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.
You keep throwing labels without the ability to substantiate why you use them - TYPICAL LEFTIST BEHAVIOUR.
Now answer, which hypothetical situation I quoted can be dismissed as unrealistic?
You can’t answer, and you won’t. You will instead throw more labels. Don’t believe me? Just wait and watch...
... or will you grow up, at last?
LOL.
Do you deny the concept of a trinitarian god or not? Why did you ignore this part? Hmm...
If the idea that your beliefs are personal is not acceptable to you, then why are you having a fear in publicly denouncing what you consider to be a falsehood, regarding the concept of a trinitarian god? Or do you accept as objective truth the belief others have in considering their god to be a trinity?
The goalposts were moved by the others, and I am responding to them lest they not think that I cannot answer their diversions.
Well trolled; I see your behavior is decaying already towards the zottable. Is that the sole reason you came onto this forum?
Ah, more labels... as predicted.
Answer the specific arguments and quit trolling with diversions.
You're evidently having a very difficult time understanding something. I am a Theonomic positivist. Since you don't know what that is, I'll explain: I believe that right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, are based on nothing whatsoever other than Divine decree. I reject "natural" law, "instinctual" morality, "spontaneous order," "utilitarianism," and every other basis for law and society. Every freaking one of them.
Do you want me to explain that to you again? Kindly save me the trouble by re-reading what I have posted.
Murder isn't wrong because it's against "nature" or our instincts tell us it's wrong or because "if everyone went around murdering people society would fall apart. Murder is wrong for one and only one reason: it violates an arcane Divine decree. "Thou shalt not kill" has exactly the same source as the laws for correctly performing an animal sacrifice and no other. When killing a person is forbidden it is a sin to do so. When killing a person is commanded by G-d it is a sin to refrain from killing that person.
Let me explain further. Contrary to what you may think, I am not Jewish; I am a Noachide. Now the Halakhah is that a Jew may not save a non-Jew from drowning on Shabbat. However, the Sages have ruled that in the current situation one may save the life of a non-Jew in order to preserve the peace between Jews and non-Jews. This means that when a Jew rescues a non-Jew from drowning, he is technically required to keep this in mind as his reason for doing so as he does it. Now, I am not Jewish and I can't swim. Let's say I fall into the river on Shabbat and a Jew is the only person available to save me. Unless he holds it in his mind that he is doing so for the reason the Sages authorized, he should let me drown. And when the reason for that leniency is no longer required, he should let me drown anyway, regardless of what he's holding in his mind.
Now, am I going to enjoy drowning? No. I'd probably scream bloody murder. But since I'm not drowning and can think clearly, I can tell you that he should do exactly as the Halakhah says, even if it means letting me drown.
Are you understanding yet, M. Voltaire???
So what do you think I'm going to answer you with regard to the question you ask? Duh. I'm going to say, whatever the Halakhah rules. If the Halakhah is that the circumcision must be postponed because of danger to the life of the child, then postpone it. If the Halakhah says to perform it anyway, then perform it anyway.
Any more questions?
If you'd stopped there you'd have been right.
I see. So, when can we laugh about Sharia laws?
Be my guest. I'm against sharia laws (and chr*stian laws, and sikh laws, and b*ddhist laws, and hindu laws, and shint* laws) because they're the laws of false religions.
I don't base my arguments on "religious freedom" at all, because the only religious freedom that exists is the freedom to obey HaShem. There is no "right" or "freedom" to worship a false "gxd," and the fact that this was not recognized at the founding of our country is ultimately why we're in this mess.
Okay, thanks for making that clear.
To distill all of your words, you agree that it is within the rights of the cited Jewish parents ordering the performing of the eighth-day circumcision of the prematurely born child, thereby endangering its life, in keeping with their cultural, dogmatic beliefs.
Now, regarding the trinitarian god... is faith in such a characteristic of god an objective truth or an objective falsehood? As long as we’re clarifying our respective stands, you would not hesitate to answer this. Or would you?
Of course I do. Next question?
