Freedom of religion applies to belief AND practice - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Reader comment on:
Oregon Legal Battle Ignites Debate on Circumcision
in response to reader comment: Absolute freedom of religion applies to belief only, not to practice.

Submitted by Ubu Walker, Sep 25, 2007 13:36

>There are many Rabbis who will welcome the boy into the Jewish faith...

Firstly, all Conservative and Orthodox rabbis, plus the overwhelming majority of Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis require ritual circumcision as part of the conversion. So while some more liberal rabbis might not question whether a boy was circumcised, the vast majority will. What happens when this boy wants to marry an Orthodox or Conservative girl (or wants to become an Israeli citizen)? He will need to be recircumcised at the very minimum, and might have to undergo another conversion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew

>Absolute freedom of religion applies to belief only, not to practice.

Your knowledge of the law is laughable, and what you assert as the law is really wishful thinking.

Under the Free Exercise Clause, a law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if it is neutral and of general applicability. However, where such a law is not neutral or not of general application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.

For this reason, almost all States exempt from prosecution the legitimate religious use of alcohol and peyote or other drugs, and even allow ritual slaughter of animals for sacrifice or for Kosher purposes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

>The crime is called "mayhem". It is a felony.

Firstly, Mayhem is no longer a felony in most jurisdictions. Secondly, ritual circumcision have been traditionally exempted from common-law Mayhem jurisprudence. In fact, in one case in 12th/13th Century England, a Jew was found not guilty of Mayhem by a Jury.
See
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZesajGsCo3cC&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=mayhem+case+law+circumcision&source=web&ots=yexsA9XCgh&sig=QfXQ_Fq46LRxVIZQtYhqMDSOWZo#PPA341,M1

I'm guessing that you believe abortion should be outlawed under your made-up mayhem jurisprudence as well? (I'm assuming you support abortion rights, by your rhetoric)

>No one is forbidding the boy to convert to Judaism.

The flaw in your argument is that you believe that since some 'progressive' rabbis allow conversion without circumcision, that all other rabbis should (or could) as well. At the very least, not allowing circumcision would prevent Conservative and Orthodox Jews from being considered Jewish by the majority of Jews and the State of Israel. Such a prohibition would be unduly burdensome on Jewish people, and I am sure that many Jews would feel that their right to practice their religion was being violated, since many consider it a central commandment of the religion.

>anything that always harms and sometimes kills Jewish babies is anti-Semitic.

Riding in a car can harm or kill Jewish babies too. Circumcision is forbidden under Jewish law if it would grievously harm or kill the child. Judaism values life above everything else.

The reason I find anti-circumcision talk anti-semitic is because the rhetoric closely mimics historical accusations of blood libel (ie Jews killing children and using blood in matzah).
The rhetoric also denies the special status that Christian and Muslim nations have afforded Jewish religious practices for centuries and tacitly acknowledges the right of a nation to prohibit conversion to Judaism.

Commenting that "Christian children can wait until they're 18 to drink the wine if necessary to save Jewish children..." underlies your true motivations in this matter.

>Submitted by Child Protector

I find your alias interesting, since you believe protecting children to be tantamount to anything else, including religious liberty and other first amendment rights. Our courts have held again and again that protecting children is extremely important, but protecting children must not come at the expense of putting aside our fundamental rights. For example, Courts have routinely struck down laws preventing the sale of ultra-violent video games to minors, since doing so would be so overbroad that, in effect, ban their sales to adults.

The problem with banning circumcision is that such a law would be too constitutionally overbroad. Would circumcision be allowed for medical reasons, such as when a foreskin is too tight? Would there be an exception for religious reasons? Could adults be circumcised? Failure to include either of these would doom a law.

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: Absolute freedom of religion applies to belief only, not to practice.

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: Absolute freedom of religion applies to belief only, not to practice.

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: Absolute freedom of religion applies to belief only, not to practice.