In California, there is a political movement which is gaining some traction. This movement wants to outlaw the practice of circumcision on underage males. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I fully support the goals of this group. Let me explain why.
The biggest argument against this proposal is that by banning something which Jews and Muslims believe is a command from god, it is infringing on their religious rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly and explicitly forbids infringements of this sort, but what the people making this argument fail to realize is that certain religious practices are already forbidden by US law. The first example that comes to mind involves Utah, the state with the largest concentration of Mormons. Utah was told by the federal government that it would not be accepted as a state unless polygamy was outlawed. The fact that Utah is a state tells you how that dilemma was resolved.
In the case of circumcision, the rights of the individual children are what should be considered more important than the religious requirements of their faiths. At the time of most circumcisions, the person getting it done is a small baby. How is it fair to inflict such a disgusting practice on people not old enough to make such a big decision? There are laws against under 18s getting tattoos, but this is different because it is 'mandated by god'. The state should not treat this as a religious practice (the First Amendment also forbids the establishment of a religion), but as a permanent body alteration and an elective medical procedure. Would a religion be allowed to tattoo their children's foreheads? I seriously doubt it. The mutilation of children's genitalia should be no different.
Now, if an adult male wishes to have part of his foreskin hacked off because he believes that an invisible man in the sky demands it of him (such an odd request when you think about it), then that right should be constitutionally protected. Just not for minors. Despite the accusations leveled at this effort, there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. Nobody wants to outlaw it altogether. That would be as ridiculous as outlawing tattoos altogether (although the latter would be more likely than the former). If the mutilation of one's genitalia still seems like an attractive prospect when people reach 18 then I would have no objection to those choosing to have it done.
Personally, I think that the mutilating the genitalia of children is a disgusting practice which should be left in the Bronze Age where it belongs. Can you imagine anyone standing up for the religious right of parents to cut off their daughters' clitorises and labias? Why is it socially considered to be a perfectly normal practice for one and yet the other is abhorrent?
Circumcision is part of what makes religion such a venomous influence in society. It also is an example of how children are labeled with the religion of their parents before they are able to make a conscious choice about the matter. This cannot be undone with the loss of faith or conversion though. It baffles me that otherwise moral people can, with a straight face, defend the right to slice off part of a baby's body. The sooner this revolting, vile practice is outlawed the better.
The biggest argument against this proposal is that by banning something which Jews and Muslims believe is a command from god, it is infringing on their religious rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly and explicitly forbids infringements of this sort, but what the people making this argument fail to realize is that certain religious practices are already forbidden by US law. The first example that comes to mind involves Utah, the state with the largest concentration of Mormons. Utah was told by the federal government that it would not be accepted as a state unless polygamy was outlawed. The fact that Utah is a state tells you how that dilemma was resolved.
In the case of circumcision, the rights of the individual children are what should be considered more important than the religious requirements of their faiths. At the time of most circumcisions, the person getting it done is a small baby. How is it fair to inflict such a disgusting practice on people not old enough to make such a big decision? There are laws against under 18s getting tattoos, but this is different because it is 'mandated by god'. The state should not treat this as a religious practice (the First Amendment also forbids the establishment of a religion), but as a permanent body alteration and an elective medical procedure. Would a religion be allowed to tattoo their children's foreheads? I seriously doubt it. The mutilation of children's genitalia should be no different.
Now, if an adult male wishes to have part of his foreskin hacked off because he believes that an invisible man in the sky demands it of him (such an odd request when you think about it), then that right should be constitutionally protected. Just not for minors. Despite the accusations leveled at this effort, there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. Nobody wants to outlaw it altogether. That would be as ridiculous as outlawing tattoos altogether (although the latter would be more likely than the former). If the mutilation of one's genitalia still seems like an attractive prospect when people reach 18 then I would have no objection to those choosing to have it done.
Personally, I think that the mutilating the genitalia of children is a disgusting practice which should be left in the Bronze Age where it belongs. Can you imagine anyone standing up for the religious right of parents to cut off their daughters' clitorises and labias? Why is it socially considered to be a perfectly normal practice for one and yet the other is abhorrent?
Circumcision is part of what makes religion such a venomous influence in society. It also is an example of how children are labeled with the religion of their parents before they are able to make a conscious choice about the matter. This cannot be undone with the loss of faith or conversion though. It baffles me that otherwise moral people can, with a straight face, defend the right to slice off part of a baby's body. The sooner this revolting, vile practice is outlawed the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment