religious beliefs of the infant?
    That's right, infants don't have any religious beliefs. They are born atheist.
    So where is their protection? Nowhere.
    Helpless babies forced to undergo mutilation because the adults in these situations think it's okay to force their religious mutilations upon the helpless infants under their control.
    .
    “The proposed ban violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to exercise one’s religious beliefs,” Anderson said in a statement.
    -No, the proposed ban PROTECTS the First Amendment rights of the infants themselves, which everyone seems so willing to violate in the name of religious tradition.
    And there are cases of children remembering quite clearly the pain, so anyone who says different are just trying to discredit the honest testimony of those who were actually able to remember in an underhanded bid to justify mutilation of the infants who have no one else to speak for them.
    .
    How ironic that many of these people who want to mutilate children are against other forms of child abuse and illegal abortion. They are willing to protect the infants in some circu.mstances and not in others because their religious views do not match up with reality and are not rational to begin with.
    The issue is clear enough if you are on the side of the infants. No mutilation, no to abuse in any form, and no illegal abortions.
    But if you are religious, there seems to be little ability to think straight about any of it.
    The rights of the child come first.
    All you cross-eyed religious people should not be allowed to have children if you are going to violate the rights of your children so easily. Religion gives people an excuse to harm others in the name of their religion. And that is not a protected right, but a violation and abuse of the First Amendment.

    June 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • BG

      @ Fight for the children not against them.

      Radical adolescent atheist pablum. Your 'gruel' here is why no reasonable person takes people like yourself seriously.

      Now, if you had said something reasonable, someone might actually finish reading your little teenage diatribe. it's not all about religion, Timmy.

      June 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • EagleClaw Kung fu

      I think it is clear that BG is one of those people who should never be allowed to have children.
      Too bad he already mutilated his babies. What a jerk.
      Really, BG, if you can't act like an adult, why are you sounding like a child and making childish remarks about the poster?
      Could it be you really aren't all that mature? I see nothing in the original post that suggests the poster to be young.
      All you are doing is looking like a petulant child who cannot handle sincere criticism of your failure to think things through.
      I feel sorry for your kids. Having a parent like you is going to be a real crappy experience for them.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Keith

      Oh yes, Eagleclaw, let's at least sterilize those who you disagree with. At least until they can be rounded up and re-educated or eliminated. Sieg Heil Der Moron!

      June 10, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Keith

      Let me guess...the same people here who are suddenly concerned with the "rights" of the infant are the very same people who would slaughter them in the womb. Hypocrites.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @Keith

      Believers are responsible for 70% of in-the-womb slaughter in the USA. Coupled with male mutilation, one might argue that believers are responsible for a huge percentage of violence against babies, born or unborn.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • BG

      @ HAA

      "Believers are responsible for 70% of in-the-womb slaughter in the USA."

      What's your source on this statistic?

      June 10, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @BG

      An often cited source of abortion statistics on the web. Now go do your own homework.

      June 10, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
    • BG

      @ HAA

      You cited it – you source it.

      June 10, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      I'll play half way. Google "abortion statistics religion guttmacher"

      June 10, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
    • Keith

      HAA, Believers or professing believers? I could profess to be a Chinese Jewish blind midget, doesn't make me one though, does it?

      June 10, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Who am I, or is anyone else, to question anyone's stated beliefs?

      If you don't believe the report, please provide reasons why, with support, or take it up with the author. Until then, they stand. As I said before, if believers really want to significantly reduce abortion in the USA, all they have to do is follow their own cult's rules. No changes in laws or imposition of beliefs required. But no, hypocrisy runs rampant in that crowd...

      June 10, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
    • LinCA

      @BG. Here you go:
      http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

      June 11, 2011 at 12:25 am |
    • Eagle Claw Kung fu

      There are no mental or moral requirements to having children. The logical corollary of this is that there will be people who should not be allowed to have children or even to be around children. I am taking the moral stance here that protects the rights and interests of children over that of adults who would abuse them horribly.
      Child abuse is not a right.

