Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: terycarl

In those cases, the state must show a “compelling interest” to overturn a religious objection. It’s hard to see what compelling interest an incorporation of the State of California has in this matter.


38 posted on 05/18/2011 9:08:10 PM PDT by FredZarguna (It looks just like a Telefunken U-47. In leather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: FredZarguna

Really? No compelling state interest? People are performing a painful and unnecessary surgical procedure on infants, without their consent, affecting them for the rest of their lives, for superstitious and aesthetic (i.e. self-centered) reasons. The state always has an interest in protecting children from abuse. That will be the argument, and I’m not sure I disagree with it.

That said, I wouldn’t support a ban like this. It should be a family decision. But I really don’t think non-Jewish parents (for instance) should consider it the “default” (the “health reasons” are bullshit in a first world country), or that a father should decide to circumcise just because he was.


42 posted on 05/19/2011 7:11:19 AM PDT by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson