Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _ajax18 »

It can’t be that you want another wife. You’re always complaining about how the current one spends you out of house and home.


Well you got that right. I wouldn't want to have to live polygamy in this world. If it weren't for the Church, I wouldn't have even dated a woman, let alone marry one. And that's not because I don't want to have sex with darn near every one of them which I still believe is natural for any heterosexual man. It's because I know the consequences and it's just not worth it.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _Chap »

ajax18 wrote:
Should FGM be illegal in the United States or should it be tolerated due to freedom of religion? Remember this is the Muslim religion (a protected minority) unlike the Mormon religion. So the same standards don't apply to each.


canpakes wrote:What particular aspects of the Mormon religion are you wanting to exercise but are not allowed to do so by law?


ajax18 - could you answer the question, please?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _EAllusion »

I regard FGM as a form of child abuse that should be illegal. I'm on the fence with male circumcision, but am inclined to also think that is a form of child abuse that should be illegal. This is a separate question from whether the federal government is empowered to enact the law it did. I am sympathetic to the judge's opinion here.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _DarkHelmet »

ajax18 wrote:Well you got that right. I wouldn't want to have to live polygamy in this world. If it weren't for the Church, I wouldn't have even dated a woman, let alone marry one. And that's not because I don't want to have sex with darn near every one of them which I still believe is natural for any heterosexual man. It's because I know the consequences and it's just not worth it.


Ladies, look what you're missing out on.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _DarkHelmet »

EAllusion wrote:I regard FGM as a form of child abuse that should be illegal. I'm on the fence with male circumcision, but am inclined to also think that is a form of child abuse that should be illegal. This is a separate question from whether the federal government is empowered to enact the law it did. I am sympathetic to the judge's opinion here.


We had our boys circumcised, because that's just what you do in America. We didn't even think much about it. If I had the choice again, I wouldn't. It's just another form of genital mutilation based on ancient religious customs.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _canpakes »

ajax18 wrote:
It can’t be that you want another wife. You’re always complaining about how the current one spends you out of house and home.


Well you got that right. I wouldn't want to have to live polygamy in this world. If it weren't for the Church, I wouldn't have even dated a woman, let alone marry one. And that's not because I don't want to have sex with darn near every one of them which I still believe is natural for any heterosexual man. It's because I know the consequences and it's just not worth it.

Lol. ajax, I know that you catch a lot of grief for your views (sometimes from me, too), but I do enjoy your straightforwardness at times. : )

May you and your family have a great Thanksgiving holiday!
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _ajax18 »

ajax18 - could you answer the question, please?


I'll answer it when you explain to me why the feminazis on the left are not in an uproar over this as they should be?

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Sharia zones set up in the US akin to Europe where liberals in western governments shout, "Oh no, we have no right to stop this. That would be Islamophobic."
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _EAllusion »

ajax18 wrote:
ajax18 - could you answer the question, please?


I'll answer it when you explain to me why the feminazis on the left are not in an uproar over this as they should be?

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Sharia zones set up in the US akin to Europe where liberals in western governments shout, "Oh no, we have no right to stop this. That would be Islamophobic."
Feminists tend to be fierce opponents of female genital mutilation? Are you saying you looked no where, didn't find anything, and are now outraged? Moreover, this ruling isn't on the merits of female genital mutilation, but rather if the federal statute is covered under the interstate commerce clause.
_MeDotOrg
_Emeritus
Posts: 4761
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _MeDotOrg »

When asked about the ruling, Trump said he had enough problems with the 9th Circuit and didn't have time to worry about Liberian judges.

Personally I find the ruling outrageous. I don't think this is the beginning of a groundswell of support for female genital mutilation. This is far from the end of the story.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization."
- Will Durant
"We've kept more promises than we've even made"
- Donald Trump
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

Post by _Chap »

Chap wrote:
ajax18 wrote:
Should FGM be illegal in the United States or should it be tolerated due to freedom of religion? Remember this is the Muslim religion (a protected minority) unlike the Mormon religion. So the same standards don't apply to each.


canpakes wrote:What particular aspects of the Mormon religion are you wanting to exercise but are not allowed to do so by law?


ajax18 - could you answer the question, please?




ajax18 wrote:
I'll answer it when you explain to me why the feminazis on the left are not in an uproar over this as they should be?

