I know lots of First Things readers are following the shocking case in Germany of a rabbi who is under the cloud of a criminal investigation for practicing circumcision – in effect, for being Jewish. In case you missed it over the long weekend, a local source tells Ed Whelan the case has been somewhat misreported in English-language media. Apparently, the rabbi has not actually been charged. Another citizen has filed a complaint against him, and under German law prosecutors must investigate such complaints when they come in. The prosecutors in this case appear to be slow-walking the investigation (“thank God,” comments Whelan’s source) toward what we can all hope is a quiet end where the charges are dropped.
It’s still a shocking story, of course. Religious liberty remains in peril wherever it depends upon the discretion of prosecutors rather than the solid protection of the rule of law. I offer four lessons that I think we Americans can learn from this case as we wrestle with our own struggles on religious liberty here.
In the meantime, let’s continue to pray and stand with our Jewish friends facing a renewal of the ancient threat of persecution – and in Germany, of all places.
September 5th, 2012 | 12:53 pm
The only thing that is shocking, is that religion is a license to carry out any atrocity – from letting children die of treatable illnesses to mutilating their genitalia.
Outlawing this practice that kills 117 American boys every year is not ‘persecution’ of Jews. If you recall, persecution actually intends to harm its targets. Protecting Jewish babies from having their bodies mutilated, and from bleeding to death in some cases, is a strange form of persecution. Nazis killed and mutilated Jews, they did not seek to prevent the killing and mutilation of Jews.
It does not become to engage in ethnic stereotyping of Germans, for acts carried out by people who died before most modern-day Germans were born. In fact, acts that had nothing to do with religion, but with race.
September 5th, 2012 | 2:57 pm
Try explaining to the average American that Germany has a system where you can file a criminal complaint about your neighbor and prosecutors are obligated to investigate it. We should be thankful – while we still have it – for our system of the rule of law, personal liberties and checks and balances, which allows us to hold coercive power at arm’s length.
I am not sure what is wrong with such a system, and I also don’t know how different it is from our own in the United States. Certainly if a person reports a crime, or files a criminal complaint, we expect the authorities to take each report or complaint seriously, don’t we? I just ran across a story about the Philadelphia Police Department letting 2000 reported sex crimes go uninvestigated over a three-year period, and that was clearly wrongdoing. Even those of use who don’t believe anyone should be prosecuted for performing a circumcision would certainly want the police to investigate if we reported that someone had taken a knife to a child.
By the way, almost two weeks ago I quoted this from a news report in a comment (August 23rd, 2012 | 10:42 am): “Chief prosecutor Gerhard Schmitt confirmed that the complaint was filed, although it has not yet been decided whether legal action will be carried out against the rabbi.” That’s been the case from the very beginning, but for those determined to spread alarm, it made a better story to say the rabbi was being “prosecuted.”
September 6th, 2012 | 12:04 am
^^ a criminal investigation for practicing circumcision – in effect, for being Jewish. ^^
By allowing the forced genital cutting ritual, Berlin is subjecting boys to an otherwise illegal mutilation. Their rights are denied – in effect, for being in Jewish families.
September 6th, 2012 | 12:19 am
Maximilian,
I wonder if you would be so kind as to indicate the source of your information regarding child death due to circumcision. There is a difference between mutilation and a surgical hygienic procedure. It cannot be overstated, either, that any surgical procedure always carries a risk. Given roughly 2 million baby boys are born every year in this country and over 50% are still circumcised, your figure seems statistically miniscule.
Perhaps you missed the recent report:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/index.html
Or this not-so-recent information, published by our own government:
http://www.cdc.gov/Hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf
Parents, however, usually have strong say in medical treatment of their children, whether their opinions are based on medical science or not. Do you also object to infant ear mutilation (piercing) that persists in some parts of the United States? I’m not convinced we should tamper with that right, except in extreme cases. Based on your own statistics (less than .00585% mortality), circumcision is not one, though I’m sure the Christian Scientists agree with you.
September 6th, 2012 | 5:16 am
The learned author complains
“The problem is the legal and constitutional order at a much deeper level. When you have a system that assumes every act is subject to a sort of presumptive societal review, you can have religious toleration (we, society, decide to permit you to practice your religion) but not freedom of religion – a social order in which the primacy of the conscience is taken for granted as the bedrock social commitment.”
Surely, the great principle of democracy is that the people, who are the source of all authority, has no master and no judge, and decides in the last instance and alone.
Rights are secure, because the laws are the expression of the general will; they are made by those who obey them, not by those who govern. The government is merely the people’s agent, under a temporary and revocable mandate.
September 6th, 2012 | 5:44 am
“for practicing circumcision – in effect, for being Jewish.”
To equate cutting babies’ genitals with being Jewish – to say that is its essence – seems antisemitic to me.
September 6th, 2012 | 7:28 am
The story begins with an actual court ruling by a German judge who decided that circumcision “harms” the baby, and was not justified by thousands of years of practice without harm to the physical or mental capacities of Jews and Muslims.
The American Academy of Pediatricians recently reported that circumcized men are slightly healthier than the uncircumcized. Circumcision in the US is mostly practiced by doctors on non-Jewish children. The assumption of “harm” made by the German judge is totally bogus.
September 6th, 2012 | 8:35 am
I guess Maximilian has never heard of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees. Hint: it’s all been tried before. And do you (or can anybody) expect that Orthodox Jews will comply, any more now than then, with a law banning circumcision?
September 6th, 2012 | 9:23 am
Maximilian The only thing that is shocking, is that religion is a license to carry out any atrocity – from letting children die of treatable illnesses to mutilating their genitalia.
