|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious Special Pleading | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That's a pretty broad statement. There's no such thing as "the law" which applies in all jurisdictions. It's as broad as the statement to which I was replying
quote: Prohibition is a part of our culture that doesn't work It works just fine.
I don't follow your logic. Please elaborate. You earlier argued that majority opinion is significant and meaningful when it comes to this discussion. Then you argued that majority opinion is oppressive in the context of this discussion.
As I have said, my argument is not a religious one. Those examples, with the exception of employment, are not cultural practices in our society that we need to concern ourselves with. Some of them have been cultural practices in general western culture. Until they were prohibited. And if they weren't prohibited, immigrants from cultures where they are practiced may continue to practice them unhindered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The bottom line is whether or not you believe that society itself should override parental consent and authority. I say that in most cases it should not. I'd say the bottom line is under what conditions should a parent be permitted to consent to surgical procedures with a lifelong impact. I'd suggest the answer should be 'only when its necessary for the welfare of the individual affected'. Purely cosmetic surgery is, in every case but male circumcision, generally considered something nobody can consent to on another person's behalf. I think we can agree there is a long list of things a parent cannot consent to on behalf of a child on top of that. An easy (and unfortunately too common example) would be sex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I would think that being a bone fide member of the Jewish community ought to qualify as "necessary for the welfare of the individual affected." There are members of the Jewish community who are uncircumcised. Their welfare is not impaired. quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
hat is likely only true for the nominal or merely ethnic Jews who don't believe in their religious heritage anyway Likely. But it's also true of religious Jews who do believe in their religious heritage.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Well, that's a modern revisionist idea there because the Torah itself says circumcision is the mark by which a Jew is known as a Jew. Whether one personally "feels" one's Jewishness or not does not enter into it. The idea would be laughed to death in ancient Israel, and the person saying it probsably cast out of the community. Regardless, they follow Judaism, live in Israel, are ethnically Jewish, uncircumcised and their welfare has not been compromised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So Prohibition of alcohol worked just fine? So prohibition of drugs is working just fine? So prohibition of abortion worked just fine?
Prohibition of murder, assault, theft, child abuse and rape are working just fine.
We don't have to decide that either the majority tramples on the minority or we don't consider majority opinions at all. We are (sometimes) capable of compromise. Perfect. I'm glad we settled that.
And sometimes compromise comes in the form of letting individuals make their own decisions and everybody else keeping their noses the hell out of it. That's what I'm proposing.
Yes, sometimes things are prohibited and sometimes things are un-prohibited. It isn't a one-way street. My argument does not rely on it being a one way street.
Indeed. And in some cases, maybe they should be allowed to. Do you have the courage to say which ones you think should be allowed, which ones should be prohibited and give your reasons?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hooray for them, but they aren't the standard. It's the orthodox Torah-following Jews who set the standard. But we weren't debating what is and is not the standard. We were debating welfare.
quote: As I have shown, there are bone fide members of the Jewish community who are uncircumcised and their welfare is not compromised. So any argument that circumcision is necessary for the welfare individuals is shown to be false. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Really? There are no murders? No assaults? No thefts? No child abuse? No rape? The utility of prohibition is not to eradicate that which is prohibited (though that might be considered an ideal outcome), but to allow society an orderly and agreed upon way in which to handle those that engage in prohibited behaviour. If that way to handle transgressors of the law involves punishment it may also provide a deterrent. If that way involves
Those things are limited by social convention and individual conscience, not by laws prohibiting them. People are going to murder, assault, steal, abuse children, rape, drink alcohol, do drugs, perform abortions and circumcisions, etc. regardless of any laws against them. You can't legislate human behaviour. I'm sure that plenty of people have demurred from murdering witnesses because the consequences of being caught, weighed against the likelihood of being caught outweighed the consequences of letting the witness live. Humans might not be perfect at risk assessments like this, but evidence shows prohibition and punishment has an inhibitory influence.
