“Unconscionable” San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

[Pax_et_Bonum]

“Unconscionable”
San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

A proposed ban on male circumcision in San Francisco has qualified for the November ballot, and Archbishop George Niederauer has weighed in on the matter: he’s against it.

“The proposed ban on circumcision represents an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family by the government of San Francisco,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer in a letter to the editor published May 25 in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco – for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.”

“Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

The archbishop’s letter came in support of an earlier opinion piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds opposing the circumcision measure published by the Chronicle on May 20. “I would like to add my ‘Amen’ to the op-ed piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds, ‘Circumcision ignores our basic religious freedom,’" wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=33652525-d9da-437f-8936-f6f8747ff153

 

[SummitJim]

This is so typical of San Francisco; they can’t help meddling in people’s lives in the name of political correctness. This is the city whose last mayor professed to be a practicing Catholic, yet promoted many social issues on the side that is contrary to Catholic teaching. Though I’m saddened and a bit horrified at this latest news, I’m not that surprised. I hope the city’s voters have more sense than their leaders.

 

[Dale_M]

I hope the city’s voters have more sense than their leaders.

Keep in mind, the city leaders did not propose this referendum. It is a citizen ballot initiative. One voter proposed it and then organized a petition drive to collect the 7,000+ signatures to get it placed on the ballot.

The process is not much different than ballot initiatives at the state level, such as Michigan’s approval of medical marijuana or California’s Proposition 13, which amended the state constitution to place a cap on property taxes.

 

[meltzerboy]

“Unconscionable”
San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

A proposed ban on male circumcision in San Francisco has qualified for the November ballot, and Archbishop George Niederauer has weighed in on the matter: he’s against it.

“The proposed ban on circumcision represents an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family by the government of San Francisco,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer in a letter to the editor published May 25 in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco – for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.”

“Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

The archbishop’s letter came in support of an earlier opinion piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds opposing the circumcision measure published by the Chronicle on May 20. “I would like to add my ‘Amen’ to the op-ed piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds, ‘Circumcision ignores our basic religious freedom,’" wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=33652525-d9da-437f-8936-f6f8747ff153

Banning male infant circumcision would be the equivalent of banning infant baptism. It is most surprising that a liberally-minded city such as San Francisco would even entertain such a proposal, and if it passes that would be a clear violation of religious freedom.

 

[Dale_M]

Banning male infant circumcision would be the equivalent of banning infant baptism. It is most surprising that a liberally-minded city such as San Francisco would even entertain such a proposal, and if it passes that would be a clear violation of religious freedom.

I agree with you on all three points.

I haven’t seen any statistically valid polls to gauge the attitude of SF voters on this subject. However, the petition to put this proposal on the ballot collected 12,265 signatures which is less than 3% of the voters. Just because this ballot initiative appears on the ballot doesn’t mean that it has a good chance of passing.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Dan Bollinger of the anything but Catholics agaist Circuncision is one of the strongest proponents of a ban on circumcision and, like the rest of his clan, will say anything hee thinks he can get away with to support his position. Catholicsagainstcircumcision is another ‘front’ for the anti-circ movement and has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Indeed it is only a ‘shell’ organisation set up deliberately to attempt to fool folk into thinking that there are many Catholics against circumcision. The Catholic Church does not oppose circumcision when performed for medical or social reasons, or by members of other Faiths. The Church only says (as per St Paul in the Bible) that for a Christian, circumcision has no religious significance and must not be relied upon as a route to Heaven. Bollinger et al know this but deliberately repeat their claim that the Church opposes circumcision. This proposal is yet another attempt to outlaw religion and to prevent parents from parenting as they see best for their children.

Here’s another bit of their apologia for you Meltzerboy," This will not have a huge impact on most people."I guess Jews and Muslims are not most people.It would be akin as you say to the forbidding of Baptism.To hell with Caesar.Poor St Francis.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Strange how the PC crowd can be *against *“choice” when it’s a choice they don’t approve of.

 

[Dale_M]

Strange how the PC crowd can be *against *“choice” when it’s a choice they don’t approve of.

I guess I am puzzled that you think this is an issue of political correctness. The proposal seems to be pit the interests of one minority against that of another minority. Since PC minded persons tend to take the side of a minority group, I don’t see how such a person would side.

Would you be willing to explain?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Banning male infant circumcision would be the equivalent of banning infant baptism. It is most surprising that a liberally-minded city such as San Francisco would even entertain such a proposal, and if it passes that would be a clear violation of religious freedom.

I agree also, meltzerboy. But understand from history that the extreme left resembles the extreme right in its propensity to control, to propagandize. (Fascism and Communism are both totalitarian systems, for example.) So “liberal-minded” does not necessarily apply, or equate to what we identify as ‘liberal party politics’ in contemporary context. “Liberal” should connote tolerance and open-mindedness, not a rigid social agenda in opposition to personal freedoms. Yet when you look at the most extreme representatives of what is identified as The Left today, they come dangerously close to Thought Police, Language Police, and Social Police.

Good for the Archbishop, btw.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Dale, it is very PC right now to be anti-circumcision.

 

[Cider]

Banning male infant circumcision would be the equivalent of banning infant baptism.

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

 

[Cider]

Strange how the PC crowd can be *against *“choice” when it’s a choice they don’t approve of.

I get that you guys like to use PC to shut down discussion here, but it is not applicable. This has nothing to do with political correctness.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

“Unconscionable”
San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban

A proposed ban on male circumcision in San Francisco has qualified for the November ballot, and Archbishop George Niederauer has weighed in on the matter: he’s against it.

