In which comic books in the USA become clearly anti-Semitic:

[underlankers]

As some may know, there's a whole furor in San Francisco over penises. This may seem unsurprising given that it is San Francisco, except that in this case the furor is over circumcision. A man named Hess has been advocating banning circumcision of men, which is opposed by both Jews and Muslims in the city. As well it should be, for such a ban is a

Comments

[a_new_machine]

We bar a lot of religious rituals. If you're having peyote off a reservation, you will be arrested. Same for pot if you're a Rastafarian. Are those morally indefensible *because* they interfere with religious rituals?

I'll agree that the comic is obviously anti-Semitic. This does not mean the ban is. To quote Eugene Volokh, "As best I can tell, opponents of male circumcision believe that it’s a serious interference with the rights of boys, and the men they’ll become, and a serious harm to those boys and men. If that’s so, then there’s every reason for them to think that it’s just as much an interference with rights, and just as much of a harm, when the conduct is done for religious reasons. And therefore it makes perfect sense that, with no hostility to the religion as such, the backers would refuse to include a religious exemption. The refusal to give people a religious exemption from a ban on behavior that you think is harmful and rights-violating hardly shows a hostility to religion - it shows a hostility to the behavior, whether the behavior is religious or otherwise." (Emphasis mine)

[underlankers]

Arguably, yes. Given that plenty of people *do* want cannabis legalized.

I disagree that the ban is not anti-Semitic, given that the guy behind the comic is the one who advocated for the ban in the first place.

[a_new_machine]

Arguably, yes. Given that plenty of people *do* want cannabis legalized.

Again, not the question. Whether it should or should not be legalized, the question is whether it would be immoral solely because we do not provide a religious exemption. Whether it's immoral for other reasons isn't the question - it's whether barring any religious ritual, even an arguably inhumane one, is immoral solely because it lacks the exception. For a more relevant example: is the ban on religious sacrifice of animals immoral because we don't have an exception for voodoun practitioners? That's arguably an inherently problematic behavior - is it immoral to bar it without a religious exception, though?

As for whether it's anti-Semitic or not... well, we can't ascribe the intent of the one guy to all of the people who vote for it.

[underlankers]

In this specific case, yes, it is immoral. The practice of circumcision has been used as a libel against Jews dating back to the era of polytheistic Rome. Banning it in that sense, but disguised under various pretexts as health or outlawing mutilation is also quite old. In my view that is exactly what this kind of ban is, a new spin on an old vice.

[a_new_machine]

Ah. Well, that's a different argument, then. TBH I'd be fine with the ban having a religious exception, as most circumcisions are performed on non-Jewish and non-Muslim boys. It'd hit most of the targets, without getting to the religious practices issue.

[underlankers]

I'd also agree to it if those exceptions were there. That is not the ban that actually exists, which is the problem.

[a_new_machine]

Yeah. But again, I'm loathe to assign anti-Semitism to everyone who votes for the ban.

[underlankers]

I think it matters to distinguish masses of people who vote for something from the people who advocate for it, as while there is a degree to which people could vote for this without it being such, there is also a degree to which people voting for this does verge into Jew-hatred.

[gunslnger]

Are you also loathe to assign homophobia to everyone who votes against gay marriage?

[a_new_machine]

I am, yes. I grew up as an atheist surrounded by Catholics. I don't think that many of them are driven by hatred or fear of gays, but rather by misunderstanding, ignorance, and flawed logic. In short, I think many people who are anti-gay marriage are wrong, not crazy.

But just the same as this proposal has its anti-Semitic elements, they have their homophobic elements, and they're fairly strong.

[geezer_also]

"we can't ascribe the intent of the one guy to all of the people who vote for it."

Since when????

Seriously, that's realpoltics. If you don't vote for a tax increase to build schools you hate children. If you voted for prop 186 (in Calif) you are a raceist and a bigot. etc etc.

[mrsilence]

He's the only guy who ever thought a ban was a good idea?

[underlankers]

He's the one who's pushed for it the longest and most vocally.

[mrsilence]

Well you know what they say about a broken clock.

The fact he's obviously been broken for a long time, doesn't implicate others in the rest of his beliefs. I rather wish he didn't agree with me on this, because I don't want to be tarred with his brush.

[underlankers]

The thing to me is that if the ban had made an exemption for religion I'd see no reason whatsoever to oppose it. Including Judaism and Islam seems more the political version of trolling than anything serious. That's just how I see it, though.

[mrsilence]

Well I don't see it like that.

Either there is a problem with performing circumcisions on infants, or there isn't.

So making an exception for a particular religion from my perspective is total bullshit. It doesn't make any sense.

To illustrate reductio ad absurdum, you wouldn't make an exemption for a modern day Aztec religious practitioners to perform human sacrifice under the aegis of religious freedom. Because if act X is wrong, it's still wrong regardless of the religious context.

Personally I'm kind of on the fence. I'm not totally opposed, but I personally find it an unreasonable practice and I can understand why some people wholeheartedly reject it as immoral. If it was a new phenomenon rather than a long standing religious or social tradition and someone started suggesting it as new fangled health treatment for babies, I think it would dismissed instantly as obviously wrong.