Posted on 07/03/2012 2:41:15 PM PDT by NYer
In a previous post, I stressed the importance of standing up for the religious freedom of people of every faith, not just those who share our own convictions. In view of a recent development in Germany, I here wish to say that Christians, especially those of us who are Catholics, should be particularly outspoken in defending the rights of Jews and the Jewish people. It is not simply the memory of past crimes committed by Christians, including leaders of the Church, against Jews—crimes sometimes committed in the very name of Christian faith. It is the fact that we are taught by our Church, and so we believe, that the Jews are the chosen people of God, bound to him in an unbroken and unbreakable covenant. Moreover, for Christians, Jews are, in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, our “elder brothers in faith.” From a Christian point of view, the Jewish witness in the world has profound and indispensable spiritual meaning.
The recent development in Germany against which we Christians should loudly raise our voices is described by David Goldman (“Spengler”) in an article published today: “On June 26, the District Court of the Federal State of Cologne ruled that circumcision of children for religious reasons at the instruction of parents constituted the infliction of bodily harm and therefore was a punishable offense.” Of course, for observant Jews, circumcision of male children is not optional. It is required as a matter of Jewish law. To prohibit it is, in effect, to forbid Jews from being Jews.
In his article, Goldman, himself an observant Jew, includes the text of a letter he wrote to two German judges. He says: “Not even the Nazis thought of banning circumcision as a way of uprooting Jewish life in Germany. If your decree withstands a constitutional challenge, Germany once again will be Judenrein.” Further on he says: “The neo-pagan illusions of National Socialism have been crushed, although they lurk at the fringes of German politics. Despite their defeat, the National Socialists may have succeeded in extirpating the presence of the divine in German life. No action by responsible public officials since the end of the war has advanced their cause as forcefully as the evil decree you have promulgated.”
Of course, comparing anything to the unfathomable horrors of the Nazi genocide is problematical. The National Socialists hunted down and cruelly murdered every Jewish man, woman, and child they could find. They didn’t simply make it impossible for believing Jews to live in Germany or its occupied lands by banning a practice mandated by religious law. One can nevertheless understand the sense of outrage that would cause Goldman and others in the Jewish community to draw the comparison. What the Cologne court has done is outrageous. It is an outrageous assault on the religious liberty and the rights of conscience of Jews (and Muslims, by the way—the actual case in the Cologne court happened to concern Muslim parents who for religious reasons sought the circumcision of their son).
What was the judges’ motive? I’m not certain. I’m reasonably confident that it was not simply an act of anti-Jewish animus. Still, its disregard for the rights of Jews, rooted in their obligation to fulfill their duties under their covenant with the divine Creator and Ruler of the universe, is deeply disturbing to say the least. Perhaps the judges were moved by an argument, increasingly common in certain circles, claiming that circumcision results in a reduction of sexual pleasure, and thus counts as a form of child abuse when performed on infants (who, of course, cannot consent to the procedure). This argument was among those made by people who recently attempted to persuade the City of San Francisco to enact a law banning circumcision. Fortunately, the City did not enact the ban—for now.
As we Catholics and those of other faiths who have joined with us conclude our Fortnight for Freedom later this week on Independence Day, let us be mindful that the freedom we seek is freedom for all. Yes, it is about the appalling HHS mandates; and yes, it is about laws that shut down Catholic services to orphaned children or Catholic assistance to women trafficked into sexual slavery and other forms of exploitation; but it is also about laws that undermine the ability of Jews, Muslims, and persons of any other faith to fulfill their religious duties; and it is about the rights of people of every religion to manifest their faith in public life as well as in their temples, churches, mosques or homes.
Circumcision is not a "right." It is a Divine command.
What will it take to wash the "enlightenment" out of the Jewish system? Why this Voltaire gag reflex?
The eighteenth century "enlightenment" is dead and gone, and the sooner its rotten corpse is buried the better.
Kudos to this Catholic author for understanding better than Abe Foxman could.
Parental consent cannot stretch beyond the physical integrity of the child - as in, the parents have no right to mutilate the physical body of the child - to deprive the child of body parts which have dense innervation for the purpose of increasing sexual satisfaction. If a parent has a right to this according to your dogma, then Muslims lopping off their daughters’ clitorises is also valid, by your same illogic.
