« Answerless Questions and Confusing Relationships
Main
More News from Tell Tayinat: Tablets This Time »
August 9, 2009
Goat Sacrifice and Forced Circumcision
Two recent stories illustrate the conflicts between religions traditions and cultural norms.
José Merced is a priest attempting to practice his Santería religion in Texas. His religion requires that he sacrifice goats and, until a recent ruling, Texas law forbid it.
Eighteen year old Bonani Yamani didn't want to be circumcised but his father along with ten others abducted him and circumcised him by force as part of a traditional Xhosa initiation. The Bhisho Equality Court in South Africa must now decide on various restraints and compensation that Yamani is seeking from his family and tribal leaders. It seems South African law requires written consent to circumcise anyone over the age of 16.
In the one case, Merced wanted to practice his religion and the law didn't allow it. In the other case, his father and tribe wanted Yamani to practice their religion and the law didn't allow them to force him to. Legally and jurisdictionally, these two cases have nothing to do with each other. But together they tend to delineate the boundaries of individual freedom, religious freedom, culturally norms, and the law.
I think José Merced's lawyer, Eric Rassbach, hit the nail on the head when he wrote of the Merced's case,
It is a small victory for religious freedom in this country, not just for Mr. Merced, but for everyone who believes the human conscience is a precious gift to be protected. Of course, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or others may want to convince Mr. Merced that his beliefs are in error, and the same religious liberty will protect their right to try to persuade him. That’s the point: Persuasion, not state coercion, is the way all of us should engage our fellow citizens as they seek to obey the “still small voice” of conscience. [Wall Street Journal]
Eric Rassbach likely did not know anything of the Yamani case. But, should Yamani win his case, Rassbach's words, with only slight modification, will apply well to both cases.
They are small victories for religious freedom, not just for Mr. Merced and Mr. Yamani, but for everyone who believes the human conscience is a precious gift to be protected. Of course, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or others may want to convince Mr. Merced or Mr. Yamani that their beliefs are in error, and the same religious liberty will protect their right to try to persuade them. That’s the point: Persuasion, not state or individual coercion, is the way all of us should engage our fellow citizens and our family as they seek to obey the “still small voice” of conscience. [DES rewrite]
I happen to think that both Merced and Yamani's tribe need a good deal of persuasion. I even think that Yamani needs a good deal of persuasion. But national governments, tribal or cultural traditions or even families do not have the right to dictate by the force of law or just plain force what individuals should do in pursuit of their chosen delusions beliefs. Are there exceptions to this? Sure, I think we need to keep religious practice from physically harming others, including their own adherents, and harming the environment. Religions should not abuse animals any more than those animals are abused in the normally course of humane (if there is such a thing) food production. How about emotional harm? Let's look at the details and what we define as emotional harm. I'm not ready to say in general.
Of course, it is exactly here that much of our current debate rests. So like any true believer, I turn to my chosen scripture for guidance. The best I could find was this:
Peace of mind is a most valuable thing. The Bible has robbed the majority of the world of it during many centuries; it is but fair that in return it should give some to an individual here & there. But you must not make the mistake of supposing that absolute peace of mind is obtainable only through some form of religious belief: no, on the contrary I have found that as perfect a peace is to be found in absolute unbelief. [Letter from Mark Twain to Charles W. Stoddard, 6/1/1885]
While I get blessed guidance on the role of religion with regard to emotional well being, I get little guidance on how to deal with the opposite. I must settle for a less than perfect, yes, a secular, answer. While as a rule, religions should do no more harm than another social institution, government intervention is tolerable only in obvious cases and then only under the supervision of empathic judges.
In this conceptual neighborhood, when they do not conflict, individual freedom and religious freedom trump everything else. But when religious freedom and individual freedom come into conflict, the government must reluctantly side with individual freedom.
Via Jim West and Religion News Blog.
Posted by Duane Smith at August 9, 2009 10:51 AM | Read more on Religion |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2966
Comments
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.