To me this last point is the most important, actually. I know that you want to make a moral argument, not a legal one (although you do make suggestions in that respect), but my concern is about citizen rights. Outlawing MGC would mean outlawing Judaism. >
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 -
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.