Opponents of a measure that would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise male children in San Francisco filed a lawsuit Wednesday to get the initiative stricken from the November ballot.
The plaintiffs called the measure anti-Semitic, a threat to the religious freedom of Jews and Muslims, and an infringement on parental and medical rights. But during a news conference on the steps of City Hall, attorney Michael Jacobs said the group is suing on the grounds that state law prohibits local governments from restricting medical procedures.
That’s the job of the state Legislature, said Jacobs, flanked by two Muslim women in head scarves and a doctor in a white coat….
Isn’t it odd that this article completely omits a Christian perspective? Circumcision isn’t just for Jews and Muslims. While First Council of Jerusalem affirmed that Christianity doesn’t define circumcision as being necessary to salvation, Jesus was circumcised, and Paul circumcised Timothy. The Apostolic Decree made it optional, but didn’t forbid it.
The entire endeavor is phenomenally anti-Jew. As one example, I submit this [link disabled by Elf] absolutely revolting cartoon being circulated by the measure’s supporters. Be sure to scroll far enough down to see the comparison to 1940 German propaganda.
Remember, it was called National Socialism, so we should not be surprised when such things come from the most left-wing city in America.
[Make your point by all means, but please do not link to offensive material – thanks – Elf]
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Do people in San Francisco have real lives?
It seems to me that circumcision is being used as a surrogate for a greater attack on conservative religion. It is conservative religion (Judaism/Islam) that teaches circumcision. Conservative Christianity does not escape because of its connection to historic Judaism. It is also conservative religion that condemns homosexuality. What we have here is an attempt to obtain a legal declaration about the moral nature of a central divinely-commanded ritual of conservative religion. That divine command is the unspoken context of the whole issue. The surrogate message to be considered in this vote is “Circumcision is barbaric and should be rejected.” The actual message is “The conservative god who commanded circumcision is barbaric for commanding it and should be rejected.” The unspoken implication is “The conservative god is barbaric for condemning my homosexual behavior and should be rejected.”
carl
While I’d of course affirm the right of voracious elves to devour comment #3, and nibble away at comment #2, when I read the posting, I did question whether calling the campaign anti-Semitic (i.e., specifically targeted at Jews in an inappropriate way) is accurate. I also wondered whether the statement in #2 (“phenomenally anti-Jew”) might be somewhat exaggerated.
However, following the deleted link, and then going to the source of that unbelievably offensive cartoon material, rapidly convinced me otherwise. At least some supporters of the campaign are anti-Semitic in a way that I find phenomenally and shockingly unimaginable.