NEWS: Freedom Of Religion Gone Too Far?

Agreed... there are many religions whose practices seem cruel or dangerous or just plain weird… throughout history many now common religions have practiced some damn weird things.

Although I have to say that if someone is going to be doing this it would be wise to check for that sort of possibility when choosing the mohel.

I'm not. I'm all for people being able to make their own choices, but these choices are killing kids who don't get to choose. Same with Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. If "cultural superiority" means not letting kids die who could be saved by commonplace medical procedures, then sign me the fuck up.

Edited to mention that in the actual thread material, I'd only have a problem with this if it's not done sanitarily. I don't think it's done for sexual reasons That said, the risk to the kid needs to be minimized.

[Edited on Feb 07, 2006 7:26PM]

Believe it or not, a lot of the people on this thread seem to share the same opinion on "free exercise" restrictions as...

...wait for it...

Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia has long argued that otherwise valid restrictions, not targetted at a specific religion, do not violate the free exercise clause. So, for example, a law that said animals could only be slaughtered in approved slaughterhouses (thus prohibiting animal sacrifice) would be constitutional. The same argument would probably apply to a regulation requiring sterilization of surgical wounds in accordance with generally accepted medical practices (thus prohibiting this particular practice).

Of course, when sucking on babies' penises is outlawed...only outlaws will suck on babies' penises.

Yes it does. It allows parents to refuse medical treatment for their children which is a fuckload more dangerous than this practice. Not that I agree with this particular legality, but it's a precident.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to accuse you specifically of anti-Semitism. I wouldn't put it past someone like Hitchens, considering his general attitude towards everything not completely Western. Sorry if it came off as accusatory.

I'm not an expert on Hasidic Judaism, but there's a modified practice by more modern Orthodox Jews in which they use a tube instead of direct oral contact. It probably wouldn't be too much to offer that to the Brooklyn Hasidim as an alternative, but the tenor of the debate doesn't exactly seem appropriate for compromise, does it?

Not really. More like "I wish less people would make decisions that affect me based on the whims of their imaginary friends".

Apparently the writer of the SG article and many of the responses haven't been around many Hasidim. They do many, many things that the general population would find questionable, even harmful, in their free practice of religion (not the least of which, in my mind, is in-breading so prevalent that their chances of getting certain inherited diseases is infinitely higher than the general population).

There is one thing, however that places the Hasidic community much, much higher in my esteem than most any other religion or cultural group in the world (save the Amish, Mennonites, and a few others). They do not proselytize. And for this they are much less insidious than most every other religion or culture.

I think we should take a cue from these insular religions, and not use our religious, secular, and cultural belief system to decry them for an ancient practice they consider integral to their religion, as they do not decry us for what must be an overwhelming number of sins we commit in their eyes.

After all there were only 7 cases of disease in 4000 circumcisions. That is not an especially high rate of infection.

Edited to say: I don't much feel like doing the research, but I don't suppose a hospital could do significantly better. Anyone care to find out the rate of infection for hospital circumcisions?

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 10:11AM]

good points. i love it how people pull some tiny modern example of something gone wrong from a ritual that has happened for thousands of years and call it "inappropriate".

it's also hilarious because i find circumsision the US to be pretty damn "inappropriate" for non jewish baby boys in the first place.



[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by zwiebel]

That is just not true.

Well I don't know what Hasidim you live near, but I lived within blocks of two of them over a period of seven years and was never once asked to become a member, or even spoken too at all. They are an incredibly insular society, so I'd be curious how you would refute my statement.

There are different sects of Hasidim. The Satmars don't proselytize, but the Lubavitch most certainly do. Not to non-jews, but to any Jew, practicing or not.

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by PointBlank]

Ahh well I only lived near the Satmars and the Bobovers, so those are the only ones I can speak to personally.

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 11:56AM]

"If I don't believe in it...it must be stupid"

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a practicing member of my religion. However...there are plenty of people...well-adjusted, educated, intelligent people who ARE practicing members of their respective religions who are not zealots, closed-minded, preachy, homophobic etc;

The main tenet of all organized religion is: Don't be an asshole

If you break down the teachings of the major religions...they all amount to suggestions on how to avoid being an asshole. Don't lie, Don't kill, don't steal stuff, don't spend all day envying the possessions of others, don't cheat on your spouse etc;

Of course...the people who pervert the teachings of their religion...the people who are fanatical about it...yes...they're clearly insane.

