San Francisco wants to chop the, er, chop.

[harrybarracuda]

In the 1960s and '70s, the San Francisco Bay Area was where the counterculture really started — the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, the Summer of Love in Haight-Ashbury, gay rights in the Castro. Today, the Bay Area is challenging the larger culture in a new and controversial way: there will be a referendum on the ballot in November that would make it the first major city in the U.S. to outlaw circumcision.

The San Francisco debate over circumcision initially centered on the value of the procedure itself — opponents call it barbaric, supporters point to its long tradition and say it prevents disease. But increasingly the debate is becoming one about religion, in which critics accuse backers of the referendum of bigotry and insist a ban would violate the First Amendment's religious freedoms. (Read more about the move to ban circumcision in San Francisco.)

There is plenty of reason to oppose the ban on its own merits. There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children. And even if there were to be a circumcision ban, this one is poorly constructed because of the well-founded religious objections that are being raised.

The anticircumcision debate began in April when a group of self-proclaimed "intactivists" — people who believe strongly that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact — submitted enough signatures to put a circumcision ban on the ballot. The intactivists have taken up the language of international human rights: they are fighting, they say, for "genital autonomy" and "male-genital-integrity rights." Framed this way, it seemed like an appropriately earnest next step for a city that last year banned any kind of Happy Meal that paired toy giveaways with fast food.

The intactivists argue that circumcision needlessly inflicts pain on newborns, and they compare it to female genital mutilation — which is, in fact, a far more serious procedure. (Female genital mutilation can produce severe harm, including infertility and an increased risk of newborn deaths.)

Supporters of circumcision argue that there is a long tradition behind it, both religious and nonreligious, and that the pain involved is fleeting. They also say circumcision has proven health benefits. Removal of the foreskin has been found to help prevent the spread of HIV and other infections. In clinical trials in Africa, the incidence of HIV infection was 60% lower in circumcised men. The World Health Organization has said circumcision is an important component in fighting HIV infection.

Still, the drafters of the San Francisco referendum could have avoided the religious issue — and kept the focus on the harms and benefits of circumcision — if they had included an exception for circumcisions done for religious reasons. Jews, whose religious traditions require male children to be circumcised eight days after birth, and Muslims, who also practice circumcision, are a small part of the city's population. (Read about the debate over circumcision.)

Instead, the referendum expressly states that the ban would apply equally to religious circumcisions. If it passes, Jewish parents in San Francisco who hold a traditional bris, or circumcision ritual, could be sentenced to a year in jail.

This strict policy certainly seems insensitive. Jews who circumcise their sons trace the tradition back thousands of years. It is a sign, they believe, of a covenant with God, and an affirmation that the Jewish people will survive. There are accounts of circumcisions performed in the direst of circumstances, including in concentration camps. The intactivists aren't swayed by such arguments and insist it's gone on long enough.

Claims of insensitivity, however, have recently turned into charges of outright anti-Semitism. One of the referendum's key supporters has written a comic book, Foreskin Man, that portrays a blond, Aryan-looking superhero doing battle with "Monster Mohel." (Mohels are people trained to perform ritual Jewish circumcisions.) The bearded, prayer-shawl-wearing mohel leers manically at defenseless infants. As one rabbi blogger put it, "Hey San Francisco, 1930's Germany Called — They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!"

Jews and Muslims are not the only religious groups opposing the ban. The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches, declared last week that while their faith neither requires nor forbids circumcision, "Jews, Muslims and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition."

If the referendum passes, it is unclear whether it would survive a constitutional challenge. The First Amendment protects people against laws that unduly interfere with their religious rituals. The question is, How would the courts see this particular interference? In 1972, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Amish parents to not send their children to school past the eighth grade. Yet more recently, it held that the "free exercise" clause does not protect Native Americans who want to engage in ritual use of peyote, an illegal drug. Under the logic of the peyote case, the ban could well survive. The ban could also be challenged under California's state constitution, which might contain broader religious protections than the U.S. Constitution.

On one level, the stakes in the San Francisco vote are small. If the referendum passes, parents can easily take their children out of the city to be circumcised. The danger, though, is that intactivism could spread — and that more localities, and eventually states, will enact bans.

