Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[GlennB]

Or do you think it would pass religious freedom scrutiny if a country decided to outlaw cross-shaped objects (what pointy edges they've got!) or sprinkling water on children (my god-nephew got water up his nose!) Neither of those things are inherently religious, after all.

So it would be cool with you if we outlawed crosses and water-sprinklings? After all, Christians can just put wooden spheres on their church buildings and start baptising their kids by briefly setting them down next to sno-globes. No biggie, right?

Those things don't make permanent physical changes in the person bearing the crucifix or having water sprinkled over them.

Don't you spot the difference?

 

[Craig B]

So it would be cool with you if we outlawed crosses and water-sprinklings? After all, Christians can just put wooden spheres on their church buildings and start baptising their kids by briefly setting them down next to sno-globes. No biggie, right?

This illustrates the point. No Christian, Jew or anyone else is going to be prevented from sprinkling water on a child. Any Christian or Jew will be prevented from cutting bits off a child. Not the religion, but the character of the activity is the relevant issue.

 

[The Norseman]

So what? It doesn't matter that the text of the law doesn't explicitly say anything about restricting religious practices specifically. The fact is that if the law is instituted, it will have the inevitable effect of--surprise!--restricting freedom of religion. Or do you think it would pass religious freedom scrutiny if a country decided to outlaw cross-shaped objects (what pointy edges they've got!) or sprinkling water on children (my god-nephew got water up his nose!) Neither of those things are inherently religious, after all.



So it would be cool with you if we outlawed crosses and water-sprinklings? After all, Christians can just put wooden spheres on their church buildings and start baptising their kids by briefly setting them down next to sno-globes. No biggie, right?

You keep saying the phrase "freedom of religion". My understanding is that it's always been a freedom for oneself to choose a religion or not or to worship as one pleases. But now we're not talking about the freedom to choose for oneself; we're talking about imposing a near-permanent surgical alteration upon another with no real benefits, but with an increased risk for complications and even death for the infant.

As is with everything that happens with children, it's the parents' choice. However, as with many things, restrictions are placed upon the parents through society and enacted laws because some things are deemed too important for a healthy society for them to be done. In one particular instance -- circumcision -- the desires of society on behalf of infants outweigh the choices that the parents are allowed to make.

 

[mijopaalmc]

This illustrates the point. No Christian, Jew or anyone else is going to be prevented from sprinkling water on a child. Any Christian or Jew will be prevented from cutting bits off a child. Not the religion, but the character of the activity is the relevant issue.

Yeah, and I suppose that a ban on inter-racial is equally discriminatory again those who marry their own race because they are equally fobidden from marrying members of other race and anti-sodomy laws are just as discriminatory again heterosexuals because they are equally forbidden from participating in the same sex acts homosexuals are.

It speaks a lot to the endemic anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Europe if Europeans are advancing the same defenses of legal proscriptions against circumcision as Europeans roundly (and rightfully) comdemn Americans for advancing against racial and sexual equality. By the way, in US jurisprudence, there are times when discriminatory laws are upheld under strict scrutiny^WP, but those judicial decisions (e.g.Korematsu v United^WP) are usually pursued all the way to the Supreme Court and are, to this day, themselves extremely contraversial, leading most often a de facto reversal of the decision. The European anti-circumcision statutes fail to meet any of the prongs of strict scrutiny, which is why they meet with such vehement opposition when addressed from US jurisprudential principles.

 

[Rat]

It speaks a lot to the endemic anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Europe if Europeans are advancing the same defenses of legal proscriptions against circumcision as Europeans roundly (and rightfully) comdemn Americans for advancing against racial and sexual equality.

Do you ascribe anti-Semitism and Islamophobia to all those in this thread who have put forward arguments against circumcision? If so, I can only conclude that you haven't actually read anything that anyone's written.

 

[kellyb]

Are all forms of female circumcision banned in Europe? If so, is that Islamophobia?

 

[Rat]

Are all forms of female circumcision banned in Europe? If so, is that Islamophobia?

Yes. And no. I believe the same is true of the US.

 

[gumboot]

Norway outlaws circumcision. I am trying to figure out how that is important to anyone but a Norwegian.

It's a starting point for engaging others in a discussion about the validity of circumcision. I am sure you can work out how that is important to people.