“The proposed ban on circumcision represents an unconscionable violation of the sanctuaries of faith and family by the government of San Francisco,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer in a letter to the editor published May 25 in the San Francisco Chronicle. “Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco – for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.”

“Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children,” wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

The archbishop’s letter came in support of an earlier opinion piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds opposing the circumcision measure published by the Chronicle on May 20. “I would like to add my ‘Amen’ to the op-ed piece by Rabbi Gil Leeds, ‘Circumcision ignores our basic religious freedom,’" wrote Archbishop Niederauer.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=33652525-d9da-437f-8936-f6f8747ff153

If this is genuine, it’s truly appalling. It’s an overt attack on religious liberty and most likely rooted in anti-Semitism as well.

Seriously, what are the reasons for this initiative? Arguments against male circumcision on a health basis have been disproven time and time again.

Keep in mind, the city leaders did not propose this referendum. It is a citizen ballot initiative. One voter proposed it and then organized a petition drive to collect the 7,000+ signatures to get it placed on the ballot.

These people have spit all over the Constitution. As far as I’m concerned, they don’t deserve to live in the United States of America, and though I may never meet a single one of them, nonetheless in the abstract I no longer consider them my countrymen.

Dan Bollinger of the anything but Catholics agaist Circuncision is one of the strongest proponents of a ban on circumcision and, like the rest of his clan, will say anything hee thinks he can get away with to support his position. Catholicsagainstcircumcision is another ‘front’ for the anti-circ movement and has absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Indeed it is only a ‘shell’ organisation set up deliberately to attempt to fool folk into thinking that there are many Catholics against circumcision. The Catholic Church does not oppose circumcision when performed for medical or social reasons, or by members of other Faiths. The Church only says (as per St Paul in the Bible) that for a Christian, circumcision has no religious significance and must not be relied upon as a route to Heaven. Bollinger et al know this but deliberately repeat their claim that the Church opposes circumcision. This proposal is yet another attempt to outlaw religion and to prevent parents from parenting as they see best for their children.

Here’s another bit of their apologia for you Meltzerboy," This will not have a huge impact on most people."I guess Jews and Muslims are not most people.It would be akin as you say to the forbidding of Baptism.To hell with Caesar.Poor St Francis.

Wow. Catholics Against Circumcision? I’m genuinely speechless.

I guess I am puzzled that you think this is an issue of political correctness. The proposal seems to be pit the interests of one minority against that of another minority. Since PC minded persons tend to take the side of a minority group, I don’t see how such a person would side.

Would you be willing to explain?

Agreed. The “PC crowd” will no doubt be as horrified at this as we are.

I agree also, meltzerboy. But understand from history that the extreme left resembles the extreme right in its propensity to control, to propagandize.

True, but irrelevant, as this terrifying attack on religious liberty doesn’t resemble the extremes of either the far right or the far left.

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

“Functioning”? Just what is the “function” of foreskin, Cider?

Also, are you intending to defend this proposed ban? I’m going to assume otherwise unless you outright say so, as charity obliges me not to assume that you’re an opponent of religious liberty.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

No. But it is a religious requirement for the Jews.

We do have freedom of religion in this country. We cannot legislate a religious requirement for a large group of people.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Wow. Catholics Against Circumcision? I’m genuinely speechless.

The “PC crowd” will no doubt be as horrified at this as we are.

This terrifying attack on religious liberty doesn’t resemble the extremes of either the far right or the far left.

Sorry. Wrong. The extreme left definitely seeks to attack religious liberty. I’ve seen it in often and in many places, as have many others. The PC crowd is not horrified; many of them are supportive of this ballot initiative. And Catholics number among them as well. (The fact that you are surprised and “speechless” shows that you have not been aware that Catholics, especially on the left, number among the PC set as well. Not a criticism of you, just a correction.

 

[laszlo]

The next ballot question will be whether everyone shall have at least one recorded homosexual experience each year, to prove that the person is not homophobic.

The Dignitatis Humanae was right.

 

[JHow]

Clearly, the Bishop did not follow all the circumcision threads here at CAF.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

It IS the JEWISH equivalent of Baptism.One of the Covenants,like ours with God.If you let them ban religious covenants for Jews and Muslims.not only is it wrong but WE ARE NEXT.Salvation comes from the Jews and we MUST defend our older brothers.

 

[meltzerboy]

No it’s not. baptism doesn’t cut off healthy functioning body parts on helpless infants.

I don’t know whether you are a liberal or not. I am, and that is why I am opposed to this proposal: it restricts the religious liberties of both Jews and Muslims, as well as the freedom for others to have the procedure done for health reasons. Separation of Church and State, yes; but infringement on religion by the State, no. That is the true political correctness and meaning of liberalism.

 

[jessicaj]

It IS the JEWISH equivalent of Baptism.One of the Covenants,like ours with God.If you let them ban religious covenants for Jews and Muslims.not only is it wrong but WE ARE NEXT.Salvation comes from the Jews and we MUST defend our older brothers.

Amen! See Colossians 2:11-13. Paul clearly makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. I don’t think they can outlaw baptism because it has nothing to do with body parts, but it is interesting how a proudly “pro-choice” city wants to take away the parents’ right to choose RE circumcision, whether it is for religious or health reasons. I have talked to one of my friends (who is quite liberal) and she agrees with me on this. Parents should have that choice.