Circumcision is not an atrocity; otherwise, the American Academy of Pediatrics would not state that its health benefits outweigh its risks. Your hysteria about 117 dead children — which include non-religious circumcision, which accounts for the vast majority of circumcision in the United States — resembles the hysteria that some people have about vaccines, which also kill a number of Americans every year. Since June 1990, for example, the Prevnar vaccines has resulted in more than 22000 deaths, more than 1000 a year, on average. This risk is considered acceptable because, as with circumcision, the benefits outweigh the risks.
September 6th, 2012 | 9:33 am
Heloise: There is a difference between mutilation and a surgical hygienic procedure.
There is a better way of hygiene, known as showering and bathing. One need not mutilate the genitalia of children for it.
Heloise: It cannot be overstated, either, that any surgical procedure always carries a risk.
So it does, which is why I oppose forcibly inflicting this unnecessary, damaging and degrading practice on defenseless babies. Every death is an unnecessary one. If adults want to cut off any part of their body, they can go ahead and do it. They do not have the right to inflict this on the defenseless.
The source is a recent New York Times article.
Heloise: Perhaps you missed the recent report:
I did not miss the recent report. It comes from the AAP, the same organization that endorsed a form of FGM. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
Heloise: Or this not-so-recent information, published by our own government:
Aye, it is said that this disgusting practice slightly lowers the chance of HIV. Of course, HIV can easily be prevented by behaving responsibly. I do not think that babies should bleed and die, be robbed of dignity and autonomy, so that people can have irresponsible sex. Do you?
Heloise: Based on your own statistics (less than .00585% mortality), circumcision is not one, though I’m sure the Christian Scientists agree with you.
No, Christian Scientists are the ones who argue that they have the right to kill their children by denying them medicine. They, too, believe that children are their plaything and property.
September 6th, 2012 | 9:38 am
Raymond: The story begins with an actual court ruling by a German judge who decided that circumcision “harms” the baby
The story begins with a judge who saw that it was bizarre to outlaw mutilating children, but to make an exception for the genitalia – and those of boys only.
Raymond: and was not justified by thousands of years of practice without harm to the physical or mental capacities of Jews and Muslims.
Thousands of years of harmless practice, no way. Did you know that rabbis made an exception for mothers who had had two of their hemophilic children bleed to death because of this practice? They would not insist on the third one undergoing the same fate.
Raymond: The American Academy of Pediatricians recently reported that circumcized men are slightly healthier than the uncircumcized.
The selfsame AAP that endorsed a form of bloodletting from girls, has the same amount of respect for the integrity of the bodies of little boys.
William Tighe: And do you (or can anybody) expect that Orthodox Jews will comply, any more now than then, with a law banning circumcision?
The law never prevents all crimes, it only deters crimes. We have laws against murder, and yet murders happen. We have laws against FGM, and yet it happens. We have laws against honor killing, and yet it happens.
September 6th, 2012 | 9:43 am
Jack Perry: Circumcision is not an atrocity; otherwise, the American Academy of Pediatrics would not state that its health benefits outweigh its risks.
You correctly excluded the adjective ‘male’ in your statement about the opinions of the infallible AAP, because females are not excluded from it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
Jack Perry: resembles the hysteria that some people have about vaccines, which also kill a number of Americans every year. Since June 1990, for example, the Prevnar vaccines has resulted in more than 22000 deaths, more than 1000 a year, on average.
I am not sure whether your statistics are accurate, but even if they are, vaccines save an order of magnitude more lives than that. The same cannot be said of genital mutilation.
Jack Perry: This risk is considered acceptable because, as with circumcision, the benefits outweigh the risks.
No, Jack, the fact that genital mutilation of boys lowers the chance of them getting HIV does not outweigh the risks[1] – there is absolutely no reason why all boys should be mutilated, so that the tiny minority that catches HIV will have a slightly lower chance of getting it.
[1] As well as the chance of having your genitalia grossly maimed, being robbed of dignity and autonomy, weakening and damaging the organ – which Maimonides cited as a reason to do it.
September 6th, 2012 | 10:30 am
Maximilian I am not sure whether your statistics are accurate…
It doesn’t take much work to find this information at the CDC website; I managed in less than 5 minutes. Perhaps you should do a little genuine research, and applied a minimal amount of critical thinking, before taking a position on certain issues.
…but even if they are, vaccines save an order of magnitude more lives than that. The same cannot be said of genital mutilation.
Circumcision certainly does save lives, as (again) AAP indicates. These benefits are not limited to HIV, but to other diseases, as well, including benefits during the first year of life. Is it “an order of magnitude” greater? No, but that is immaterial; the benefits are statistically significant, and the argument here is strictly cost-benefit ratio. For instance, transmission of HIV was cut in roughly half, of HPV by roughly 1/3, etc.
there is absolutely no reason why all boys should be mutilated, so that the tiny minority that catches HIV will have a slightly lower chance of getting it.
It isn’t only HIV, the chance isn’t “slightly” lower, and no one is advocating that all boys be circumcised. Unlike, say, people who advocate that all children receive the HPV vaccine, which, like all vaccines, carries risks… including death.
…which Maimonides cited as a reason to do it.
The only time we can trust Maximilian to quote a medieval author as infallibly authoritative is when the author is not authoritative, let alone infallible.
BTW, your attempts to redefine the conversation using your own, emotionally-laden terminology is eerily reminiscent of Mintruth in 1984.
