Several months back I wrote a lengthy piece for Nikki Stern's www.doesthismakesense.com on the self-styled Intactivist Movement and its effort to place on the ballots in San Mateo and San Francisco referendae that it hoped would ban circumcision in those jurisdictions.
Here's the End-Game.
This past July a Superior Court Judge, in response to requests from dozens of Muslim, Jewish, and secular medical and constitutional rights organizations, cut down the ballot initiative saying that only the state (and not cities, towns, villages, one-mule farms, or sincere-but-sincerely-lunatic pop-culture movements) could create or slice into medical law.
Now, the California legislature has dealt the death cut to the Intactivists. It has passed (and Governor Jerry Brown has signed) a bill that will prevent any further potential circumcision bans. Muslim and Jewish groups in the state are celebrating their joint victory, as a ban would have struck at the root of their first amendment freedom of religious expression.
With all California foreskins now saved by this joint Muslim and Jewish effort, it cannot be long in coming that we'll see a rise in overall interreligious cooperation toward peaceful resolutions to all of our long, drawn-out, pent-up problems.


Salon.com
Comments
Penis Ennui as the Basis of a Lasting Peace.
Thanks for a good wake-up call.
Rated/Buddy
Thanks...and the serious aspect of this, of course, is that these groups really were intent, and still may be intent, on banning the practice, if not in CA, elewhere.
wouldn't persuasion be the way to resolve thisamong people rather than an outright ban on the practice for any reason?
That's precisely what the San Fran/San Mateo laws were about...forcing everyone to observe a circumcision ban under all circumstances. (Yes; all.)
That, it seems to me, is far more authoritarian than the conditions that exist now.
HUGGGGGGGGGGGG
Imgine voters being allowed to get rid of abortion or any other medical procedure in every other township across the nation...one has to have either stated or the federal government as the backstop of constitutional law or we're no longer a nation...were just pearls on a string.
But none of the above matters. It is about what is just and what isn't. It is unjust to alter a human being's body without his or her consent. Period. Protecting little boys is a good use of law. It is what law is for, for goodness sakes. Religious rights do not extend to the mutilation of a helpless child.
There is precedent for parents being jailed for child abuse for tatooing their infants, which causes absolutely no harm to the infant, and can be undone. Circumcision is irreparable and permanent.
Banning it would be a good use of law because the law would be just.
I do invite you to come here again in future.
1) people voting on what others' Constitutional rights are; it would be like people voting on whether or not blacks and whites could marry or gay people...inalienable rights should never be a matter of voting.
2) small juridictions making what amounts to Constititional law. The result would be lega mayhem. You cannot have township A allowing for abortion and township y, next door, not. It'sbad enough that states feel they can crimp Roe in such idiotic ways.
What's interesting is that the few people who think a man has a right to choose what gets done to his body are called "sincere-but-sincerely-lunatic."
Ha! This is too rich in symbolic meaning not to be further mined by a Mind such as yours.
Well, duh, of course guys’ dicks are a fine cultural bridge, or whatever. Yay. Religion is an important thing to ebb and flow in a fellow’s pants.
I keep forgetting Jerry Brown is the governor now. Jesus, where have I been?
While some in the intactivist movement may be sincere (as the commenter who wrote here, today), the fellow at the core of it in California publishes, among other thngs, a comic book reminiscent of the worst Amaerican Nazi Party fare.
His name is Matthew Hess of San Diego. His comic book is called "Foreskin Man" and his graphics are virtually indistinguishable from the old Am. Nazi Party 'comic books' in their vicious caricatures of Jews (and to a lesser extent, Muslims).
"Lunatic" is, in fact, kind.
The fact that a cause has a loud, offensive lunatic or two (or two hundred) does not invalidate the arguments. By that logic, I'd be pro-life because I've certainly heard the occasional pro-choicer argue that abortion should be available in the third trimester, allowing a woman to abort a fully-formed, near full-term, viable baby a week before her due date. (Of course until I had to deal with the even more looney pro-life arguments, of which there are many).
If anything, the lunatics discourage the normal from supporting a cause they might otherwise support.