> In terms of equal treatment of citizens and basic equity of law this is a very heavy consequence indeed. As it is not to be expected that Jews would obey this law, it would mean that Iceland locks up parents, rabbis, etc., essentially for keeping their religion
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.
-
And there is, obviously, nothing 'hypocritical' about invoking religious freedom when a religious practice is discussed.
-
And now I'm off to bed. Good night.
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.