September 6th, 2012 | 11:28 am
Jack Perry: It doesn’t take much work to find this information at the CDC website; I managed in less than 5 minutes. Perhaps you should do a little genuine research, and applied a minimal amount of critical thinking, before taking a position on certain issues.
I thought you got it from the likes of Jenny McCarthy – and my point stood even if it were true, so no need. And frankly, you show no critical thinking at all, since you at first attempted to justify yourself by an appeal to the supposed authority of the FGM-endorsing AAP.
Jack Perry: Circumcision certainly does save lives, as (again) AAP indicates. These benefits are not limited to HIV
The major benefit that is consistently cited by advocates of this practice is HIV. So we should mutilate boys, so that the .3% who get HIV due to irresponsible sexual practices will be slightly reduced.
The AAP is an absolute joke. They have already ritually sacrificed the bodily integrity of young girls on the altar of political correctness and cultural relativism, now they turn their bloodied knives on the boys: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html
Jack Perry: Is it “an order of magnitude” greater? No, but that is immaterial
It is very material. You’re advocating cutting away healthy tissue, which vaccination does not do. You’re advocating violating their bodily integrity, which vaccination does not do. And not for a universal benefit, for the benefit of making irresponsible sex slightly safer. Why should all children have to die, bleed, suffer and be mutilated, to lower slightly from .3% the percentage of people who get HIV, due to their own actions?
Jack Perry: and the argument here is strictly cost-benefit ratio
I never knew you for a utilitarian, Jack. Is the atheist in this discussion the deontologist?
Jack Perry: For instance, transmission of HIV was cut in roughly half, of HPV by roughly 1/3,
And there is a better way to cut HPV by roughly 100%. The excuses people use for this practice are absolutely startling. Hygiene – yes, let’s not shower, let’s cut healthy tissue from the bodies of babies. HIV – let’s not conduct ourselves responsibly sexually, let’s cut healthy tissue from the bodies of babies. HPV – let’s not vaccinate people against it, let’s cut healthy tissue from the bodies of babies.
Jack Perry: It isn’t only HIV, the chance isn’t “slightly” lower, and no one is advocating that all boys be circumcised.
The percentage of people with HIV is .3%. That’s 0.3%. Let’s assume that it indeed reduces the chance of HIV (studies are mixed) – the figure I read in a previous thread would be 20%. . That’s your ‘major benefit’, and the benefit goes to the irresponsible. I am not impressed.
Jack Perry: The only time we can trust Maximilian to quote a medieval author as infallibly authoritative is when the author is not authoritative, let alone infallible.
I am glad that you have since discovered that Maimonides was not an ‘ancient’ author, but a medieval one. Again, I did not say that he was infallible, I just pointed it out, much to your chagrin, as it comes out of the mouth of a supporter of the practice. It puts somewhat of a damper on an earlier made claim that Muslims and Jews have been doing this for thousands of years, with no harm. Yes, but the harm was cited as a benefit.
Jack Perry: BTW, your attempts to redefine the conversation using your own, emotionally-laden terminology is eerily reminiscent of Mintruth in 1984.
I do not use any emotionally-laden terminology. Cutting healthy tissue is mutilation. If someone cut off the earlobe of a child, he would be prosecuted for mutilation, and rightly so. Only an exception is made for the genitalia of boys, bizarrely so, and like Vaclav Havel, I am determined to live in truth. Feel free to do this, or more, to yourself, but I will insist that defenseless babies be protected, that they not be forced, that they have their freedom and choice safeguarded.
September 6th, 2012 | 12:25 pm
Maximilian
Ah, I get it. “Don’t feed the trolls,” they say, and this particular troll has an especially noxious contempt for truth and reasoning. Very well, this is my last reply.
I never knew you for a utilitarian, Jack.
In general, I am not. However, when the question regards whether a procedure has health benefits, and whether that provides a reason for allowing the procedure, then utilitarian arguments are quite valid. However, it is not the only reason to avoid persecuting Jews; I am merely sticking to this particular aspect of the question.
The AAP is an absolute joke.
Controversial as that committee’s recommendation was, you have completely misrepresented their position. As the story states in its very first sentence, a committee of the AAP … [suggested] that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision. The recommendation is to allow their doctors to prevent a worse procedure.
I am glad that you have since discovered that Maimonides was not an ‘ancient’ author, but a medieval one.
“Since”? Medieval and ancient are not very different for the purpose of this discussion.
Again, I did not say that he was infallible, I just pointed it out, much to your chagrin, as it comes out of the mouth of a supporter of the practice.
No, not to my chagrin. I doubt that was even the reason he supported it; rather, it would have been an argument he made in support of it. So what?
Let me illustrate how bad your reasoning is here. Some people favor abortion because they imagine that minorities are aborted at a higher rate than people of European descent. Does that mean abortion should be illegal? Does it even mean that minorities are aborted at a higher rate than people of European descent?
No. It means only that some people think that. That is all.
In the same way, Maimonides’ opinion that a benefit of circumcision was decreased sexual pleasure is his opinion, and is not in any way a reason to ban the procedure.
I do not use any emotionally-laden terminology.
You know very well that the word “mutilation” is emotionally-laden.
I will insist that defenseless babies be protected, that they not be forced, that they have their freedom and choice safeguarded.
Protected from a decision made by their own parents in a procedure that has no serious statistical risk of adverse side effects?
Again, where is your supposed concern for innocence when it comes to abortion?
The remainder of your arguments are just plain silly, a kind of grasping at straws that tells the reader that even you realize you’ve lost the argument.
Havel, incidentally, was a Catholic.
