Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional [View all]DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)"They invoked religion. Not the judge, not the victims."
I explicitly excused the judge from making it about religion. The defense said it, described the procedure as such. Not as a medical procedure, but a benign religious ritual. I have been at no point banged on about the judge's opinion, and won't contest you on it, but you attacked the very notion of this case having anything to do with religion when the defense very explicitly stated religion was part of this, the very core incident was, among other things. Your laser focus is on the judge's ruling opinion rather than the case as a whole leading up to it. Nothing wrong with that and I'm not faulting you for it. The defense directly injected religion as part of their argument, not the court.
Orthodox Jews have a similar "benign religious ritual" that's been of some controversy. The practice of circumcising baby boys and the rabbi briefly sucking on the penis to draw blood out. Not for sexual pleasure, and the baby sure as fuck doesn't like it, but to serve an explicitly religious imperative. There is no medical reason for any part of this to be done (less drastic observances use a sponge to soak the blood), and indeed some children have died from infections caught as a result of this mouth-to-penis contact, yet it remains debated.
I'm not terribly interested in circling around with you on this. We've stated what we will and seem to be missing each others' viewpoint. I'm not looking at the judge like you are. You think I'm accusing the judge of making it about religion and I'm not. If he were it'd be explicit in his ruling. I believe there are at least two mentions of religion in the ruling, in citing broader law or regulation. Not the core of his ruling but incidental to it as necessary provision of larger legal context.