NEWS: Freedom Of Religion Gone Too Far?

Slippery slope defending or prosecuting this one. I commend anyone who can take a definitive stance on this. You are a better judge of other people's culture than I.

I saw an article about this awhile back. In what other avenue could someone do this and NOT be charged with some type of molestation?

Well, when the ritual is thousands of years old, you can be pretty sure they're not doing it because they get off on it.

Hell, the Greeks believed man-boy sexual relationships were beneficial to both.

Quite frankly I'm glad I have not practice my elder's religion. I would probably be dead or serving a life sentence.

Freedom of religion does not extend to the unreasonable endangerment of the children of a religion's adherents. Here, the practice is at the very least unsanitary enough to pose a significant health risk to the child. Therefore, it would not fall under the protections of the Free Exercise clause.

"Oral suction" is a wonderfully descriptive phrase; I hope it becomes the next fad slang term for oral sex.

the title of this aeticle makes me sad
is it time to question the logic of the consitution?

we are not given freedom of religion so much as it is granted to us by the single document that has any say over any act in american society.

and i have to say that this oral suction seems a bit our of sorts with my sensiblities, but just like i am not going to shut down a snake handling i will not condem this.

and while i think the act is outrageous
i have an understanding that my agnosticism has no place judging anyones relgious pomp and cercumstance.

Last time I checked religious freedom didn't cover obvious criminal acts, you know, like pedophilia. Maybe they saw the priests getting away with and decided to give it a shot.

Ummm... I think it's pretty well A OK.

Nixon, I love you.

This is a very valid point. Also I dont see ppl jumping up and down over the deaths of those involved with the recent protests against Demark by the Muslims around the world is this not taking things to far illegal or the fact that they are Muslim and nobody wishes to up set this apple cart its ok to burn other ppl and countries property and take lives over a stupid fucking picture.

So, one mohel who has refused to take responsibility for a serious personal and occupational health issue should be enough to outlaw an ancient religious tradition that has been practiced in this country since Jews first arrived here? Is that the gist of the argument? The mohel in question is incredibly irresponsible, and everyone involved agrees, from local Jewish leaders to public health officials and up to the the mayor's office. I just don't think the DA's office has built enough of a case to bring charges against him, and for a very good reason: the political willpower does not exist to try to ban free exercise of religious practices, regardless of what religion it is.

Actually, why did this come up again? I haven't read a story about it since last summer. If it's just because that fat fuck Hitchens got on his screed wagon about it, I'm going to be hella pissed.

true..true...we all need to slip them muslims some xanax and tell them to calm the fuck down....maybe we could spray the mid east with xanax or maybe valium with a crop duster

I think it's pretty steep to accuse these people of pedophilia because they engage in a single act of touching infantile penis? Why is that so much worse than the penis-touching inherent in regular circumcision? Perhaps we should start going after doctors who touch children's penises, too?

I believe whole-heartedly that this mohel should be punished for his irresponsible behavior. I disagree, however, with the assertion that this is an act that gives anybody involved any kind of sexual gratification.

*wonders how many people that read this article thought "we should just outlaw religion"*

I hadnt thought it (at least not tonight) until you'd mentioned it, but that's certainly a good idea!

I support freedom of religion up until baby blowjobs.

[Edited on Feb 07, 2006 by Jeff_Fries]

I wouldn't like to see religion outlawed. That would just perpetuate it.

I'd rather see it exposed for what it is - superstitious nonsense - so that believers might decide voluntarily to join those of us already living in the 21st century.

A lot of people go off the point and wonder, well what about this and what about that? I think the issue here is what the article talks about, and if it's dangerous (not to mension reprehensible), it would fall under the laws that were made to stop abuse of our Freedoms. Period.

Umm. No. Just because it's old does not mean that. Your telling me that a horny old pervert that likes children's... lower bits isn't getting turned on by this? Or wouldn't go out of his way to find something he could do to get turned on "legally." Please. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of the practictions of this tape it just to get off later. Just because something is old doesn't mean you're not going to get off to it. People masturbate and that's as old as time.

Both of you, are you aware of the term "Straw man argument" ?

WTF does that have to do with whether or not these kids got diseases?

Nothing. And I feel bad for the kids. By the way. That isn't what this toppic was about, it's about religions going too far.