On the other hand, the intactivist movement could come to a quick end. Last week, an activist who had been collecting signatures to put a similar referendum on the ballot in Santa Monica, Calif., announced that she was halting her effort because, she said, a cause that was not intended to be about religion had become a religious issue.

Read more: San Francisco: Circumcision Ban and Religious Freedom - TIME

[BaitongBoy]

^What's that useless piece of skin at the end of a penis called?

[Notnow]

A woman.

[Neo]

[larvidchr]

Yes lets torture some newborn boys and some little girls and cut perfectly healthy body-parts away before they ever have a chance to protest, all in the name of some or other important witchcraft of-cause.

And if you don't buy that one there is also the hygiene scam to consider, chop the chopper because an important study have shown that circumcised men in Africa have 60% less chance of HIV infection, no need to ask why American men suddenly are measured by that "yardstick"

And certainly no need to mention that despite all the chopped meat the US is percentage-wise 3-4 times higher on the HIV infection list than modern countries without the barbaric religious ritual.

Finally well keep quiet about the fact that it originally was nutty Christian religious puritan zealots that came up with the idea in the US, and it had nothing to do with forgetting water and soap, but was to stop all the little eager American wankers from wanking

That it of-cause should be left to grown up individuals to decide which of their own healthy body-parts should be cut of, and not parents or religious lunacy, is an alien concept in places like backwards Muslim countries and among fanatical Jews.......... oh yes and Americans

[BaitongBoy]

A woman.

Nope. This is San Francisco...

[Neo]

^^ There are medical hygene reasons to have the chop, sometimes the foreskin is too tight and doesn't retract over the head, or maybe the heads too big... I had mine done when I was 8 and F**K ME! the pain!! I wish I'd had it done when I was a baby and not known anything about it.

[Bangyai]

^What's that useless piece of skin at the end of a penis called?

Calamari ?

[BaitongBoy]

^Bingo!

[larvidchr]

^^ There are medical hygene reasons to have the chop, sometimes the foreskin is too tight and doesn't retract over the head, or maybe the heads too big... I had mine done when I was 8 and F**K ME! the pain!! I wish I'd had it done when I was a baby and not known anything about it.

Babys feel pain just like you, only thing you don't remember later in life normally, so it's OK with a bit of unnecessary torture naturally there are medical reasons in rare cases, just like some people need to have an inflamed appendix removed, but from there and to remove it at birth from everyone is a fair jump.

I'd say thank your Gods that the clergy nutters that came up with all this crap was all male or the tradition concerning men might have been much more radical they have not been quite as "gentle" with some of the 2 million women that have to endure this every year.

[Agent_Smith]

Had a Filipino coworker who was forcing his 12 year old son to get circumcised. He told me it was tradition. I said something to the effect that you must not love your son that much if your willing to put him through so much pain for the sake of an irrational tradition. He just said "I had to go through it so he does to!". People are fcuking crazy.

[DroversDog]

^What's that useless piece of skin at the end of a penis called?

Calamari ?

Just hope it is not otherwise known as butterfly!

[BaitongBoy]

^ No metamorphosis yet...

[SEA Traveler]

Yes lets torture some newborn boys and some little girls and cut perfectly healthy body-parts away before they ever have a chance to protest, all in the name of some or other important witchcraft of-cause.

And if you don't buy that one there is also the hygiene scam to consider, chop the chopper because an important study have shown that circumcised men in Africa have 60% less chance of HIV infection, no need to ask why American men suddenly are measured by that "yardstick"

And certainly no need to mention that despite all the chopped meat the US is percentage-wise 3-4 times higher on the HIV infection list than modern countries without the barbaric religious ritual.

Finally well keep quiet about the fact that it originally was nutty Christian religious puritan zealots that came up with the idea in the US, and it had nothing to do with forgetting water and soap, but was to stop all the little eager American wankers from wanking

That it of-cause should be left to grown up individuals to decide which of their own healthy body-parts should be cut of, and not parents or religious lunacy, is an alien concept in places like backwards Muslim countries and among fanatical Jews.......... oh yes and Americans

wow, what an outburst...

[sabang]

It we were to chop the testicles off the little wretches instead, it would be a whole lot less painful and traumatic than partially flaying their penis and would also make them much more focused and productive members of society.

