Pete Re: outlawing circumcision

[Guest guest]

> > Basically with this kind of issue what matters is whether you are

> > numerous and powerful enough to have a custom that cannot be

> > stopped - and that's all.

>

> ---------------

>

> Well, Pete, such rhetoric can be the stuff of anti-Semites, you

>know.

And anti-Semites also use words containing the letter 'e'. I'm not

suggesting there is a Jewish conspiracy to takeover the world, corrupt

Aryans, whatever. I'm just injecting a bit of realism not specific

to Judaism or anything else: a religion with millions of adherents can

do whatever its thing is; Whacko Cult, Waco, gets the tanks. True for

everybody.

> " Unnecessary surgery " ? Perhaps. But so is ear-piercing. Most

> black and Latino parents have their infants pierced at very young

> ages. Would you have that outlawed too?

I could reply that ear-piercing is not as invasive - or the

consequences of mishap as severe, but I dont want to rely on such a

response, because it's unnecessary; they are separate issues. A

defender of female circumcision might say " Would you outlaw male

circumcision too? " . A practice needs to be viewed on its own

merits/demerits.

In a world where it is commonplace for men to be told they dont have a

right to a view on abortion as they cant get pregnant, it's apparently

fine for a woman to call circumcision " Minor " . Let men decide what

parts of their bodies they'd like to give up, if any. Of course, I

know many Jewish men think the same as you do - but I thought this

point was worth making. It is also worth noting that no man

circumcised at birth actually knows what it is like to not be

circumcised; he can never truly know how he has been affected. Those

uncircumcised who wish to find out have that option if they wish to

take it. Circumcised women are often every bit as endorsing of

femnale circumcision as circumcised men are of male circumcision.

> It would be unconstitutional for a law to be passed REQUIRING

>circimcision per Genesis 17, Pete -- and just as wrong to prohibit

>the procedure based on rejection or dismissal of religious beliefs.

It wouldnt be based on " rejection or dismissal of religious beliefs "

but on an affirmation of the right to informed consent on what is done

to one's own body. Basically I see it as this: Either you allow

rligious rights to compromise children's rights, in which case you

should allow infant sacrifice, or you say children's rights prevail

and hence *no* practice is above scrutiny. If you draw the line at

infant sacrifice, saying that no religious grounds can be used as

justification, then you have no logical reason to insist that

religious freedom prevents suppression of anything else: it's just

become a question of " our thing " versus " their thing " .

This incidentally is why email lists and the like that insist that

no-one defame another's religion are so damn silly. What if my

religion demands that I do this? Religions frequently view each other

and their inherents as implacable enemies. Oddly enough, groups like

" Aryan Nations " and " Nation of Islam " , despite claiming to believe

that they will destroy each other, often seem to have a sneaking

admiration for each to each other.

I remember Satanist " Thoth " didnt get allowance for his religion; on

the contrary, ppl wanted him rid of for precisely that reason.