To dismiss religion as superstition is small-minded & fairly stupid. When followed by a sensible, well-balanced person...religion can be an excellent primer for how to live a good life.

I think we are missing the important part of this article

And the article says that the circumcision cermony MAY have been the cause.

I am a Jew, however I am reform and although I will get any male children I have circumcised I will not do this practice. However I don't think the evidence warrants a ban.

That's not what I said, but, again...

I agree, there are. Nobody's perfect.

That doesn't change the fact that it's based on mythology and superstition, and that basis continues to perpetuate, to this day, beliefs which are not in accordance with the actual world in which we live, and those beliefs are used to justify behaviors and declarations which do not adhere to your "Don't be an asshole" commandment. Ref: Sen. Rick Santorum.

As an exercise, try to scientifically justify homophobia. You can't do it. But if you have a god on your side who shares your prejudices, you're good to go.

Sure! We think so. But many other adherents to their religion eat it up. Ref: Pat Robertson. We may think he's insane, but many more people not only think he is sane, but that he is worthy of leading them based on his knowledge of religion.

Then again, so can some basic ethics and general education, which doesn't need fairies, magic, questionably re-re-translated books and all the other nonsense that religion is based on.

I don't "dismiss" religion as superstition. I label it that because that's what it is. It may be a useful system of ethics based around supersititon, but in the end, it's still superstition.

But, as "miracles lurk in the lacunae of science", it's something we will (hopefully) shed as we mature and learn more about this universe and the way it works.

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by eightzeroone]

Which beliefs are not in accordance with the actual world in which we live, exactly? The ones about not killing, not lying, not cheating on your spouse....

The mere existance of liars, charlatans, frauds, zealots etc; is not avoidable. Are you actually trying to discredit religion based on the fact that there are wackos who follow it? Try to find any movement that's wacko-free.

I should hope that people live their lives with a variety of teachings on how to be a good person. I wonder, though, where the concept of ethics was born and through what means was it shaped? Surely religion played a role in the formation of society's concept of ethical behavior.

As far as education...that's where religion can excel...as a means of education. I don't think a sane person is expected to believe that all aspects of religious teachings are to be taken literally.

I think it's cute how you link to the dictionary.com definition of superstition...I really do. It's not, however, a concrete foundation. Are you attempting to argue that you have empirical knowledge of what is and what is not rational?

Are you also prepared to explain your view that a person cannot believe in religion without being ignorant of the laws of nature? To go tit for tat here's the definition of the word ignorance.

*edited for a typo & some clarity of language.

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by Cash]

That's the "ethics" part. Not the "religion" part. You can have those absent religion. I'm more talking about the parts like having to cut the skin off of the end of your penis to please god.

I was thinking about adding a caveat about that to my comments, now I see I should have. I agree, there are no wacko-free movements. This is more a general indictment of "movements" and groupthink, with which I also take issue.

There were ethical standards before religion, there will be after. Religion has played a role in the development of our current set of ethics, yes, as it has played a role in just everything. Whether that role is beneficial is up for debate.

Look at the ridiculous circus going on in the US over "intelligent design" and tell me religion is having a beneficial effect on its education system. The sad fact is that religion has stood in opposition of scientific progress at nearly every major turning point in history. The happy fact is that it lost.

And as for teaching ethics, there are much better ethical systems available.

Please expand on this question. I'm curious about it. I don't think I understand what you mean.

And I'm sorry if the dictionary link offended you, I just wanted to set a standard for what I meant by "superstition".

I never said someone cannot believe in religion without being ignorant of the laws of nature. People tailor religion as they see fit. I will say, however, that religion historically encourages and fosters such ignorance by offering mythological and superstitious explanations for natural phenomena and discouraging investigation.

That is a minor part of some religions. Basing your argument on circumcision as a reason to discredit religion as a mystical farce is really, really reaching.

If it's the worker bee/drone mentality you're railing against...you'll get no argument from me. But that mentality is not inherently present in religion. While there is an air of servitude to "the master"...religion, itself, hardly discourages individuality & free thinking. Certain people from certain sects of certain religions may...but religion as a whole...not so much.

Once again...you're taking one part of religion...one greatly over-publicized aspect of it and using it as if it were a widespread belief.

