Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 5/2/2001 11:50:29 AM EDT
Now i am not trolling but i would like to have a debate on this topic. Some people think that they should be worship and practice their religion, no matter what the effects are on others around them. For example, World church of the creator. They think it ok to kill anyone who isn't white. Correct me if i am wrong. Randy Weaver was a separatist, supremist whatever. And David Koresh , well who knows what he thought. And Scientologists and , Those people in Heaven's gate, christian, Jewish whatever. You get the point. All religions and faiths, old and new. Now here is the point I would like to debate. It is a practice that goes on in some African and Middle eastern cultures. It is the practice of female circumcision. These people actually believe that this is a rite of passage that keeps a young woman from having corrupt thoughts. And protects the status quo of their community. If someone from one of those countries immigrates to the U.S.A. should they be allowed to practice their faith on their daughter or should they be prevented from doing that because, well to put it nicely we just don't do that kind of thing here? Should they have freedom of religion? Let's debate it. They really do this now. Does this fall under freedom of religion?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 11:56:50 AM EDT
You dont even have to go that far to prove that we dont have freedom of religon in the "land of the free." When you see people like Ashcroft get blasted because he mentions "God," it kind of makes you wonder where this country is going.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:05:18 PM EDT
Are you sure you want to open this can of worms? I think a similar thread was locked by the administrator because he believed the debate would become nothing more than a pissing match.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:08:06 PM EDT
Hey, Deat, that isn't what i asked. I asked should this be protected. I guess he can lock it up if he wants, hell it is only piss, bot arrows. What do you think?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:09:42 PM EDT
Do I NEED TO Learn how to type!!! "NOT" arrows
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 12:31:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2001 12:32:12 PM EDT by imposter]
I for one am glad we do not have freedom of religion. The crackpot religion I belong to would have polygamy if left to its own devices, and another wife is the last thing I need! [;)]
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 1:24:02 PM EDT
Funny how you think some religions are crazy for doing female circumcision, like male circumcision is a good thing. I tend to think those of you who practice male circumcision are pretty wacked out as well. Any form of religious ritual that involves removing body parts (foreskin) is pretty rediculous.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 1:51:03 PM EDT
a parent whether religious or not is responsible for their childs upbringing. if the parents want to circumcise their daughter then thats their problem not mine. so why should i give a darn? male circumcision was intended to reduce infections as well. circumcised lib
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 3:57:09 PM EDT
no Dude, they hold the girl down, then they wack of the man in the boat, not foreskin. not in a hospital and no anesthesia. No shit this was reported on NBC last year i reiterate, should this be protected under freedom of religion in America?
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 4:36:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/2/2001 4:36:04 PM EDT by M4]
I can tell you that the female circumcision example actually happened about 10 years ago in France. An African family living in Paris brought their daughter to the hospital to have that procedure done. Doctors wouldn't do it and it went to court there. Final verdict: Doctors-1, African parents-0 It was widely agreed that no free society can not sanction the mutilation of another human being without there being a serious illness involved to justify it. I've spent time in Africa and talked to both tribal men and wonen(those who would talk) about this subject as well. As far as the women are concerned, they don't even question it for the most part. They see it as the only way to attract a man. The know that they would be an outcast of sorts, and rejected if they chose not to. Obviously they have no reference for what developed societies accept or don't accept, and they go along with it.
Link Posted: 5/2/2001 5:24:57 PM EDT
If you're really interested in the extent of the gov't's power to regulate in the area of religious practices, I suggest reading Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, Employment Div. v. Smith and City of Boerne v. Flores. Three seminal cases in Free Exercise law. I'll chime in here, since I know the attorney who won the landmark decision in Boerne - the Supreme Ct. decision striking down RFRA (Religious Freedom Reformation Act), and I pretty much aggree with the logic of the decision. You can believe anything you want. You think the supreme being is can of garbanzo beans, go ahead; worship a can of beans if thats your kick. The gov't can't legislate against beliefs. They can, however, legislate against action which may be a part of the religious ceremony or practice if such legislation is generally applicable and not intended to inhibit any particular sect or belief. Thus, the gov't can enforce criminal laws even if it interferes with the religious ceremony or practice, as long as the law wasn't directed at inhibiting the practice of that religion. Employment Div. was the famous case regarding the enforcement of a law forbiding drug use/possesion which was challenged by a group which used peyote as a part of their religious practice. Following Employment Div., Congress passed RFRA which was ultimately struck down by City of Boerne. As I recall, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye won because there the city wrote the law with the intent of inhibiting their religion. So, if your religion directs you to engage in female circumcision (or male circumcision for that matter), go ahead, but be aware that if the gov't can find a generally applicable reason why such circumcision should be proscribed (say for example, public health reasons), they can outlaw that specific act. Of course, if the female objects and it is done forcibly, or without consent, it could well be prosecuted as criminal battery.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 7:10:30 AM EDT
Well thought out responses. By the way I am in the'No f****** way category. Talk about barbaric. This was actually the topi of an episode of "Law and Order", and it made me think. Great food for thought fellas.
Top Top