basically, they suffer from exactly the same problem as the Communists. That is, they refuse to allow their theories to bend to fit the annoyingly wonky shape of humanity

I hate to have to admit this, but I've had the very same thought about some of the posts there, usually by JP. Perhaps it's an attitude you get from universities.

This response is not meant to be an attack on Samizdata, as a libertarian-lite I still visit occasionally, but I agree they can be a bit intellectually divorced from any emotion or passion in debates. I think anally retentive sums it up.

I used to be a regular contributor to Samizdata up until two years ago when one thread on which I was commenting was attacked by a leftie troll who accused us all of being racist. (My “racist” comment, since sadly to have more or less come to pass, was to say that unless Mugabwe was stopped he would drag Zimbabwe back into the stone age.) Instead of telling the idiot leftie to f*** off the great and the good got into a real tizzy. The post was closed to new comments, my response to the ridiculous attack on me was deleted, and a lengthy grovelling correspondence was entered into between one of the worthies named in your post (I forget which) and the leftie idiot to convince him that they were not racists.

I got the impression that it was far more important to Samizdata to establish their non-racist credentials than to counter the argument of this chap who blamed all of Zimbabwe’s ills on us, the evil capitalist exploiters of Africa.

More generally, I suspect that hard line libertarians find absolutism far easier than having to judge each case on its merits. The thought of applying their wisdom pragmatically, and thus allowing for the possibility of inconsistency, fills them with horror.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to get that off my chest. I can now return to Samizdata with renewed vigour.

Well, libertarians here -- whom I call liberaltarians -- are over-educated buffoons like liberals, mostly composed of middle aged guys who refuse to grow up and instead want to smoke dope and screw anybody they like without any repercussions, like, oh, you know, pregnancy. There's a strong libertarian streak in American conservatism, but there's a great deal of difference between that and anyone here who calls himself a libertarian.

Well as a Libertarian I disagree with both parties.

The question turns on who has the right to determine the upbringing of the children. If you think the state (or the community) has no right to interfere except under exceptional circumstances then the matter is reduced to whether circumcision is exceptional.

Well I would say it is not on the grounds of its reversibility. That would not be true for FGM. I hope you would agree that that is sufficiently bad to allow intervention.

Now I think that state intervention in the raising of children would be instinctively against the theory of libertarianism but I see that others disagree.

I disagree with you, on the grounds that Samizdat are the only or indeed the authentic voice of Libertarianism. I would suggest that Libertarianism suffers (or enjoys) as many policy differences as an other political philosophy. Libertarianism is not equivalent to the communist wing because it more closely resembles the anarchists. No two anarchists will ever form a party.

Well there you go. rightwingprof was happy to back me up when I argued against state intervention to force Amish children to attend secondary school.

What were your grounds for making that intervention?

Since I have self declared as a Libertarian let me link a good explanation. http://www.fahayek.org/index.php...task=view& id=46

What I want to know is what is this bug up your ass you folks over there have about circumcision. We have a few who rail about it, like Andrew Sullivan -- oh wait, he's a Brit, so again, what is the issue -- but circumcision has been the norm here for all boys since the 1940s, so he mostly rants in a vacuum.

Why is it an issue at all? It is emphatically not analogous to female circumcision, not even when it is performed as a rite of passage, as it is in some parts of Asia and Africa. With our dear Andy Sullivan, it's an aesthetic thing, but most of us would prefer not to go there. What is the problem, anyway? Who cares?

Finding myself assessed as "completely bloody stupid" is a pride-inducing experience; perhaps, then, you might be able to elucidate for me, by responding to what strike me as the three rather obvious weaknesses of any case which gives children fewer rights than adults.

i) What constitutes a child?

I'm sure you'd be happy at the extremes to point to a 1 week old baby, declaring them a child, and then a 30 year old man, declaring them an adult. Now, what about a 16 year old person? 16 years and 1 day? and 2? At what point does the right properly attach to a person to resist his parents efforts to circumcise him?

ii) What *precisely* are the extent of the rights of the parent over the child?