September 6th, 2012 | 2:47 pm
William Tighe: And do you (or can anybody) expect that Orthodox Jews will comply, any more now than then, with a law banning circumcision?
Maximilian: The law never prevents all crimes, it only deters crimes. We have laws against murder, and yet murders happen. We have laws against FGM, and yet it happens. We have laws against honor killing, and yet it happens.
William Tighe: Many Greeks in the Hellenistic Era thought that circumcision was a disgusting bodily mutilation which ought to be prohibited, with those disobeying penalized — and Antiochus Epiphanes certainly “penalized” them. The Jews reacted defiantly to the prohibition then, and I trust that they would do so today (of course, there were compliant Hellenizers, just as there would be compliant “secularizers” now) — but I am gratified (by your honesty, although hardly “pleased”) to see that you you would seemingly place yourself in the camp of those contemporary Antiochus Epiphanes(es) who would be willing to promote religious persecution in the name of secular “values.”
September 6th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
(the post has been changed)
Jack Perry: Ah, I get it. “Don’t feed the trolls,” they say, and this particular troll has an especially noxious contempt for truth and reasoning. Very well, this is my last reply.
This is an ironic statement. You have not even attempted to defend your assertions about HIV, in any one of your many posts on this matter. I still do not understand why is it that children have to be mutilated, to help them have a slightly lower chance of getting HIV if they choose to lead a wild and irresponsible sex life. It seems to me far more reasonable to not hack off healthy tissue from the bodies of babies, and instead live one’s life responsibly.
Jack Perry: However, it is not the only reason to avoid persecuting Jews; I am merely sticking to this particular aspect of the question.
Is opposing anything a particular group happens to practice ‘persecution’ of that group?
Jack Perry: The recommendation is to allow their doctors to prevent a worse procedure.
You obviously haven’t read past the first sentence. “If we just told parents, ‘No, this is wrong,’ our concern is they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass,” she said.
Let’s endorse less extensive cutting then. If this is such good practice, and protective of children, why did the AAP withdraw this statement after a few weeks of criticism? Was the AAP political when this statement was published, or when it was withdrawn? Did what is in the best interests of children change over the course of three weeks?
The more compelling explanation is that the AAP consists of politically correct cultural relativists, who, in the name of ‘cultural sensitivity’ were willing to bow to this despicable custom, until criticism (not the best interests of children) made them change their mind.
Jack Perry: “Since”? Medieval and ancient are not very different for the purpose of this discussion.
They’re about a thousand years apart.
Jack Perry: No, not to my chagrin. I doubt that was even the reason he supported it; rather, it would have been an argument he made in support of it. So what?
The full quote – to which I linked in an earlier discussion – would show you what his actual argument was. His argument was that his god mandated this practice, because this particular part of the was morally imperfect. Mandating inflicting this practice on children improves this part morally, by weakening it and thus achieving a lessening of the practice for which it is used.
Jack Perry: You know very well that the word “mutilation” is emotionally-laden.
Do I use the word inaccurately? The definition of ‘to mutilate’ is as follows: “to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts”. It fits the definition perfectly.
Jack Perry: Protected from a decision made by their own parents in a procedure that has no serious statistical risk of adverse side effects?
More than 100 dead babies a year. Well, it’s true what Stalin said – one death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic. More often than that, horrific mutilation which deprives boys of that part and in the past sometimes led boys to be raised as girls. And even if successful, a lifetime of a weakened body part.
No, Jack, the bodies of children are not the property of their parents, which is why lobbing off any other part of a child’s anatomy is rightly criminalized. It is ridiculous to insist on making an exception for the genitalia of boys.
Jack Perry: The remainder of your arguments are just plain silly, a kind of grasping at straws that tells the reader that even you realize you’ve lost the argument.
Good one.
September 6th, 2012 | 5:50 pm
I have two sons and had neither circumcised. When I was born, almost all boys were circumcised and I was one of them. While I’m not a big fan of the practice, I believe it is the right of every parent to decide what to do and, in the case of those with religious convictions on the issue, a matter of religious freedom and obedience to their understanding of God’s command.
Maximilian and the German officials are making far too much of a practice that has existed for millennia. Find some thing that matters much more to protest, say the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children in America and hundreds of millions worldwide.
September 6th, 2012 | 6:33 pm
William: Many Greeks in the Hellenistic Era thought that circumcision was a disgusting bodily mutilation which ought to be prohibited, with those disobeying penalized
Keep it straight, this is about children. I do not care about what adults do to themselves, though a disgusting bodily mutilation it may be. I care about what they inflict on helpless children.
William: The Jews reacted defiantly to the prohibition then, and I trust that they would do so today
Frankly, I do not understand why you reach 2200 years back. I seem to recall other crimes committed against the Jews, against which nothing was done, unfortunately, by the Jews. Let me quote from you a Jewish death camp survivor in Elie Wiesel’s book: “The only one in whom I believe is Hitler. He is the only one who has kept his promises to the Jewish people.” In fact, religious councils handed over certain Jews in order to save other Jews. And you are asking me to believe that the Jews will rise up if we require that a person subjected to genital mutilation be 18 years or older?
William: (of course, there were compliant Hellenizers, just as there would be compliant “secularizers” now)
Very interesting comment. By what standard do you judge Jews, if I may ask? It appears that Jews have to satisfy certain conditions, for you not to scorn them.
William: I am gratified (by your honesty, although hardly “pleased”) to see that you you would seemingly place yourself in the camp of those contemporary Antiochus Epiphanes(es) who would be willing to promote religious persecution in the name of secular “values.”
