The expression "Jewish baby" is a categorical blurring. Babies have no religious beliefs. Cutting a baby because of beliefs she or he (or they if intersex) does not hold violates their Liberty. (Catholics are Christians, by the way, whatever extreme Protestants may say.)
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No, that's faulty logic. The baby's human rights are inherent, like his internal organs, and don't require his cognition to exist. Religion, like politics or philosophy, requires cognition. Is a baby Libertarian or Marxist, Logical Positivist or Utilitarian?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @intactive @Mindofown and
Indeed the rights of the child, to be fed and sheltered etc. are progressively lost as she, he or they gains cognition and the power to maintain them for him/her/themself.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But religious freedoms should end when it involves irreversible body modifications in blood rituals. Have a party like a Brit Shalom by all means when you name him. But let him decide when he's an adult if he wants penile reduction surgery. He'll still be Jewish if his mom is.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
wow. think about what you're saying. you're saying that fathers betraying their sons to genital mutilation is of the essence of judaism. bris milah as currently practiced (radical mutilation of whole foreskin not just tip) seems to go back no further than rabbinic period ca 200AD
0 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Which is radically different from the way circumcision was done for the first 3,000 years of Jewish history, when only the tip of foreskin that naturally (and w/out pulling) overhangs the glans was removed.
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.