Do you have the courage to say which ones you think should be allowed, which ones should be prohibited and give your reasons? As I have said several times, I think, it shouldn't be about "allowing" things at all. So that's a 'no', then. You think 'in some cases, maybe they should be allowed', but won't specify which cases and why - nor will you specify which cases this isn't the case for and why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But welfare can be a psychological thing too, not just a literal situation. Knowing you are bona fide according to the Torah in an orthodox Jewish family context surely has to count as welfare. Well as the article notes - uncircumcised Jews don't feel psychologically hampered, and they can always get circumcised later if they feel they should to accept the covenant. The Pentateuch clearly notes this is acceptable: if there is a sinner in this scenario, it's the parent not the child. As for the latter - such a parent may argue 'Dina d'malkhuta dina', at which point the whole thing becomes a matter of interpretation in the event that a universal circumcision prohibition is put in place.
quote: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Late circumcision is of course OK for new converts And there's no reason Judaism can't adopt this principle generally.
but God threatened Moses because he hadn't had his grown sons circumcised. I believe that's the Christian view - and indeed its not uncommon in Judaism. But in the Talmud there is an opinion that it was Satan that had come, to kill the son not Moses. But in any case, clearly neither God nor Satan are currently going around killing sons or parents for not being circumcised.
You cannot obey mere human laws when they contradict God's law. Otherwise of course we must obey them. That's your opinion - but not all Jews agree. Indeed, as I pointed out, there is a significant debate about the times where the law of the land supersedes religious law. And, as I said, at that point it becomes a matter of interpretation. And you, non-Jewish, certainly have no business deciding who is a True Jew and who is not surrounding this.
but I'm arguing this from the point of view of a Jewish Torah follower who would be deeply offended, and also compromised personally, by a law against his religion. Sure - people get offended over all sorts of things. And of course, the offence taken by humanists or Jewish people that don't circumcise doesn't count in this discussion. But even so, religion changes over time and Judaism is hardly immune. Given that Jewish traditionally has seen their texts as the chronicles of the evolution of the relationship between God and mankind - it's perfectly in line with this philosophy. To this end - capital punishment was over time transformed from being mandatory and common to something to be avoided to the point of being outlawed...along with the notion of following the law of the land. And finally - Abrahamic religions have a 'get out religious dilemma free' card in the guise of 'love one's neighbour as oneself' which can be used to take precedence over even things God commanded. Add to that the commandment to cause no living creature discomfort and there's plenty of scope to question the procedure within the religion. Nevertheless, there is no established harm to the welfare of uncircumcised boys - Jewish or otherwise, as I originally stated. I'm sure if a law was enacted, there would be those that defy it. But I'm sure we'd see a rise in apologetics arguing that it is OK to not circumcise or to delay circumcision until the age of consent is reached.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, it absolutely cannot. It's a false unbiblical idea of love that would have us disobey God. It's sad that it has been so terribly misused. Well you're not Jewish, so you don't really get to say. As Rabbi Hillel said " What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary {or interpretation}. Go and study it." You can be a legalistic Pharisee type if you want, and some Jewish people feel likewise, I'm sure.
Add to that the commandment to cause no living creature discomfort and there's plenty of scope to question the procedure within the religion. I'm not sure what you are referring to here Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim If obedience to the righteous law causes someone discomfort that's like applying the death penalty to a murderer. Sometimes you have to inflict suffering because it's the righteous thing to do. Alternatively, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death" {Maimonides, Moses ben Maimon}
Obviously loving your neighbor and sparing him discomfort means only in the context of righteous acts. Well your religious views are your own. Nevertheless, it is true that the death penalty has been significantly reduced in Judaism on the grounds of loving one's neighbour among other things. So clearly Jewish people can disagree with what is obvious to you.