Again, it is not ‘persecution’ to demand that bodily mutilation not be inflicted on people without their consent. Of course, you may see it as ‘persecution’ also that Christian Scientists are not allowed to let their children die for want of medicine. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses being allowed to deny their children life-saving blood transfusions. I do not, nor will I ever, I do not believe in religious privilege.
September 6th, 2012 | 8:38 pm
“I do not, nor will I ever, I do not believe in religious privilege.”
Your quarrel, then, is as much with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as with me.
September 7th, 2012 | 10:39 am
William: “I do not, nor will I ever, I do not believe in religious privilege.” Your quarrel, then, is as much with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, as with me.
Good of you to admit that you believe that religious people should have privileges, that they should not have to abide by laws all others are bound to follow.
However, you are mistaken that the First Amendment privileges you above me. In fact, the Supreme Court has upheld ordinances banning children from distributing religious literature. Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged it, but the Supreme Court said that parents have a right to make a martyr out of themselves, but not out of their children.
Another case, Employment Division v. Smith, held that religious people have to abide by the exact same laws as secular people. Yes, I know, what an atrocity. The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s ban on the use of a drug, peyote, used in Native American religious ceremonies. It explicitly rejected the anarchism that the concept of “religious freedom” means that every man is a law unto himself.
The First Amendment protects people’s right to have religious beliefs. It does not protect the right to kill people who insult one’s prophet, to honor kill relatives, to pull down the pants of defenseless little children and mutilate their genitalia, to kill one’s children by denying them medical help.
September 7th, 2012 | 10:42 am
Diogenes: I believe it is the right of every parent to decide what to do
Why should parents have the “right” to deny children their right to decide? Why should parents have the choice to deny children their choice? That I don’t understand.
Diogenes: Maximilian and the German officials are making far too much of a practice that has existed for millennia.
Same for bloodletting, same for forced marriage, same for FGM – and it justifies none of them.
September 7th, 2012 | 1:54 pm
Maximilian: The First Amendment protects people’s right to have religious beliefs.
William: It does much more than that, cf. “the free exercise of religion;” and “exercise” is not a solitary mental activity. Furthermore, living as we do in a society, where precedent has legal force, the practice of circumcision, having been of unquestioned legality throughout our History, especially as practiced by Jews, should obviously fall under the protection of the First Amendment, whereas “religious” practices that have no such precedent, such as offering one’s son in human sacrifice, or polygamy (as with the Mormons in the 1840s), naturally can claim no such protection.
But, again, Maximilian’s quarrel is with the whole Anglo-American, and indeed, Western, understanding of what “freedom of religion” (not “freedom of belief” or “freedom of worship”)entails, and not si much with me.
September 7th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
That is not what a precedent is. A precedent is a relevant court case. Whether or not something has been legal or not in the past is completely irrelevant to whether it is covered by the First Amendment. Of course, this is just a stalking horse for you to privilege religions that you like, as opposed to religions that you don’t like. That is a clear violation of equal protection. You have already admitted that you believe in religious privilege. And what says actual precedent about that?
“Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
“Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.”
- Employment Division v. Smith
Guess what liberal wrote this? Yes, it’s Scalia – the Catholic arch-conservative on the Supreme Court.
Your claims have no basis in the Constitution, or constitutional law, and serve only to advance your confessed end of garnering privileges for religious people, and now it turns out, only some religious people.
It also disturbs me that the only reason you think human sacrifice should not be given constitutional protection, is because it has no history of legality. Else, you would be defending that too, I presume? “What is this, a law banning human sacrifice? Greeks opposed this practice. Parents should have a right to decide whether to proffer their own children up for ritual. sacrifice. It’s their religion. This is pure persecution of the Aztec religion. You have no understanding of the First Amendment, if you think that freedom of religion is just belief, without the right to act on it.”
September 7th, 2012 | 5:33 pm
Maximillian:
I do not, nor will I ever, I do not believe in religious privilege.
Do you also oppose those who cite freedom of conscience in avoiding military service i.e. conscientious objectors?
September 8th, 2012 | 9:50 am
Jerry: Do you also oppose those who cite freedom of conscience in avoiding military service i.e. conscientious objectors?
Good question. I actually don’t think that anyone should be forced into military service. Not only is it involuntary servitude, but a professional army is much more effective.
But I’m sure that was not the answer you wanted. I am not trying to avoid it. So let’s assume a grievous emergency that would demand that we conscript every able-bodied man. Of all religions, Quakers are the ones I respect and like – I think that they are the best followers of Jesus. But I still do not think that this entitles them to special privileges that others do not have. Others are not drafted out of their free will, or because they enjoy it so much, why should people with religious objections be singled out for special treatment, in a time of national emergency, no less. And if one would extend this to people who object for philosophical reasons, in order to guarantee equal treatment, that would make it very easy for the crafty to avoid it. If every man has to serve, every man has to serve.
I will also point out that such exceptions, when they exist, are benevolences of legislatures, and are not in any way guaranteed by the First Amendment.
September 8th, 2012 | 2:34 pm
Maximillian:
In your wish to demolish Conscientious Objector status for those who do so for religious reasons, consistency forces you (you admit) to deny it for those who seek this “special treatment” for philosophical (that is, non-religious) reasons as well. This is perfectly logical and consistent.
However, it puts you in opposition with – in addition to the U.S. Selective Service System and the U.S. Supreme Court – such international human rights organizations as the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International (hardly religious groups), both of whom identify conscientious objection to military service (whether for religious or non-religious reasons) as a mainstream human right to be protected.