      June 11, 2011 at 2:25 am |
    • Keith

      Eagle Claw, I'm sure the same kind of mentality was prevalent in 1930's Germany-now I think you're late for your "goose-stepping" class. Run along now you Hitler Youth...

      June 11, 2011 at 7:14 am |
    • DoTell

      Poor Keith.
      Wants desperately to discredit the truth but can't quite think of anything better than to call people names.
      What a clever little fellow!
      Why don't you make some more snide remarks, Keith / Lycidas? What? You have poor self-esteem? Gosh, I wonder why.
      Maybe it's because you suck so bad. Yeah, maybe that's it.
      Now go ahead and rant some more you little rabid sleazeball. Show us more proof that you are stupid. Go on.

      June 11, 2011 at 8:07 am |
    • Keith

      Do Tell, I KNOW I'm doing something right when people like you criticize me. There will NEVER be agreement between the two of us, unless...

      June 11, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • my milkshake brings all the tards to the blog

      Keith said:
      Do Tell, I KNOW I'm doing something right when people like you criticize me. There will NEVER be agreement between the two of us, unless...
      ....................
      You keep proving him right. Amazing.
      I guess that "I KNOW" of yours is really just "faith" as you believe something without proof.
      Since when does being criticized automatically mean you are doing something right?
      I mean really. You are amazingly stupid. You hate wisdom if it comes from people you don't like, you hate criticism for the same reason, you refuse to use English in the proper manner or even look up words as long as you heard someone else say it that way, and you refuse to think for yourself.
      Wow, you must be a right-wing Christian. What a surprise.
      Way to "testify", there, Keith.

      June 11, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • Keith

      Look moron, it's in Romans chapter 1. I don't need to look it up on wikipedia. You ASSume an awful lot.

      June 11, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • Browning You

      @Keith – So you think child abusers should be allowed and encouraged to have children of their own without any restraint whatsoever?
      And you use a "letter" written to someone else as a personal guide to your own actions because you are ASSuming that the letter was meant for YOU to read as "holy writ"?
      You are no better than a legalistic Catholic lawyer seeking to prove yourself right without proof, but only using the made-up lies within the Bible.
      So you like the idea of child abuse. No surprise there. You probably enjoy the suffering of others, especially when you get to use your sadistic fantasies to create suffering.
      Oh, yeah, "suffering refines the soul", so you'd be more than willing to visit every abuse, mutilation, and molestation upon every child as this would "refine their souls".
      Yeah, you're a real catch. Your psychotic and sadistic "god" sure picked you out with no problem, didn't he?
      It's people like you who deserve nothing in this world but a quick execution for being just another criminal psychopath who is beyond help. Seek death. It is what you need even if it isn't what you want. Your choices don't matter as you have no need of them, having given them up to a pile of lies written by con-artists in the first place.
      You have no need of choice or freedom. You are a mental slave to a sick and evil creed. The only thing you need is death.
      Of course your god won't give it to you, as he listens to no one and does no thing no where.
      By denying the rights of children, I find you to be more of a reprobate than Hitler, for he had popular support from the Catholics and Lutherans of Germany for his crimes. You don't have any of that. Sadists should be executed.
      That's not "Hitler-like", that's just good judgment. And I can judge you all I want. You've given up all your critical thinking skills to a giant mass of fakery and fraud. But you're a sadist anyway, so you've just found your "spiritual home" in a pile of shlt.

      June 11, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
    • Keith

      How'd you know I own a Browning? Seriously though, are you happy you published you manifesto now? You sound like a Ted Kazinski. Don't forget to take your meds.

      June 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
  12. JimboGee

    It's bad enough the government invading our homes and bedrooms....now it's trying to get into our pants:o))

    June 10, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      JimboGee, No, It's trying to stop parents from having a NEEDLESS medical procedure preformed on an infant.

      June 10, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  13. Nonimus

    Personally, I don't really care, as I don't think it's really harmful or beneficial to the child.

    The real question, I think, is what the heck are Californians thinking of, by proposing this law now? Trying to take their mind off the fact that their state is going bankrupt?

    June 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Gotta love the picture's caption though, "...circu.mcision, a procedure that removes the foreskins of infant boys," as opposed to the foreskin of infant girls, I guess.

