3. Although you make an argument that for Muslims FGC and MGC have an equal religious basis, you seem to avoid the question how this is in Judaism. Judaism is primarily a religion of practice (rather than doctrine) and MGC is the key practice. Any thoughts?
Finally, most Jews worldwide r atheists or otherwise non-religious. They are not doing it because of divine command. They are doing it for "merely cultural" reasons, on par with those who practice FGC.https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/jews-least-observant-int-l-poll-finds-1.5287579 …
-
-
Thus, if you need to ground a practice in divine command/ literal interpretation of scripture for it to be treated with serious consideration & legally protected, then far fewer circumcisions should be permitted than currently are.
-
That's not even necessary. If religious people themselves find it a crucial component of their religion, for whatever reason, then the legislator has to take that at face value. The legislator does not act as a theologian or a philosopher.
-
Right, so I’m telling you that millions of Muslims find FGC a crucial part of their religion. But you did not seem to think that was worth taking at face value.
-
Of course the judge should take it at face value, and then he/she can decide whether outlawing it would mean to hamper Muslim identity to such an extent that their religious liberty is damaged beyond fairness. But he/she does not decide what is 'really' religious, etc.
-
And my point is: in this case the performance of Muslim religion is not hampered all too much by outlawing FGC.
-
There are many Muslim communities that would strongly disagree with you.
-
Well, outlawing FGC has only provoked very limited protests among Muslim minorities in the West. They seem to go along with it quite unproblematically. I sincerely doubt that the same would happen if MGC were outlawed, don't you think?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is a well-known fact, and I referred to it earlier. But 'religion' for Jews is mostly a matter of practice. Be careful to define what is and what isn't 'religious' according to a Protestant standard.
-
I am referring to the self-descriptions of Jews as being non-religious, not a Protestant conception of religion
-
I guess you could argue that it is not a (serious) infringement on their religious rights for Jews who have no interest in performing their Jewish religion if MGC were outlawed.
-
But self-defining as 'atheist' (or rather tick the box 'don't believe in a personal deity' in a survey) does not qualify as 'not religious', especially in Judaism.
-
Again, an adult imposing his religious mark permanently on the body of a child violates that child's religious freedom. You still haven't addressed that hypocritical notion of your argument. Consenting adults who want to be Jewish can consent to the requirements at that time.
-
I have explained why it doesn't (and I don't respond well to accusations of hypocrisy). See further my discussion wirh
@briandavidearp, where I have set out my views on this. -
I've read the entire thread already and you haven't addressed the hypocritical stance of citing "religious freedom" as a justification for violating a child's right to religious freedom. How do you rationalize the diametrically opposed tenets of your argument for forced cutting?
-
The child's religious freedom (which is legally limited anyway, given parental authority) is not affected by circumcision. As I already explained. Plenty circumcised atheists out there.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.