So your willingness to bulldoze religious privilege leads you to bulldoze what is nationally and internationally recognized as a human right. Fascinating.
“For the enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they do smash everything else.” …GK Chesterton
September 8th, 2012 | 4:16 pm
Maximilian,
“And if one would extend this to people who object for philosophical reasons, in order to guarantee equal treatment, that would make it very easy for the crafty to avoid it. If every man has to serve, every man has to serve. I will also point out that such exceptions, when they exist, are benevolences of legislatures, and are not in any way guaranteed by the First Amendment”
In the world you describe, there are only individuals and the state, nothing else in between. What the state requires, everyone must do. The state has certainly had this dream many times—from Stalin to Louis XIV, from the investiture controversy to the Magisterial Reformation. And let’s not forget the Dawes Act, which remade the communalism of native peoples into the individualism you prize.
Atheists tend to focus on the violence Christianity has visited upon others and itself through the state, but atheists tend to ignore the violence the state has done to the religious.
The state is healthier when it is not beholden to a single religion. And Christianity is certainly healthier when it is not tied to the state. Both the state and Christianity are still healthier when they recognize the small communities within them. The state is richer for having Catholics, Quakers, and Mormons, and Christianity is richer for having Romans, Orthodox, and Protestants.
September 8th, 2012 | 7:20 pm
Jerry Beckett: In your wish to demolish Conscientious Objector status for those who do so for religious reasons, consistency forces you (you admit) to deny it for those who seek this “special treatment” for philosophical (that is, non-religious) reasons as well. This is perfectly logical and consistent.
What made you think that I am friendly to philosophical objections. After all, I wrote the following: “And if one would extend this to people who object for philosophical reasons, in order to guarantee equal treatment, that would make it very easy for the crafty to avoid it. If every man has to serve, every man has to serve.” This seems to me to be very clear. I am less troubled if religion does not receive special privilege, but I simply do not like privilege in general. I believe in equal treatment for people.
Jerry Beckett: However, it puts you in opposition with…United Nations’ Human Rights Commission
With such members like Kadhafi’s Libya and Saudi Arabia, that Commission sure had a lot of credibility.
Jerry Beckett: “For the enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they do smash everything else.” …GK Chesterton
Considering the history of religion, this is an ironic point to be making. Who has been smashing whom? Any sign of disbelief or different belief would be answered by burning people at the stake, and now denial of special privileges is a great atrocity?
September 8th, 2012 | 7:28 pm
Michael: In the world you describe, there are only individuals and the state, nothing else in between. What the state requires, everyone must do. The state has certainly had this dream many times—from Stalin to Louis XIV,
Well, that’s the law, and it has little to do with Stalin or Louis XIV. I do not have the right to violate the law, when I disagree with it. For example, I do not want to pay taxes, or refrain from giving people a thrashing when they make a nuisance out of themselves. Yet I do not have a right to do this. If this means absolutism, absolutism is already upon us.
Michael: Atheists tend to focus on the violence Christianity has visited upon others and itself through the state, but atheists tend to ignore the violence the state has done to the religious.
Mostly on itself, you are correct. Any promotion, advocacy or privileging of religion is ‘violence’ to people who do not believe, or who believe otherwise. Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions.
September 9th, 2012 | 5:20 pm
Maximilian,
“Well, that’s the law, and it has little to do with Stalin or Louis XIV.”
Laws can be written so that they respect and enable communities within the state to govern themselves, or they can be written so that they control everything within the state. Stalin and Louis XIV chose the latter route. Happily, our republican federal system follows the former route.
“I do not have the right to violate the law, when I disagree with it.”
You certainly do have the right to violate the law. The right to follow your conscience in some matters is recognized by our constitution and legal tradition. That right is considered inalienable, and its acknowledgement is a legacy of Christianity, which preaches that Jesus is Lord, having an authority greater than any state. The law has limits, and those limits must respect the conscience.
“Any promotion, advocacy or privileging of religion is ‘violence’ to people who do not believe, or who believe otherwise.”
I’m glad you placed violence in quotation marks, but even so, I think our country has had enough of “wars” on Christmas, women, or whatever. Let’s dial down the rhetoric.
But to your point, I’d say that it’s difficult to separate privileging certain religious beliefs from privileging a religion. When Constantine privileged Christianity, he ended infanticide, forcing pagans to follow Christian moral codes they didn’t hold. Christianity produced liberalism and almost all of the Enlightenment values that undergird our Constitution.
As Neuhaus liked to argue, there is no such thing as a naked public square. If your goal is to prevent the enshrinement of particular Christian or Calvinist values in law, then argue against those particular values. But to say that no religion can be privileged is to misunderstand how values are created and acted on.
“Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions”
On the contrary, the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was first uttered by the Calvinist Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island as an alternative to the Calvinism of Massachusetts Bay and accepted a variety of other faiths, including Indians, whom he admired, and Quakers, whom he despised. Williams was no liberal. He separated church and state so the church could thrive.
September 10th, 2012 | 11:59 am
Michael: Laws can be written so that they respect and enable communities within the state to govern themselves, or they can be written so that they control everything within the state. Stalin and Louis XIV chose the latter route. Happily, our republican federal system follows the former route.
I am not sure what you mean. I can guarantee you that the various governments of the US have orders of magnitude more control over you, than Louis XIV ever did over his subjects. Government is much bigger and way more coercive, at least, on economic matters. No absolutist monarch, not Louis XIV, not Frederick the Great, had as much power, potential and actual, over his people as the modern state. In fact, did you know that one of the first actions of the French revolutionaries, was to centralize the French state even more than under the Bourbons?