There are two opinions as to whether trinitarianism is actually idolatry or not. One is that it is, and is therefore strictly forbidden. The other is that it isn't idolatry, but it is still a philosophical error that needs to be corrected. In either case it's false.
Okay, your prior post was even more helpful in understanding your stance.
Do you also agree that parents have the right to stone their children to death if they disobey them, in keeping with religious law? Assume all relevant conditionals that this statement would require, and explain.
I agree that Halakhah should be followed, whatever it is. And they aren't "cultural, dogmatic beliefs," Charlie. They're Divine commandments.
Now, regarding the trinitarian god... is faith in such a characteristic of god an objective truth or an objective falsehood? As long as we’re clarifying our respective stands, you would not hesitate to answer this. Or would you?
It's an objective falsehood. Couldn't you figure that out from my self-description as a Thenomic positivist who rejects the modern worldview?
It follows from your above statement that this would also imply that you reject as utter falsehood the concept of a Judeo-Christian god?
I figured as much, but wanted it in your own, specific words, that’s all.
I don't understand why it's taking you so long to get this. Really I don't.
What is the Halakhah? That is what matters.
Wanna ask me if I think the Israelites were right to exterminate seven entire nations of people because G-d told 'em to? I'll save you the trouble.
Yep.
The (brief) NYDN article did not prove anything, nor did the JTA article. The NYDN article could not name who performed the circumcision. The NYDN has an extremely liberal bias (but here you are coming onto a conservative board pretending that “liberal” is a mere label when it is not).
This raises an interesting question:
Some Jewish orthodox sects require a mohel to suck blood from a just-circumcised penis as part of their religious obligations. Recently, this practice caused the death of a child in New York:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-03/news/31120453_1_circumcision-rabbi-yitzchok-fischer-contracting-herpes
How far can the State go in forbidding this practice (and thereby violating the religious freedoms of that sect)?
On the other hand, how can it be okay for someone to mutilate the genitals of an individual (the child), without consent?
No, it does not follow.
There is no "Judaeo-chr*stian 'gxd.'" There is only HaShem, the True G-d.
I want the answers to be explicit, not implicit. That’s why I am asking you to answer them explicitly.
Would you now be able to answer the question regarding parents and how they should treat disobedient children and how stoning to their deaths applies here?
I understand your position, but want them in your words, directly, so that others may not accuse me of implying my own meaning to your statements.
Bravo. Now why don't you explain, in your own words, how your moral/ethical worldview is based on absolutely nothing, seeing as how the entire universe (including the human race you claim to be so fond of) are nothing but a meaningless coincidence hovering over the precipice of oblivion. Is it because "well, we're here, so we might as well pretend there are rules so we can all get along?" Something like that?
Let's hear a defense of absolute meaninglessness and oblivion as the basis of law in your own words.
I am from Australia and it is a tad difficult for people down here to be familiar with what kind of a "liberal" source NYDN would be. However, we are familiar that Fox News (NewsCorp over here) can hardly be described as "liberal". Fox News cited the NYDN article. Likewise, the Jewish newspaper JTA did so, too. And they don't claim NYDN as their source. Instead, they claim another Jewish news agency as their source. Now are you saying all of this amounts to "liberal bias" regarding the incident? All of them are citing the incident because they don't hold any truth? Really?
Next, you inject personal views into the post, of a nature that are not conservative and certainly not religious (circumcision is “mutilation”, babies have the power of consent and parental consent does not/should not exist, et cetera). That shows a confrontational attitude. Also shows extreme prejudice on your part rather than open-mindedness. Perhaps you should have looked up all the details about “metzizah be’peh” before coming to such rapid conclusions, too.
It is not a "personal" view to see a problem with genital mutilation. Also parental consent has boundaries - a parent cannot cause permanent physical harm to a child - and I specified as much, but you pretend to ignore, and hope that I don't notice your deletion and selective quotation. Tsk tsk.
As others have mentioned before, the entire argument is about how much of your body's physical structuring you have a right to, and how far others can go in lopping off sections of it. This is a core aspect of the rights an individual possesses, and the failure to recognise as much hardly makes you a conservative. In fact, your claim to the same would be HIGHLY suspect.
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.