4 ms·

Genesis 17:9-14 and Leviticus 12:1-3 do not give Jews any leeway in this practice. I may not be Jewish (though I am Christian and circumcised), and I realize m

by claar 9y ago

Genesis 17:9-14 and Leviticus 12:1-3 do not give Jews any leeway in this practice. I may not be Jewish (though I am Christian and circumcised), and I realize my American values do not directly apply in Norway, but freedom of religion is a basic human right. Devout religious followers would have no choice but to "obey God rather than men", so laws like this proposed ban are simply a veiled authorization of persecution.

wyager 9y ago
> freedom of religion is a basic human right. Freedom of religion means the state can't tell you what to believe. It emphatically does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do, including murdering infidels or performing cosmetic surgery on babies.
- claar 9y ago
  > does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do And how shall we decide what constitutes "crazy stuff"? In Daniel 6:4-9, it was decided that it was unlawful to make a petition to any god or man except the king. In fact, this was done explicitly to provide an excuse to persecute Daniel. To help illuminate the issue, what if Hinduism required nose piercing at 8 days, instead of Jews with circumcision? Some in this thread find piercing babies to be wrong, while others find it acceptable. Who gets to decide? And what about the poor Hindu who is now jailed for the practice? It's ironic to me how easy people find it to run merrily down this slippery slope, and yet complain so readily when their own freedoms are infringed.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    If a religion required nose piercing at 8 days that would be a mutilation, with some risks of additional harm, and no medical benefit (at the time it's done), and so it would be banned.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
DanBC 9y ago
Freedom from harm trumps freedom of religion. This law is not incompatible with freedom of religion.
- RightMillennial 9y ago
  And circumcision is not incompatible with "freedom from harm" because it is not harmful. Therefore, this is a law that needlessly restricts freedom of religion.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Circumcision is harmful. It removes healthy tissue that has function. You can talk about how harmful it is, but it definitely causes harm.
GordonS 9y ago
> Genesis 17:9-14 and Leviticus 12:1-3 do not give Jews any leeway in this practice. > ... > laws like this proposed ban are simply a veiled authorization of persecution. Leviticus 20:27 says it's OK to stone mediums to death - should this be lawful too, or would it also be persecution? You can take freedom of religion too far - the books of the bible were written rather a long time ago. Judaism has been able to modernise regarding such things as being stoned to death for merely breaking Sabbath, so maybe it needs to modernise a bit more regarding mutilating children?
mnm1 9y ago
"but freedom of religion is a basic human right" Only until it infringes on someone else's rights and freedoms. At that point, it's violence. That's what circumcision is. If you wish to argue that anything should be allowed for any religion, then we have to accept a world that tolerates rape, human sacrifice and mass suicides, just to name a few religious practices that your argument would allow. But if we had that kind of religious freedom, at least we'd be able to take whatever drugs we all wanted to forget about all the stupidity going on around us in the name of religious freedom. Let's face it, religious freedom is a thinly veiled argument for allowing people to do fucked up shit that would otherwise be unacceptable justifying those actions. Since religion can justify any and all horrible human actions, it's basically an argument for allowing one to do whatever one wants without fear of retribution by appealing to unverifiable nonsense.

by claar 9y ago

wyager 9y ago

> freedom of religion is a basic human right. Freedom of religion means the state can't tell you what to believe. It emphatically does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do, including murdering infidels or performing cosmetic surgery on babies.

claar 9y ago
> does not mean that you have carte-blanche authority to do whatever crazy stuff your religion asks you to do And how shall we decide what constitutes "crazy stuff"? In Daniel 6:4-9, it was decided that it was unlawful to make a petition to any god or man except the king. In fact, this was done explicitly to provide an excuse to persecute Daniel. To help illuminate the issue, what if Hinduism required nose piercing at 8 days, instead of Jews with circumcision? Some in this thread find piercing babies to be wrong, while others find it acceptable. Who gets to decide? And what about the poor Hindu who is now jailed for the practice? It's ironic to me how easy people find it to run merrily down this slippery slope, and yet complain so readily when their own freedoms are infringed.
- DanBC 9y ago
  If a religion required nose piercing at 8 days that would be a mutilation, with some risks of additional harm, and no medical benefit (at the time it's done), and so it would be banned.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

DanBC 9y ago

Freedom from harm trumps freedom of religion. This law is not incompatible with freedom of religion.

RightMillennial 9y ago
And circumcision is not incompatible with "freedom from harm" because it is not harmful. Therefore, this is a law that needlessly restricts freedom of religion.
- DanBC 9y ago
  Circumcision is harmful. It removes healthy tissue that has function. You can talk about how harmful it is, but it definitely causes harm.

GordonS 9y ago

> Genesis 17:9-14 and Leviticus 12:1-3 do not give Jews any leeway in this practice. > ... > laws like this proposed ban are simply a veiled authorization of persecution. Leviticus 20:27 says it's OK to stone mediums to death - should this be lawful too, or would it also be persecution? You can take freedom of religion too far - the books of the bible were written rather a long time ago. Judaism has been able to modernise regarding such things as being stoned to death for merely breaking Sabbath, so maybe it needs to modernise a bit more regarding mutilating children?

mnm1 9y ago

"but freedom of religion is a basic human right" Only until it infringes on someone else's rights and freedoms. At that point, it's violence. That's what circumcision is. If you wish to argue that anything should be allowed for any religion, then we have to accept a world that tolerates rape, human sacrifice and mass suicides, just to name a few religious practices that your argument would allow. But if we had that kind of religious freedom, at least we'd be able to take whatever drugs we all wanted to forget about all the stupidity going on around us in the name of religious freedom. Let's face it, religious freedom is a thinly veiled argument for allowing people to do fucked up shit that would otherwise be unacceptable justifying those actions. Since religion can justify any and all horrible human actions, it's basically an argument for allowing one to do whatever one wants without fear of retribution by appealing to unverifiable nonsense.