To say children have some rights and not others is to again necessitate a clear explanation of what activity can and cannot be properly resisted by the child. To simply claim children have 'fewer rights than adults, but more than animals' isn't a complete argument. It requires a statement of more than an extremely vague principle, such as the child's right to "life and sanity" (?!), before you can even respectably state, never mind defend, your position.

iii) Why ought these rights attach to the natural parents as against any other responsible adult?

This seems to be the question with which you've taken most umbrage. The problem struck me not from some Spartan preference for collective breeding, but from two rather more quotidien scenarios: one is a conflicting mother and father - who has the right to determine whether the child is circumcised? - and the other is missing parents who haven't designated an executor of their parental rights. The first is self-explanatory, and shows how *parental* rights are inadequate - they fail to perform the sole purpose of rights, which is to avoid conflict. You ought to favour either maternal or paternal rights, not parental ones. The second is rather more curious. Should a Jewish foster-parent (not approved of by the natural parent), for example, be able to circumcise their foster-child? Accepting this seems rather to sever the innate-human-nature angle upon which previous arguments have hanged, and lets another problem in the back door - who actually makes the decision regarding circumcision is quite arbitrary; it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological parents.

The first two points are more or less shamelessly plagiarised from Herbert Spencer's Social Statics , and they suffice, to my mind, to undermine any case for separate children's rights. The third is more original, and therefore probably much weaker. Nonetheless, I should be interested to know how you'd respond to these points.

You're making my case for me here, Andrew.

Perhaps so; it would be nice, however, if you might spend a little time responding to the substance, as against the style.

These are serious problems with your argument, as it has been variously stated. If you can't even clearly state your position, I find it incredible that you expect it not to come under fire. And if you can clearly state it, stop prevaricating and get on with it. I'm sick of question-dodging and epithet-filled replies which fail to respond to the criticisms squarely.

What I want to know is what is this bug up your ass you folks over there have about circumcision. We have a few who rail about it,

There was definately an episode of Bullshit about it,

Otherwise, I agree entirely with Squander Two.

Andrew,

This is not a blog post about circumcision or children's rights. As the post clearly states, I had that argument over at Samizdata. I made all the points there I can be bothered making right now. Unlike you and the other theorists there, I have a real flesh-and-blood child to actually look after, so don't have tons of spare time. I've written big great long screeds over at Samizdata. You want to know what I think about the children's rights debate, go read them.

But this blog post here is about how hyperrationalist theorists who reject any piece of humanity that cannot be justified using pure logic from first principles while refusing to allow any assumptions, no matter how tried and tested they might be, are as overrepresented among libertarians as among Communists and that, until they fuck off, the libertarian movement as a whole will continue to be regarded, rightly, as a bunch of weird extremist maniacs, thus ensuring that the statists get the unchallenged run of our country.

And you come along and provide yet another perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Look, the short answer is: go have a child. Once you've done that, if you still feel that you shouldn't have any more right to look after that child than anyone else until someone gives you a purely logical and logically unassailable explanation of why, I recommend you start a blog about it. It would surely be one of the most fascinating blogs ever.

I might add that, although I do have a child, I didn't need one to understand this point.

Hi Squander Two, generally speaking I certainly agree with you.

Once on samizdata comments I read abortion was fine right upto the moment of birth because a baby was nothing more than a blank slate until it had been born and started learning to form its identity.
(the guy who wrote that was not a main samizdate poster but he was part of different libertarian site.)
I have not taken libertarians seriously since, well not that kind anyway, I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, although ofcourse I haven't read everythiing on him.

The similarity of samizdata libertarians to communists is that they are all one worlder liberal elites, who believe if we only followed their ideas we would end up in a post national post racial post religous wonder land.

BUT, on the specific issue of circumcision, I don't agree that parents should be 'allowed' to hack off bits of their children purely because a 4000 year old religons says its a good idea.
What if it was a finger, a toe, an arm?
Just because its the sexual area we aren't suppose to talk about it.

