It's sad when secularists diss the First Amendment

For one thing, if freedom of religion is to include freedom from having other religions imposed upon us, the First Amendment, fully supported and upheld, is a vital legal and constitutional protection.

But, if secularists want to be selective about it, we have a problem.

Specifically, in this case, it's San Francisco's controversial initiative to ban circumcision — a ban that makes no exeeption for religiously-grounded circumcisions.

Ron Lindsay, executive director of Center for Inquiry, blogs against San Francisco's idea.

And, most of the 20-plus respondents ignore the religious idea.

Others claim that circumcision is so dangerous that the state has a compelling interest in trumping the First Amendment. (And, while any surgery is dangerous, this simply isn't true, in general, of circumcision.)

One or two argue the "pain trauma" angle, claiming a 3-day-old will be permanently harmed mentally by pain he will never remember.

Even non-Gnu Atheists are a bit out to lunch on this one, in many cases.

And, for those who want to selectively support First Amendment protections, I suggest you acquaint yourselves with "A Man for All Seasons," specifically, what More told Roper about the rule of law.