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Sharia zones set up in the US akin to Europe where liberals in western governments shout, "Oh no, we have no right to stop this. That would be Islamophobic."


OK, so you have made an assertion about the alleged privileged status of Islam in the US compared to Mormonism, and you have nothing to back it up. That's what I expected.

The case was not decided on the basis of whether or not the mutilation of girls was a bad thing or a good thing. That was not an issue for the judge. It was decided on the basis that the federal government did not have the power to regulate a matter of this kind, which fell within the police powers held by the states under the Constitution:


Congress had no authority to pass this [anti-FGM] statute under either the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause.

That clause permits Congress to regulate activity that is commercial or economic in nature and that substantially affects interstate commerce either directly or as part of an interstate market that has such an effect. The government has not shown that either prong is met. There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM. As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault, just like the rape at issue in Morrison. Nor has the government shown that FGM itself has any effect on interstate commerce or that a market exists for FGM beyond the mothers of the nine victims alleged in the third superseding indictment. There is, in short, no rational basis to conclude that FGM has any effect, to say nothing of a substantial effect, on interstate commerce.
….
As the Supreme Court has stated, “[a] criminal act committed wholly within a State ‘cannot be made an offence against the United States, unless it have some relation to the execution of a power of Congress, or to some matter within the jurisdiction of the United States.’” … For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Congress had no authority to enact 18 U.S.C. § 116(a) under either grant of power on which the government relies. Therefore, that statute is unconstitutional.


This decision has nothing to do with granting FGM (which is a cultural practice that is not part of Sharia law) any kind of special protection on religious grounds.

The issue for US feminists (who are pretty well universally opposed to what the judge called a 'despicable' practice) is what to do next. Appeal this case, and hope to win there, or turn to campaigns within states? As an outsider, I do not venture to advise them.

I don't think you will be able to find any reputable Muslim jurist who thinks that genital mutilation of girls forms any part of Sharia law. One decisive point for many Muslims is that the prophet Muhammed never had this done to any of his own daughters:

The Islamic view on female circumcision



With this in mind, Dar al-Ifta convened an international conference in November 2006 on the topic of FGM. Participants included scientists, scholars of Islamic law, specialist researchers on the topic, and activists from civil rights organizations in Egypt and around the world. Upon hearing an array of presentations from across the spectrum, the conference concluded that the mutilation presently practised in some parts of Egypt, Africa and elsewhere represents a deplorable custom which finds no justification in the authoritative sources of Islam, the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad.

One of the highest values of Islamic law is the Prophetic command to neither inflict nor accept harm. This imperative will be familiar to non-Muslims as the golden rule. As it is a universal commandment that applies to all, irrespective of social class or gender, special care must be taken to ensure that no type of harm befall those who can neither cause nor repel harm on their own, the weak and helpless in our societies. In the light of this reality, and because of the significant physical and psychological harm to young girls (and later women) caused by FGM, all measures must be taken to put a halt to this unacceptable tradition.

Thus, one of the recommendations of the conference was that taking active action on this front is crucial, if we are to remain true to our Islamic values and principles. Islam is a religion of knowledge, learning and research. While FGM was previously practised as a social custom (and not a religious matter), the state of today's knowledge makes clear the serious negative effects of such practices on women. As such, it becomes a religious obligation to say unequivocally that the practice of FGM is today forbidden in Islam.

The findings of the conference represented a call upon the nations of the Muslim world – in Egypt and beyond – to hold fast to their Islamic identity by ending this deplorable custom in their communities. Injuring oneself or somebody else in any form is expressly and categorically forbidden. In connection with this, it should suffice for us to follow the example of our Beloved Prophet – the Mercy to all Mankind – who never subjected any of his daughters to this practice [11].


The long discussion of relevant Islamic historical texts in this source

An analysis of female circumcision according to Islamic law (pdf)

concludes as follows:

Therefore the matter of female circumcision is not a matter of Islamic law at all, it was an old custom which was not made unlawful as such by the Holy Founder of Islam [peace and blessings be upon him], and was certainly not encouraged by him.

Of course, Allah knows best.




And no, I'm not a Muslim. I'm and atheist.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply