Libertarian Judge strikes down law against FGM

[_Gunnar]

Unless medically advisable due to some rare medical necessity or condition, and with the informed consent of a fully rational, adult patient, I certainly approve of laws making FGM illegal (regardless of religious belief) -- especially if it specifically includes clitorectomy, and not mere removal or reduction of the clitoral hood. Perhaps it could be reasonably argued that passing such laws should be the sole province of the individual states rather than the Federal Government, but I do not, in principle, object to a Federally mandated prohibition of FGM. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to justify such prohibition by invoking the provision against inflicting cruel and unusual punishment as stated in the 8th amendment in the Bill of Rights.

As for male circumcision, I am somewhat ambivalent. I was not circumcised until I was 14 years old, and not for religious reasons. I was hospitalized for a hernia operation, and the doctor noticed that I had an unusually tight foreskin that would certainly have interfered with normal sexual function later in life. He advised circumcision for medical reasons, and I have never regretted being circumcised. We had both of our sons circumcised when they were born, and I don't think either of them ever regretted that. The lack of a foreskin also helps to facilitate adequate hygiene in that area, and, according to some, can reduce the probability of eventually getting penile cancer.

[_Res Ipsa]

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."

It really surprises me to see you write this, Ajax. It’s like you have no understanding of liberal philosophy at all. I do a fair amount of reading on the political left, and I have not seen any groundswell of support for “Sharia zones” in the US or for permitting Muslims to mutilate children’s genitals. There is a difference between saying “you are welcome in our country as long as you obey our laws” and “you are welcome in our country and feel free do whatever you want” The former is liberalism. The latter is some flavor of anarchy.

Saying to Muslims: “you are welcome in America as long as you obey our laws” is not Islamophobia. Having laws that criminalize acts that happen to be part of Islamic religious practice is not Islamaphobia. Using trumped up fears of Sharia Zones to justify keeping Muslims out of the US or to restrict Muslim’s religious practice in ways that don’t apply to other religions is Islamaphobia.

Maybe you could spend a little time reading up on actual positions commonly taken by liberals rather than rely on the cartoon version dished out by the RWM.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Why do you find the ruling outrageous? Do you think the federal government has the authority to criminalize this kind of action? If so, what do you think is the source of that authority?

[_DarkHelmet]

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."

It really surprises me to see you write this, Ajax. It’s like you have no understanding of liberal philosophy at all. I do a fair amount of reading on the political left, and I have not seen any groundswell of support for “Sharia zones” in the US or for permitting Muslims to mutilate children’s genitals. There is a difference between saying “you are welcome in our country as long as you obey our laws” and “you are welcome in our country and feel free do whatever you want” The former is liberalism. The latter is some flavor of anarchy.

Saying to Muslims: “you are welcome in America as long as you obey our laws” is not Islamophobia. Having laws that criminalize acts that happen to be part of Islamic religious practice is not Islamaphobia. Using trumped up fears of Sharia Zones to justify keeping Muslims out of the US or to restrict Muslim’s religious practice in ways that don’t apply to other religions is Islamaphobia.

Maybe you could spend a little time reading up on actual positions commonly taken by liberals rather than rely on the cartoon version dished out by the RWM.

ajax fails to comprehend that if he was born in a muslim country that practiced sharia law, he would be all for it. It's certainly not the liberals in those countries that are enforcing strict adherence to scripture.

[_Chap]

Having laws that criminalize acts that happen to be part of Islamic religious practice is not Islamaphobia.

Could you perhaps leave some room for the view that the mutilation of female genitals is best seen as a socially sanctioned practice of some groups of people who happen to be Muslims rather than seeing it as an essential part of the Muslim religion?

(See my post above, and this survey.)

[_Res Ipsa]

Having laws that criminalize acts that happen to be part of Islamic religious practice is not Islamaphobia.

Could you perhaps leave some room for the view that the mutilation of female genitals is best seen as a socially sanctioned practice of some groups of people who happen to be Muslims rather than seeing it as an essential part of the Muslim religion?

(See my post above, and this survey.)

Yeah, sorry. I should have said something like: having laws that criminalize acts that happen to be cultural acts of some Muslims is not Islamaphobia.

[_Chap]

I should have said something like: having laws that criminalize acts that happen to be cultural acts of some Muslims is not Islamaphobia.

Yup, in fact that strengthens your position. Forbidding people who happen to be Muslims from doing abhorrent or plain unethical acts which are not an essential part of their religion (whether mutilating their daughters' genitals or falsifying their tax returns) cannot be seen as an attack on the religion itself.

And it certainly cannot be seen as motivated by an irrational hatred of the religion itself - which is what 'Islamophobia' means if it means anything

[Guest]

del

[Guest]

del

[_Gunnar]

Do you think the federal government has the authority to criminalize this kind of action? If so, what do you think is the source of that authority?

What about the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? Is it too much of a stretch to use that as a basis for justifying anti FGM legislation? Clitorectomy would certainly be rather painful, especially if done without anesthesia. It is my understanding that those who practice it for religious reasons do not use anesthesia.