      June 10, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • BG

      @ Nominus

      "... I guess."

      Well, at least you got that part right. I bet that you're a really good 'guesser' about a lot of things.

      June 10, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  14. Doc Vestibule

    If they ban circ.umcision because it is a form of mutilation, shouldn't they also ban infant ear piercings?

    June 10, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Good point, perhaps they should. Although, don't ear piercings grow back eventually?

      June 10, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Ron

      I agree with you and have no issue either way.
      I will say that I find it amusing because some Christian sects are always trying to tell others how to live but now that the shoe is on the other foot...yell and scream! Too much.

      June 10, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  15. BG

    In the first CNN story on this circu mcision legislation, Hot Air Ace and I had a discussion during which I asked him this basic question... all religious considerations aside. If I want to have my son circu mcised, what business is this of yours? The decisions made between a parent and physician are, by law, confidential and privileged, of which this proposed 'law' would be in violation.

    So tell me, all you militant, sanctimonious 'liberal' extremists, guardians of everything correct and proper in your little realities... what's it to you? My guess is that none of you have the courage to answer the question. At least not honestly.
    Hot Air Ace suggested that 'standards' be set... I asked him who in this case should set the 'standard,' which has already been established. No answer came. The rest of you are free to try. (Unless of course you're gay, then we already know -your- argument, that a tickly, sensitive foreskin is a better foreskin, and everyone should have one...so says you.)

    What horse shít this proposed 'legislation' is.

    June 10, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Not sure what your agenda is, but if there is no medical reason it and/or medical reasons against it, then it would akin to mutilation for cosmetic reasons. Children under a certain age aren't really able to make that decision for themselves and parents really shouldn't force it on children. For example, would it be ethically okay for a parent to have an infant tattooed, or branded, or sell it's organs, or unnecessary amputations?

      June 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • BG

      @ Nominus

      My agenda? Nice attempt at deflection. There was no problem until the San Francisco gay community started the subterfuge. Now the more asinine among the atheists clamped on to it in an effort to denigrate religion, which I find pathetic, if not laughable. Circu mcision is a parental choice, a custom honored by both the medical community and legal doctrine. The gays in San Francisco have likely started this as a joke, and the atheists, not realizing it, are riding it's coattails. You're being made fools of, and don't even realize it. Further, you're looking... bad, at least to anyone that cherishes free choice.

      You don't like circu mcision? Fine. Don't do it to your son. My original question remains... what gives you the right to inject your opinion upon my family choices? By accusing circu mcision of being 'mutilation' you're simply indicating your personal perspective. Now prove that the city of San Francisco, or the state, has any substantial interest in circu mcision or it's outcome one way or another.

      You are nothing more than fools supporting a foolish proposition. The rest of your 'examples' indicate your immaturity. Selling organs and tattoos? Stop it. Just stop being an ass.

      June 10, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @BG

      You asked: "all religious considerations aside. If I want to have my son circu mcised, what business is this of yours?"

      If you are choosing to circu_mcise your boy, because you and your pediatrician believe the health benefits outweigh the health risks, then it is like removing tonsils. Always, whatever the best interest of the child is determined to be, should be done.

      I also believe, that if the decision can wait, without ill effects to the child, then you should wait and get the kid's opinion. We are talking about the child's body. And as I said in another post: Child's body. Child's choice.

      Almighty God gives males a foreskin. Does He make a mistake? Would you whack off an arm, because you determined it to be unsightly? I think not.

      Consider: If god doesn't want males to have a foreskin, then He wouldn't have created them with one.

      Do you think god has a penis? A spiritual one? Is He circ_umcised? Who do you think god uses His spiritual penis on?

      Just curious

      June 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • BG

      @ David Johnson

      "I also believe, that if the decision can wait, without ill effects to the child, then you should wait and get the kid's opinion. We are talking about the child's body."
      Good, Dave. That's what -you- believe. That's not the issue. The issue is imposing -your- belief on everyone.

