But there’s an awful fascination in showing that, behind the verbiage, Jons has nothing to offer beyond “Jews like to do it”.
If his medical claims are correct, WJ is in a much stronger position with his “it’s a Good Thing in places where everyone is filthy and covered in germs” argument.
“Comparing an event in which a woman is cruelly killed to a joyous welcoming celebration of love and a new life is just that: obscene.”
Suttee was a solemn celebration of the wife’s love and commitment to her husband. But that did not change the essential nature of the act. It was, as you say, an event in which a woman is cruelly killed.
A circumcision party may be, as you say, “ a joyous welcoming celebration of love and a new life”, but that does not change the essential nature of the act. A bit of the child is cruelly sliced off.
In both cases, the essential nature of the act is cruel.
In both cases, the religious practitioners regard it as a good thing.
So the comparison holds. The difference between them is the degree of cruelty. Yes, I agree that suttee is a lot more cruel than circumcision, but, since neither cruelty is necessary, I think they should both be forbidden.
“The baby cries and calms down amazingly fast. The place heals within a few days. The procedure and ceremony is performed on 8 day old infants, who retain no memory of the event, hence no trauma.”
But the damage is permanent. The harm has been done.
“I note that you would support a ban. So you may agree to freedom of religion, just not the Jewish religion.”
I would place limits on the freedom of religious practice for the Jewish religion, but also for Islam and all other religions. My principles do not single out Judaism.
But your principles also place limits on the freedom of religious practice. You say “Religious practice cannot be used as a pretext to harm others. You can’t go around killing people and claim that your religion compels you to do so. “
Which means that you would limit the freedom of Hindus to carry out suttee, and the freedom of Aztec priests to offer human hearts to the Sun.
But you want to make an exception for the Jewish religion.
(Incidentally, have you ever been to a Christening? Christians, too, joyously welcome the new life, but many of them do not express their love by cutting off a bit of the child. They just drop a bit of water on it.)
“Do you see any mention of Arabs or Palestinians in the quote from Herzl?”
Herzl’s statement was a general principle, to be applied to whichever penniless population was in the way. It happened to be the Palestinians who had the principle applied to them.
Zangwill demonstrated Zionist thinking while he was a Zionist. His change of mind does not make the Zionist thinking any less reprehensible.
“In general Zionist leaders expressed a desire to live in peace, not displace the Arab population.”
And yet the Zionists set up a separate society in Palestine rather than becoming part of Palestinian society. They bought land and then drove off the tenant farmers. They intended to take over the country. So their idea of “living in peace” seems to have been that of Arabs quietly accepting life as second class citizens in a Jewish State.
And they did displace the Arab population.
OK.
a. I’m not convinced that freedom of religion is a basic right, but I’ll agree. I can see good reasons for it.
b. “Religious practice cannot be used as a pretext to harm others. “
I agree. You can’t go around snipping bits off people and claim that your religion requires it.
c. “Practically any human activity entails a certain risk … We know about these dangers yet we generally consider the risk to be acceptable. Otherwise we would not be able to go about our everyday lives.”
Agree. All the cases you mention are ones in which we decide accept a risk to ourselves.
Now we do accept that some of our behaviour entails a risk to others. When I go for a drive, I might accidentally harm others, and we accept that putting others at risk is also necessary as part of our daily lives. But we try not to deliberately put people at risk.
But this does not have relevance to circumcision.
When you decide to circumcise a child, you are not risking harm to others. You are deliberately causing harm.
And you are not the one facing the risk. It is the child who faces the risk. You are deliberately putting the child at risk of the complications. And it is not necessary for our daily lives.
d. “Coercion should be opposed:”
I agree. Children should not be forced to have bits snipped off them.
“Jewish ritual circumcision is a religious commandment and an important tradition.”
None of this makes it morally acceptable. If you think it does, you must present an argument.
“Assuming that it’s performed by a competent practitioner on a healthy baby, the risk of a mishap is tiny.”
But there is no morally acceptable reason to even take the risk.
“The procedure itself is not harmful or traumatic “
Snipping a bit off a baby is certainly harmful. It is ridiculous to deny that.
“Have you ever been invited to a traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony (“bris”)? I would just like know whether you have any personal experience or observations.”
No. I haven’t been invited to a suttee or FGM ceremony either. What difference do you think it would make if I had?
“Would you favor legislating a legal ban? Outlawing the practice?”
Yes.
Sorry, Mooser, I accidentally left out an o. No insult intended.
I can’t admit that I was wrong about Hillary, because I don’t know that I was wrong. I thought that, as president, she would be a disaster and probably start a war with Russia. She failed to become president, so there is no way of telling whether I was wrong or right.
I thought that Trump would be a disaster and probably not start a war with Russia. I’ve been right about that.
So far.
Of course, since I’m an Australian, I think all US presidents are disasters as a matter of course.
(Quite unlike our own brilliant and sagacious Prime Minister, whoever that happens to be.)
I have to say that I’m very impressed with the Russians.
They have been able to suborn Americans and sneakily manipulate the American political process so as to get one Kremlin agent into the presidency, and set up another agent to split the opposition so as to ensure a second term for the first one.
Is there no limit to their fiendish cunning?
Since their evil plotting is so successful, it might be easier for the Americans to simply hand the keys to the White House direct to Mr Putin. Why waste any more time on a battle of wits for which the Americans are clearly ill-equipped?
Moser, we know she’s got her man, so the big question is whether she’s got music.
Moon of Alabama has some interesting stuff on this.