Trouble in Oregon

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry your wrong again glorious, the first amendment allows for freedom of religion and anyone who forces their religion on another in such a way that they cannot choose has violated the other person's rights to freedom of religion. A child has the right to choose his own religion it is his or her decision alone not the parent's therefore the parent has no right to force a religious surgery like circumcision upon the child. Only when the child consents can a religious sugary such as Brit milah be performed.

So you say the first amendment does not protect us from each other but what about the third amendment?? Are you saying that my right to freedom of speech is only relevant when the government is involved?? What about the second amendment??? It allows all American's to bear arms so what are you saying this only applies when the government is involved as well??

If you had done your history then you would realize that one of the biggest reasons that we separated from England was because of our religious beliefs and our persecution. It was not just the government that persecuted us the church and the people as well. The father's of our country made sure that we had the right to choose what we believe in that no matter what it was our choose alone and not someone's choice made for us.

So, wait, if a single law does not prevent all evils from occurring, that law must be flawed? That doesn't make sense.

No, it prevents government from imposing religion upon people. If I am wrong, then pull out what part of that 1st amendment I am violating, as the amendment seems to clearly apply to congress. They just didn't want to have to fight over the government so they had that first amendment.


The right of a child to choose religion is not something you seem to be pulling from any legal text, not only that, but circumcisions at birth are so common that the rule, as you understand it, is regularly violated and yet the system still allows that. So, I do not see the issue.


The right not to have soldiers stationed in your house? Um.... I think that laws against private armies invading your property exist. But, right, the amendments are not so much for protecting us from each other, as they are about protecting us from the government. I don't think that many(perhaps any) amendments if any are that positive to protect us, so much as negative to prevent action by the government or establish some other governmental ruling as to the nature of it's relation to us.


Well, you don't have an absolute right to say anything without punishment while on somebody else's property to the best of my knowledge, and you don't have the right to publish something without getting approval from the powers that be, so yes. Same with the second amendment, as somebody can deny you access to a private area because you are holding a gun, and they probably could do so if you were a gun-owner save the power of another law protecting you from that.


Well, not really. If it were that, then why did the people here come to create theocratic governments like the one that used to be in Massachusetts? We separated from England because we had gotten along just fine without their taxes, and they conveniently removed the Indians that had been harassing us previously. If I remember my history of the Pilgrims just right, they really weren't that persecuted at all, they just really did not like the liberalism of Dutch society because they were fundamentalists like you wouldn't believe.

The English government hadn't persecuted us for a while before we rebelled against them, they hardly cared. The fathers of our nation also really were not so much concerned with the individual right to choose so much as preventing some theocratic control, not only that, but the 1st amendment you point to, is really just a compromise with the anti-federalists, and not a result of all of the founding fathers so much, as some of them were federalists who thought we did not need a bill of rights.

It is not some law it is one of the laws that govern all other laws. As I have stated before it does protect the rights of the child so he cannot be forced to undergo the circumcision if he does not truly want it.

Well, it is *some law* though. It isn't all laws, it is one of the foundational laws perhaps, but not all laws are foundational.

You have stated, but have you really shown that? It seems to me that the 1st amendment applies to congressional acts, and that seems pretty clear from the text as it states "Congress shall make no law", nothing to do with individuals really.

Lets say you are right then the father has no right to circumcise his son for religious reason because if first amendment does not apply to people such as M then it does not apply to people like M's father in any way shape or form.

M is a minor.

Ah awesome I love your Pedantic nature it makes me think. What I should have said is that if the laws of your country allow this to happen they need some sort of reformation. And yes if the laws of your country cannot prevent this then they have failed that kid and in that sense they are flawed.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 21 Aug 2008, 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As twoshots stated, M is a minor. Minors do not have the same rights as adults, the supreme court is currently looking at the argument that this will impact the ability of his parents to do their job, but the kid having rights is still not a consideration if you've noticed.

Right, well, that is just how I think.

Yes, you can certainly argue that position.

My god its his mind, his spirt his body basically its his life, no matter what a parent does not have the right to make life altering decision when the child's life is not at risk. Just because the father wants his son circumcised and to adopt Judaism as his religion does not give him the right to make those choices for him. The child has the right to make those choices himself, I mean what if he never adopts Judaism??? What if he does not want a izmel taken to his penis??? What if he wishes to remain as he was when he was born into this world??

Just because someone is your father does not mean they have the right to control every aspect of your life. I mean if it was the religious practice to castrate any boy who was born with red hair or green eyes would that be legal???

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Well, the issue is that he is not an independent, he does not own himself. Children usually do not get the right to make decisions, and this procedure, in the eyes of the law, does not have to be taken differently than a number of other life-changing procedures. After all, this is an act traditionally and historically done at birth, before any choosing ability exists. I mean, we can argue that the child should have more rights, but that would be arguing that the child should be regarded as more than just a dependent and more as an acting agent, which creates all sorts of issues.

I'd think that our code of laws would deny the right to castration as a matter of extreme damage to an individual.

http://www.intact.ca/canary.htm

http://www.humanehealthcare.com/Article.asp?art_id=620

According to Rabbi Eugene Cohen, 80 percent of American Jewish circumcisions do not meet religious standards.



http://jewishcircumcision.org/ritual.htm

Ok, and the Supreme Court has ignored such arguments and would have dismissed it all, except that the child claims to dislike this procedure, and there is already an issue of parental rights involved. In fact, if you look at what is going on, the threat is not one of medical ethics, but rather of parental alienation.