 

[gumboot]

So what? It doesn't matter that the text of the law doesn't explicitly say anything about restricting religious practices specifically. The fact is that if the law is instituted, it will have the inevitable effect of--surprise!--restricting freedom of religion. Or do you think it would pass religious freedom scrutiny if a country decided to outlaw cross-shaped objects (what pointy edges they've got!) or sprinkling water on children (my god-nephew got water up his nose!) Neither of those things are inherently religious, after all.

In traditional Maori religion, the ritual consumption of human flesh was practised to absorb the mana of the person you were eating.

Would you be okay with practitioners of traditional Maori religion engaging in cannibalism? Do you think that should be legal?

 

[mijopaalmc]

In traditional Maori religion, the ritual consumption of human flesh was practised to absorb the mana of the person you were eating.

Would you be okay with practitioners of traditional Maori religion engaging in cannibalism? Do you think that should be legal?

Do you seriously not see the difference between cannablism and circumcision?

Could you possibly be any more dishonest?

 

[Rat]

Do you seriously not see the difference between cannablism and circumcision?

Could you possibly be any more dishonest?

Do you seriously think that he was in any way equating them?

 

[gumboot]

You can condemn it all day and all night and nobody would have a problem with that. However, what you are actually doing is advocating that it be made illegal. Were that to occur, the rights of Jews to freely practice their religion will have been dashed to bits.

This is false. Circumcision of the child is not the parents practising their religion, it is the child practising the religion. It is, in fact, forcing a religious practise on a child against their wishes. It is, in fact, a violation of the child's right to religious freedom.

 

[colander]

In traditional Maori religion, the ritual consumption of human flesh was practised to absorb the mana of the person you were eating.

Would you be okay with practitioners of traditional Maori religion engaging in cannibalism? Do you think that should be legal?

Sure. Why not?

 

[gumboot]

Do you seriously not see the difference between cannablism and circumcision?

Could you possibly be any more dishonest?

The difference between circumcision and cannibalism is abundantly clear to me. One involves the eating of human flesh, and the other involves the permanent removal of the foreskin from the penis.

What is your point, exactly?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Do you seriously think that he was in any way equating them?

Do you seriously not see how the question relies on such an equation?

 

[gumboot]

Sure. Why not?

Thank you for answering.

Do you believe that citizens of a country should be allowed to engage in any religious practise they wish, free of interference, without exception?

 

[colander]

This is false. Circumcision of the child is not the parents practising their religion, it is the child practising the religion.

Huh? Of course the parents are practising their religion. They are following the religious edict to get their sons circumcised.

It is, in fact, forcing a religious practise on a child against their wishes. It is, in fact, a violation of the child's right to religious freedom.

Uh, since when have parents ever been prohibited from forcing religious practices on their children? Not that it won't come as a relief for all those children forced to waste their Sunday mornings listening to sermons.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, and I suppose that a ban on inter-racial is equally discriminatory again those who marry their own race because they are equally fobidden from marrying members of other race and anti-sodomy laws are just as discriminatory again heterosexuals because they are equally forbidden from participating in the same sex acts homosexuals are.

It speaks a lot to the endemic anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Europe if Europeans are advancing the same defenses of legal proscriptions against circumcision as Europeans roundly (and rightfully) comdemn Americans for advancing against racial and sexual equality.

I previously made the point that water sprinkling of children and cutting bits off children are different sorts of activities. The law is entitled to view them differently. We are discussing the treatment of children. Both in the United States and in Europe, the imposition of sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, on children, is strongly prohibited by law. It is permitted to mature persons on their own account, as body cutting and piercing also rightly are. Find another analogy.

 

[colander]

Thank you for answering.

Do you believe that citizens of a country should be allowed to engage in any religious practise they wish, free of interference, without exception?

If a religious practice can't be shown to have, on balance, a detrimental effect on society, I don't see any value in banning it.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The difference between circumcision and cannibalism is abundantly clear to me. One involves the eating of human flesh, and the other involves the permanent removal of the foreskin from the penis.

What is your point, exactly?

That all of the religious practices that circumcision opponents equate with circumcision (e.g., human sacrifice, infant rape, and now cannablism) violate other principles than bodily integrity, so claiming that allowing circumcision entails allowing these other religious practices that allegedly violate bodily is in fact a red herring because, for instance, human sacrifice and cannibalism violate taboos against killing people.

It boggles the mind that you need the illegitimacy of such comparisons spelled out for you in any level of detail.