Need more proof that parts of the People’s Republic of California are out of their collective, ever loving minds? This should do it for you, “SF May Ban Infant Circumcision.“ Do they ever stop out in LaLa Land?
The part of the story I love most is that when several Jewish organizations objected the intellectually inadequate mindless twit responsible for the proposed initiative countered “that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18.”
A little underlying frivolity to this story is the San Francisco Bay Area website publishing the last sentence above. An 18 year old infant? Really? Isn’t it amazing how liberals get overwrought about circumcision but think the old screwdriver to the base of the skull of a partial birth abortion is just fine?
How does that old “separation of church and state” red herring work in these circumstances? Will San Francisco rewrite 4,000 years of Jewish religious practice so that their collective empathy for infants allegedly in pain will not be offended? So many tantalizing unanswered questions. So many contradictions.
Here is the religious context:
Genesis 17 (King James Version)
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.