      "And as I said in another post: Child's body. Child's choice."
      Read my responses to both Free and Hot Air Ace in the first circu mcision thread.

      "Almighty God .., Consider: If god..., Do you think god has a penis?"
      Why do you bother me with this drivel?

      "Who do you think god uses His spiritual penis on?"
      You, if you don't stop trying to entice me with the wrong bait.

      "Just curious..."
      Killed the cat, you know...

      June 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      BG, is it okay for parents to have the daughters circu-mcised, why or why not?

      June 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • BG

      @ JohnQuest

      I talked about this at length during my responses to Free and Hot Air Ace in the first circu mcision article.

      June 10, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @BG

      Still foaming at the mouth and hurling insults with reckless abandon I see – yes, such a fine debater you are...

      You wrote this in a previous post:

      "FGM is absolutely heinous. Is it 'surgery?' No; cutting the labia, hood and cli toris is simply mutilation, and if you happened to want to do it to -your- daughter, I'd be the first one to call the cops, just as I would if you wanted to cut your son's glans. But cut your son's foreskin? You son, your choice. Congratulations. Just stay the hell away from my family."

      So, *you* have decided that unnecessary cutting of males is acceptable and that unnecessary cutting of females is not. *You* have decided that one is nobody's business but the parents, but that the other is *your* business. Go ahead, blather on about how the two acts are not similar, and demonstrate to all that you are incapable of seeing that while the degree of mutilation is different, in fact they are in principle the same act – the unnecessary cutting of innocent and probably helpless children, largely driven by religious beliefs, but in your case by what your parents and your wife think a male s3x organ should like. Which brings up another question: Why are you and your wife so concerned about what your child's p-enis looks like? Do you regularly fixate upon it? Do you allow others to? Seems like most people would be thinking/worrying about a zillion other things than "Man, I'm bummed 'cause god (pick any one of the thousands) did a bad job on my son's dick."

      When you are done blathering, please explain why *you* get to decide what the limits of unnecessary cutting are.

      And another Duh! moment – you seem to be all worked up because, according to *you*, the evil gay community is behind this. I don't know if they are or are not, but let's assume for a minute they are. What is wrong with that segment of society expressing their view and advocating legal changes? Isn't that their right? Do *you* have a not so hidden agenda concerning gays?

      Which brings me to my interest, which I think anyone with Grade 5+ reading skills would have comprehended before, but here it is again...

      I have clearly expressed my extreme dislike (yes, I would use the word "hate", as in "hate the sin, love the sinner...") of religion and that I get a chuckle out of anything that ruffles believers. This debate is a great way to point out a barbaric practice in the name of an imaginary being. That being said, I really don't care what others do *within the law*! This discussion is about what the law should be and I have a perfectly valid right, as you do, to be interested in the formation of laws. I'm interested in what people think the law should be, and what limits, if any, there should be, and why. I should note that other than "circ for boys, is good, mutilation for girls is bad" you have not been very definitive when asked what limits there should be. Surely you can see that there is a range of cutting and mutilation between the two/three points you will mention and that somewhere within that range, consensus will shift from "acceptable" to "not acceptable." But you would rather ask inane questions like "who gets to choose – liberals, atheists..." when the answer is obvious to a fifth grader – society through recognized democratic processes, perhaps corrected and/or modified by established legal processes, get to choose. Which brings me to my final question: Why are you so angry about this subject being discussed openly in a mature manner?

      June 10, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • EagleClaw Kung fu

      I think BG is secretly feeling guilty over mutilating his children and this makes it difficult for him to discuss the issue in an intelligent and mature manner.

      HotAirAce – Your post is very good and points out BG's obvious hypocrisy. Kudos to you.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • BG

      @ Hot Air Ace

      "..that being said, I really don't care what others do *within the law*!"
      Not true, or you wouldn't be advocating for a change in the law.

      "This discussion is about what the law should be...."
      This discussion is what -you- think the law should be, i.e., you're being critical of the existing law and you want it changed. Unfortunately, you have yet to provide an answer to my repeated question... what interest is it of yours? What substantial interest do you or anyone else have in restricting a lawful and confidential family choice between parents and physician?

