Although this has been previously published by YWN, due to the sensitive nature of the topic, we are publishing the most recent news article, which appeared on the NBC Bay Area website on Tuesday:
A ban on circumcision could end up on San Francisco’s November ballot.
A voter in the city says he will submit more than 12,000 valid signatures to the elections office today. That’s more than the 7,200 needed to get the measure on the ballot.
The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.
“We don’t come at this from a religious angle,” Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. “We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It’s a felony to tattoo a child.”
The Department of Elections has 30-days to review the signatures and determine if the measure qualifies for the November ballot.
Organizers of the campaign say they have more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The measure would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a child, except for a valid medical reason.
Schofield has been pushing for the ban for the past six months and he has spent $9,000 to collect enough signatures.
He has also supported a national campaign to ban circumcision. But while Schofield has found his supporters, religious groups have decried the threat of a ban has a violation of their religious freedom.
(Source: NBC Bay Area)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
Yemach Shemo V’Zichro, this Schofield!
If non-immunized children are allowed in schools because the parents can get a letter from their rav, than this whole thing should blow over soon enough. Otherwise, we’ll have another Antiyochus to face down come chanukah time :\
it violates freedom of religion is the bottom line
Go ahead ban Milah, San Fransicko currently sits on a massive fault zone, just watch them get a massive Tsunami that wipes them away for good as soon as it gets passed
This guy is such a narcissus. The only reason why he is banning bris millah is because “he thinks its harmful” it doesn’t make a difference to him if other people think differently. He doesn’t bother going around asking people who have been circumcised if it somehow has had an adverse affect on their health or life. The reason he doesn’t go around asking is because he doesn’t care about the truth. The only thing that interest him is getting his own agenda met. This is the decease of the leftist thinking, “if I don’t like it then nobody is allowed to do it’. I can guarantee you that non of the signatures that he got are from people who have had circumcision. Who are they to decide for other people what should and shouldn’t be done. Its total insanity, and if this isn’t bigotry than I don’t know what is. Who needs enemies when we have got someone like him .
Everyday is Purim in San Francisco. The liberal has destroyed a beautiful city
Quote: We don’t come at this from a religious angle,” Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. “We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It’s a felony to tattoo a child.”
Sometimes lies are so obvious that they hit you in the face!
I guess this is Liberals at their best. “Toleration and acceptance of all (except for the Religious)”!
Quote: “We feel this is a very harmful thing… The measure would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a child, except for a valid medical reason.”
I guess that if he is so concerned about health issues he, in being consistent, is perforce required to exert energy to ban Homosexuality being that it is proven that such sexual relations increases one’s chance of contracting HIV. (Oops, I guess he stuck his foot in his mouth.)
Bottom Line: It is a medical fact that circumcised people are less susceptible to having yeast infections than uncircumcised individuals. Thus, negating the fact that such a law would be a breach of one’s constitutional right of Freedom of Religion*, it should always be allowed as a valid medical reason.
* – Yesh Garsim “Freedom FROM Religion”
BTW – After reading up on this gay (oops, I mean guy), it appears to me that he is most likely a gay Jew with an inferiority complex about his background and for being circumcised. I don’t have proof yet of this other than his openness about being gay, but my chush tells me this.
1. Not surprising that such an effort arises from the bastion of haforas HaBris (ha’maivin yovin).
2. The Seforim teach us that the end of this galus – Galus Edom – will be a repeat of Galus Yavan. After the bikaish l’hashmis, la’harog, vla’avaid of the past 500 + years ending in ’45, the goal of many Jewish homes was University, followed by the tzniyus challenges of the past years. #1’s comment about Antiyochus is not far off.
HaShem Yirachaim.
WHAT?!?!?!
“The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.”
AND…
“It’s a felony to tattoo a child.” –
PULEEEEZE…
If I had a dollar for every person under 18 in San Fransicko with a tattoo, I could retire today!
Funny too that they want to ban circumcision, but have the government PAY FOR “trans-gender” operations!!!
SICK!!!
“We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It’s a felony to tattoo a child.”
