Home

Democrats behind the anti-bris agenda
Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 2:43 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
Blake Flayton, a self-described “gay abortion-rights advocate and environmentalist,”


He's a college sophomore. You've stooped to the level of attributing the views of 19 year olds to the entirety of the Democratic Party.

In the meantime, you're dead silent on things like the House Republican Whip -- a real leader, not some snot-nosed kid -- attending and speaking at a convention of the white supremacist European American Unity and Rights Organization, a group founded by David Duke. Or Matt Gaetz inviting a Holocaust denier to be his guest at the State of the Union. Or Steve King's long history of white nationalism, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism that was ignored and overlooked by House Republicans for years.
Back to top

leah233




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 2:44 pm
dancingqueen wrote:
AFAIK, there was a public health crisis at the time; several babies died of herpes after receiving metzitza bpeh. There are halachicaly acceptable ways of performing a bris without the mohel putting his mouth on the babies aiver. No one is banning the actual bris here.



Whether babies contracted herpes from MBP or not is a matter of debate.

That however, is completely irrelevant to the main issue of the government claiming that MBP does not deserve the constitutional protections of religious practice. Based on the logic the government and initial judge used there is nothing that can be considered a religious practice. By making and supporting that position the liberals have shown how little religious freedom will mean and be worth when they take over.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 2:48 pm
Amarante wrote:
Do you seriously think that your continued posts containing distortions being spread by extreme right wing sources are actually creating a dialogue in which those who don't agree with you will have a so-called "Come to J*ezzus" moment LOL

Henceforth I renounce all works of Satan like the news articles from the Washington Post and New York Times and agree to read only reputable sources which have been approved by you like Breitbart. Very Happy


How come you have been unable to refute any of these alleged "distortions"????
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 2:55 pm
leah233 wrote:
Whether babies contracted herpes from MBP or not is a matter of debate.

That however, is completely irrelevant to the main issue of the government claiming that MBP does not deserve the constitutional protections of religious practice. Based on the logic the government and initial judge used there is nothing that can be considered a religious practice. By making and supporting that position the liberals have shown how little religious freedom will mean and be worth when they take over.


AFAIK, Bloomberg didn't try to end it. He tried to implement a legal requirement for mohelim to receive express written permission from a newborn’s parents before performing metzitzeh b’peh. I'm not sure why that infringes on religious rights or religious freedom. Perhaps you can explain that to me.

I'd argue that mohels who perform the procedure should be required to be checked for HSV1 infection, and be barred from the procedure if they test positive. I'd argue that they should do this voluntarily, to save lives.
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:03 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
How come you have been unable to refute any of these alleged "distortions"????


Because it would be a useless exercise and I have better things to do than clean out the proverbial Augean stables. Very Happy

Discussing politics is only interesting when one is discussing with someone who bases their opinions on agreed upon facts. As Daniel Moynihan said - you are entitled to your opinions but not your facts. Very Happy
Back to top

leah233




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:13 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
AFAIK, Bloomberg didn't try to end it. He tried to implement a legal requirement for mohelim to receive express written permission from a newborn’s parents before performing metzitzeh b’peh. I'm not sure why that infringes on religious rights or religious freedom. Perhaps you can explain that to me.

I'd argue that mohels who perform the procedure should be required to be checked for HSV1 infection, and be barred from the procedure if they test positive. I'd argue that they should do this voluntarily, to save lives.


Telling people that you have to do A to be allowed to do B is an infringement on their freedom. In this case "A" was also a legal issue of coercive speech.

I'm not discussing whether MBP has a potential for herpes or not.
Back to top

#BestBubby




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:17 pm
Amarante wrote:
Because it would be a useless exercise and I have better things to do than clean out the proverbial Augean stables. Very Happy

Discussing politics is only interesting when one is discussing with someone who bases their opinions on agreed upon facts. As Daniel Moynihan said - you are entitled to your opinions but not your facts. Very Happy


Translation: I can't refute your facts so I will claim I have better things to do. LOL
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:25 pm
leah233 wrote:
Telling people that you have to do A to be allowed to do B is an infringement on their freedom. In this case "A" was also a legal issue of coercive speech.

I'm not discussing whether MBP has a potential for herpes or not.


Well, we know it does, because we know of the Jewish babies who died, or were permanently impaired.

But you still haven't explained how signing a consent to the procedure impacts freedom of religion. They can still have MbP. It can still be performed. You just need to sign the consent form.

Remember, minor burdens on religion are just fine. The RFRA prohibits the federal government from “substantially burden[ing]” a person’s religious exercise unless doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:48 pm
leah233 wrote:
Whether babies contracted herpes from MBP or not is a matter of debate.

That however, is completely irrelevant to the main issue of the government claiming that MBP does not deserve the constitutional protections of religious practice. Based on the logic the government and initial judge used there is nothing that can be considered a religious practice. By making and supporting that position the liberals have shown how little religious freedom will mean and be worth when they take over.


Your analysis of the legal arguments is incorrect.

When a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is impacted by the government, it is subject to what is called strict scrutiny. What this means is the government must prove there is a compelling government interest in the law and the law must be narrowly tailored to meet that objective. It is a difficult burden to meet.

I have not read the briefs on this specific decision nor the various court decisions but I don't understand how a law narrowly drafted to ensure that parents are aware of possible dangers so that there is so-called informed consent is a a horrendous restriction. The compelling interest is the health - and in some cases - the actual life of infants. The parents are free to do what they wish so the burden is minimal.

I also agree that I wouldn't have problems with there being some mechanism to ensure that a mohel who engages in this practice doesn't have herpes. Again I don't find it a horrible restriction that a mohel with herpes not be allowed to possibly endanger an infant.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:59 pm
What stopped this bill from moving forward in NY?

I do think there should be safety measures put in to place. I think that the one place government gets a say is in harming people. I do think it is a fine line when it comes to religious practices.

There has been many people lobbying to stop female circumcision for years, and one big differnece there is there is no claim for any benefit unlike male circumcision. I would think the gov cant ban it for religious purposes but tbey can put safety measures in place.
Back to top

leah233




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 3:59 pm
Amarante wrote:
Your analysis of the legal arguments is incorrect.

When a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is impacted by the government, it is subject to what is called strict scrutiny. What this means is the government must prove there is a compelling government interest in the law and the law must be narrowly tailored to meet that objective. It is a difficult burden to meet.

I have not read the briefs on this specific decision nor the various court decisions

snip.


I did read the briefs and the initial court decisions.

The issue being discussed was whether MBP is subject to strict scrutiny or not and whether the proposed regulations are coercive speech. The city and initial judge argued no on both. With about 100% support of all liberal groups.

It later went to appeals which ruled yes on both.

As above I'm not discussing whether MBP causes herpes or not but for my last thought on this thread:

Male gay marriage has a lot more health risks than MBP but no one ever saw any liberal call for informed consent before the government issues a gay marriage certificate.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 4:15 pm
leah233 wrote:
I did read the briefs and the initial court decisions.

The issue being discussed was whether MBP is subject to strict scrutiny or not and whether the proposed regulations are coercive speech. The city and initial judge argued no on both. With about 100% support of all liberal groups.

It later went to appeals which ruled yes on both.


“To be clear, this does not mean that the Regulation is not narrowly tailored – a factor relevant in the application of strict scrutiny, and not to the question whether strict scrutiny applies.... The (health d)epartment has asserted interests that are substantial and may prove, on analysis, to be compelling. And the means it has chosen to address these interests (means that fall short of outright prohibition of MBP and that may further the goal of informed parental consent) may be appropriately tailored, albeit intrusive on a longstanding religious ritual.”

There were no further proceedings and, accordingly, no determination of whether the policy was legally problematic.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Tue, Jan 14 2020, 4:32 pm
small bean wrote:
What stopped this bill from moving forward in NY?

I do think there should be safety measures put in to place. I think that the one place government gets a say is in harming people. I do think it is a fine line when it comes to religious practices.

There has been many people lobbying to stop female circumcision for years, and one big differnece there is there is no claim for any benefit unlike male circumcision. I would think the gov cant ban it for religious purposes but tbey can put safety measures in place.


Instead of trying to enforce the Bloomberg era consent forms, DiBlasio entered into an agreement whereby the mohels performing MBP whereby they would "turn over" the mohels infecting babies, so they wouldn't perform MBP anymore.

Is anyone shocked to know that it didn't happen?
Back to top
Previous  1, 2, 3 Recent Topics

Page 3 of 3 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Subway Thief Thanks Democrats
by Cheiny
5 Sun, Feb 16 2020, 5:39 pm View last post
Democrats investigate
by Cheiny
0 Wed, Feb 12 2020, 1:56 pm View last post
Nice work Democrats - the murder was foreseeable
by Squishy
16 Fri, Feb 07 2020, 11:38 am View last post
Israel Peace Deal rejected by Democrats
by Cheiny
45 Sun, Feb 02 2020, 12:30 pm View last post
Democrats be proud
by Cheiny
3 Sun, Jan 26 2020, 1:00 pm View last post

Jump to: