« Vatican suggests bishops report abuse to police | Main | Poling: Plus ça change ... »

June 9, 2011

Evangelicals join Jews against circumcision ban

The National Association of Evangelicals is joining Jews and Muslims in opposition to the proposed ban on circumcision of male children in San Francisco.

“Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham,” Leith Anderson, president of the Christian organization, said Thursday in a statement. “No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake.”

Opponents of circumcision have gathered enough signatures to get the ban on San Francisco's city ballot in November. The measure would make circumcision of a male under 18 a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000.

The National Association of Evangelicals says the ban would violate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs. The organization says its guiding policy document affirms the principles of religious freedom and liberty of conscience, which it describes as both historically and logically at the foundation of the American experiment.

“While evangelical denominations traditionally neither require nor forbid circumcision, we join Jews and Muslims in opposing this ban and standing together for religious freedom,” Anderson said.

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 4:27 PM | | Comments (11)


A brutal, Bronze Age ritual comes up against a modern and secular society with internet access. Good luck.

Why let innocent, defenseless little baby
boys suffer because of a myth of an event that never took place? Why trust something as illogical as the alleged Abrahamic covenant when Jesus himself allegedly took exception to circumcision? According to saying # 53 in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus answered his disciples that if circumcision were good, baby boys would have been born that way.

Kudos to the NAE for swiftly and clearly taking a stand in support of protecting church from state...especially in the case of this horrendous anti-Semitic effort.

Yeah. We get it. The unholy alliance of whacky Christians and Jews is on the high road. Don't they understand this is a human rights issue. Why are these religions so afraid to let a child reach 18 years of age and let them exercise their religious preference? Maybe because each group enjoys seeing babies suffer? I have no better explanation.

Oh hum. More dogmatic demands espoused from "leaders" who apparently need to tell us what to think andl feel by controlling our thoughts and bodies, even to the point of still maintaining genital cutting as a blood sacrifice even among the deaths and morbidites. It is still keep the masses ignorant of history else religious control be lost. Give it up and move on. YouTube: bonobo3D interviews Leonard Glick "Circumcision".

So it is okay to inscribe your religion into someone's body without their permission? YES OR NO!

BTW Jewish Circumcision was instituted 13 centuries after Abraham's lifetime. Was not mentioned in Genesis 15, the original Covenant. Use to be mandating the father to do the cutting. Use to be no mohels. Use to be just cutting off the ocroposthion not all the foreskin. Was almost outlawed by Jews themselves 300 years ago but Orthodox Fundamentalists took control to stop their Jewish Anti-Circumcision movement.

KOTFrank on twitter.

Gospel of Thomas also dismisses circumcision:

His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect."

Do people not realise that circumcision kills 300 boys in the USA every year, has proven negative effects on physical, psychological and sexual health and is hugely painful for the boy? Is that really compatible with your religions' ethics? I don't think so, and neither do a growing number of Jews and others. And of course, when performed on a baby the operation is totally lacking in any spiritual significance, because he is far too young to understand what is happening to him or what is is supposed to represent. Wait until he is 18 and let him choose for himself - it would mean far more religiously, and would not be grossly unethical like circumcising a baby would.

The Establishment Clause would cause any such law to be struck down as unconstitutional.

I'm circumcised, I have 0 recollection of the pain I felt when it happened, and I'm at a lower risk of penile cancer from HPV. Go get circumcised and shut up

Tydomin I’m curious where exactly did you get your figure on how many boys are killed due to circumcision. Also what percentage is that of the number of circumcisions performed? Could there be other reasons for the deaths beyond the circumcision? You failed to support your claims that circumcision “has proven negative effects on physical, psychological and sexual health”. You really present nothing so compelling as to warrant the government violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Matthew Hay Brown
Matthew Hay Brown writes and blogs about faith and values in public and private life for The Baltimore Sun. A former Washington correspondent for the newspaper, he has long written about the intersection of religion and politics. He has reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, traveling most recently to Syria and Jordan to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis.

Most Recent Comments
Baltimore Sun coverage
Religion in the news
Charm City Current
Stay connected