Harmful??? Studies in Africa show that circumcision reduces the rist of transmission of HIV.
I’m sure no one wants to hear this, but I’ll give it a try anyway . . .
For all those yelling freedom of religion – this law is very likely NOT a violation of the First Amendment. the Free Exercise Clause usually does not protect religious people from being entitled to positively practice their religion in cases where the government prohibits certain conduct for legitimate reasons; the First Amendment usually protects religious people from having to act in a way that violates their religion in cases where a law obligates them to act in certain ways. I.e., a law requiring people to work on shabbos would be unconstitutional; a law banning shechita as inhumane or unsanitary would (unfortunately) probably be constitutional.
At the end of the day, if San Francisco want’s to make a stupid law, they will be able to do so, and Jews can simply go across the bridge to Oakland or drive twenty minutes to San Jose and perform a bris there.
Also, while there is much scholarship supporting the health benefits of a bris, there is also significant literature that reaches the opposite conclusion. We don’t perform a bris because it is or is not healthy; we do so because God’s law so commands us.
Why not have an intelligent and honest conversation about this pressing issue instead of calling for the destruction of the city and making nonsensical comparisons to HIV and gender alteration surgeries.
RSRH – In regards to the legal aspects you bring out, I am not a lawyer, but would assume that only when ones religion conflicts with safety does the constitution override religion. (For example, there was a case a long time ago were a 13 year old girl was suffering from a chronic illness and medical personnel wanted to apply medical treatments. Her family’s religion was against seeking medical treatments and they were refusing to allow any treatment to take place. This became a big legal battle to protect her health. To be honest, I don’t remember details as I was quite young then, so I can’t even state the outcome.)
As far as your second point (“Why not have an intelligent and honest conversation about this pressing issue…”) I’m not clear if you mean between ourselves or with them. You can’t have an intellectual conversation with someone who’s actions are purely based on hatred. This person is only looking to make a name for himself and to exert his hatred of Jews and Judaism. His intentions are not based on misguided understandings, but rather purely based on hatred. They have no basis on honesty. Any honest misguided person can be spoken to. A dishonest person is right even when he’s wrong!
Softwords:
On your first point: You are correct; you are not a lawyer.
Your example merely proves my original point: The Constitution typically does not protect a person’s desire to ACT according with their religion; it protects only their right not to act in a way that violates their religion (there are nuances here, but that is a fair sum-up of the issue). When your desire to follow the tenets of your religion violate the civil rights of others, you can be prevented from doing so. When your religion dictates that you not act in a certain way that offends others, you cannot be forced to act that way. As long as the government can articulate a reasonable non-religious basis for preventing you from acting in accordance with you religion (i.e., health concerns, public safety, maintaining law and order, ect.) they can prevent you from acting. Thus, Indians that smoke peyote (an illegal drug) as part of their religious observances can be penalized for it; if a Jew wants to wear a yarmulka in violation of the military’s dress code, he can be penalized for it; if a Jew wants to burn his chometz in violation of the fire code, he can be fined; if a Jew wants to shecht in violation of a shechita ban, he can probably be prosecuted. I’m not saying I like it; but when we throw around terms like freedom of religion, we should at least know what we are talking about so as not to sound ignorant and undermine our position.
As for your second point: I’m not sure were you get your information from. How do you now that the proponent of the law, and everyone of the signatories to the petition are Jew-haters as apposed to ordinary liberal that like to limit parental control over their children in favor of the government’s view of the best way to raise them. Not that I am in favor of the latter, but it is a basis for having an intelligent conversation. In any case, we should at least talk reasonably and intelligently among ourselves about the topic instead of becoming irrational and inflamed about it, which does no one, least of all ourselves and our cause, any good.
I agree with RSRH. There are more constructive things we can do with our time than making fun of the city of san francisco and calling for its destruction with tsunamis. You’re all forgetting that NORMAL people actually live there (not all san franciscans are getting transgender surgeries and HIV), and I personally know many sincere frum yidden who are happily living there. Don’t generalize and call San Francisco names, because you make yourself sound really stupid.
RSRH: You debase the name you incorrectly purport to represent.