It seems almost impossible and implausible, in this day of enlightened thinking, that a minority group could push it's agenda on all peoples over an issue so mundane. When the group brought up their proposal to ban the procedure in San Francisco last fall, there was a snicker, some head shaking, and the issue was brushed aside.
Nobody is laughing anymore, as last month the required 7,100 signatures needed to get the measure on the fall ballot that would make this simple and excepted medical procedure illegal within the city limits of the community. Now several other area communities are entertaining the same activism ideals as their neighboring communities.
If the minority group has it's way, this procedure, "I'll call it a Nip and Tuck job" would become illegal across the entire country. There are varying reasons for this activists group, "they prefer to be called int-activists," but without exception, they are all religious related, raising further problems with regards to those folks who watch anything remotely related to the separation of church and state.
The procedure, in it's clinical parlance is called a "circumcision of the foreskin of the penis," ugh, although disgusting, a universally excepted medical procedure for a verity of reasons, surprisingly with little or no health benefits. To be honest, during the course of my research, I figured I would find all sorts of information with regards to health and cleanliness advantages, but there virtually aren't any.
What it boils down to is that there is a perception that circumcision is accepted and expected to be done, usually days after birth. I guess what the process is, is an antiquated and possibly outdated surgical procedure that is totally unnecessary.
Do I personally think that should be either state or federal laws to prohibit the procedure, absolutely not. With further study, research and education, I do however feel that the procedure might become an elective, almost cosmetic procedure, not covered by a basic health insurance policy, but attached by a rider that would be paid for by an individual.
A study published several years ago by a British Journal of Urology found that circumcision decreased the sensitivity of the penis by as much as 75%, for me, that fact alone would make me think about any circumcisions in my family.....for my sons.
No matter the argument against why circumcisions either continuing to allow the procedure, or not, to me is irrelevant, it is not either a state or federal law, and to mandate that the procedure be against the law, especially for religious reasons is preposterous.
Although not a part of the United States Constitution, the separation of church and state was important enough to Thomas Jefferson, that he talked at length about the subject, writing that "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that the legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
The 1st. amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The framers of our country saw in their infinite wisdom the differences between religion, and the politics of government, like the man said, "two things you never want to argue about are religion and politics, they will get you in trouble every time."
We are now entering what I call the "silly season," a time when grown men and women forget every ounce of intellect that they might poses, throw whatever values that they have out the window, and re-create themselves as Christan's who go to church at least twice a week, teach a Sunday school class, and lead a Bible study group.
Why do these people do this, well actually they are politicians, groping for votes from the powerful religious right in the Republican party. It is a sign of the times and a sign that the religious right is gaining an ever larger slice of the political pie and a louder voice in the country. The separation of church and state is becoming a much more blurred landscape in America, and frankly, that's not good.
BUSH AND OBAMA, PEN PALS, SURELY YOU JEST! (Frazer Chronicles)
Man there's a good one, George W. Bush and Barack Obama sharing something in common, "call in the dogs, something has truly gone wrong." On May 26th. President Obama, in Paris, with some sort of teleportable pen signed into law another 4 years of the Bush administration Patriot Act, the central domestic support apparatus devised after the bombings of September 11, 2001.
When the act passed the Senate on October 25th. 2001, the vote was 98-1, the one opposing vote by non other then Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin who thought the act went to far. Unbelievably it remains to be seen if 98 senators were right and one was wrong, or that one was right, and 98 were wrong. The reason, to date the (new) Patriot Act has not been shared with the American public.
What does that mean, well for one thing, the rules can be made up as we go along and not a lawyer or judge in America will know what the hell is going on, what is legal, or illegal, what to prosecute, or what to defend.
I read a very interesting article a few years ago, the author will remain nameless because I can't remember him, but the article talked about about some of the sweeping changes that were being made by the Bush Whitehouse
It's strange what will draw two political opposites together until a person starts to look closely at how most people deal with power and it's acquisition, and how they usually won't give it up, almost at any cost. It takes extraordinary people to look past their own vanity and to see the long view and what is truly good for the people that they govern through our system of government.
No comments:
Post a Comment