Another 'free exercise of religion' issue (current events article)

[Carol in Cal.]

Jewish religious ceremony disrupted by legal battle:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441218/religious-freedom-jewish-ritual-kapparot-chabad-irvine-california

[YaelAldrich]

This argument has been going on for years.  This is a custom, not a law, in some Orthodox Jewish communities.  The ideal is to "use" the chicken, then slaughter it in the kosher manner and give the carcass to poor people for their holiday meals.  There are Jewish laws against cruelty to animals, waste of food products and so when some of these same people are not following these rules, one wonders if the mitzvah (commandment) is more important than the custom.

 

We also do kapparot before Yom Kippur, but we do it with a credit card and then donate money using it to worthy charities.

 

- Your friendly Orthodox Jew

[TranquilMind]

This (from your link): 

"Even if such a “single correct†form of Judaism existed, American courts would be neither qualified nor constitutionally empowered to settle such doctrinal disputes."

 

I thought Jews no longer made animal offerings after the Torah was given to Moses because Deuteronomy requires sacrifices to be in the Temple?  This is confusing. 

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Amira]

The judge made a mistake and the ban was lifted. I disagree that this means that religious people should now be more concerned about their right to practice religious rites being restricted. Sometimes judges make bad decisions and it takes some legal battles to work things out, but I don't think this is any indication that religion is under widespread threat in the US (and I am a very religious person).

 

I am sorry that the ban was lifted too late for the ritual to happen this year.

[TranquilMind]

This argument has been going on for years.  This is a custom, not a law, in some Orthodox Jewish communities.  The ideal is to "use" the chicken, then slaughter it in the kosher manner and give the carcass to poor people for their holiday meals.  There are Jewish laws against cruelty to animals, waste of food products and so when some of these same people are not following these rules, one wonders if the mitzvah (commandment) is more important than the custom.

 

We also do kapparot before Yom Kippur, but we do it with a credit card and then donate money using it to worthy charities.

 

- Your friendly Orthodox Jew

 

This is what I thought.  The custom exists, but not in its former form. 

 

[Ravin]

My understanding of this is that, other than being put in the hands of an individual to briefly wave over their head, and prayed over, which means nothing to a chicken, the experience of the chicken is much the same as if they were being slaughtered for food anywhere else under any other circumstances.

 

Since the chicken people are probably not in the business of butchering chickens, their lawsuit sounds like it was extremely flawed in its argument about the business practices regulation and harm to them. The only beings harmed were the chickens, and they were going to be butched and eaten one way or another anyway.

 

This is an example of something that happened because of poor understanding of a practice of a religious minority which is strongly disfavored by the majority religion (i.e., animal sacrifice). Religious minorities regularly face discrimination and bias and lack of understanding. The way the first amendment is interpreted is grounded in a preference for protecting Christianity.

[Aura]

The article read rather alarmist to me. I don't agree w/ the first ruling, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that all religions should be worried. IMO, we have greater religious freedom today than we did 50 years ago. This idea that religious freedom is threatened, is IMO, a mask to the fear that traditional Christianity has about losing their de facto control.

[Guest]

Given that the chicken isn't being slaughtered in a way that is inconsistent with how a farmer would do it for heir family around here, and the meat isn't wasted, the suit has big flaws and poor standing to boot. As a religious custom I could only see infringing upon it of it violated health or safety in some clear and criminal way. This is a big fail.

[Carol in Cal.]

I thought it should have been a kneejerk 'no' on freedom of religious expression grounds, from inception.  The fact that is wasn't is troubling to me as an American who is concerned with our rights.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Guest]

I thought it should have been a kneejerk 'no' on freedom of religious expression grounds, from inception. The fact that is wasn't is troubling to me as an American who is concerned with our rights.

Ditto. That's how I feel about zoning issues with mosques and nonsense like that as well. That these aren't cut and dry issues bothers me deeply.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Ravin]

There are individuals in my religious community who practice animal sacrifice. It is in my experience limited to those who actually live rural and raise their own animals. The animals are humanely slaughtered just as they would be without the religious ritual, except it's done on or near an altar with prayers, etc., at a particular time of year. Most of the meat is then eaten/shared. 

 

Why people get up in arms about prayers being done at the time of an animal's slaughter instead of when it's cooked and on the dinner table baffles me. I mean, if you're a vegan and uniformly opposed to killing animals for food, that's one thing. But as long as the animals are treated humanely within the context of transporting and slaughtering them, there is something going on in the way of animus beyond defending humane treatment of animals.