      "... other than "circ for boys, is good, mutilation for girls is bad" you have not been very definitive when asked what limits there should be."
      The status quo is fine. You're the one that finds it objectionably and wants it changed. It's up to you, therefore, to justify it.

      "Surely you can see that there is a range of cutting and mutilation between the two/three points you will mention and that somewhere within that range, consensus will shift from "acceptable" to "not acceptable." But you would rather ask inane questions like "who gets to choose – liberals, atheists..." when the answer is obvious to a fifth grader – society through recognized democratic processes, perhaps corrected and/or modified by established legal processes, get to choose."
      And what if I were to say that our society has already established that "range of acceptability" and that any proposed modifications represent a minority view that is obviously marginal and, in my opinion based on the 'religious' component of the discussion being attacked by yourself and others, grossly insincere. Coat-tailing atheists are using circu mcision as a tool in leverage claims of irresponsibility against of religion. Absent religious issues, circu mcision wouldn't provide near the substance to fuel complaints against it.

      "Which brings me to my final question: Why are you so angry about this subject being discussed openly in a mature manner?"
      You misconstrue anger for indignation. I'm offended at the audacity of anyone seeking to impose their definitions upon the sancti ty of a family decision. Further, I'm astounded at the irrationality of the atheist ploy to undermine religiously-mandated circu mcision as a straw argument against the validity of belief. Finally, we have to consider the hypocrisy of the whole 'personal restrictions' argument.

      So, we're at odds on all counts. Your disagreement with me is based upon judgmental foundations. My disagreement with you is based upon proposed restrictions of freedom and choice as defined by current laws. Since (the collective) -you- want to fault the existing statutory foundations, it's up to -you- to find fault in the laws and to provide justification as to whether the state does or doesn't have "substantial interest" (it's a legal term...) in matters of circu mcision. However, it's simply arrogant to want to effect a change in the existing law based solely upon a personal (let alone a minority) difference of opinion with that law. Needless to say (or maybe I have to?) I find arrogance offensive.

      Lastly, whenever you employ a 'law' to control behavior or outcome, you have to give consideration to exactly -how- you're going to enforce that law. To reiterate, circu mcision is a clinical medical procedure. Accordingly, it is performed confidentially and is privileged from law unless a specific subpoena is issued as a matter of an ongoing investigation. What's the San Francisco D.A. going to do.. subpoena each and every medical record for every birth and pediatric appointment? Inspect every infants' penis? Establish by a review board 'standards for medical necessity' when doctors can't even arrive at a consensus of opinion? What if the attending physician approves/endorses the procedure as being 'medically necessary." Who's to contest it? Politicians? A review board composed of politically-appointed local liberal gays and ancillary 'intactists?' Or will doctors simply perform circu mcisions at alternate locations either by contract or lease arrangements across the city lines? In short, how would or could you enforce the 'restriction?'

      This proposed 'law' is nothing more than a attempt to politicize the peti tioners' opinion. It is not, however, a viable method to modify or change heretofore established and acceptable parental choice or clinically-approved medical practice. It is a fraud; it is a joke, and if it weren't so offensive it'd be laughable.

      June 10, 2011 at 8:08 pm |
    • John Richardson

      EagleClaw writes: "I think BG is secretly feeling guilty over mutilating his children and this makes it difficult for him to discuss the issue in an intelligent and mature manner." He may or may not have some special "issue" with this particular matter, but a cursory look at BG's posts on other threads quickly reveals that he chooses to discuss pretty much nothing in an intelligent or mature manner.

      June 10, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Dan

      The standard is pretty simple, and one would think obvious in an era of individual rights: Don't take someone's body parts from them without their permission. Duh! Any exceptions to this general rule would be along the lines of medical necessity in cases of emergency, but certainly not along the lines of the cloak of religion.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
    • Mary, Provincetown Mass

      i don't know what entries others are reading, but Bgs entries are really the most articulate adult comments in here. I think you just don't like being bested by someone with common sense. The rest of you liberals appear to be fooling yourselves and trust me where i live i know liberal when i see it. it's not hard to spot. Bg, don't change your tack when the timbers crack, in the dark and stormy sea! It's the parents call always has been always will be.

