"civil-rights activists" know better!

San Fransicko earns its name

between the lines
Joseph Farah
Posted: February 28, 2011

What a crazy, mixed-up world we live in.

The citywide mental institution we call San Francisco (I prefer Michael Savage's "San Fransicko" moniker) is now considering a ballot proposition that would ban doctors and mohels from performing infant circumcisions.

The self-proclaimed "civil rights activists" behind this move claim the procedure is too risky for infants, who can't give their consent. Parents and doctors are apparently untrustworthy to make such decisions, so it's up to the majority of San Fransickos to determine the one-size-fits-all approach regardless of medical advice and religious freedom.

Keep in mind, San Fransicko is a city that pioneered extending medical benefits to cover sex-change operations.

So this could become the first city to subsidize sex-change operations and ban circumcision.

How crazy is this?

Circumcision is a 5,000-year-old procedure that, to my knowledge, has very few medical downsides. Maybe that's because it was prescribed by the Great Physician Himself.

Needless to say, many spiritual and physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe they are commanded to perform this procedure on their male children.

And many doctors believe there is more risk in not circumcising than in doing it.

By the way, I guarantee you the same people voting in favor of this ban are those in favor of abortion on demand.

In other words, it's perfectly appropriate to kill the infant a day or two prior to birth, but it's not OK to circumcise him eight days later.

Hello?

Who are these people?

From where do they derive their sense of right and wrong?

I thought these people were all about "choice"?

Keep in mind, no one is forcing circumcision on parents and children. It is currently a choice – one that is made after considering medical and religious advice. These "pro-choicers" in San Fransicko, once again, want to take away choice.

These are the people who say "you can't legislate morality." What they really mean is only they can legislate morality.

And they do it every chance they get with bans:

* incandescent light bulbs;

* restrictions on carbon production;

* smoking – even outdoors;

* trans fats;

Now they are effectively trying to ban Jews – in a roundabout way that would have made Hitler proud.

The next thing you know, the Torah will be banned because it mandates infant circumcision.

Am I the only one who sees this action as blatant anti-Semitism?

Circumcision is, after all, the physical mark God required of Jews to distinguish them from other people and other nations.

The fact that so many doctors in the West have adopted the procedure for medical reasons strongly suggests there are reasons beyond spiritual for using it.

But the "civil-rights activists" know better.

They not only know what's good for them, they know what's better for everyone. And there is no room for dissent or disagreement if they can simply force their will upon everyone by majority vote.

That is not what America has ever been about.

We don't live in a democracy where the majority can impose its tyranny on the minority. "Civil rights" are about protecting the minority rights from majority tyranny.

But I waste my breath on the Jew-baiting fools behind such a misguided effort. San Fransicko is not America, after all. And maybe if the San Fransickos who live there keep this up, the sane, rational people who live there will move away and the city will implode of its own immoral dead weight.

Maybe the people of San Fransicko are too smart for this and will just outright reject the ridiculous proposition. I hope so. But their track record is not good. After all, these are the people who stuck us with Nancy Pelosi.

Tweet