San Francisco's Attempt to Ban Circumcision

Gen 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision , and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner — those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

It is quite obvious from the passage above that the attempted ban on circumcision in San Francisco is an attack on God and the covenant he made with Abraham and his descendants. You will hear many other reasons for this law, but as Christians we know what really lies at the heart of this and all cultural issues. It's the battle that goes back to Genesis. Man keeps eating the fruit offered by the serpent so that they "will be like God" (Genesis 3:5) and that puts enmity between the two (Genesis 3:15). That is exactly what we see happening with this law.

There used to be a cry against "legislating morality," at least when there was an attempt to pass laws that were moral as defined by Scripture, such as outlawing abortion, prostitution and gay marriage. However, it is clear that they are perfectly fine with legislating morality, as long as they get to define what is and is not moral. Is that not what they are attempting to do here? They claim it to be morally wrong for a parent to circumcise their child because the child can not consent to the surgery. Well, is it morally wrong for a parent to do that? The answer to that question depends on where you get your answers.

Those who get their morals from a higher source do not need to wonder what is or is not moral. We have a guide that does not depend on what a person feels or what society thinks. It is not subject to chance, or change. The laws of God always have been and always will be moral. It's not up for a vote.

Mal 3:6 "I the LORD do not change .

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Matt 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

But it is not so with the morals of man. Man's definitions of morals not only change over time they are inconstant with other laws they deem "moral" at the same time. Let us compare this initiative to some other laws in California and the San Francisco area to catch a glimpse of how inconsistent their morality is.

The initiative to ban circumcision outlaws the procedure on any male "who has not attained the age of 18." What if a male wants to decide for himself that this procedure is something he wants, but he is only 16 or 14? This law would still make it illegal. Is this because medical procedures are too important to entrust a minor with? To answer that question let us consider parental consent laws in the state.

California is one of the states where parental consent is not necessary to obtain an abortion. If you are going to protect men from having a medical procedure that they may one day later regret, why not protect women too? After all, there is a vast amount of evidence that many women who have abortions actually do later regret it and suffer great psychological damage from the procedure. However, there is very little evidence that men suffer nearly as often or as deeply from having been circumcised, even though they never had a say in their procedure and the minor women who "chose" abortion actually did.

Is this law to protect men from a medical procedure because of how risky it is? Again, abortion also carries great risks, both physically and emotionally and can cause damages that can alter the life of the person who had it and yet they won't protect minor women from being allowed such a procedure.

We can see here the issue is not based upon protecting persons up to the age of 18 from something they may later regret or from a medical procedure that may actually cause great harm. It's about protecting their definition of morality. To clarify that, let us look at their laws about education.

Intelligent design can not be taught in public school because it is not "science." That would cause us to think that science should take precedence in determining what should or should not be taught in public school. Then just the other day I read about how schools in California are offering "gender diversity" classes. The claim with gender diversity is that science alone is not enough to determine what one's sexual identity is. Besides the anatomical science that is ignored with gender diversity training, there are also "scientific" genetic testing that is done to determine your gender by chromosomal structure (XX for females; XY for males). Yet, in THIS case, suddenly science does not matter. Instead they are teaching children your gender is NOT based upon science but upon how an individual perceives themselves. Based upon the arguments against teaching Intelligent Design in school we would think that it should also be wrong to teach biological information that has no basis in science. However, that is not the case. It is apparent that their argument against one curriculum is indeed inconsistent with their argument for another. Science is only important if they think it can counteract religion but suddenly science is no longer important if actually supports religious claims.

There are many other inconsistencies we could point out, but in the end what we come down to is this. These laws are not about protecting children but rather they are about indoctrinating them. They believe that society, the culture and the state should mandate what children can learn, do and believe. It's not about allowing children to choose for themselves, because ultimately an adult IS the one making the decision. The only question is, which adult gets to decide?

Our society used to believe that parents were the ultimate authority for their own children, but that is not good enough for our culture today. They not only want the freedom to believe and do what they want, but they want to keep others from disagreeing with them. They know the best way to to do that is get control of the children and they can only do that if they can take control away from the parents. We have written about this before, but it bears repeating again, the fight for parental rights is one that we could very soon lose if we are not careful. To learn more about ways to protect parents from this type of interference visit

No matter what argument they use for these laws it is obvious to us as Christians they are an outright attack against God. The Bible says:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Yet society says we are whatever gender our we perceive ourselves to be.

The bible says:

Heb 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Yet society says that sexual promiscuity is to be rewarded and praised.

The Bible says:

Gen 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Lev 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Yet society claims marriage and sexual relations can be between people of the same sex.

The Bible says:

Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

Yet society says it is only a fetus, not a human being created by God.

The Bible says:

Prov 22:6 Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.
And with this verse society somewhat agrees which is why they want the state, not parents (especially religious and Christian parents), to train their children. Ultimately that is what this law is all about. It is about keeping parents from making decisions about their child's health, welfare, education and yes, religion.