Insane left-wing extremists to ban goldfish, circumcision

[FreakyLocz14]

Pardon my french in my thread title, but sometimes harsh language is needed to fully describe lunacy of this magnitude.

Politicians in San Francisco, California are considering banning goldfish within the city because they claim that the mass breeding of goldfish causes them "inhumane suffering". I'm sure the liberal loons will remember that the next time they hit up a sushi bar.

Also, SF voters will decide on the unconstitutional criminalizing of circumcision. The measure will provide no religious exemptions if it does pass.

First circumcision, now goldfish? San Francisco to ban sale of pet fish | Mail Online

 

[jgorehampenney]

This article was in MacLean's Magazine last month: You can't do that in San Francisco

 

[Isthmus]

Pardon my french in my thread title, but sometimes harsh language is needed to fully describe lunacy of this magnitude.

Politicians in San Francisco, California are considering banning goldfish within the city because they claim that the mass breeding of goldfish causes them "inhumane suffering". I'm sure the liberal loons will remember that the next time they hit up a sushi bar.

Also, SF voters will decide on the unconstitutional criminalizing of circumcision. The measure will provide no religious exemptions if it does pass.

First circumcision, now goldfish? San Francisco to ban sale of pet fish | Mail Online

Come on man, first if you want to be taken seriously, don't start the thread with name calling. Second, at least report your claims accurately. you left the part about the manner in which the fish are collected which leads to destruction of native habitats. Not that I think that is any business of the san francisco city council (at least not unless release of no native species into the wild is having an impact on california waterways), and DO think that they are over-reaching in that regard.

As for the circumsition thing, most current medical opinions will tell you that the practice in boys) serves no medical purpose and offers no medical benefit. What it does do is diminish sensitivity in the area and perhaps reduces accumulation of dirt (IOW's it helps keep the area cleaner in cases of folks who don't clean throrughly). It does seem foolish to continue a practice that serves no purpose but does impose some damage 9even if it is a minor one, on someone who has no choice in the matter. I wouldn't say outlaw it, but at least make the practice optional and postpone its implementation until the child is of legal age to request it and they understand the risks involved (and yes that would apply to religious ceremonies).

BTW, I would gladly apply the same standard to tattooing and body piercings of all sorts (including ears).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Come one man, first if you want to be taken seriously, don't start the thread with name calling. Second, at least report your claims accurately. you left the part about the manner in which the fish are collected which leads to destruction of native habitats. Not that I think that is any business of the san francisco city council (at least not unless release of no native species into the wild is having an impact on california waterways), and DO think that they are over-reaching in that regard.

As for the circumsition thing, most current medical opinions will tell you that the practice in boys) serves no medical purpose and offers no medical benefit. What it does do is diminish sensitivity in the area and perhaps reduces accumulation of dirt (IOW's it helps keep the area cleaner in cases of folks who don't clean throrughly). It does seem foolish to continue a practice that serves no purpose but does impose some damage 9even if it is a minor one, on someone who has no choice in the matter. I wouldn't say outlaw it, but at least make the practice optional and postpone its implementation until the child is of legal age to request it and they understand the risks involved (and yes that would apply to religious ceremonies).

BTW, I would gladly apply the same standard to tattooing and body piercings of all sorts (including ears).

There's one problem with your position. The 1st Amendment states the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This law will fall in court quicker than it came into existance.

 

[Isthmus]

There's one problem with your position. The 1st Amendment states the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This law will fall in court quicker than it came into existance.

Then your understanding of the application of this particular part of the constitution is flawed.

The US supreme court specifically defined this particular passage in Reynolds VS the United States by enshrining the principle that while laws made by the government may not interfere with religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Circumcision falls under practices and as such may be regulated. The same applies to things such as plural marriage, sexual acts, animal sacrifice or the use of human remains (other than the deceased during funeral ceremonies) in the practice of religion. all are regulated and/or quite specifically banned in this country even when used for religious purposes.

Don't take my word for it though, look it up.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Then your understanding of the application of this particular part of the constitution is flawed.

The US supreme court specifically defined this particular passage in Reynolds VS the United States by enshrining the principle that while laws made by the government may not interfere with religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Circumcision falls under practices and as such may be regulated. The same applies to things such as plural marriage, sexual acts, animal sacrifice or the use of human remains (other than the deceased during funeral ceremonies) in the practice of religion. all are regulated and/or quite specifically banned in this country even when used for religious purposes.

Don't take my word for it though, look it up.

The government can ban circumcision, if it can prove that a) the government has a compelling interest in doing so, b) the law that advances that interest is narrowly tailored, and c) the law uses the least restrictive means on religion possible to advance that interest.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A complete ban on circumcision fails to pass constitutional muster. The practice is so deeply rooted in the tradition and hasn't cause the government much problems so far that it doesn't have a compelling interest in not exempting religious ceremonies from the circumcision ban.

Regarding animal sacrifice, the Court has held that the government cannot regulate it.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bob Maxey]

Here is a question to stir the pot.

Big Smiley Here

If circumcision were not a long standing component of a particular religious belief; the Raelians thought it up, for example, how would people feel about it? Or, suppose some wonky old farts, with odd ideas about religion were caught doing the cutting on his son and all the while proclaiming it was part of his religion, would he go to jail or be arrested or thought of kindly by the masses?

Just asking.

As for the goldfish thing, leave the little fishes alone, I say. They get love and attention and a good home to live in. Goldfish are just fine by me.

 

[RiverOfIce]

You have zero idea what left wing means, let alone use it in the correct definition. Republicans have a tendency to ban real life things. Like same sex marriage.

A law banning the keeping of massive stocks of goldfish is not insane, if the public wants it. If they dont, they can unelected the people in charge.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

As for the goldfish thing, leave the little fishes alone, I say. They get love and attention and a good home to live in. Goldfish are just fine by me.

What about feeding goldfish to piranhas?????

 

[Bob Maxey]

What about feeding goldfish to piranhas?????

Well, the little piranhas need to live too. I think they are illegal to keep in most states because they tend to ruin bass fishing. And swimming, too.

 

[mdram]

What about feeding goldfish to piranhas?????

tequila and goldfish..............

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You have zero idea what left wing means, let alone use it in the correct definition. Republicans have a tendency to ban real life things. Like same sex marriage.

A law banning the keeping of massive stocks of goldfish is not insane, if the public wants it. If they dont, they can unelected the people in charge.

Likewise, the public can unelect the politicians that banned same-sex marriage if they want it where they live.

 

[Bob Maxey]

There's one problem with your position. The 1st Amendment states the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This law will fall in court quicker than it came into existance.

However, and this is where it becomes a problem. If I decide to follow an established religion that allows me to beat woman or to smoke shrooms or other intoxicants, or do things "allowed" by the Old Testament or start a new religion that does not believe that black people should have a place in society . . . the law can step in and stop me from following my religious beliefs and practicing my religion.

My church can say we will not allow minorities to join, but the membership is not allowed to break the law, so the law restricts my church's beliefs and most logical people will agree that this is how it must be.

Churches cannot (generally) be built in my neighborhood because of zoning laws, so the government does become involved in curtailing my constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Chances are, I could not keep a pen full of sheep for weekly sacrifices due to health laws and zoning regulations.

Circumcision is a legitimate part of a particular religious belief, and it has been a part of their beliefs for eons. So it is not a simple matter.

It is easy to criticize Circumcision and banning goldfish. It seems silly, but perhaps there are legitimate reasons why. Especially if the fish become a legitimate and demonstrable environmental problem.

Very hard to know what is the best thing to do.

 

[Bob Maxey]

tequila and goldfish..............

OK, I'll try it and report back. Can't be any worse than eating the worm.

 

[mdram]

OK, I'll try it and report back. Can't be any worse than eating the worm.

they go down ok, but you can feel em wiggle for a while
and if they come back up, well its not pretty

or so ive heard

 

[Isthmus]

The government can ban circumcision, if it can prove that a) the government has a compelling interest in doing so, b) the law that advances that interest is narrowly tailored, and c) the law uses the least restrictive means on religion possible to advance that interest.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A complete ban on circumcision fails to pass constitutional muster. The practice is so deeply rooted in the tradition and hasn't cause the government much problems so far that it doesn't have a compelling interest in not exempting religious ceremonies from the circumcision ban.

Why does it fail? Because you say so? You do realize that this argument does not invalidate my point, which in case you forgot was that your understanding of the 1st amendment to the US constitution as expressed in your post above.

Even with your post the point still remains, government does have the legal ability to interfere with the practice of religion. What the mechanisms for that are is an entirely separate argument.

Regarding animal sacrifice, the Court has held that the government cannot regulate it.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you might want to re-read that, as the court hel no such thing. what it did hold was that that particular law, as written, did not pass muster, for the reasons enumerated (mainly because it was designed to target one specific religion). The act of animal sacrifice for religious purposes or government's ability to regulate it was not addressed at all. To read a bit more of what was actually addressed in that case, try a source other than wikipedia for information. Here is a very decent summary:

FREE EXERCISE DOES NOT PROTECT ANIMAL SACRIFICE

Anyhow, with all that said, focusing on a single example out of four as a means to discredit an entire argument, without addressing the points of the argument itself, fails to make your point. Your original assertion that religious practice is guaranteed under the 1st amendment is still incorrect.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Why does it fail? Because you say so? You do realize that this argument does not invalidate my point, which in case you forgot was that your understanding of the 1st amendment to the US constitution as expressed in your post above.

