THOSE LIBERAL ANTI-SEMITES IN MASSACHUSETTS!!!! (Not.)
Maggie Gallagher at Townhall.com asks:
Should It Be Illegal to Be a Jew in Massachusetts?
New legislation now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children, comes very close to saying, "Yes, it should be a crime." Circumcision of infant males has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham....
How did we reach the point where powerful people seriously consider such outrageous intrusions on religious liberty? These "shots across the bow" are skirmishes in a larger war between a newly triumphant liberalism and older American values, including pluralism, conscience protection and respect for religious liberty....
Er, no, Maggie -- this isn't about liberalism. Let the (hardly liberal) Boston Herald explain (emphasis added):
A national group that views the circumcision of newborns as "genital mutilation” is taking its fight to Massachusetts and will press the Legislature to ban the age-old procedure at a hearing next month....
Before Massachusetts, [the] group tried to get bills submitted in 14 other states, to no avail.
Sen. Michael W. Morrissey (D-Quincy) filed the bill on behalf of Charles A. Antonelli of Quincy under the right of free petition guaranteed in the state constitution, according to the senator's office. Morrissey has no comment on the bill and is planning no action on it, said Kate Grogan, a legislative aide....
That's right: despite all the rampant religion-hating liberal secular humanism going around, no state legislator in 14 states would endorse this -- and in Massachusetts the bill was filed only because legislators are required to file any bill submitted by a citizen.
As explained here:
Free petition: In Massachusetts all citizens have the right to petition the state legislature. This procedure is called the right of free petition. A citizen drafts and files a Petition and accompanying Bill. A legislator sponsors the Bill in the General Court [the state legislature]. If a legislator disagrees with the contents of the Bill, he/she may indicate this by placing the phrase By request after his/her name.
And, in fact, this bill is marked "(BY REQUEST)."
Also ticking Gallagher off is this:
Meanwhile, just a year ago this week, two very powerful state legislators in Connecticut proposed a bill that would have had the government take over the finances of the Catholic Church. (It took a rally drawing thousands of folks to the state capitol to persuade them to withdraw the measure.)
Er, no again -- the bill would have had a panel of lay Catholics take over from priests; the bill was proposed by some Catholic parishioners after a Connecticut pastor pleaded guilty to stealing a million bucks from his church. (It's still not a great idea, in terms of church-state separation, for secular authorities to try to impose this sort of structure on an entire church, but the idea didn't emerge from a bunch of godless liberals. And besides, I thought right-wingers disliked the notion of church-state separation....)