If you were with your kid down the park and you saw one of the other dads giving his kid a serious beating I bet you'd have something to say about that, so you accept at some point people other than the childs parents can get involved?
So the question is is circumcision a big enough issue to cause outside involvement, I'd say it is, it is an act of religious branding used in the past to mark one tribe out from another. Ofcourse these days we live in a more accepting world so it doesn't have that same effect but, would you be ok with other types of branding, tattoos, hot iron brandings etc? I doubt it.

Dave,

I've addressed those points in the debate at Samizdata. Two quick points for you, though:

> I don't agree that parents should be 'allowed' to hack off bits of their children purely because a 4000 year old religons says its a good idea.

Neither do I.

> What if it was a finger, a toe, an arm?

It isn't.

Libertarianism is also supposed to include freedom of association. How could it not?

Of course that could raise the awkward spectacle of communities that don't want Jews or 3rd worlders or whoever living amongst them - they wont sell/rent land and or property to certain groups. No libertarian could complain about this yet you know I get the funny feeling from Samizdata that this would not be acceptable.

My problem with the jolly libertarians of Samizdata is they are just marxists plus money and nice cars. They believe in the blank slate, nurture not nature, they deny human diversity etc etc

The general thrust of lower taxes, less govt, self defence etc is something I agree with btw.

As Terry Pratchett wrote: Logic is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't beat actually thinking. He was writing about academics (wizards). It must be something about the hothouse atmosphere of closed communities.

Oh god, when people start getting into a lather about circumcision and children's rights (they have none until they reach the age of conent) I really have to wonder about so-called libertarians. I thought libertarians wanted to live and let live - Certainly that's the impression I get from Devil's Kitchen's blog.

If the Jewish faith wish to circumcise their son's who are we to say they may not. Forbidding them from doing so is hardly libertarian.

As for Andrew R, you are a complete fuckwit.

Children have no rights? seems to me that is you who is the 'fuckwit'.
Children are not now any never have been purely at the mercy of their parents. Parents have been the primary guardians but after that others have got involved, Grandparents, Uncles Aunts, extended family, and then the wider tribal community throughout history.

This issue is purely hushed up because of the sexual nature of it, if bits were being chopped of other parts of the body people would soon speak out.

Dave - Is it penis envy?

I'm not Jewish but was circumcised at age 5 for health reasons. My younger brother was not and remains uncircumcised.

I see no reason to have an extra bit of flappy skin that serves no purpose other than the production of smegma and putting my gf off giving me a blowjob. So, I'm quite grateful to my parents for signing the consent forms. I don't remember it and certainly suffer no lasting trauma.

I reiterate. If the Jewish faith wish to practice circumcision as part of their religious rites, then that's entirely up to them. Did it ever occur to you that it may be an ancient "health and safety" ritual. The Jews did live in arid, desert type environment and I for one could not imagine anything more uncomfortable than sand scraping up and down the glans causing pain during urination, ejaculation and other nasty infections.

Your response is typical liberal woolliness - everything is about the childruuuuuuuuuun.

There was definately an episode of Bullshit about it,

Otherwise, I agree entirely with Squander Two.

> Children are not now any never have been purely at the mercy of their parents.

No, obviously. But that doesn't mean they have rights.

I don't believe in animal rights and I believe that people who torture animals should be locked up for ages. There's no inconsistency there. It's a simple matter of being responsible for those who are in our power and of defining what that responsibility entails.


> This issue is purely hushed up because of the sexual nature of it

You've claimed this twice now, and it's still crap. When is it hushed up that Jews practice circumcision? You mean, you ask a rabbi about it and he'll deny it? That Jews prefer not to discuss it? Absurd. It's been practiced since several millenia before the invention of prudery.


> if bits were being chopped of other parts of the body people would soon speak out.

What, bits of skin? I doubt most people would give a shit, to be honest. But presumably you're back to your "What if it was a finger, a toe, an arm?" I have to say, I don't think you're going far enough: what if it were murder, or nuclear war, or genocide? It isn't. This is not a trivial point.

Hi, Gabriel.

> The really sad thing is that, given how statist Britain now is, more or less everyone should want less taxes, spending, regulation etc. Hence a potentially vast coalition of 'Practical Libertarians' is out there.

I'm giving this some serious thought now, actually. Maybe I should set up a forum for libertarians who want to become a serious political influence and are more interested in results than theory. I had an idea for a name: "Liberal Means Free."

Thoughts, anyone?

I really struggle to see why this post was necessary. I find the notion of tearing down the NHS far more insane than outlawing the removal of erogenous zones from the unconsenting.

No Squander I wasnt back to fingers and toes.
Could be anything else.
Fingernails?
There's a lot of excess skin around the ears, ok to remove that?
End of Nose?
Teeth? (obviously the kid would need to be a little older)
There are all manner of possibilties. I am just asking if you are only ok with it because its in that 'private' area, or would you be fine with other removals also? and if not whats the difference? aside from because god said it was a good idea?

My previous post:- I'm sick of question-dodging and epithet-filled replies which fail to respond to the criticisms squarely.

Henry Crun:- As for Andrew R, you are a complete fuckwit.

Hmm.

> Children are not now any never have been purely at the mercy of their parents.

No, obviously. But that doesn't mean they have rights.
Do you actually know what a 'right' is? It's a principle which legitimates the use of aggression against others to ensure its execution. If a child has a right not to be killed by his parents, it means he (or his proxy, the state) can violently intervene against and imprison the parents.

I assume that you think children have some rights - such as the one above, not to be killed. Explain, please, precisely what you think these should be. I can't see why, if you're genuinely convinced if the case you're arguing, you have any trouble actually stating it clearly.

But presumably you're back to your "What if it was a finger, a toe, an arm?" I have to say, I don't think you're going far enough: what if it were murder, or nuclear war, or genocide? It isn't. This is not a trivial point.

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. The chap seems to have a perfectly reasonable point: that if I chopped off my child's useless foreskin, you'd let it pass, but if I chopped off his equally useless little finger, you'd object. On what grounds?

By the way, I'm not trying to be an obstructive, cold, illogical monster (though describing me as such does nothing to undermine the validity of the questions I've posed). I'm just not satisfied with the inadequate description and justification of the nature and extent of children's rights offered. If you were to bother to offer up a defence of why a parent ought to be allowed to circumcise their child 6569 days after birth, but why the same child can seek prosecution for assault 6570* days after birth, I'd be happy to listen. I doubt you'll take up the task, because you'll see it's hopeless. Fine, argue from "tradition," but that in itself requires justification ; do some real argument, not just make claims.

I simply think, reduced to its essential components, that your argument is woolly and unclear. If you prefer not to think about these things, fine. Just don't foist your views on other people - to wit, your children. As soon as you start to compel others to obey your command under threat of violence, you have to justify that act of coercion, regardless of the age of the person who is coerced.

* 6570 = 365 * 18. Obviously not totally accurate (I'm assuming, of course, that up to the age of maturity, the parent has the right in the UK to circumcise, though I'm willing to be corrected), but gives an indication of the arbitrariness of any such line in the sand.

> I really struggle to see why this post was necessary.

Necessary? Don't be absurd. This is a blog.

Point taken. ^.^

These things let us wallow in superfluity.

Dave,

Please go and read the debate at Samizdata. I really can't be arsed repeating myself for your benefit. It'll take you no longer to read my thoughts there than here, so it's not even a matter of saving you any bother. As I've said repeatedly, this blog post isn't actually about circumcision.


Andrew R,

Just very quickly, because, unlike Dave, you have actually managed to ask something that I haven't already answered....


> Do you actually know what a 'right' is? It's a principle which legitimates the use of aggression against others to ensure its execution.

That's your definition. Being well aware that the question of just what a right is has occupied some of the world's great minds for a long time now and that they've still not started agreeing with each other, I'd hesitate to be as confident as you in asserting that my definition is absolutely the right and only one. But, for what it's worth, I believe that rights are the flipside of responsibilities. So...

> I assume that you think children have some rights - such as the one above, not to be killed.

Not really, no. Please see my response to Ian B here.


> If you were to bother to offer up a defence of why a parent ought to be allowed to circumcise their child 6569 days after birth, but why the same child can seek prosecution for assault 6570* days after birth, I'd be happy to listen.

Firstly, the law has to draw lines somewhere. That will always be imperfect. Why shouldn't you vote at the age of 17 years and 364 days? Is it because you don't have enough political knowledge? Clearly not. Why shouldn't you drive a car on a public road when you're 16 years and 11 months? Why shouldn't you have sex when you're 15 years and 51 weeks? Most people accept that these cut-off dates are not an actual exact measurement of the knowledge and thoughts inside a person's brain that enable us to decide what they're capable of. To ask for definitions on that basis is a bizarre thing to do.

And what's your alternative to this system? If we're not going to give people the right to have sex at a particular necessarily arbitrary age, when will we give them that right? When they've passed a test? Administered by whom? Will it be practical? And won't the pass mark be just as arbitrary as an age limit? Or perhaps you have some other idea.

Secondly, the thing about all these laws is that people are aware of them and are able to modify their behaviour according to the deadlines. The very fact that you know when you're 10 that you'll able to go get a job when you're 16 gives you the opportunity to work towards that goal. The deadlines' long-term existence makes them relevant, arbitrary though they may be.


> Just don't foist your views on other people - to wit, your children.

No, it's not called "foisting your views on"; it's called "raising". If you reckon you can raise a child without imparting your opinions to them, again, do please go and try it, and do please blog about it, 'cause I could always do with a laugh.


> I simply think, reduced to its essential components, that your argument is woolly and unclear.

Yes, of course it is. Humanity is woolly and unclear. We are a race of people evolved from monkeys and fish and worms; we are made up of glands and hormones; our instincts are all based on environments in which we no longer live; our teeth are no longer designed for our diet; we have an indescribable symbiotic relationship with dogs, an animal that our ancestors actually invented; we are able to calculate the width of the Universe, yet we still get diarrhoea and senility and inexplicable cravings for pistachios. You want to create a society based on logic? Well, that'll be wonderful for a bunch of computers to live in. Me, I'm an animal, and an animal with a degree in logic at that, and I can't think of a worse basis for a society for humans to live in.

Parenthood is what it is. I don't need to define it in logically consistent terms, because it existed long before logic did.

Look at it this way. The world's greatest philosophers have been trying since the time of the Ancient Greeks to define what a person is. Not one of them has yet succeeded. (Descartes came bloody close with "I think, therefore I am" but then Russell pointed out that the premise was wrong: it should be "There are thoughts" rather than "I think". Which means all we can conclude from that is "therefore something is." Not a lot of use. Anyway.) We cannot define what a person is. Maybe we will one day, but, frankly, philosophers are getting further and further from a definition, so it's not going to be anytime soon. Yet you can walk into a room and answer the question "How many people are in here?" with no problem. You can't give me any logical definitions to explain your answer — as yet, there are none. But you can still do it.

Now, should we therefore get rid of the legal concept of a person? Me, I think not.

Sqaunder Two:
Sir, that was the best thng I've read all week (might have something to do with the fact I've been reading quality assurance training manuals all week). If we find ourselves in the same metropolitan area I owe you a beer.

And for the record, if you set up a community of pragmatic libertarians I'd join.

Most of the commenters at Samizdata are that daft, I'm afraid - check out the insane Obama will bring totalitarianism to the US within two years thread from a few weeks back for evidence. Ideology's all well and good, but it's inflexible ideology that's kept a lot of nutters mercifully distant from high office. Not enough, but lots.

I identify with your exasperation here - I feel the same whenever I stumble across self-identified "socialists" or "liberals" expounding some damnfool notion or other. It's roughly one part Ideologues are mongs to two parts the internet is full of mongs, I reckon.

DirtyBlueshirt - hit's the nail on the head. Pragmatism is all. It's all very well theorising and navel gazing but it is in the implementation that the flaws of an argument are realised.

Very much like having an organisation where managers attend too many faddish courses - they will come back and try to shape the organisation to fit the theories they have just learnt, rather than looking at practical ways for the theory to be adapted and adjusted in its implementation.

The way Andrew R bangs on about children's rights etc., one gets the feeling that neither is he a parent nor has he ever experienced the responsibility of raising a child.