Even with your post the point still remains, government does have the legal ability to interfere with the practice of religion. What the mechanisms for that are is an entirely separate argument.


you might want to re-read that, as the court hel no such thing. what it did hold was that that particular law, as written, did not pass muster, for the reasons enumerated (mainly because it was designed to target one specific religion). The act of animal sacrifice for religious purposes or government's ability to regulate it was not addressed at all. To read a bit more of what was actually addressed in that case, try a source other than wikipedia for information. Here is a very decent summary:

FREE EXERCISE DOES NOT PROTECT ANIMAL SACRIFICE

Anyhow, with all that said, focusing on a single example out of four as a means to discredit an entire argument, without addressing the points of the argument itself, fails to make your point. Your original assertion that religious practice is guaranteed under the 1st amendment is still incorrect.

A court of law will not blindly let government create what they call an "undue burden" on religious practice without subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The government can interfer if it can pass that three-prong test.

 

[Isthmus]

A court of law will not blindly let government create what they call an "undue burden" on religious practice without subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The government can interfer if it can pass that three-prong test.

And have I said otherwise? you keep repeating the same thing as if to try and discredit what I said originally. instead you are backing up my original statement, which is that the government has the ability to regulate the practice of religion in the country. How it goes about it, what mechanisms it needs to use, or what legal standards it needs to meet, does not in any way mean that it lacks the right though.

The argument we are having is the claim you made here:

There's one problem with your position. The 1st Amendment states the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This law will fall in court quicker than it came into existance.

That claim is simply wrong.

 

[Bob Maxey]

There's one problem with your position. The 1st Amendment states the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This law will fall in court quicker than it came into existance.

The 1st Amendment means this: there will not be a state religion. It also means that the government will not stop us from practicing our religions or religious beliefs, no matter what they are.

So you can be a Jew, a Mormon, or a Catholic; none of which will be the state religion or silenced through laws and edicts.

It does not mean you can do whatever you want in the name of religion, not should it. Our founding Fathers assumed wisdom would grow along with the country.

 

[Bob Maxey]

they go down ok, but you can feel em wiggle for a while and if they come back up, well its not pretty

or so ive heard

Thanks, you just ruined cheap Oaxaca Mezcal for me, hope you are satisfied.

Hmmm . . . as I ponder this, seems like the little worm is dead and therefore, he wont do too much gastric swimming. So perhaps it is back across the border for a few more cases.

Smiley

Bob

 

[Mac_Leod]

The 1st Amendment means this: there will not be a state religion. It also means that the government will not stop us from practicing our religions or religious beliefs, no matter what they are.

So you can be a Jew, a Mormon, or a Catholic; none of which will be the state religion or silenced through laws and edicts.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting religion.

The individual states could and did have official state religions, taxpayer funded.

 

[amlothi]

Extremists are bad, no matter if they are left, right or otherwise.

Also, people who blindly follow an ideology, and/or believe everything they read online or see on the news (without doing some amount of research and skeptical contemplation of their own) are the sheep that allow extremists to gain power.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting religion.

The individual states could and did have official state religions, taxpayer funded.

I live in Utah. We are the major hub of Mormon activity worldwide. Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church and arrived in Utah proclaiming, "This is the Place."

Some will tell you that Utah rises and falls with the whims and desires of the LDS Church. Very true in so far that many leaders are also LDS and they sometimes decide that their way is God's way and make rulings that support the Church. That said, most do not because we are carefully watched and any attempt to write laws that are perhaps questionable, someone is called on the carpet.

The State of Utah was founded by Joseph Smith, also the Founder of the LDS Church. I am not disputing that it must have been difficult if you were not LDS in 1847 or so.

But LDS people paid a price for blindly asserting that they could do anything they wanted to do. The US Government arrived in force and changed a few minds.

But with all that, the LDS Faith is still not a state religion. There are no laws on the books that say Mormonism is the official state church because that is clearly unconstitutional. Not one single state has any official religion because that is unquestionably unconstitutional, as it must be.

That is not to say that in some places, kiss your aspirations good by if you are not a Catholic. Still not sanctioned by the Church and definitely not a state religion.

So tell me which states have an officially sanctioned religion. Do not tell me about states where a predominant religion is considered the defacto "state" religion, but a state that has an official state religion. And please, not some old examples from early in our founding, but current states with a official state church.

 

[Bob Maxey]

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting religion.

The individual states could and did have official state religions, taxpayer funded.

Actually, it says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Again, this means there will be no state church; that is, congress shall make no law establishing the Catholic Church as our official religion. And it definitely means that Congress will pass no laws that prohibit any religion.

We have far too many religions in this country and telling us that we will follow one is not what they had in mind.

Have you read your American history and the reasons people came here?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The 1st Amendment means this: there will not be a state religion. It also means that the government will not stop us from practicing our religions or religious beliefs, no matter what they are.

So you can be a Jew, a Mormon, or a Catholic; none of which will be the state religion or silenced through laws and edicts.

It does not mean you can do whatever you want in the name of religion, not should it. Our founding Fathers assumed wisdom would grow along with the country.

So how does banning circumcision not stop Jewish people from practicing their religion.