Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: To Cut, or Not To Cut.... What Was the Question?

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

A proposal to ban the circumcision of all male children in San Francisco has been cleared to appear on the November 2011 ballot, setting the stage for the nation's first public vote on what has long been considered a very private family matter. In fact, if the measure passes, circumcision would be prohibited among males under the age of 18, and the practice would become a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. And finally, there would be no religious exemptions whatsoever.



Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that is unnecessary, extremely painful and dangerous or even sometimes deadly. They go one step further and say parents should not be able to force the decision on a young child who cannot speak out for themselves what their wishes may or may not be.

But, don't parents do that already with a score of other issues including baptization, the foods they choose to feed their children, the places they allow them to play and with whom, etc.? After all, while I may agree with the assessment of anti-circumcision folks out there who say the practice is outdated and fairly archaic, I also have a personal aversion to banning much of anything at all myself.

Besides, State and Federal governments should not ban something that is supported by one's religion or parent's beliefs, right? Doesn't this border on (if not step right into) a war about the constitutionality of the issue at worst, and an unnecessary if not costly battle for tax payers at best that really only effect a small percentage of people in the long run?

Ironically, circumcision is promoted in only two world wide religions, (Judaism and Islam). Most other churches and religions- like the Catholic church for instance- keep a completely neutral stance on the issue altogether. After all, only about 30% of males over the age of 15 in the world are circumcised. In fact, of that 30%- roughly 68% of these circumcised men are Muslims alone. So, is this a matter of religious discrimination?

It seems to come very close to violating one's individual rights as stated in the 1st amendment of the Constitution to me: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".



Still, the other side says this is a matter of keeping one safe from harm. But if that were true, then what about anti-smoking laws, or the war on drugs? Or the Patriot Act, for that matter? Those hurt (or "protect" as is the case for the Patriot Act), and even kill many more innocents than circumcision ever will.

And what about abortion? Should that be banned too, for similar reasons? What about parents who choose to get little Sally Sue's ears pierced at a young age without her consent? Is that "mutilation", as well? And what about baptization, the unhealthy foods that kids tend to eat, the dangerous places they tend to play in, and the bad influences they choose to play with as I already said above? Where does it all end? And who is to be the final authority as far as mutilation even goes, or the right of the parent to parent as they see fit for that matter?

At the end of the day this seems to me to be nothing shy of retaliation in San Francisco against extreme religious groups because of their aversion to gay marriage. After all, San Francisco is well known as the battle front for gay equality in the United States, and gay marriage is a hot button issue for many people including myself. Is this a "rainbow conspiracy" of sorts that will eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court just like the issue of gay marriage eventually will? Could this be nothing more than a clever attack on religion in the only way they seem to know how- by creating even more laws to ban things that are as close to irrelevant as possible to everyone BUT theists?



Just keep in mind, while I have a personal aversion to religion, in this case I will choose to do what Voltaire said he would do in such similar instances: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Or as is the case here: "... I will defend to the death your right to DO what you choose to do based on your constitutional right to not have the law or Congress supersede your personal religious beliefs."

Besides, like I already said, I have a problem with banning anything that (for the most part) doesn't harm another person or worse. After all, the medical benefits of circumcision are so evident that they can easily be accessed by simply Googling them. Abortion and smoking, however, don't seem to offer much in the way of a benefit to anyone at all- physically, or otherwise- and they kill many more people than a simple medical procedure ever will. So, which is it? Do we steer clear of making new laws to ban things unnecessarily, or do we ban them ALL? I suspect I know which side most people will fall on including myself.

Agree or not, this is a step in the wrong direction for this issue to take. If one truly wanted to change anything including people's minds, they should start off first by spreading the word in as many ways as possible, including petitioning doctors and hospitals to provide information to patients about the pros and cons of the procedure without looking as if they are trying to sway the argument one way or the other. The answer is never to make a new law first, and worry about the consequences later.

Frankly, the answer lies in getting rid of many of the laws we already have!