[YaelAldrich]

 

 

 

I thought Jews no longer made animal offerings after the Torah was given to Moses because Deuteronomy requires sacrifices to be in the Temple?  This is confusing. 

 

 

 

TM, Jews of any stripe are not allowed to make animal or wine/vegetable/barley) sacrifices in any way since we do not have a Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) in which to offer them.  We made sacrifices (korbanot) throughout Biblical times while there was a Beit HaMikdash in existence.  When the 2nd Holy Temple fell in 70 CE, we began to use prayer as the vehicle to talk to G-d.

 

Kapparot are a symbolic custom to "transfer" our sins from ourselves to an animal.  This is similar to the procedure in the ritual sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash.  We would bring an animal and right before the slaughtering, we would place our hands on the animal's head to proclaim that we understand that in an environment of strict judgement, we ourselves would be liable to death for our sins.  The animal is taking our place in this.  The ritual slaughter would happen and the meat would be parceled out to the person bringing the sacrifice and the priests (Kohanim) running the Beit HaMikdash for that time period.

 

I have done kapparot with a chicken many years ago and it was a very powerful experience as I truly identified with the allusion to our sins and what punishment could have befallen me if G-d only judged us strictly.  However, I now know many of the animals are not treated well and are wasted, so I won't do it anymore.  But I do treasure the memory and pray everyday that we will restore the 3rd Beit HaMikdash and its customs, as all Orthodox Jews do.

 

Hope that helps.  Sorry this was delayed - we are in the middle of the Holiday of Tabernacles (Sukkot) and tradition is to take your children on outings.  I have been running all day!

[YaelAldrich]

The judge made a mistake and the ban was lifted. I disagree that this means that religious people should now be more concerned about their right to practice religious rites being restricted. Sometimes judges make bad decisions and it takes some legal battles to work things out, but I don't think this is any indication that religion is under widespread threat in the US (and I am a very religious person).

 

I am sorry that the ban was lifted too late for the ritual to happen this year.

When chickens were hard to source at various times in history, they did it with a fish instead.   :001_smile: The people in the lawsuit may have gone elsewhere to do the ritual or fulfilled it in one of the other options as I mentioned above.

 

Credit cards don't poop on your head and are not too slippery to hold. :D

Edited October 21, 2016 by YaelAldrich

[eternalsummer]

Well, yes. 

 

I feel pretty conflicted about the killing of animals for physical nourishment anyway, whether it's done humanely or not. 

 

There are plenty of reasons to discourage the killing of animals, whether for religious sacrifice or for the diet. 

 

There are freedom of religion issues - being able to build a place of worship, so long as the building code is adhered to, for example

- that I think are worth a fight, and i could actively support, even though I don't particularly care for places of worship.

 

As the freedom was upheld anyway, my personal opinion on supporting the right to sacrifice animals doesn't matter one whit.

 

(And no, I don't see it on a spectrum, chickens at one end, places of worship on the other). 

 

This might be a difference between American and Australian mindsets (or it might just be personal differences, hard to say).

 

For me, and I think for many (most?) Americans, the barrier to entry for restriction of religious practice is very high.  It is not a "well, I don't like the practice and it should be discouraged" barrier or even a "I have some reservations about this practice" barrier.  

 

This is why both conservative and liberal Americans generally disapprove of the burkha ban, for instance.  

[kiwik]

How can you transfer your sins to an inanimate object such as a credit card though? It does seem to have many advantages.

[eternalsummer]

I mean, the original idea had them transferring their sins to a chicken.

 

I don't know that a chicken has more capacity to hold sin than a credit card.

 

But I am not religious.

 

eta: and none of the above is relevant in the least when it comes to having the freedom to transfer your sins to a chicken or a card

Edited October 21, 2016 by ananemone

[eternalsummer]

I am personally (which, again, is not a high enough barrier to restrict religious practice) more concerned with the way chickens are raised than the way they're killed, anyway.  Death is say 1/1000th of their life (or 1/10,000th, or whatever).  Life in a cage the size of a piece of paper is, imo, a worse fate than death - any kind of death.

[Farrar]

I can see the concern over this... the judge, IMO, definitely messed up the first go around. But it was reversed. To me, this is more of an indication of how Christian religious practices are accepted and prioritized in our society while non-Christian practices are not than it is a general indication that religious practice in general is under siege. As in, my guess is that the judge was not an animal rights activist with an agenda or anti-religion, but rather a person who was weirded out by the "otherness" of this ritual and thus primed to listen to (even unconstitutional) arguments against it.

