But that still leaves the question, should they have to?
They DO NOT "have to." They *could* decide that their moral principals are more important and decide to cease from doing the corporate things that trigger the law. What IS more important to them, their morals or their money? They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Any religious organization *could* shut down their non-religious activities to the point where they can stop hiring people from without their faith. Religious institutions that engage in strictly religious activities ARE exempt from the provisions they object to. That that might cause them to lose money or prestige should not matter, *if* the moral issue was the overwhelming priority. But it's obviously not, since they are not willing to do that and are clinging to the material things and worldly power with tooth and claw.
I think I am more "Singerian" in my views. It doesn't even have to be a hypothetical NAMBLA religion. I don't think it's peachy-keen that a baby can contact herpes from a mohel sucking the blood off a newly circumcised penis. I don't CARE if God supposedly mandated the procedure - and you'd think an omnipotent God could have said something about sanitary procedures, even if he wants the foreskin eliminated - since we now know what causes disease, even the contagious mohel should follow sound medical practices. No religion should be given a pass to infect babies with a deadly virus. More than one baby has died. Right now, there's little that can be done because that procedure has the protection of religion. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618#.T-O2lY5NzS8)
My view is that circumcision for religious reasons is a probably a protected activity as long as it is done to modern medical standards. Do you think a mohel should get a pass and do the bris in a way that we know endangers the health of the baby?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-06-22 12:20 am (UTC)They DO NOT "have to." They *could* decide that their moral principals are more important and decide to cease from doing the corporate things that trigger the law. What IS more important to them, their morals or their money? They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Any religious organization *could* shut down their non-religious activities to the point where they can stop hiring people from without their faith. Religious institutions that engage in strictly religious activities ARE exempt from the provisions they object to. That that might cause them to lose money or prestige should not matter, *if* the moral issue was the overwhelming priority. But it's obviously not, since they are not willing to do that and are clinging to the material things and worldly power with tooth and claw.
I think I am more "Singerian" in my views. It doesn't even have to be a hypothetical NAMBLA religion. I don't think it's peachy-keen that a baby can contact herpes from a mohel sucking the blood off a newly circumcised penis. I don't CARE if God supposedly mandated the procedure - and you'd think an omnipotent God could have said something about sanitary procedures, even if he wants the foreskin eliminated - since we now know what causes disease, even the contagious mohel should follow sound medical practices. No religion should be given a pass to infect babies with a deadly virus. More than one baby has died. Right now, there's little that can be done because that procedure has the protection of religion. (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618#.T-O2lY5NzS8)
My view is that circumcision for religious reasons is a probably a protected activity as long as it is done to modern medical standards. Do you think a mohel should get a pass and do the bris in a way that we know endangers the health of the baby?