8/23/2018
I have been looking for specific law that specifically stated that male infant circumcision was legal. I finally found it! And, of course, I am not very happy about it.
I found the text here:
https://americanhumanist.org/news/frank-r-wolf-international-religious-freedom-act-signed-law/
"(3) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause
(i)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘persecution of lawyers, politicians,
or other human rights advocates seeking to defend the
rights of members of religious groups or highlight religious
freedom violations, prohibitions on ritual animal slaughter
or male infant circumcision,’’ after ‘‘entire religions,’’"
THIS is NOT religious freedom! Religious freedom applies to the individual, not some authority (including a parent)! WOW!!!! I am FURIOUS!!!
This was signed by Obama as H.R. 1150 on Dec. 19, 2016! LOL - here's proof that Obama is not a Muslim, because he would have required the "male" part to be removed!
It further violates the USA Constitution's 14th amendment as boys and girls are supposed to get equal protection!
And, how can this be considered religious freedom when it specifically supports the Jewish based desire to circumcise males, but not the Muslim based desire to circumcise females?! And, before everyone says I'm being anti-Semitic or whatever, I do realize that not all Jews or Muslims practice these customs.
Infant circumcision is persecution of the infant. It's persecuting the infant to make a choice about their religion before they're old enough to understand religious teachings well enough to make *any* decision about it. This section of this law is concerned with persecution of adults! I am persecuted every single day by a religion because I know that I am missing a body part that was taken from me before I had a chance to say NO! Where is my religious freedom?!
I don't want to persecute lawyers, politicians, other "human rights advocates" or other members of religious groups; I just want the persecution of children to stop!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Equal protection under the law is either equal protection or its not. Clearly those who passed the law in 1996 are in violation of the 14th Amendment. Those who take an oath to uphold the constitution are also in violation. Those who advocated for this law being passed evidently did not choose to offer the same protection to their sons that they offered their daughters. In this context the term rape is a legal one. It also means to despoil. When a probe is inserted between the glans and foreskin to remove adhesions during a circumcision it is an insertion of an object into the genitals. Such hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteTo defend creating sexual trauma in an infant for any reason except that of a solution for a life threatening issue then the medical use of male genital mutilation for addressing future health concerns does not follow scientific and evidential based medicine. Surgery is not a proper protocol and therefore doctors are clearly in violation of their oath to do no harm. As for the claim that a god told someone to do this as a sacred covenant, well they are following a god who condones child sexual abuse and infant sexual trauma. I have nothing against any religion except those who justify causing traumatic harm to an infant because their deity told them it was an inclusion blood ritual. Some defend by claiming antisemitism as though it is heretical to question sexual trauma. Its heresay to claim someone told you to do something for some reason long ago when the traumatic harm is evidentiary.
It is rape to genitally mutilate an infants genitals and its trauma based mind control to continue this ritual without seeing the trauma it causes. 30 generations of unconscious negative loyalty transmitted from intergenerational sexual abuse will cause many to defend, justify, rationalize or deny traumatic violence!
Thanks headrat1!
DeleteIt’s antisemitic to not give Jewish males equal opportunity. Obama had signed this stink bomb on his way out the door, but of course and oh so predictable.
ReplyDelete