Re: Unbelievable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At what point do you go "Man, these old customs sure are dumb" and move on to you know, 1960?
[/ QUOTE ]
um, freedom of religion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Freedom of religion is not absolute. Christopher Hitches pointed this out in an article on Slate.com today:
[ QUOTE ]
Where to start with this? I could wish that Bloomberg were always so careful about keeping out of other peoples' business: He has made it legally impossible to have a cigarette and a cocktail at the same time, anywhere in the city. But I'll trade him his stupid prohibitionist ban if he states clearly that it is the government's business to protect children from religious fanatics. Female genital mutilation, for example, is quite rightly banned under federal law, and no religious exemption is, or ever should be, permitted. The Mormons were obliged to give up polygamy and forcible marriage before they, or the state of Utah, could be part of the United States. A Christian Scientist who denies urgent medical treatment to his or her children may well be hauled up for reckless endangerment, as may those whose churches teach redemption through violent corporal punishment. The First Amendment does indeed forbid any infringement of religious freedom, but it is not, as was once said, part of a suicide pact, let alone a child-abuse one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Basically, you can perform whatever strange (to non-believers) religious rituals you want, as long as you aren't endangering the health of others while doing so. Sucking on a baby's penis wound would seem like risky behaviour to me -- and this is borne out in the fact that 3 babies contracted herpes from a Mohel as a result, and one of the babies subsequently died.
|