I'm agnostic about the issue as well (and while I am often dickish, do not have a dick) so I have no problem with carrying on as is! My only quibble was with the hypothetical double standard *IF* it was deemed harmful (which isn't yet the case, not conclusively anyway). In that case, I don't think anyone should get exceptions just because their God/Spaghetti Monster said so.
I'm agnostic about the issue as well (and while I am often dickish, do not have a dick) so I have no problem with carrying on as is! My only quibble was with the hypothetical double standard *IF* it was deemed harmful (which isn't yet the case, not conclusively anyway). In that case, I don't think anyone should get exceptions just because their God/Spaghetti Monster said so.
A lot of religions are about praxis as much as they're about belief. Sometimes praxis is more important, as when some Jews stay observant even though they don't believe in traditional theism. So I don't think you can have religious freedom if you make some extra-religious distinction between belief and praxis.
FGM, child marriage, burning widows on funeral pyres, stoning witches are (or were) all part of religious praxis and illegal. There are always limits to freedom of religion. I'm not advocating for banning circumcision (which I've made clear) but if the practice was (again, in the original hypothetical i was addressing) deemed to be harmful and secular people were no longer allowed to avail themselves of it then Jews would have to find a new compromise too, which I am sure they could. They've replaced the animal sacrifice dictated by the Torah with the symbolic act of prayer so they are perfectly capable of making that type of change.
I read the original comment as, тАЬitтАЩs something you can do if you want it, but itтАЩs no longer an explicit recommendation.тАЭ So like, you have a baby and you tell the doctors to go ahead and snip him, and then theyтАЩre like, тАЬcool. Okay.тАЭ As opposed to the current situation where itтАЩs more like, тАЬOK. Apgar score is great. Baby is healthy. YouтАЩre healthy. WeтАЩre gonna discharge you guys tomorrow right after the circumcision.тАЭ I donтАЩt have a son, but I got impression from my sister when my nephews were born that circumcision for baby boys is as status quo as immunizations and hearing tests. So instead of that, just donтАЩt do it unless the parent requests it?
I'm sorry for your sister but also surprised because I work in healthcare and in my experience, at every hospital I know at least, circumcision is an entirely opt in (not opt out) elective procedure that is performed only at the parents' request.
And I see your point about the OG comment and how it may read that way. I think it was the word "allowed" which framed it differently in my mind.
Unfortunately a lot of places still assume youтАЩre going to do it and act weird if you say youтАЩre not. One of them even asked тАЬis your husband OK with that?тАЭ After I declined. Not great!
As the original commenter, I can confirm that Christina's reading was correct. I think it should be an opt-in procedure that people can elect to do if they want, but the standard assumption is that circumcision won't be done unless medically indicated.
Some religious practices that were deemed acceptable at a certain time and place are absolutely unacceptable today. Human sacrifice for example. And religious practices evolve all the time inside a given religion. The idea that something is defensible or that an exception should be carved out because religious praxis is nonsense. It's better to consider whether the religious practices in question has too many negative consequences. In the case of circumcision, it's a squicky when one person's religious freedom allows them to remove another person's body part without their consent. Especially in the hypothetical discussed where 'on religious people would be be banned from doing it, with a religious exemption.
I'm agnostic about the issue as well (and while I am often dickish, do not have a dick) so I have no problem with carrying on as is! My only quibble was with the hypothetical double standard *IF* it was deemed harmful (which isn't yet the case, not conclusively anyway). In that case, I don't think anyone should get exceptions just because their God/Spaghetti Monster said so.
I think defending other people's right to their spaghetti monsters is the only viable way forward in a pluralistic society.
Sure, I will defend their right to believe in the spaghetti monster but not their right to do everything the spaghetti monster tells them to.
A lot of religions are about praxis as much as they're about belief. Sometimes praxis is more important, as when some Jews stay observant even though they don't believe in traditional theism. So I don't think you can have religious freedom if you make some extra-religious distinction between belief and praxis.
FGM, child marriage, burning widows on funeral pyres, stoning witches are (or were) all part of religious praxis and illegal. There are always limits to freedom of religion. I'm not advocating for banning circumcision (which I've made clear) but if the practice was (again, in the original hypothetical i was addressing) deemed to be harmful and secular people were no longer allowed to avail themselves of it then Jews would have to find a new compromise too, which I am sure they could. They've replaced the animal sacrifice dictated by the Torah with the symbolic act of prayer so they are perfectly capable of making that type of change.
I read the original comment as, тАЬitтАЩs something you can do if you want it, but itтАЩs no longer an explicit recommendation.тАЭ So like, you have a baby and you tell the doctors to go ahead and snip him, and then theyтАЩre like, тАЬcool. Okay.тАЭ As opposed to the current situation where itтАЩs more like, тАЬOK. Apgar score is great. Baby is healthy. YouтАЩre healthy. WeтАЩre gonna discharge you guys tomorrow right after the circumcision.тАЭ I donтАЩt have a son, but I got impression from my sister when my nephews were born that circumcision for baby boys is as status quo as immunizations and hearing tests. So instead of that, just donтАЩt do it unless the parent requests it?
I'm sorry for your sister but also surprised because I work in healthcare and in my experience, at every hospital I know at least, circumcision is an entirely opt in (not opt out) elective procedure that is performed only at the parents' request.
And I see your point about the OG comment and how it may read that way. I think it was the word "allowed" which framed it differently in my mind.
Unfortunately a lot of places still assume youтАЩre going to do it and act weird if you say youтАЩre not. One of them even asked тАЬis your husband OK with that?тАЭ After I declined. Not great!
As the original commenter, I can confirm that Christina's reading was correct. I think it should be an opt-in procedure that people can elect to do if they want, but the standard assumption is that circumcision won't be done unless medically indicated.
I agree. I haven't come down on one side or the other really......but......either it's ok or it's not.
If it's deemed unacceptable for secular practice it's unacceptable under all conditions religious or otherwise.
Some religious practices that were deemed acceptable at a certain time and place are absolutely unacceptable today. Human sacrifice for example. And religious practices evolve all the time inside a given religion. The idea that something is defensible or that an exception should be carved out because religious praxis is nonsense. It's better to consider whether the religious practices in question has too many negative consequences. In the case of circumcision, it's a squicky when one person's religious freedom allows them to remove another person's body part without their consent. Especially in the hypothetical discussed where 'on religious people would be be banned from doing it, with a religious exemption.
Thank God (or Spaghetti Monster) the First Amendment isnтАЩt on your side. And by the way, not every Jew, Muslim, and whoever else is a тАЬzealot.тАЭ