Only one of those diseases has been known to kill the kids.
You might not like that a lot of things get a pass because they are religious, but in the United States, they do. This ruling is not inconsistent with previous cases. The Amish don’t have to send their children to school past the eighth grade. The federal government cannot prosecute members of the Native American Church for using Peyote, or the UDV from importing Ayahuasca tea, even though such things are forbidden for non-religious reasons.
If you don’t like this, that’s fine, but that should really be a separate thread. Or do you think that we should hold religious practices that are “icky” to different standards than ones that we approve of? That way leads to madness.
Wanna eat dog 'cause it’s religion? Have at it - so long as it’s not my dog.
Think sex can only be missionary in the dark? Well, your sex, you’re the one that’s missing out.
Wanna put a child’s health in danger? Judge it by whatever secular standard there is for the same practise.
Let’s put it this way - if Christian parents decided a circumcision was necessary - would you let the doctor do it with a thumbnail and then suck it clean? If he did to that and the baby got an infection of any sort - how much trouble would the hospital be in?
And anyway - isn’t this whole thread about what the standard “should” be? So why is it a bad thing I don’t like it?
Female nicking has been a crime since '96. I don’t remember a lot of debate and postponing for decades and decades. It doesn’t even involve any blood sucking. Obviously, the US is more than capable of holding some religious practices “icky” while others, not so much. Have we gone mad yet?
You claim such a charge has never been levied. You quote no law that permits anything, only one that prohibits something. If a charge is made, that’s when things can change and a new precedent set for how to interpret the charge. I’m not saying I expect a conviction, but arbitrary and inconsistent interpretations of laws keep a lot of assholes bringing home pay checks, so I can hope.
In the U.S., it doesn’t work that way. A law that targets a religious practice is subject to a higher level of scrutiny than one targeting a secular practice. The higher bar can be met, and I suspect it will be in this case.
that’s the thing - the law would not target a religious practice - and it should not be seen as a religious practice.
It should be purely secular. (IMHO)
Yes, that’s the way it works in the US - which all that means to me is that the law is “wrong” - why should a religion be held to lower standards of behaviour?
This law does target a specific religious practice. I mean, that’s pretty much the history of the law: these guys are doing a stupid thing because of their religion, let’s make a law that restricts it. It isn’t enough for a law to be neutral with respect to religion just to have a blanket ban for everyone. When a law addresses something that pretty much only one religion does, and only does for religious reasons, almost any judge will grant that it is targeting that religion. And that’s what this appeals court ruled.
Laws targeting religious practices can be upheld. But the First Amendment says you can’t restrict the practice of religion without a good reason to.
It’s not so much that religions are held to lower standards, rather than laws targeting religions are subjected to higher standards.
Yes, AnaMen. That’s how the entire body of criminal law works. Criminal law defines conduct that is prohibited, and all other conduct is permitted. There really aren’t lists of things that are permitted.
You’re the one that said "**A law that has existed for decades and permitted mohels to ply their trade **cannot, constitutionally, suddenly be used to criminally charge those same mohels, because the law does not give them any notice that their conduct is prohibited. "
I’m glad you’ve figured it out now though. This law indeed does not “permit” anything, as I stated.
Here’s the difference between what you said and what I said:
This refers to the effect of the law, not the words. If a criminal statute prohibits the sale of steel-jacketed bullets, it’s fair to say that the law – meaning the state of the law, or effect of the law – permits lead bullets.
Your phrasing suggests that a law must explicitly permit something. By saying that I quote no law that permits anything, you raise the inference that a quoted law must permit an act. In fact, every law I quoted permits all things not explicitly prohibited.
See the difference?
So, again: there is no pedophila here. The laws that are normally used to prosecute those who suck baby dick are inapplicable here, because these acts are not for sexual purposes and those laws exist to punish sexual acts.
Do you understand now?
Main point: the attempt to characterize these acts as pedophila is deceptive.
You are the one that claimed a law “permitted” something, so don’t pretend it was me. I was referring back to YOUR statement. A law that prohibits one type of bullet does not “permit” another any more than any other law “permits” a type of bullet it does not mention. Let’s just say “does not explicitly disallow” so as to avoid confusion.
The quote from the law you provided makes no mention of “pedophilia” so quit dragging that in. The penis is a sex organ, sucking it it a “sexual act,” and the law could certainly be applied to say so. If an adult man sucks an eight-year-old boy’s penis, but is able to prove he did not enjoy it or expect to, in fact felt no sexual feelings about it whatsoever (perhaps he lost a bet, for example), a crime has still occurred. What law do you suppose would make that so? Or would you argue that as distasteful as we may find the behavior, our hands are tied and no charges can be made?
It’s clear that the real mistake of the Catholic church was not to facilitate the molestation of children by the clergy, nor to take great pains to cover it up, but rather to have lacked the foresight to adopt the practice early on, so that the fingerbanging and sodomy would now have the unstoppable force of religious tradition to protect them. Word to the wise for the future L. Ron Hubbards, I suppose.
No, you idiot. Sucking it in this manner is not a sexual act, and the constitution forbids the criminal law from being applied in that manner. it’s not possible. It can;t be done. If you think it can, you’re a fucking moron.
I see you again neglected to answer my question. If “non-sexual” adult-mouth-to-infant-penis contact is legal, is the same true of “non-sexual” adult-mouth-to-grade-schooler-penis, and if not, why not?
Waahh, the guy that defends oral-genital contact with infants thinks I’m an idiot, I’m so hurt.
I’m ostensibly on the same side of the issue as you and even I want you to shut the fuck up with insisting it’s a sexual act. It fucking well isn’t.
It’s an archaic practice. It’s a medically unsound practice. It’s a ridicule worthy practice for a small subset of intractable and hopelessly tone deaf religious zealots. And they need to knock it the hell off if they are to maintain a single shred of respect for their religious practices in this day and age.
And if it takes a court order and threat of being charged with the crime of endangering a minor, I’m okay with that. But not by any means necessary. Which means we don’t call something sexual assault and pedophelia when it’s not.
I mentioned hernia checks above as a similar example. It’s perfectly legal for a middle-aged man to touch a grade-schooler’s testicles. (I assume you would say “fondle,” and defend that word as an accurate description of the practice).
So the answer to your question is: adult-mouth-to-grade-schooler-penis would be legal, if similar circumstances existed. By that I mean that if there were some indisputably long-standing religious practice that involved identical circumstances - public, brief suction after a wound - it would be legal insofar as criminal sexual assault statutes are concerned.
The same is true, in other words.
So does the guy that opposes the practice.
And I am not even defending the practice, you dolt. I am attacking your attempts to paint it as sexually deviant.
If you want to condemn the practice as medically unsound and unhygenic, I’m right there with you.
If you want to say that the law requiring consent should be upheld, I agree. If you want to say the practice should be banned, I think that’s a law that would survive strict scrutiny.
If you want to call it “baby dick sucking” and imply (or outright state, as you have) that the motivation is perverse sexual gratification, I’m going to continue to call you on it.
As an aside, I am reminded of the scene in the George C. Scott movie Patton, where the eponymous general is complaining about the lack of British air support, and the British general, offended, swears that they have complete air superiority. At that moment, two Luftwaffe pilots strafe the town they’re in; Patton’s point is decisively proved. Afterward, Patton tells an aide that he wishes he knew the name of those pilots, because he’d give them both medals. So in similar fashion, I’m indebted to the idiocy of AnaMen for the demonstration that, contrary to quicksilver’s view, what’s going on is exactly what I said: accusations of pedohilia, both thinly veiled and explicitly made.
