San Francisco wants your son's penis

Technically an anti-circumcision law would mean they don't want any of your sons penis.
 
With all the pervs in San Francisco I am actually surprised circumcision is not mandatory and that the city government doesn't take the remains and package as chewing gum. ;)
 
more than you do?

THey're willing to fine me and put me in jail, so I guess so.

Are you always this irrelevant first thing in the morning?

do you always sleep half the day away?

do you always start threads on subjects that have already been beaten to death?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...cisco-residents-no-circumcisions-for-you.html

do you always think about my son's penis?

seek help

He's looking for a tip!
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
Here's the irony: It's the Lefties that complain most about the need for a complete and utter separation of church and state yet in their most Lefty of cities, it's perfectly acceptable for government to outlaw an ancient religious practice. So, government meddling in religion is bad...unless you say so? Irony so thick you can eat it with a spoon!
 
Here's the irony: It's the Lefties that complain most about the need for a complete and utter separation of church and state yet in their most Lefty of cities, it's perfectly acceptable for government to outlaw an ancient religious practice. So, government meddling in religion is bad...unless you say so? Irony so thick you can eat it with a spoon!

I don't agree with the ban, but your reasoning is beyond stupid. No offense.

This ban is about the merits and morality of a medical procedure performed on non-consenting infants, without consideration for the purviews of religion. That, by definition and spirit, reflects a complete separation of church and state.
 
In the article I see some people are trying to equate that practice with female genital mutilation, which is B.S.

Besides, these people will just go across the bay to Oakland and do it there. Pretty much a waste of time if you ask me.
 
Here's the irony: It's the Lefties that complain most about the need for a complete and utter separation of church and state yet in their most Lefty of cities, it's perfectly acceptable for government to outlaw an ancient religious practice. So, government meddling in religion is bad...unless you say so? Irony so thick you can eat it with a spoon!

I don't agree with the ban, but your reasoning is beyond stupid. No offense.

This ban is about the merits and morality of a medical procedure performed on non-consenting infants, without consideration for the purviews of religion. That, by definition and spirit, reflects a complete separation of church and state.

So let me get this straight:
Parents can kill their child before birth but cannot circumcise him after birth.
The state can ban a religiously-mandated practice but that reflects a separation of church and state.

Are you stoned???
 
Here's the irony: It's the Lefties that complain most about the need for a complete and utter separation of church and state yet in their most Lefty of cities, it's perfectly acceptable for government to outlaw an ancient religious practice. So, government meddling in religion is bad...unless you say so? Irony so thick you can eat it with a spoon!

I don't agree with the ban, but your reasoning is beyond stupid. No offense.

This ban is about the merits and morality of a medical procedure performed on non-consenting infants, without consideration for the purviews of religion. That, by definition and spirit, reflects a complete separation of church and state.

So let me get this straight:
Parents can kill their child before birth but cannot circumcise him after birth.
The state can ban a religiously-mandated practice but that reflects a separation of church and state.

Are you stoned???

You're suggesting that the ban would have something to do with a 'desire' to infringe upon religious freedom. I don't buy it. As nutty as these nutters are, I think they honestly believe the practice is child abuse and want it banned for that reason. If you want to think it's some anti-semitic underground movement then you're paranoia has gotten the better of you.
 
I don't agree with the ban, but your reasoning is beyond stupid. No offense.

This ban is about the merits and morality of a medical procedure performed on non-consenting infants, without consideration for the purviews of religion. That, by definition and spirit, reflects a complete separation of church and state.

So let me get this straight:
Parents can kill their child before birth but cannot circumcise him after birth.
The state can ban a religiously-mandated practice but that reflects a separation of church and state.

Are you stoned???

You're suggesting that the ban would have something to do with a 'desire' to infringe upon religious freedom. I don't buy it. As nutty as these nutters are, I think they honestly believe the practice is child abuse and want it banned for that reason. If you want to think it's some anti-semitic underground movement then you're paranoia has gotten the better of you.

It doesn't matter what the stated or unstated purpose is. The effect of this bill is to prevent the free exercise of religion, thus forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

but obiter dicta, the idea that the state knows better what is good for a child and has the child's interests in mind more than the parents do is absolutely the calling card of the "progressives".
 
Last edited:
The effect of this bill is to prevent the free exercise of religion, thus forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Nonsense.

You can't sacrifice chickens, no matter how religious it might be to you. Your argument fails first blush. You're usually better than that... I think.
 
The effect of this bill is to prevent the free exercise of religion, thus forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Nonsense.

You can't sacrifice chickens, no matter how religious it might be to you. Your argument fails first blush. You're usually better than that... I think.
Why cant I sacrifice chickens? Please cite which federal law forbids sacrificing chickens.
While there are religious practices that are clearly banned (e.g. human sacrifice) that does not negate the effect of the 1A. There are no unrestricted rights. But there are rights. And SanFran's assault on my son's penis violates those rights.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top