Phluther Philosophers! Can you help with a church-and-state conundrum?

So, then do we allow Polygamy in Utah? What about allowing female circumcision?
There needs to be a line, somewhere.

Hey, Polygamist are people too. The way around this law is not to marry all the wives, there is no law against living with several as long as you’re not married to more than one. Thirteen has always been a lucky number for me.

My personal feelings on this one are that of the libertarian. I feel no right to regulate someone else’s behavior unless it either impacts me; or impacts others who either can not, or have not given their consent to be impacted. Take genital mutilation—whether it is Rabbis clipping little boy dicks or Muftis slicing little girl clits. There, I feel the state has a right to step in on the grounds that young children are unable to give informed consent. The holy men are infringing on the rights of others they have no right to control, and the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children. If the holy man gets his shorts in a knot about this, he and his willing followers can migrate to a zone where holy men just like him make all the laws, and then he can go back to happily mutilating children just like his individual sky daddy commanded that he do somewhere back in the now forgotten past.

Polygamist, as far as I can see, aren’t hurting anyone with the possible exception of themselves. If the three or four or five hundred of them are all adults of sound mind, and they are still stupid enough to want to amplify the grief of being married 2-fold, 4-fold, or more-fold, no skin off my nose. Let them knock themselves out. And after a few years, they probably will.

Well, separation of church and state means a couple things to me. Mostly it means the government cannot dictate the religious belief of its citizens. So, the absence of religion in government is what is very important regarding that point. In other words, having a secular government. Then there is the matter of letting people freely practice their religion. I tend to come down on the side of “state” law trumps religious law. If it is against the law in a country, then it is, period. I think we need to be very careful to protect a person’s right to practice their religion as they see fit as much as possible, but there are limits of course.

It’s really very tricky the issue. The history of Germany and the Jews makes it almost impossible in my opinion for Germans to be the ones to lead on a law outlawing circumcision. Circumcisions is still performed in fairly large numbers around the world, although my guess is more men are not circumcised than are (I don’t know the actual stats).

In America most circumcisions are performed on boys who aren’t Jewish since we do it fairly regularly in our country. For the most part it is not wrapped up in religious reasons here. Currently about 50% of boys are circumcised days afyer birth in America, and the total Jewish population is about 2.5% of that of the total population, Muslims are similar in number from estimates I have read. That is total, so new born baby boys in the last 20 years probably less than 1% of the US population.

If we want to have governments treat all religion’s equally, then we need consistent rules which outline where any and all religions are allowed to operate, and where they aren’t. To do so, make it simple. Where any religious or cultural practice adversely impacts on human rights, the religious or cultural practice loses. Always. Otherwise we get a situation like we have now, with powerful, popular, or well established religious practices that contradict human rights, like circumcision, getting permitted; whereas practices like restricting blood transfusions or polygamy are often restricted.

Yes I am aware that then the argument will be made around what is and what is not a right of a parent versus the rights of a child. But this is just a subset of the above argument. The rights of the child trump the rights of a parent, simple because a child’s rights are an individuals rights, whereas a “parents” rights, are those of an individual over the life of another (as are the cultural and religious rights that are often called into question). In short, the rights of an individual not to have pieces of their body removed without their consent, exceeds the rights of another (parent or otherwise) to do so. The medical exception occurs because we most justifiably assume that in cases where medical intervention is necessary to preserve a life, or limit the adverse impacts of a defect, then intervention should occur if individual consent is not possible, and cannot be waited for.

The current conflicts we are seeing at this interface between human rights and religious rights can’t continue indefinitely, and if societies continue to develop as they have been, I can only hope, that eventually a suitable and consistent legal demarcation is eventually enacted, and those antequated ideas which infringe on human rights are finally put in the dustbin where they belong.

Separation of church and state means that the government shows no partiality to any religion. The law of the land applies equally to everyone. For example, if a Christian Scientist endangers the life of a child by refusing medication, the state has the right to intervene, just as it would for anyone who is not a Christian Scientist.

I think that adults should be able to believe anything they want but, as I’ve said before, imposing religion on children is child abuse. Add the idea of circumcision or the mutilation of children and you have extreme abuse. There was an early christian writer that said that it is best to circumcise baby boys because if you waited until they were older, the “horror” of the operation would be too much to bear. That is one of the very few true christian statements.

The state has the duty to protect citizens, especially to protect children against barbarous religious practices

The gut level issue is who owns the child, the parent or the state. It is the perceived right to follow family traditions, religious or not, that the state would seek to deny. The state, which theoretically reflects the majority will of the populace, creates laws to protect the innocent from abuse and provides the means for their enforcement. However, this creates the potential for the repression of a minority by the majority. Only the courts can clarify the gray areas that arise when biased legislatures define the problem and prescribe its solution.

As if religion and doctrine stay the same over time. Religion will adapt as, unfortunately, always has.

@tinyfaery True. After laws against polygamy were passed in the US, God changed His mind about how many wives each fine, upstanding Mormon man needed to breed enough fodder to keep the elders living in splendor.

We don’t grant parents the right to beat their children. So we all agree that the state has some responsibility to protect children from their parents. Where intrusion is warranted is a hard thing to decide. Should we prevent circumcision? How about snake handling? Should we allow parents to marry their 13-year-old daughters to 60 year old “prophets”?” Should we allow them to put their kids in closets for days/week/months as punishment? Should we allow them to load their eight-year-old daughter into a cockpit and send her off to die on a solo transcontinental flight?

We draw lines (also called “make laws”) so that everyone will know what the limits and consequences are. They won’t all fit every situation perfectly. We just have to do our best.

Regardless of what the primitive religions believe, we are evolving. When I grew up, everybody beat kids, you didn’t have to be related. I have often felt Mrs. Hobson’s switch (thin whip-like branch). Today even a smack on the bottom can get a parent in trouble. Women were expected to stay home when a man worked and there was no such thing as a “no-fault” divorce. Gay’s had no rights what-so-ever and Alan Turing, a great man that broke Germany’s codes and helped win WWII was hounded and abused so much for being homosexual that he committed suicide.

All of this changed in during my short 65 years on this earth and none of it is a result of religion, in fact you could say it was despite religion. The state changed and progressed while religion remained stagnant and even regressed towards extreme fundamentalism.

People have the right to believe whatever they want, they do not have the right to abuse and subjugate others. There is a lot of opposition and complaining but we are evolving away from strict religion and especially the assumed authority of the clergy. So, assuming that some fundamentalist doesn’t kill off rational people we will eventually evolve away from the excess respect given to churches, synagogues, and mosques.

@Ron_C Where I grew up not everyone was beating their kids, neither of my parents were hit either, and their peers also definitely did not use that as a regular punishment, maybe they had been spanked now and again I don’t know. I seem to find that happens more often in religious households ironically, talking about church and state. My peers, I am 44, here in the bible belt still think it is ok to hit and whip their kids. I see parents in public hit their kids on the butt here, who knows what they do to that kid behind closed doors.

@JLeslie I know what you mean. I was raised in south western Pennsylvania, where weren’t too many bible belt types there and the ‘whippings” were a mild sting on the butt as you ran by. It’s funny, though, the Christians that are supposed to believe in a mild and loving God are strong supporters or corporeal punishment, the death penalty, punishing the poor, not paying taxes, and bombing the hell out of brown people. I read the bible and see a lot of that in the old testament but not as much in the new. Is there a bible that I missed?

Though I think the German court’s decision was too broad in its scope, I understand the principle. That is, “religious faith” is one thing; responsible and tolerant (that is, Western) governments will no longer resort to an Inquisition to ensure that we all think alike, but our governments are acting to restrain certain “religious practices”.

To the extent that some actions may cause permanent harm to another (such as circumcision, if you believe that to be “harm”), then we’re being restrained.

I think the Court could have signaled the Legislature with a decision that technically upholds the practice but “deplores” it on the grounds that they used to ban it. But it’s not the Court’s business to ban religious practice. That should have been left to the legislature, where it could be debated openly and at length.

Having courts establish law in this way is a dangerous precedent. I would think that the German legislature would be up in arms (as American ones frequently are) when the court attempts to do its job for it.

However, in the specific case of this judicial ban, unless the German government will now attempt to prosecute every parent who moves a child to another national jurisdiction to have the practice performed outside of German legal reach, it’s a useless, stupid and unnecessarily divisive decision. The debate needs to be held.

The law should aim to be moral, disregarding pressures from religion, tradition, and lobby groups. The only question that should be considered in the male circumcision case is whether or not circumcision is morally permissible. If it is, then allow it. If it is not, ban it.

It is the same as with any conflicts in life. You choose what you believe to be right. My faith is against abortion and contraceptives. I don’t see why contraceptives aren’t allowed. I would think it is better a woman keep from having to have an abortion in the first place. Or worse yet! Have the child and kill it in a much crueler fashion when older or raise it to feel worthless because its mother blames the child for their horrible life. I rather the woman be an adulterer than a murderer.

When it really comes down to it no religion “deserves respect” or tolerance. This whole business about secular institutions take care of the physical and religion takes care of the spirit is bunk.

It is possible to give a little respect to older religions like Roman Catholic, Judaism, and Wicca because of their age but there should be no monetary advantage given to them. If they want to build churches and temples, fine but they better pay property tax. If they do real charity, unrelated to proselytizing, they can get an exemption to that portion of their expenses. Otherwise no tax breaks simply because you call your institution a church.

I don’t see why everyone has to pay for a small population of religious sycophants.

The main point is where the Gov’t can draw the line on how to affectively controle the populous.