We only interfere with religion under limited circumstances

Reader comment on:
Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcision
in response to reader comment: We interfere with religion all the time

Submitted by Ubu Walker, Sep 19, 2007 14:24

Firstly, the government will only interfere with religious choices if there is no less harmful alternative means to effectuate important policy goals. So, for example, if someone will die or be severely injured because of a religious practice, the government will step in. So, in the case of a Christian Scientist refusing medical treatment for his daughter who is gravely ill, the State will force her to be treated.

Secondly, the female genital mutilation argument is a red herring. Male circumcision is arguably a humane practice that causes little pain or long term suffering, which has been safely practiced for thousands of years, and can be done by a doctor. Female circumcision is not safely practiced, is grossly damaging to the victim, and is not done by doctors.

Thirdly, it is disingenuous to suggest that circumcision has nothing to do with who is a Jew. The penalty for not being circumcised is karet, "excision" from the people or being cut off from the community by God, as noted in Genesis 17:14. Circumcision is a covenant between G-d and his people. In fact, it was considered "a reproach" for an Israelite to be uncircumcised (Joshua 5:9) and the uncircumcised could not partake in the Pesach offering (Exodus 12:48).

Lastly, it is disingenuous to argue that circumcision equates in anyway to Biblical requirements to execute people engaged in certain types of lewd conduct. The death penalty for adultery and other biblical crimes have been done away with in modern Judaism since the middle ages, since Secular Law, not Jewish Law controls in offenses against the State.

A 13 year old man who has reached the religious age of majority can decide whether he wants to convert to Judaism and have a circumcision. If it is more likely than not that he is NOT mature enough to make this decision, or if he is being unduly influenced by his father, or if the procedure would be dangerous to him, than the court shouldn't allow it. Otherwise, it should be allowed, since doing otherwise would be meddling in religious affairs, instead of affairs of State.

If the argument is that circumcision is abhorrent, and should never be allowed, for anybody, for any reason, including religious convictions, than there can not be any discussion, since circumcision at 8 days is commanded by G-d for eternity.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Reader comment on:
Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcision
in response to reader comment: We interfere with religion all the time

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcision

Reader comment on:Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcisionin response to reader comment: We interfere with religion all the time

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcision

Reader comment on:
Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcision
in response to reader comment: We interfere with religion all the time