Is President Obama Circumcised?

San Francisco’s Bay Area, famous for supporting the gay movement, is challenging the larger culture in a new and controversial way: there will be a referendum on the ballot in November 2011 that would make it the first major city in theU.S.to outlaw circumcision.

The San Franciscodebate over circumcision initially centered on the value of the procedure itself — opponents call it barbaric, supporters point to its long tradition and say it prevents disease. But increasingly the debate is becoming one about religion, in which critics accuse backers of the referendum of bigotry and insist a ban would violate the First Amendment’s religious freedoms.

There is plenty of reason to oppose the ban on its own merits.

There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children. And even if there were to be a circumcision ban, this one is poorly constructed because of the well-founded religious objections that are being raised.

The anti-circumcision debate began in April when a group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” — people who believe strongly that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact — submitted enough signatures to put a circumcision ban on the ballot. The intactivists have taken up the language of international human rights: they are fighting, they say, for “genital autonomy” and “male-genital-integrity rights.” Framed this way, it seemed like an appropriately earnest next step for a city that last year banned any kind of Happy Meal that paired toy giveaways with fast food. This is nothing short of shocking that while homosexuality is being not only allowed but promoted while circumcision is being opposed; apparently, it relates more to create problems for the Muslims in the area than anything else. The ban would be a political move as the parents can easily move out ofSan Francisco area to get circumcision done.

The intactivists argue that circumcision needlessly inflicts pain on newborns, and they compare it to female genital mutilation — which is, in fact, a far more serious procedure. (Female genital mutilation can produce severe harm, including infertility and an increased risk of newborn deaths.)

Supporters of circumcision argue that there is a long tradition behind it, both religious and nonreligious, and that the pain involved is fleeting. They also say circumcision has proven health benefits. Removal of the foreskin has been found to help prevent the spread of HIV and other infections. In clinical trials in Africa, the incidence of HIV infection was 60% lower in circumcised men.

The WHO has said circumcision is an important component in fighting HIV infection.

Still, the drafters of the San Francisco referendum could have avoided the religious issue — and kept the focus on the harms and benefits of circumcision — if they had included an exception for circumcisions done for religious reasons. Jews, whose religious traditions require male children to be circumcised eight days after birth, and Muslims, who also practice circumcision, are a small part of the city’s population.

Instead, the referendum expressly states that the ban would apply equally to religious circumcisions. If it passes, Jewish parents in San Franciscowho hold a traditional bris, or circumcision ritual, could be sentenced to a year in jail.

This strict policy certainly seems insensitive. Jews who circumcise their sons trace the tradition back thousands of years. It is a sign, they believe, of a covenant with God, and an affirmation that the Jewish people will survive. There are accounts of circumcisions performed in the direst of circumstances, including in concentration camps. The intactivists aren’t swayed by such arguments and insist it’s gone on long enough.

Claims of insensitivity, however, have recently turned into charges of outright anti-Semitism. One of the referendum’s key supporters has written a comic book, Foreskin Man, that portrays a blond, Aryan-looking superhero doing battle with “Monster Mohel.” (Mohels are people trained to perform ritual Jewish circumcisions.) The bearded, prayer-shawl-wearing mohel leers manically at defenseless infants. As one rabbi blogger put it, “Hey San Francisco, 1930′s Germany Called — They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!”

Jews and Muslims are not the only religious groups opposing the ban. The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches, declared that while their faith neither requires nor forbids circumcision, “Jews, Muslims and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Circumcision begins with Abraham. No American government should restrict this historic tradition.”

If the referendum passes, it is unclear whether it would survive a constitutional challenge. The First Amendment protects people against laws that unduly interfere with their religious rituals. The question is, how would the courts see this particular interference? In 1972, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Amish parents to not send their children to school past the eighth grade. Yet more recently, it held that the “free exercise” clause does not protect Native Americans who want to engage in ritual use of peyote, an illegal drug. Under the logic of the peyote case, the ban could well survive. The ban could also be challenged underCalifornia’s state constitution, which might contain broader religious protections than the U.S. Constitution.

On one level, the stakes in theSan Francisco vote are small. If the referendum passes, parents can easily take their children out of the city to be circumcised. The danger, though, is that intactivism could spread — and that more localities, and eventually states, will enact bans.

On the other hand, the intactivist movement could come to a quick end. Last week, an activist who had been collecting signatures to put a similar referendum on the ballot inSanta Monica,Calif., announced that she was halting her effort because, she said, a cause that was not intended to be about religion had become a religious issue.

Why the Labor Pain? No Difference Between Mumtaz Qadri and the Rangers

I would like to ask my nation as to why we are deeply in the state of labour pain on the murder of Sarfraz Shah, is this not a norm in our society in Pakistan? Where were we when Governor Salman Taseer was assassinated at that time nobody came out for any demonstration and we made Mumtaz Qadri our superman hero. What is the difference between Rangers and Mumtaz Qadri both the parties were responsible for protection?  Was our nation sleeping when Shahbaz Bhatti was assassinated? Every year so many daughters are murdered in honour killings. If we want to take law in our own hands and want to deliver justice on the streets then this will be the result. I think that it is time that our nation should wakeup before we all sink.

 

 

Call Spade a Spade

Pakistan has innumerable problems and we are in the habit of blaming everybody else for these, except our own selves.

One is not impartially recognizing the facts. We need to realize that political leaders are not angels and have their shortcomings.

Benazir Bhutto is one such politician who has been turned into an angel. She is said to have sacrificed her life for democracy. Isnt this one of the biggest lies? She lived in self-imposed exile during most of Musharraf’s tenure to save herself from being prosecuted for corruption; she decided to return when the elections were being held. And even then she did not come without a deal: she came after conducting behind the scene negotiations with the ISI and the military (which she always denied) and after getting the NRO. Who would call this a sacrifice for democracy?

We all make a living and many of us work hard. How many of us can afford to own the kind of property that Benazir and Zardari had? And all this while these people have never worked in their life. And dont tell me that they made this property through their agricultural estate. Because if this is the kind of money one can make by growing sugar cane, then let us all start growing that and wasting our time. We need to acknowledge and be clear regardless of whether we are a Jiyala or a Sindhi or anything else that both Zardari and Benazir were corrupt and amassed millions of dollars beyond their means through commission. This is an inexcusable crime for a public functionary.

As for the argument that they were never convicted, this is also untrue as they were convicted and went into appeal. But  both the prosecution lawyers and the judges were scared to convict them as all realize that the musical chair between Nawaz Sharif and the Bhutto family continues and they dreaded the day when the PPP would return to power and punish them for pursuing the corruption cases against them. And this has actually happened.

Regardless of how much we all may do about all of this as some of this may be totally beyond our control but the least we can do is not to become a chutiya. We should at least defending the corrupt and acknowledge that these persons amassed millions through illegal means. Ask an MNA or an MPA or a Senate candidate from the PPP as to how much they paid Benazir and now the Zardari family for getting the PPP tickets during the past 20 years?