[Cujo]

It we were to chop the testicles off the little wretches instead, it would be a whole lot less painful and traumatic than partially flaying their penis and would also make them much more focused and productive members of society.

What little wretches?
In fact what the fuck are you talking about?
I thought California was supossed to be a bastion of free thought and freedom, particularly S.F.
This stinks of facism.

[sabang]

What little wretches?

Are you accusing me of discrimination?? All little wretches.

In fact what the fuck are you talking about?

nuffin much.

This stinks of facism.

do you mean faecism?

[bobo746]

Does anyone need a fan belt ?

[larvidchr]

Yes lets torture some newborn boys and some little girls and cut perfectly healthy body-parts away before they ever have a chance to protest, all in the name of some or other important witchcraft of-cause.

And if you don't buy that one there is also the hygiene scam to consider, chop the chopper because an important study have shown that circumcised men in Africa have 60% less chance of HIV infection, no need to ask why American men suddenly are measured by that "yardstick"

And certainly no need to mention that despite all the chopped meat the US is percentage-wise 3-4 times higher on the HIV infection list than modern countries without the barbaric religious ritual.

Finally well keep quiet about the fact that it originally was nutty Christian religious puritan zealots that came up with the idea in the US, and it had nothing to do with forgetting water and soap, but was to stop all the little eager American wankers from wanking

That it of-cause should be left to grown up individuals to decide which of their own healthy body-parts should be cut of, and not parents or religious lunacy, is an alien concept in places like backwards Muslim countries and among fanatical Jews.......... oh yes and Americans

wow, what an outburst...

Pet hate Mate don't like when parents lame superstitions is projected on their children, especially when the result is forced mutilation.

Parents and society spamming kids with religion and it's barbaric rituals and prejudices is a crime against humanity no less, we need the young growing up without having been brainwashed and conditioned with this crap so the world can move on.

If Adults wants to slice and stab in their genitals feel free for all I care, but leave the kids alone.

[Marmite the Dog]

There are medical hygene reasons to have the chop, sometimes the foreskin is too tight and doesn't retract over the head, or maybe the heads too big.

Due to bad parents who don't wash their boys properly. If you pull the skin back and wash in there from birth there is never a problem.

Anyone's parents who got them circumcised are pricks, plain and simple.

[FlyFree]

It we were to chop the testicles off the little wretches instead, it would be a whole lot less painful and traumatic than partially flaying their penis and would also make them much more focused and productive members of society.

What little wretches?
In fact what the fuck are you talking about?
I thought California was supossed to be a bastion of free thought and freedom, particularly S.F.
This stinks of facism.

Mutilating defenseless children physically and mentally in the name of culture or religion smacks more of fascism than allowing them to grow up and then make their own decisions, dontcha think?

Or do the parents own their children. Pretty fascistic concept.

[Cujo]

There are medical hygene reasons to have the chop, sometimes the foreskin is too tight and doesn't retract over the head, or maybe the heads too big.

Due to bad parents who don't wash their boys properly. If you pull the skin back and wash in there from birth there is never a problem.

Anyone's parents who got them circumcised are pricks, plain and simple.

Who are you to judge dickwad?
I'm glad my parents did, and not for any religious reason.
I like that big helmet head on the end of the cucumber, the girls do too.

[FlyFree]

^That makes you one in billions. Do you speak for all of them?

[larvidchr]

^^
Of-cause you do, being disabled from such an early age makes you not know any different, good for you or you would be bitching at your parents every-time someone fondles your toenail.... sorry "helmet"

As for the girls, well they have to it's not like you have a choice to offer now is it.

Why don't you go out and find a nice circumcised girl who has saved her severed clitoris in a matchbox, then you two could compare notes on all the stuff you don't know about your missing body parts.

[Cujo]

^^
Of-cause you do, being disabled from such an early age makes you not know any different, good for you or you would be bitching at your parents every-time someone fondles your toenail.... sorry "helmet"

As for the girls, well they have to it's not like you have a choice to offer now is it.

Why don't you go out and find a nice circumcised girl who has saved her severed clitoris in a matchbox, then you two could compare notes on all the stuff you don't know about your missing body parts.

I'll ask for my apendix back while I'm at it shall I?
Don't be a dickhead Larv.
And you you know you are being one.