Michael: You certainly do have the right to violate the law. The right to follow your conscience in some matters is recognized by our constitution and legal tradition.
There is no law that one is permitted to violate, unless the law itself allows it – and then it is not violating the law.
Michael: That right is considered inalienable, and its acknowledgement is a legacy of Christianity, which preaches that Jesus is Lord, having an authority greater than any state. The law has limits, and those limits must respect the conscience.
Well, I have a conscientious objection against paying taxes. When that is respected, you’ll have a point.
Michael: Christianity produced liberalism and almost all of the Enlightenment values that undergird our Constitution.
One prominent argument is that the Enlightenment is the ‘rise of modern paganism’ – but of course without the pagan religion.
Michael: When Constantine privileged Christianity, he ended infanticide, forcing pagans to follow Christian moral codes they didn’t hold. As Neuhaus liked to argue, there is no such thing as a naked public square. If your goal is to prevent the enshrinement of particular Christian or Calvinist values in law, then argue against those particular values. But to say that no religion can be privileged is to misunderstand how values are created and acted on.
No, I don’t believe that at all. Let me give you one example. Two days ago, the Iranian pastor Nadarkhani was released from prison. What had been his crime? He was arrested when he had complained about the Koran being forced on his children in public schools. Now, it is obvious to you that this is forcing Islam down people’s throats. And yet some Christians would very much like to force the Bible on children in public schools. Now, what is not having either? Not atheism. That would be teaching children that there is no god, and assigning them readings from Hitchens and Dawkins. It’s neutrality.
Michael: On the contrary, the phrase “wall of separation of church and state” was first uttered by the Calvinist Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island as an alternative to the Calvinism of Massachusetts Bay and accepted a variety of other faiths, including Indians, whom he admired, and Quakers, whom he despised. Williams was no liberal. He separated church and state so the church could thrive.
I am not sure what your point is. How does this address: “Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions.” I know that Williams believed that an established religion would be bad for religion, but the evidence on that is rather mixed. Religion is doing rather well in most of the Islamic world, despite being established to one extent or another in nearly all countries. On the other hand, there is no Christian country with an established church, where that church flourishes.
September 10th, 2012 | 9:06 pm
Maximilian,
“There is no law that one is permitted to violate, unless the law itself allows it – and then it is not violating the law”
I’m having trouble understanding what you’re trying to argue. Earlier, you were saying that you don’t believe Quakers should be allowed to defy the law. My point was that our legal tradition has incorporated enough Christianity in it to believe that some groups—especially groups whose beliefs many don’t share—have the right to carry on practices that would otherwise be illegal or considered immoral or impractical.
I think your desire to create laws that would be universally applied across the nation would ruin too much freedom. The desire for total control never ends well regardless of who practices it.
“No, I don’t believe that at all. And yet some Christians would very much like to force the Bible on children in public schools. Now, what is not having either? Not atheism. That would be teaching children that there is no god, and assigning them readings from Hitchens and Dawkins. It’s neutrality”
When you say you don’t “believe that at all,” I don’t know what “that” refers to. I’m going to guess you mean that you believe that the public square can be naked, made neutral. The role of religion in the schools is terribly fraught, but I think there’s a lot more that can be done in schools that respects how all parents want to raise their children. Values and character cannot be separated from knowledge.
“I am not sure what your point is. How does this address: “Promoting or privileging Calvinism is doing a disservice to both atheists and people of all other religions.”
My point is that when Williams promoted Calvinism he separated church and state. By separating the two, he was not promoting what you call neutrality, he was promoting Calvinism.
September 11th, 2012 | 9:57 am
Michael: I’m having trouble understanding what you’re trying to argue. Earlier, you were saying that you don’t believe Quakers should be allowed to defy the law. My point was that our legal tradition has incorporated enough Christianity in it to believe that some groups—especially groups whose beliefs many don’t share—have the right to carry on practices that would otherwise be illegal or considered immoral or impractical.
My sole point was, contrary to your argument, that one does not have the right to violate the law. Exemptions for which the law (unwisely) may allow are still provided for in the law. The earlier comment was on the wisdom and morality of such exemptions. I do not think that religious people should have privileges that other people don’t have. That has nothing to do with Louis XIV or Stalin.
Michael: I think your desire to create laws that would be universally applied across the nation would ruin too much freedom. The desire for total control never ends well regardless of who practices it.
But it is not a desire for total control, it is a desire for equal rights, for the elimination of privilege. Either a law is necessary and proper, or it is not. Whether it is, or is not, in no way depends on the person to whom the law is applied. If beating one’s wife is an evil that we want to outlaw, it is no less an evil when a Muslim does it, even though his holy book permits him to do it.
Michael: When you say you don’t “believe that at all,” I don’t know what “that” refers to. I’m going to guess you mean that you believe that the public square can be naked, made neutral.
Well, what would your response be to the case of Nadarkhani? Do you think that he was out of line to object to teaching the Koran in public schools in a country that is supposedly 98% Muslim? He was not demanding that the Bible be taught in public schools, but as far as I know, merely that public schools be neutral. So is what Nadarkhani demanded a neutral public school? If not, what is it?
Michael: The role of religion in the schools is terribly fraught, but I think there’s a lot more that can be done in schools that respects how all parents want to raise their children.
Some parents may want to raise their children as Nazis, that does not mean that schools should aid or abet them in any way. The purpose of schools is to educate children, not to aid parental brainwashing, or brainwashing on behalf of another party, for that matter.
Michael: My point is that when Williams promoted Calvinism he separated church and state. By separating the two, he was not promoting what you call neutrality, he was promoting Calvinism.