      June 11, 2011 at 1:42 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @Mary

      Have you read what your hero in favor of male infant mutilation wrote in the other article about this subject? Are you aware that he and Keith claim they have an absolute right to do whatever they want to their children, and that no one should attempt to change the current laws? Are you aware that BG had his sons cut upon purely for appearance reasons? Are you aware he admitted that the doctors involved informed him that there was no medical reason for the procedure?

      Where do you draw the line for what medically unnecessary procedures a parent can subject their children to? What would make you intervene in another parent's treatment of their children?

      June 11, 2011 at 2:17 am |
    • Eagle Claw Kung fu

      Mary is probably just BG himself. No intelligent person would write such a post. He probably beats his wife, too.

      June 11, 2011 at 2:21 am |
    • Mahna Mahna

      Removing tonsils or appendix are actually outdated and unnecessary procedures that can lead to heart disease and other lymphoid disorders. Not only will the removal cause problems later in life, but you're removing important body parts that actually have a purpose. I have had tonsillitis as a child and being raised in Europe, a tonsillectomy was the last resort. Not only was this illness a lot milder than the common cold, but it was resolved very quickly and never had tonsillitis again after that. The whole purpose of your immune system is to deal with these infections and unless you have an immune disorder, you will be fine.

      June 11, 2011 at 3:47 am |
  16. Artist

    I don't know anybody that can remember the "experience" . I am thankful my parents had it done. I can't imagine having a smelly skin hanging over it and scaring the ladies.

    June 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • Nonimus

      I can't remember the experience either and also can't imagine having a foreskin...

      ... and, unfortunately, now I will never know.

      June 10, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • BG

      @ Nominus

      I'm sure that you can find a good therapist to wail and blubber to about how your mom and dad cheated you out of your precious foreskin... Why is it always the parents' fault? I bet you're taking it out on them emotionally though by making them pay for that bad decision. You can be rebellious about a lot of different things, but it's too late for that foreskin. They sure got you on that one, didn't they...

      June 10, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • EagleClaw Kung fu

      Yep, I'm definitely seeing some guilt in BG's wild and immature rants. He's a baaaaad panda.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Jesus H. Christ

      @BG
      "Why is it always the parents' fault?" – Yeah, guys! You had your chance to tell them you didn't want to be filleted when you were born! I know you couldn't talk, but you could have used some sort of hand gestures!

      June 10, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
    • Dan

      "I can't imagine having a smelly skin hanging over it and scaring the ladies."

      You also probably can't imagine all the lost sensation that you will never experience because of what was done to you.

      And heaven forbid a man should also be made to take care of his toilet parts, like a woman has to. If your parents had left you intact, it would then be your choice whether to take care of your parts or be uncouth. As for scaring off the ladies...again, it is a question of choice; you can choose women with a broader perspective or limit yourself to the unfortunate options we tend to have in America.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
  17. The Bobinator

    Your belief in God does not ent.itle you to lop off a part of your child's body. Period. End of discussion. You do not have that right.

    June 10, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Hmmmm, so one cannot do a safe medical procedure ,that has been done for thousands of years for religious and cultural reasons, on a 8 day old baby that was a month premature.

      But we can have a baby's brain sucked out, cut up....whatever the method if that baby is still in thw womb and a little bit younger?

      June 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Nonimus

      One could perhaps argue that female circu.mcision, done properly, is also a safe procedure and has a long cultural tradition. Why ban it?

      June 10, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • Lycidas

      I believe there are more to a female C* (that's what I am going to use...I get tired of spelling it out CNN's way) that actually changes the manner in which they experience se_x later in life than a male C*

      June 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • Nonimus

      Perhaps, perhaps not, but it's safe and has a long tradition... isn't that your criteria?

      June 10, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Lycidas

      If by "safe" you mean a life that is not physically hindered by the procedure...then we do not agree.