 

There isn't an absolute right to free expression of religion... nor should there be. If some ancient Mayans popped up and wanted to engage in human sacrifice, that'd be a no. But also, if a religion wanted to violate building codes because they have a tradition of packing people into rooms with single exits and lighting lots of candles, that should also be a no.

[YaelAldrich]

How can you transfer your sins to an inanimate object such as a credit card though? It does seem to have many advantages.

 

 

I mean, the original idea had them transferring their sins to a chicken.

 

I don't know that a chicken has more capacity to hold sin than a credit card.

 

But I am not religious.

 

eta: and none of the above is relevant in the least when it comes to having the freedom to transfer your sins to a chicken or a card

It's all symbolic (but very important symbolism to certain groups).  In Judaism we understand that Tshuvah (repentance), Tefillah (prayer), and Tzedakah (charity) avert the evil decree (from our sins).  Kapparot encomapasses all three aspects - we repent (and transfer the sins to the other thing), prayers that are said during this ritual, and the chicken, fish, or money is used to help others.

[Carol in Cal.]

I can see the concern over this... the judge, IMO, definitely messed up the first go around. But it was reversed. To me, this is more of an indication of how Christian religious practices are accepted and prioritized in our society while non-Christian practices are not than it is a general indication that religious practice in general is under siege. 

I don't think this is a credible view of Jewish practices, most of which are about as generally well-known as Christian ones.  Now if you said this in the case of a Yaqui ceremony, I could see it.

[Farrar]

I don't think this is a credible view of Jewish practices, most of which are about as generally well-known as Christian ones.  Now if you said this in the case of a Yaqui ceremony, I could see it.

 

You think this Jewish practice is as well known in the US as, say, Easter egg hunts or communion? If you were talking about Bar Mitzvahs or brises, I'd still disagree, but I'd say maybe. But Kapparot? No way. I'd wager a guess that only 50% of Americans could even tell you a thing about Yom Kippur (and by "a thing" I mean if asked, "What's Yom Kippur?" they'd be able to say "Some Jewish thing?"), if that many, much less about this particular tradition. You must live in a heavily Jewish community that is skewing your view. No way do I think Americans knowledge of Judaism is anywhere near equal to knowledge about Christianity.

 

I'm not trying to pass any value judgment when I say "otherness" - I just think it's true. Christians are still the majority in this country. Jews are only 2.2% of the American population, mostly concentrated in particular regions.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Farrar

[Carol in Cal.]

You think this Jewish practice is as well known in the US as, say, Easter egg hunts or communion? If you were talking about Bar Mitzvahs or brises, I'd still disagree, but I'd say maybe. But Kapparot? No way. I'd wager a guess that only 50% of Americans could even tell you a thing about Yom Kippur (and by "a thing" I mean if asked, "What's Yom Kippur?" they'd be able to say "Some Jewish thing?"), if that many, much less about this particular tradition. You must live in a heavily Jewish community that is skewing your view. No way do I think Americans knowledge of Judaism is anywhere near equal to knowledge about Christianity.

 

I'm not trying to pass any value judgment when I say "otherness" - I just think it's true. Christians are still the majority in this country. Jews are only 2.2% of the American population, mostly concentrated in particular regions.

Easter egg hunts are not religious practices; they are secular customs tagged onto a religious holiday.

 

I don't think that this practice is as wellknown as communion, but it's probably better known than, say, Orthodox Christian wedding ceremonies involving crowns, for instance.  I think there is a continuum of familiarity, and that the idea of a humane animal sacrifice being substitutionary for human sin in the Jewish faith is extremely well-known.

 

I don't live in a heavily Jewish community, but Jewish customs are fairly well documented in the media, NPR, TV, etc.  Additionally, the concept of substitutionery atonement is very common in Christian thought and known by those Christians to be rooted in Jewish ceremonial observances.  So I don't think this custom would be particularly seen as 'other'.

[Xahm]

I have a good friend who has always been an intelligent, curious person and who, until senior year of high school, had no idea that any Jewish people lived in America. She thought they all went to live in Israel after WW2 and before that lived in Europe. To be fair, none lived in her town. There are giant swaths of the country like that, and it's not unreasonable that those folks wouldn't know anything about Jewish tradition or practices.