You are still avoiding answering the actual arguments made, and instead resorting to facetious, spurious tangents - using labels and epithets which have no relevance to the actual points pertaining to the subject. Such behaviour constitutes the actual signs of the type of individual, described by your labels, you are accusing others of being.
You're having trouble with the concept of a "commandment," aren't you?
I suppose you think G-d was a big meanie for ordering the extermination of the Canaanites.
Oh, we all ought to be as smart as you. Then all would be right in the great Republic of Reason, with the great M. Hebert to guide us.
As King Solomon kindly pointed out, there's nothing new under the sun. The Enlightenment religion - "You shall be as God" - is old, older, nearly oldest.
If the above weren't true, then would the reverse apply to you? As in, for example, would you endorse the concept of a trinitarian god, as truth? Yes or no?
If you have a problem answering this question, and if you have the capability to recognise that the same can hold true with another individual when it comes to their personal beliefs against yours, you will understand the importance of recognising that such beliefs are, you guessed it, personal.
You’re moving the goalposts. As well as pulling out the liberal “smart” card (to wit liberal thought is “smart[er]” than conservative thought).
Human beings have only the rights G-d gives them . . . no others.
Circumcision of infants or children should be banned as a violation of human rights.
"Should?" The only one Who can say "should" is G-d. And if G-d says that Jewish male children should be circumcised on their eight day, then that is exactly what should be done.
There are no laws but G-d's laws. "Secular law," like "secular morality" and "secular ethics" is ultimately a contradiction in terms. The only reason it is wrong to murder is because G-d has so decreed. And when G-d decrees that someone be killed (via the death penalty, war, or extermination of the Canaanites) then it is equally wrong not to kill.
It's time to put secular "rights," "laws," "morals," and "ethics" out of their misery.
Hahaha! Is that the childish diversion you choose to employ to avoid answering that question regarding the harassed Muslim woman? Nice clipping of my actual, conditional sentence, there - you chose to delete the condition that the statement was hanging on, so that you could quote out of context and employ the diversion tactic.
Nothing new under the Sun, indeed!
Exactly!
You merely neglected to mention that what is "horrible" is defined by G-d, which reduces the "G-d has ordered something horrible" argument to nonsense.
Yada-yada.
All you have done so far is avoid answering the arguments raised, point-to-point, and instead choose to throw labels: “leftist”, “moving the goalposts”, etc.
I will give you a chance to establish your credibility and claim by proving exactly how and where the “goalposts” were “moved”. Failure to do so establishes my claim about your behaviour.
Good luck.
Because G-d commands it. That's how.
You don't say?
As it seems, you are merely avoiding the real elephant in the room, which concerns how much of a right you have as an individual, to your own body, versus what others, be they your parents or anyone else, have, over your physical self - to the extent that they are allowed to physically mutilate you based on cultural whims.
Since you're an atheist, why don't you go register at some Communist board where you'll feel much more at home?
Okay, Sir. Consider this *REALISTIC* situation: a male child is born premature (24 weeks, for example) to a Jewish mother and is highly vulnerable to the nature of the post-natal care taken. Should this child be forced to risk death by being forced to undergo a ritual "eighth-day" genital mutilation, a.k.a, circumcision? If not, then why not? And when else?
If you'd stopped there you'd have been right.
Ah, more diversions. How typical!
Milton Friedman was an agnostic. Ayn Rand was outright Atheistic.
Does this make both of them Communists?
LOL.
You keep pulling hypothetical situations out of where the sun shineth not that do not compare to your original premise, for one. You keep stating and restating opinion as fact, and opinion recognized as non-conservative, for another. That does not exactly garner respect from people. Again, rehashing dogma is not making an argument. Please grow up.
I see. So, when can we laugh about Sharia laws?
LOL.
If the above weren't true, then would the reverse apply to you? As in, for example, would you endorse the concept of a trinitarian god, as truth? Yes or no?
If you have a problem answering this question, and if you have the capability to recognise that the same can hold true with another individual when it comes to their personal beliefs against yours, you will understand the importance of recognising that such beliefs are, you guessed it, personal.
Wrong, bub. The idea of religion as "personal beliefs" is a modern loony concept that only came into existence during the "enlightenment."
There are no "personal beliefs." There is only objective reality, which is G-d and His Commandments.
Get your head out of Voltaire's bunghole, Tom Paine.
Doesn’t make either of them conservative. And why yet another moving of the goalposts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.