Second, I never, in any way, endorsed religion in the oublic school system. The people pushing intelligent design are not your average, garden variety churchgoer. They're the fanatics. Kinda like the Muslims rioting over a cartoon right now...dig?

Your assertion that religion was merely superstition included the definition of supersition. The definition of superstition that you provided was:

Therefore it is not the mere belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome...rather the irrational belief.

Based on my previous comment, if you assert that religion is superstition...and you stand by the definition you provided...then someone who had a rational belief belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome...say, someone who believed so in faith but not as an absolute...your view that religion is superstition would not hold up. Unless, as I stated before, you have empirical knowledge of what is and what is not rational.

I submit that you did, in fact, say just that. The second part of the definition of "supertition" that you yourself provided says that supersition is:

You believe that religion is superstition. You believe the definition that you provided. You believe that people who believe in religion are superstitious. Therefore, you believe that people's belief in religion is maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature.



[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by Cash]

Because freedom can go to far, I personally believe we should only be free to do things things that I myself would like to do.

Who's with me?!

What separates a religion from a mere system of ethics? Belief in a supernatural power. Circumcision is just an example of trying to please a supernatural power. That is the "mystical farce."

That is such a nebulous statement I'm unable to focus sufficiently to explain the depth of my disagreement. Of course some religious people are more accepting than others. Some are also less religious than others. But the idea of religious institutions as purveyors of free thought is so perverse I don't even feel it necessary to come up with a counterexample. Should I start listing off scientists killed/prosecuted/persecuted for contradicting the Bible?

Dig. Both of them are misguided and their actions are tragic. But both are necessarily symptoms of religious attitudes.

What I gave you was an example. I can give more widespread beliefs, such as the widespread belief that the earth was created as it is now, for us, by God, in the last 10,000 years (47%). This belief is perpetuated by various churches. This dovetails into various beliefs and attitudes which cause harm to us all, including disregard for the enviroment, and a ridiculous overstatement of our importance in the universe.

Correct. Would you call belief in an invisible being created the universe (and watches with great interest what you do with your genitals) rational? More rational than, say believing there are invisible ponies on pluto? And, from there, would I be acting irrationally by trying to please those ponies by my actions on earth?

Please point me to an example in which someone has a rational belief that something logically not related to a course of events influences its outcome that is not based on their ignorance.

And I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about the definition of "rational".

The short answer to your question is that peoples' adherence to the "ignorance" of their religion varies, and there's no necessary requirement for someone to maintain ignorance of natural laws to be considered "religious."

But, yes, I do believe that a certain level of ignorance about the world (sometimes willful) is required of the "true believer", simply because so many religious (supernatural) beliefs fly in the face of science and natural history. I don't think it's a coincidence that those who are less superstitious are often considered less religious. As I said before, miracles lurk in the lacunae of science. It's also no coincidence that god and the supernatural's role in describing the world around us has diminished as we have investigated and discovered more about the way things work.

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by eightzeroone]

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by eightzeroone]

I'm agreeing with the general direction you're going, but this just isn't true. I was raised Baptist, and this just isn't true. First off, look at the 10 commandments. I don't know of anything that says some of those are more important than the others, yet half of them have absolutely nothing to do with not being an asshole. There are some major tenets there that are specifically about ritual and supernatural stuff and ostracization that have jack all to do with not being a dick. Further, the one core/major tenet of Christianity is Christ as the son of God and only source of salvation. There specifically, being a dick or not does nothing in the long run. You're already damned and being a good person can't change that. Sure, the anti-jackass rules are there, but they're tacked on. The only major tenet shared by most of the big boys is "us against them".

[Edited on Feb 09, 2006 by apesamongus]

It's also worth noting that there are seven recorded cases of herpes being passed to infants in this way. That's newsworthy because of the disease involved, and the relative difficulty with passing on such a disease. But what about other kinds of infection? Are those rates of infection documented?

All mutilation of sexual organs done without a person's informed consent is, in my view, equivalent to rape.

Well, it was nice of you to jump into an argument that ended seven years ago to tell us that.

Nice of you to join the conversation without actually adding anything to it.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but circumcision didn't end 7 years ago. Sadly, babies are still being mutilated here in the US at a rate of one every thirty seconds.