I don't think this is a credible view of Jewish practices, most of which are about as generally well-known as Christian ones. Now if you said this in the case of a Yaqui ceremony, I could see it.

[Farrar]

We'll have to agree to disagree, Carol. I grew up in the south and I can say with some certainty that none of my family there knows anyone Jewish other than maybe in passing and that there's no way they've even heard of Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah or know a thing about keeping kosher. I doubt most of them could even tell you what kosher means. I seriously disagree that most Americans know about animal sacrifice and Judaism.

 

I think most Americans would consider any form of animal sacrifice very much "other" since it's not commonly practiced in Christianity at all. I know it's done as part of some Orthodox practices, but not - as far as I know - as part of any mainstream Protestant or Catholic practices in the US. I think if you asked Americans to think about animal sacrifice, they'd name voodoo or Santeria before they'd name Judaism.

[Farrar]

In general, I think Americans just aren't especially well-informed about religion:

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

 

ETA: Though apparently Jews are better informed than most Christians... I would argue, again, that this comes from being a minority religion in a majority culture.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Farrar

[Janeway]

I have not had the chance to completely read it, but, if something is otherwise illegal, there should not be an exemption for religious reasons.

 

I hope elective infant circumcision becomes illegal soon.

[Farrar]

I have not had the chance to completely read it, but, if something is otherwise illegal, there should not be an exemption for religious reasons.

 

I hope elective infant circumcision becomes illegal soon.

 

When I saw the article was about Jewish religious practices, I thought initially maybe it would be about circumcision and the practice where the mohel "kisses" the boy afterward. That one feels to me like it's *way* more fraught with issues than this, which is a totally legal practice that just offended someone (I wish the article had made it clearer, but I can seriously only think it must be animal rights activists) and somehow they managed to get a judge to agree with them only it was rightfully reversed right afterward.

[KarenNC]

We'll have to agree to disagree, Carol. I grew up in the south and I can say with some certainty that none of my family there knows anyone Jewish other than maybe in passing and that there's no way they've even heard of Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah or know a thing about keeping kosher. I doubt most of them could even tell you what kosher means. I seriously disagree that most Americans know about animal sacrifice and Judaism.

 

I think most Americans would consider any form of animal sacrifice very much "other" since it's not commonly practiced in Christianity at all. I know it's done as part of some Orthodox practices, but not - as far as I know - as part of any mainstream Protestant or Catholic practices in the US. I think if you asked Americans to think about animal sacrifice, they'd name voodoo or Santeria before they'd name Judaism.

 

Agreed. Growing up here in a smallish town in the South on the edge of one of the larger metropolitan areas, even with television, we weren't (and still in large part aren't outside the big cities) just provincial in our understanding of world religions, we are provincial in understanding of different branches of Christianity. To me, as a kid, the three major world religions were Baptist, Lutheran, and Methodist ;) . Episcopalians were considered suspect and "foreign" because they were newcomers who showed up in the 1940s. Although there has been a Roman Catholic church in town since the 1870s, we didn't know anything about it or anyone who went there, were taught that they had "weird" and "strange" religious practices, and many adults I knew did not consider them "real" Christians (the local Christian bookstore regularly carried "The Pope is the Anti-Christ" comic books).

 

In terms of Judaism, I was very familiar with the Old Testament (and I use the term deliberately in this context), so knew Jews practiced animal sacrifice "in the old days before Jesus took its place," but knew nothing of the most basic modern or even traditional Jewish practices. In terms of general accurate knowledge in our community of even basic Jewish practice, the fact that a local restaurant carried a "kosher ham and cheese sandwich" without anyone blinking might tell you something (it was "kosher" because it was on Jewish rye and came with a kosher dill pickle, as far as I can tell). I knew "all about" Passover because the Jews for Jesus did a program for us in my high school youth group  :blink: and one of the local Baptist churches held a seder to help Christians "learn about how things used to be done", but nothing about High Holy Days. A bar mitzvah was, as far as I could tell from TV, a big coming-out party for Jewish teens, sort of like another custom I had only really encountered on TV--a debutante ball (we actually had debutantes in our town, just not in my socioeconomic circles).

 

We have had a small inclusive synagogue here now since 2003 (I think the rabbi is Renewal, IIRC), and a large Jewish population in the local large metropolitan area, but that population is overwhelmingly Reform or Conservative, with a small Orthodox community. HIgh Holy Days, Hanukkah, and Passover are in more people's vocabulary now, but not this type of practice.