      June 10, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Laughing

      Although I hate to disagree with you because you generally make very good points on this blog, this one specifcally is wrong. Since religious freedoms are protected by the consti- tution and this is a religious thing they have absolutely every right to perform this procedure. That's why even if this does somehow get onto the ballot and get voted on and for some reason actually pass, the first offender is going to take this to court and win handily. This whole thing is simply put, ridiculous, I support most attacks on religion to try and remove anything having to do with religion dictating how I live, however this specific instance is benign and of all the battles fought between religious and anti-religious, this shouldn't be one of them.

      June 10, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • BG

      @ Nominus

      "Perhaps, perhaps not, but it's safe and has a long tradition... isn't that your criteria?"

      Anyone who attempts to equivocate western circu mcision to eastern FGM is either a. ignorant, or, b. a liar who is attempting to suppress the realities of FGM to contrive a straw man.

      You're either one or the other, Nominus. I'll let you choose from either. No, there's no third choice, it's either a. or b.

      June 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • EagleClaw Kung fu

      Lycidas
      I believe there are more to a female C* (that's what I am going to use...I get tired of spelling it out CNN's way) that actually changes the manner in which they experience se_x later in life than a male C*

      As if you even knew anything about how women experience se-x! What a joke.
      So here you are basing your opinion on your obvious ignorance instead of basing it upon facts.
      How religious of you.

      June 10, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @EagleClaw Kung fu- Wow...your medical information is so precise and accurate...it's....wait, it's nonexistent. Heck, you didn't counter anything I actually said. You just made guesses. How ignorant of you.

      June 10, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • Sean

      @Laughing
      Not even close. If parents wanted to remove their childrens' fingernails (after all, you don't really need them) for religious reasons, do you think they'd be allowed?

      June 10, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • Eagle Claw Kung fu

      So you are saying you are a woman? Well, how about that. Lycidas is secretly a woman. That explains your constant PMS-ing.
      I don't need to "counter" anything you say. I don't have to do anything. I simply point out your retarded errors and leave you to sputter and cough like you are doing now.
      How old are you, really? No, wait, don't bother. You'd just lie about it, and I have no need for more misinformation.

      June 11, 2011 at 2:02 am |
    • Lycidas

      @Eagle Claw Kung fu- Oh the life an times of the thin skinned. How do you cope?

      Again I will suggest you do some research on the subject of female C*. And then plz tell us if you are able just how a woman is suppose to really feel anything.

      And of course you don't have to....chances are you are a nobody anyway. You live a balanced existence of do nothing, learn nothing and become nothing.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      > Hmmmm, so one cannot do a safe medical procedure ,that has been done for thousands of years for religious and cultural reasons, on a 8 day old baby that was a month premature.

      That's correct, you should not be allowed to alter a baby for your own personal beliefs or asthetic reasons. Surgical operations should in fact be medically required instead of "because we want to."

      > But we can have a baby's brain sucked out, cut up....whatever the method if that baby is still in thw womb and a little bit younger?

      Except that it's a fetus. Perhaps you should learn the difference between the two. As for myself personally, I think there needs to be abortion reform. There's no excuse for anyone wanting an abortion at 3 months. None. You damn well know you're preggers at the second month. Do it then, when it's still little more then a large cluster of cells. Abortions should be performed no later (in my opinon), then week 8. The reason being is that the brain has not fully developed and as such, the embryo/fetus is not concious.

      June 14, 2011 at 9:10 am |
  18. Chad

    What a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. People are playing with fire, and someday will be burned.

    June 10, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
  19. jeff

    San Francisco is the least liberal, "liberal", place on earth. They are perfectly happy to let others live in any way they chse....unless, of course, others choose to do something they don't like. Pathetic.

    June 10, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • Greg

      Yes, how unreasonable of them to not like mutilating children.

      June 11, 2011 at 1:51 am |
  20. Smokndatpurpyo

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw7jR5nGpdY&w=640&h=390]

    June 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So Keith, in the extreme, you are free to harm or even murder your children until they reach the age of majority? Clearly this is not the case, and this really is about what are reasonable limits. But many want to duck behide "religious freedom" rather than admit this is a barbaric tribal custom unsupported my medical necessity.

      June 10, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.