I'm not to make a criminal comfortable by overlooking the crime unless it's a very petty crime and/or I'm willing to pay for it myself. Enjoy that. In the meantime, the welfare of uncircumcised boys is not harmed by the lack of cutting their genitals. Religious people change their views on what were once common practices, and use general statements like 'love your neighbour...' to override specific ones '...kill your disobedient child'. Judaism has done so before, and I'd wager it can - and will - do it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
OK, so you believe it is pharisaical to punish criminals No. I absolutely did not say that. But I see you've found your reason to disengage, so go in peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
So how can you tell whether or not it's "working"? If people get caught and are then being dealt with in an orderly and agreed upon fashion, then it's working.
You asked the equivalent of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The answer is neither yes nor no. So we should neither permit nor forbid child labour, child foot-binding, child labour, domestic violence or the flogging adulterers? I'm not sure that's a state of affairs that can make sense.
What part of "it shouldn't be about 'allowing' things at all" was unclear? Society should not be in the habit of "allowing" people to do things. The part where you said "maybe they should be allowed" and then said 'it shouldn't be about 'allowing' things when I asked for you to be specific about what is included in the word 'they'. In Western law, that which is not forbidden is permitted. This is sometimes thought of as a marker of freedom. It's either one or the other. So do you have an opinion with regards to which items in the list should be which, and will you reveal it here along with your arguments as to why? If you think this legal principle is flawed, perhaps you could expand on that instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
By that standard, prohibition of alcohol worked and prohibition of abortion worked and prohibition of drugs is working. It seems like you're setting the bar pretty low. Naturally you can add additional metrics to determine whether prohibition is better than not prohibition for any given thing. For instance, if you believe 'reduction in associated crime' is an essential metric, prohibition of alcohol certainly faces problems in that regard.
So we should neither permit nor forbid child labour, child foot-binding, child labour, domestic violence or the flogging adulterers?
Forbidding them may be "working" according to your standard but they're still happening. You didn't address the argument that the position I described is nonsensical. To answer yours: I'm confident there is less child labour as a result of its prohibition. As far as one's goal is to inhibit the offence, prohibition has succeeded.
So fewer prohibitions would suggest more freedom? No, that's not what I said at all. And of course, it wouldn't necessarily be true.
When in doubt, don't prohibit. I'm not in doubt. You have avoided the question yet again. What items in the list do you have doubts about? What are the nature of your doubts? If you don't want to answer this - you could at least just say so. Save me having to ask over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You can't use one "success story" as a basis for banning things. How confident are you that cocaine usage has decreased since it was banned? Nor can you use one failure story as a basis to argue against prohibition. But to answer your question, I'm reasonably confident. The Queen of England used cocaine in the 19th Century. Doctors used it. Labourers regularly used it, soldiers used it and so on. I expect consumers have probably decreased since the late 19th and early 20th Century - if total consumption has increased I expect this is a function of increased production due to agricultural and technical improvements and a larger and wealthier population. But as I said, even if consumption hasn't changed - or gone up - it wouldn't change my original comment from over a month ago in Message 49:
quote: Towards the end of WWI 2/3 of the shells being fired contained gas payloads rather than explosive ones. It was prohibited, and although it is still used during warfare - it is less common than 2/3.
I have doubts about everything. Any skeptic should. Still avoiding the question. While you may doubt that the prohibition against stoning homosexuals or abusing children is a good idea - I think it should be obvious I'm not talking about a generally philosophically healthy degree of doubt, but significant doubt to the point of thinking that maybe we should be turning a blind eye to stoning homosexuals, abusing children, beating spouses etc.
I'm not going to start beating my wife just so I can stop for the benefit of your question. So I don't mind if you keep asking over and over again. But if you want a different answer, ask a different question. You are trying to argue against prohibition in general. I am asking how far you are willing to go. Do you think we should take no action as a society against child rapists, people that hurt or maim children, domestic violence? It's a simple question. I gave a list of specific things. You suggested that maybe we should be allowing some of them ("maybe they should be allowed"). I asked you which of them were you thinking of - all of them? You made the comment, are you retracting it? To use your questionable analogy: You said 'maybe we should beat women' and I followed that up with 'does that include your wife?' and you replied 'This isn't about beating women' and avoided the follow up rather inexpertly ever since.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024