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. “Unconscionable”
“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. “Freedom of religion, enshrined over two centuries ago by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is now subject to a vote with the certification in San Francisco of the referendum on circumcision for the November ballot,” wrote Rabbi Leeds, a certified mohel expertly trained in providing circumcisions. “The vote will empower a secular majority to impose its will, and ban one of the oldest religious traditions known to humanity. When religious belief and practice become subject to vote by the majority of a city council, government agency or referendum, it endangers all of our rights and freedoms.” The rabbi contended that the proponents of the anti-circumcision initiative were being deceptive by “labeling it a ‘ban on genital mutilation.’ Honesty would have demanded they called it a ban on circumcision. By using such a toxic term as mutilation, they hope to garner support from an unsuspecting public.” “Circumcision is based on a Biblical commandment that required that Jewish males be circumcised eight days after birth,” said Rabbi Leeds. “Jews, from the most observant to the most secular, follow this tradition.” “It is not just the tradition of circumcision that is being voted on in November in San Francisco, but the right for any person to follow the religious faith they treasure and the right of a parent to educate a child in the values they hold dear,” he said. The initiative would outlaw circumcision for anyone under 18, and specifically provides, “no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.” Violators of the measure, if it becomes law, would be subject to a $1000 fine or up to a year in jail, or both. Supporters say the procedure is painful, unnecessary and can cause injuries like nerve damage, infection, disfigurement and loss of normal function.
Monday, May 30, 2011
San Francisco archbishop rejects circumcision ban