[KarenNC]

Easter egg hunts are not religious practices; they are secular customs tagged onto a religious holiday.

 

I don't think that this practice is as wellknown as communion, but it's probably better known than, say, Orthodox Christian wedding ceremonies involving crowns, for instance.  I think there is a continuum of familiarity, and that the idea of a humane animal sacrifice being substitutionary for human sin in the Jewish faith is extremely well-known.

 

I don't live in a heavily Jewish community, but Jewish customs are fairly well documented in the media, NPR, TV, etc.  Additionally, the concept of substitutionery atonement is very common in Christian thought and known by those Christians to be rooted in Jewish ceremonial observances.  So I don't think this custom would be particularly seen as 'other'.

 

There's quite a big difference between knowing "the concept of substitionery atonement" as a part of historical practice and being aware that it is still practiced currently using actual animals, much less understanding and appreciating the theological nuances of the practice in religion other than one's own. I would hazard a guess that a great many would consider it to be far more than just "other" (assuming they had encountered it as a modern practice). Because Christian teaching is that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for substitutionery atonement, it would be considered at best "unnecessary" and at worst "ignorant," "backward," and even "barbaric." This is certainly the kind of terminology I have heard applied to sacrifice in Santeria, for instance.

Edited October 21, 2016 by KarenNC

[Farrar]

There's quite a big difference between knowing "the concept of substitionery atonement" as a part of historical practice and being aware that it is still practiced currently using actual animals, much less understanding and appreciating the theological nuances of the practice in religion other than one's own. I would hazard a guess that a great many would consider it to be far more than just "other" (assuming they had encountered it as a modern practice). Because Christian teaching is that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for substitutionery atonement, it would be considered at best "unnecessary" and at worst "ignorant," "backward," and even "barbaric." This is certainly the kind of terminology I have heard applied to sacrifice in Santeria, for instance.

 

Not only that, but I think most Americans are unaware of how legalistic a lot of Jewish practice is overall. More than half of Americans identify as Protestant in some form or another and connecting meaning and practice is really essential to most Protestant thinking about religion - if a tradition doesn't *mean* something important then you don't do it. Whereas - as I understand it - following tradition is supreme over that tradition representing a hard morality. That's why, for example, most Orthodox Jews feel okay about allowing someone else who isn't Jewish to, say, drive them somewhere on Shabbat. Because it's important that they follow the rules, but not because the rules represent some greater morality - they just represent an important continued tradition.

[KarenNC]

Not only that, but I think most Americans are unaware of how legalistic a lot of Jewish practice is overall. More than half of Americans identify as Protestant in some form or another and connecting meaning and practice is really essential to most Protestant thinking about religion - if a tradition doesn't *mean* something important then you don't do it. Whereas - as I understand it - following tradition is supreme over that tradition representing a hard morality. That's why, for example, most Orthodox Jews feel okay about allowing someone else who isn't Jewish to, say, drive them somewhere on Shabbat. Because it's important that they follow the rules, but not because the rules represent some greater morality - they just represent an important continued tradition.

 

That's part of the reason I mentioned that the majority of the Jewish community we do have in this area is Reform, which is much more similar to Protestant thinking in this regard. I think this is true to a lesser extent in Conservative, but I have less familiarity with that.

[ktgrok]

I grew up in an area of South Florida with a high Jewish population. I went to multiple bar and bat mitvahs. I majored in comparative religion in collge. And I didn't know this. So I doubt most people do.

[TranquilMind]

TM, Jews of any stripe are not allowed to make animal or wine/vegetable/barley) sacrifices in any way since we do not have a Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) in which to offer them.  We made sacrifices (korbanot) throughout Biblical times while there was a Beit HaMikdash in existence.  When the 2nd Holy Temple fell in 70 CE, we began to use prayer as the vehicle to talk to G-d.

 

Kapparot are a symbolic custom to "transfer" our sins from ourselves to an animal.  This is similar to the procedure in the ritual sacrifices in the Beit HaMikdash.  We would bring an animal and right before the slaughtering, we would place our hands on the animal's head to proclaim that we understand that in an environment of strict judgement, we ourselves would be liable to death for our sins.  The animal is taking our place in this.  The ritual slaughter would happen and the meat would be parceled out to the person bringing the sacrifice and the priests (Kohanim) running the Beit HaMikdash for that time period.