He thought he was promoting Calvinism by instituting neutrality. Seeing how today, Rhode Island is a very Catholic state, and orthodox Calvinists are basically non-existent, he was not very successful.
September 14th, 2012 | 8:35 am
Maximilian,
“My sole point was, contrary to your argument, that one does not have the right to violate the law. Exemptions for which the law (unwisely) may allow are still provided for in the law.”
I think you are describing how the law functions while I’m trying to explain how the law got the way it did. Exemptions were created in the Western tradition because Christians recognized that God and the conscience are above the law. Our law is as humane as it is in part because Christians pushed the law to recognize that the state has limits.
“The earlier comment was on the wisdom and morality of such exemptions. I do not think that religious people should have privileges that other people don’t have. That has nothing to do with Louis XIV or Stalin”
I think the wisdom is evident and these exemptions have everything to do with Louis and Stalin. When governments think they can control every little thing about your life, then you’re in trouble. When a religion unites with state power and decides to control every little thing about your life, then you’re still in trouble.
“But it is not a desire for total control, it is a desire for equal rights, for the elimination of privilege. Either a law is necessary and proper, or it is not. Whether it is, or is not, in no way depends on the person to whom the law is applied. If beating one’s wife is an evil that we want to outlaw, it is no less an evil when a Muslim does it, even though his holy book permits him to do it”
I understand the desire to simplify the law in the name of equal rights, but the law governs groups as well as individuals, and it needs to examine each case prudently and without the dogmatism you espouse. Through careful consideration, the courts have decided to recognize the Quaker right to refuse spilling blood in war but not the right of African Muslims to female circumcision, to recognize the right of the Native American church to use peyote but not the right in all cases for Christian Scientists to deny medical care to their children.
“Well, what would your response be to the case of Nadarkhani? Do you think that he was out of line to object to teaching the Koran in public schools in a country that is supposedly 98% Muslim? He was not demanding that the Bible be taught in public schools, but as far as I know, merely that public schools be neutral.”
I don’t know the specifics of his argument concerning public education. There are other ways to educate beside the two choices you offer—religious indoctrination and neutrality. Iran lives under the fantasy that religion and state should be one. Education is the least of its troubles.
“Some parents may want to raise their children as Nazis, that does not mean that schools should aid or abet them in any way. The purpose of schools is to educate children, not to aid parental brainwashing, or brainwashing on behalf of another party, for that matter”
Nazis and brainwashing!
“He thought he was promoting Calvinism by instituting neutrality. Seeing how today, Rhode Island is a very Catholic state, and orthodox Calvinists are basically non-existent, he was not very successful”
If you think that today’s demographics in Rhode Island have anything to do with a 17th century colony, then we’re better off discussing Nazis and brainwashing.
September 16th, 2012 | 10:00 am
Michael: I think you are describing how the law functions while I’m trying to explain how the law got the way it did. Exemptions were created in the Western tradition because Christians recognized that God and the conscience are above the law. Our law is as humane as it is in part because Christians pushed the law to recognize that the state has limits.
I am not sure your explanation is actually valid. Is not the American republic the first to grant such exceptions? Then Christians did not realize this in the 1500 years previous. Perhaps the founders favored such exemptions because they were Enlightenment men who wanted different religions to co-exist.
I also do not think that this in any way humane. I am sure that you are well-intentioned, but either a law is good or bad. Laws are instituted for a reason, sometimes good, sometimes bad. If a law is bad, it’s bad for everyone and should be repealed. If a law is good, it should apply to everyone equally.
Michael: I think the wisdom is evident and these exemptions have everything to do with Louis and Stalin. When governments think they can control every little thing about your life, then you’re in trouble. When a religion unites with state power and decides to control every little thing about your life, then you’re still in trouble.
I cannot disagree, but it is not clear to me why not allowing exemptions would be “control[ling] every little thing”. Presumably, we are talking about good laws, or we would want to repeal them. Then why do they suddenly become totalitarian when applied to a particular group?
Michael: I understand the desire to simplify the law in the name of equal rights, but the law governs groups as well as individuals, and it needs to examine each case prudently and without the dogmatism you espouse. Through careful consideration, the courts have decided to recognize the Quaker right to refuse spilling blood in war but not the right of African Muslims to female circumcision, to recognize the right of the Native American church to use peyote but not the right in all cases for Christian Scientists to deny medical care to their children.
The courts are better in this regard than legislative bodies. As I have stated before, Congress mandated in 1974 that states had to pass laws exempting (mostly) Christian Scientists from homicide laws when they deny their children medical treatment – in effect allowing them to make martyrs out of their children. If you want dogmatism, I believe that is dogmatism. And I am sure that the road to this law was paved with good intentions. We all like Quakers – decent, quiet people – and we would not want them to be forced into military service against their convictions. But as soon as we accept the principle, it appears to lead to some horrid things (this is more my concern than simplifying the law), committed against the defenseless. Unlike Christian Scientists, the defenseless do not have a powerful lobby. I also object to religious people having more rights than others, and rights being derived from the beliefs of people.
Also, you are not entirely right about peyote – in fact, the Supreme Court said that Indians DID NOT have the right to use it.
Michael: Nazis and brainwashing!
You yourself talked about schools respecting the way parents want to raise their children. You didn’t mention or mean Nazis, but some people do want to raise their children as Nazis, communists, religious extremists, anything. Should schools then jump through hoops to avoid exposing children to information that may conflict with these ideologies? Or should schools just teach what is necessary and proper, regardless of whether some parents like it or not?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact