Posted on 06/19/2011 8:04:47 AM PDT by SmithL
Amid an intensifying debate over a ballot measure to ban the circumcision of boys in San Francisco, state and federal laws are being proposed to ban such bans.
Opponents of the measure have accused the effort of being anti-Semitic. A group of religious leaders and politicians are denouncing the effort as an infringement on religious freedoms.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, said recently he would introduce the so-called Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011 to prevent San Francisco and other places to enact such circumcision bans. Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Los Angeles, reportedly is planning to introduce a similar law in the Legislature.
“Male circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years and is a deeply important ceremony for two major religions,” Sherman said in a statement. “[The act] ensures that Jewish and Muslim families will continue to be able to enjoy the free exercise of their religious beliefs.”
The mounting opposition is not convincing Lloyd Schofield, who is spearheading the local ballot measure, to back down. He said if his measure is passed along with the state or federal laws meant to prohibit it, it would be up to the courts to decide.
“What I see for certain, when it gets to the judicial level, personal testimony of harm is paramount to any legal proceeding,” Schofield said when asked if he felt he would prevail in a lawsuit.
Schofield became a proponent of the local ballot measure after being asked to champion a bill during a July symposium on circumcision at UC Berkeley. Schofield said he was approached by people affiliated with the San Diego-based group MGM Bill (MGM stands for “male genital mutilation”), which is pushing to “end male genital mutilation in the U.S.” The group’s president, Matt Hess, has recently come under criticism for anti-circumcision comics that some have said are overtly anti-Semitic.
Schofield said the effort does not “target any person, group or religion,” and instead sees it as a human-rights issue.
The measure was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign, requiring at least 7,168 signatures. The measure would amend The City’s police code “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicles or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.” Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.
hm.. I am torn... If you support state rights, and want to empower localities, then you have to accept some looney stuff like this sometimes.
How about a law to arrest and prosecute SF councilmen and related liberals that propose crap like this? There was a time that we told people “no” “Shut the hell up” and “go back under your rock”. We should do it more.
But it’s... “NO”
We demand...”Shut the hell up”
That’s a violation of...”Go back under your rock”
Then arrest them for aggravated harassment if they keep doing it. Simple really. Lather, rinse, repeat as needed,
The new blood libel.
Next step is the discovery of back alley circumcisions by evil moyhels (sp?) wielding rusty box cutters.
And don’t forget cooking with the blood of the children!
When the backlash eventually comes, I hope the libs enjoy what their insanity brings down on their own heads. I will.
Mohels (for future reference)
This really isn’t states rights issues since it may be a violation of the 1st Amendment’s clause against the free exercising of religion. Since circumcision is part of the Jewish religion, laws against it would be a violation of the constitution.
I have a feeling that somewhere in the minds of the people coming up with this law may be also attempting to break the covenant between God and the Jews.
Well, according to the way the Founding Father's meant things, the ammendments actually only apply to the federal government, not the states. The 1st Ammendment starts thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
However, in 1925 Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government. This, however, is clearly a violation of the original intent of the bill of rights, but it is the ruling we are stuck with today.
However, I do think this proposed circumcision ban stinks.
A city should not be able to outlaw normal medical proceedures. A city should not have jurisdiction over everything they dream up. What if another city decides no airliner can cross it’s 2 miles of stratosphere without contacting the local police first?
I can see a state having control over some aspects of medicine, but not a city.
A city should not be able to outlaw normal medical proceedures. A city should not have jurisdiction over everything they dream up. What if another city decides no airliner can cross it’s 2 miles of stratosphere without contacting the local police first?
I can see a state having control over some aspects of medicine, but not a city.
Using that logic, does that mean the states can ban firearms that are protected by the 2nd Amendment?
Can’t believe this hasn’t been more widely exposed. That “comic” is 100% nazi propaganda style, complete with the evil hook nosed Jew, soon to be vanquished by a blonde haired superman. Freaking kidding me???
The First Amendment also did not allow federal interference in state questions involving speech and press. The good sense of the people of the states and their right to self-government had to be respected. As Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams in 1804, "While we deny that Congress has a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right to do so."
But in the 1900s there have been several SCOTUS rulings that (unconstitutionally) put the States under the 1st amendment, such as the case in 1925, and the Engel v. Vitale case (1962) which declared that local school boards were prohibited from approving even nonsectarian prayers for use in schools. Americans have been raised to believe such decisions to be expressions of such sublime wisdom that they would be surprised to learn that these SCOTUS decisions run exactly contrary to the Framer’s intent. Not only Jefferson but the entire founding generation as well would have considered such rulings to be an outrageous departure from the traditional American principles and an intolerable encroachment on States’ and communities’ rights to self-government.
Of course the Federal government does so many things nowadays that go against the Framers’ intent, it is just disgusting.
You cannot interpret the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the Bill of Rights, without considering the 14th Amendment. Your notion of States’ Rights has been obsolete since July 9, 1868. The Bill of Rights is not longer just a check on Federal tyranny, but State and local tyranny as well. No state or locality may restrict the religious freedom of the People.
In the early twentieth century, issues of church-state relations arose in the supreme courts of Georgie, Illinois, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and Texas and in each case, when the court mentioned the federal Constitution at all it was to deny that the federal government had any role to play in church-state issues at the state level.
Also, in the late 1870s, Congressman James G. Blaine introduced what became known as the Blaine amendment, by which the First amendment's restrictions on the federal government would be extended to the States. Introduced again and again in subsequent sessions of Congress, it never garnered enough votes. But the very fact that it was introduced tells us something important. If the 14th Amendment had really been intended to apply the First Amendment restrictions to the states, why would the Blaine Amendment, which sought to do the very same thing, have been introduced in the first place?
It was other later decisions by the SCOTUS that declared the states to be under the 1st amendment. Of course these rulings go flat against the Framers' intent. The states created the federal government. The Constitution and the first Amendment was meant to put restrictions on the federal government, not the states. Very few restrictions were put on the States and they all fit in one section. Also, the Tenth amendment made it very clear that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Of course the various branches of the federal government trample on the tenth amendment all the time, and nobody thinks anything of it anymore. We are stuck with a lot of unconstitutional rulings that nobody dares challenge. It's sad, really. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if they could see the government today....
Given that the government makes its money taking a little bit off the top, they don’t see a problem.
Really, is that the best you can do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.