 

I have done kapparot with a chicken many years ago and it was a very powerful experience as I truly identified with the allusion to our sins and what punishment could have befallen me if G-d only judged us strictly.  However, I now know many of the animals are not treated well and are wasted, so I won't do it anymore.  But I do treasure the memory and pray everyday that we will restore the 3rd Beit HaMikdash and its customs, as all Orthodox Jews do.

 

Hope that helps.  Sorry this was delayed - we are in the middle of the Holiday of Tabernacles (Sukkot) and tradition is to take your children on outings.  I have been running all day!

Thanks for answering!  I knew that there were still some events going on at the Temple because I have seen people walking in that direction in large family groups all week. 

 

Thanks for the background information.  That was interesting to hear. 

[eternalsummer]

Not only that, but I think most Americans are unaware of how legalistic a lot of Jewish practice is overall. More than half of Americans identify as Protestant in some form or another and connecting meaning and practice is really essential to most Protestant thinking about religion - if a tradition doesn't *mean* something important then you don't do it. Whereas - as I understand it - following tradition is supreme over that tradition representing a hard morality. That's why, for example, most Orthodox Jews feel okay about allowing someone else who isn't Jewish to, say, drive them somewhere on Shabbat. Because it's important that they follow the rules, but not because the rules represent some greater morality - they just represent an important continued tradition.

 

 

I think the distinction in this case is probably more specific - they wouldn't be okay with a Jew driving them, but a non-Jew is fine because the law doesn't apply to them anyway (that part of the law)

[eternalsummer]

Elective male circumcision, especially in the traditional Orthodox form, is a *lot* more problematic, I agree.

 

Have we outlawed female circumcision here in the US?  I can't imagine that we'd allow a religious exemption to it, and yet we allow (and encourage!) male circumcision.  If this is not an issue of religious discrimination I don't know what is.

 

But people are so biased towards the current condition that they can't see it objectively.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think circumcision is mainly a religious issue in the US - most people doing it don't have religious reasons today and it didn't originate as a religious practice in their family.  It's either traditional/aesthetic, or seen as medically advantageous, and it originates from a time when it was promoted medically.  If the only people doing it outside of current medical reasons were doing so religiously, it would not be nearly so common.

[goldberry]

I'm glad the court reversed the judgment.  But for some reason the phrase "chicken people" made me laugh each time it was written. 

[YaelAldrich]

Not only that, but I think most Americans are unaware of how legalistic a lot of Jewish practice is overall. More than half of Americans identify as Protestant in some form or another and connecting meaning and practice is really essential to most Protestant thinking about religion - if a tradition doesn't *mean* something important then you don't do it. Whereas - as I understand it - following tradition is supreme over that tradition representing a hard morality. That's why, for example, most Orthodox Jews feel okay about allowing someone else who isn't Jewish to, say, drive them somewhere on Shabbat. Because it's important that they follow the rules, but not because the rules represent some greater morality - they just represent an important continued tradition.

Just wanted to chime in here about Farrar's statement above....

 

I don't know any Orthodox Jews who would willingly take a ride from a non-Jew on Shabbat aside from medical emergencies.  In that case, it actually is following the law "You shall live with them (the mitzvot [commandments]), meaning normative Jewish law is always superseded by medical emergencies and the like that would kill or maim otherwise.  I have driven people to the hospital and have been driven to the hospital on the Sabbath and holidays, where driving is forbidden otherwise.

 

In DC, there are Orthodox Jews in high positions in government and they follow the Law/Halacha even in situations where they must work (without breaking the Sabbath, at least in word if not spirit).  They get hotel rooms before Shabbat to stay in, they walk to them, they don't actively use electricity and much more.

Edited October 23, 2016 by YaelAldrich

[YaelAldrich]

Thanks for answering!  I knew that there were still some events going on at the Temple because I have seen people walking in that direction in large family groups all week. 

 

Thanks for the background information.  That was interesting to hear. 

Hey TM!  I wish we had been able to meet before we moved.  Hope the old neighborhood is doing OK...

 

Yes, we have a LOT of holidays this time of year...

[YaelAldrich]

That's part of the reason I mentioned that the majority of the Jewish community we do have in this area is Reform, which is much more similar to Protestant thinking in this regard. I think this is true to a lesser extent in Conservative, but I have less familiarity with that.

 

 

Not only that, but I think most Americans are unaware of how legalistic a lot of Jewish practice is overall. More than half of Americans identify as Protestant in some form or another and connecting meaning and practice is really essential to most Protestant thinking about religion - if a tradition doesn't *mean* something important then you don't do it. Whereas - as I understand it - following tradition is supreme over that tradition representing a hard morality. That's why, for example, most Orthodox Jews feel okay about allowing someone else who isn't Jewish to, say, drive them somewhere on Shabbat. Because it's important that they follow the rules, but not because the rules represent some greater morality - they just represent an important continued tradition.

Jews are such a small minority and even though we seem to have a much larger impact on society, most people (even Jews) don't know much about Orthodox Judaism (about 10% of all Judaism in the US/Canada).  Most people, if they know any Jews at all, know rather unobservant Jews.  Even most not yet observant Jews know little to nothing about traditional Judaism.  There was a video and article (which I cannot find) quizzing Jews on basic Jewish knowledge.  Most didn't get many or any answers correct.

 

I certainly never heard of kapparot until I was observant.

[Tanaqui]

I have not had the chance to completely read it, but, if something is otherwise illegal, there should not be an exemption for religious reasons.

I hope elective infant circumcision becomes illegal soon.

 

The trouble with this is that if we hold fast to that reasoning, we find ourselves rapidly sacrificing "good enough" for "perfect". If we tried to outlaw religious infant circumcision, we'd never hear the end of it.  But most elective circumcisions in the US aren't on Jews or Muslims, and we could still do some good by severely limiting the ones done for non-religious reasons.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't think female circumcision is in any but the most tangential way equivalent to male circumcision.  it's far more extreme, too much so to really be analogous despite some superficial similarities.

[Tanaqui]

I don't think female circumcision is in any but the most tangential way equivalent to male circumcision.  it's far more extreme, too much so to really be analogous despite some superficial similarities.

 

This is actually not 100% true. There are apparently "degrees" of FGM, and some of them really are analogous to removing the foreskin - that is, they only remove the clitoral hood.

 

Of course, a great many are much, much more invasive, and when you add in the fact that they're generally done outside a hospital, with improvised tools, by people who aren't doctors... well, it rapidly goes downhill.

[TranquilMind]

Hey TM!  I wish we had been able to meet before we moved.  Hope the old neighborhood is doing OK...

 

Yes, we have a LOT of holidays this time of year...

 

We are actually moving closer to the temple!  I found a house at auction (what else is new)?  ;)

Good to see you again. 

[TranquilMind]

This is actually not 100% true. There are apparently "degrees" of FGM, and some of them really are analogous to removing the foreskin - that is, they only remove the clitoral hood.

 

Of course, a great many are much, much more invasive, and when you add in the fact that they're generally done outside a hospital, with improvised tools, by people who aren't doctors... well, it rapidly goes downhill.

That sounds pretty awful.  Circumcision is routinely practiced by Jewish people, and actually a large contingent of other Americans (they claim for health reasons), but I can't imagine anyone doing ....this.

 

Ugh. 

 

No circumcisions occurred in this family (well, except the husband and virtually 100% of boys were circumcised back then in hospitals). 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

 

 

The trouble with this is that if we hold fast to that reasoning, we find ourselves rapidly sacrificing "good enough" for "perfect". If we tried to outlaw religious infant circumcision, we'd never hear the end of it.  But most elective circumcisions in the US aren't on Jews or Muslims, and we could still do some good by severely limiting the ones done for non-religious reasons.

 

 

But it was advocated as the best medical practice for generations!  Doctors always know best!  (sarcasm).  Yeah, maybe not.

 

There is a site called "Intact America".  Who knew?  http://www.intactamerica.org/resources/decision

 

[eternalsummer]

The point is, it is not legal to perform the equivalent of male circumcision on females, and I can't see it becoming legal.  That is, even if you put the qualifiers - only in hospitals (though orthodox jews are allowed to do it outside hospitals), with pain relief of some sort (but it is legal to do male circumcision without pain relief), by doctors (Jews don't have to use doctors), to infants, just removal of the foreskin or clitoral hood - who among us would be instinctively okay with having that done to baby girls as a matter of course, or even a matter of religious freedom?

 

And yet we allow male circumcision.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't agree that even a 'mild' form of female circ is comparable to male circ.

And in general, i don't think it's allowed/not allowed as a religious discrimination issue, but more so that one is already usual locally vs. the other.  I suspect that if male circ. was not already customary here it would not be allowed to start being performed for religious reasons.