"I'm giving this some serious thought now, actually. Maybe I should set up a forum for libertarians who want to become a serious political influence and are more interested in results than theory."

S2 you could do no worse than contact Chris Mounsey via Devil's Kitchen and join the Libertarian Party.

Real Libertarians™ are just socialists (utopians) with a different agenda.

I've come over here from Samizdata for a look, because of the excellent comments there on parenthood by Squander Two.

On this comment thread, I do wonder if "libertarian" is being given a similar treatment to "harm" over on Samizdata's circumcision thread: too much black and white.

Libertarianism is a word referring to a fairly broad set of political opinions: broader than most such labels. Given the substantive "theft" of the political meaning of liberal, I think we must accept this broad use of libertarian, or find a better term. Neither "classical liberal" nor "practical libertarian" strike me as having the right ring about them for widespread use, as both risk being taken as too close to something they are not. The attack against libertarianism in this thread is an example of the problem.

Best regards

Isn't the reason that libertarianism attracts nutters advocating completely ludicrous ideas at least partly to do with the nature of libertarianism?

To be a libertarian you don't have to just object to some things the government does (everybody does that). You don't just have to be critical of lots of things the government does and prefer it did nothing instead (that simply puts you on the hard left or hard right according to the nature of the government you are criticising). To be a libertarian you have to criticise the government for doing things that look to all intents and purposes like the right thing to do, and would take a real stretch of the imagination to imagine we'd be better of without.

Is it not a surprise that libertarianism attracts people with, erm, too much imagination for their own good?

By 'Practical Libertarian' I did not mean Libertarians who are practical, but rather people who, whilst not actually being Libertarians, have political programmes that in the short and medium terms are indistinguishable. Hence they are Practical(ly) Libertarians.

As for how to unlock such people, I think the answer is what our friends on the Left call 'education'. People need to know just how freakishly statist this country is in historical terms. They also need to know how in some ways it is freakishly statish compared even to the lamentable contemporary norm. To give one example, people are generally aware that U.S. gun laws differ greatly from ours, but assume that otherwise we are normal. They have no idea that our gun laws are actually among the strictest in the world and that our knife laws are bizarre in their extremity.

Above all the myth needs to be countered (and it can easily be countered) that we live in an age of almost unique liberty.

Take this example here for what I mean

I really struggle to see why this post was necessary. I find the notion of tearing down the NHS far more insane than outlawing the removal of erogenous zones from the unconsenting,

I wonder if a Liberty Party with rational views on conservatism, international relations, and liberty is in order?

Which is to say outline a set of principles. Raise the flag and see who salutes.

Maybe it should be a set of directions instead of principles.

No western democracy bans infant circumcision, the closest any come is madating medical training for all who perform it. Conversely, Britain is alone among Capitalist nations for having a state run health service. Moving to an insurace based system would not be a leap into the dark it would simply move us to the European norm. However, Mr. Grieves thinks that would be weir.

I believe that I called it insane rather than weird.

If it isn't broken make no effort to amend. That goes for healthcare systems as much as penises.

I'm aware we're heading off at a dangeous tangent here, but, James, the fact that it is so appallingly broken is exactly why the N"HS" needs fixed.

I recommend reading this.

> I wonder if a Liberty Party with rational views on conservatism, international relations, and liberty is in order?

Unfortunately, Liberty have already screwed up that name.

ST - I agree that it is broken, but it needs fixing rather than tearing down.

But yeah, I suppose that it is very wise if we avoid that topic, seeing as this thread has been derailed once or twice already. ^.^

Sorry?

> If it isn't broken make no effort to amend.

> it needs fixing

Let me know what you actually believe, and then I'll disagree with you.

Getting rid of something and making reforms to it are distinct processes.

And I suppose that we do disagree over whether the latter or former is appropriate, so there you are. :)

> Getting rid of something and making reforms to it are distinct processes.

Yes, obviously. But amending something, which you oppose, and fixing it, which you support, aren't.

I meant amending the existence of. Which is a very muddled piece of wording I grant you. But despite your obvious ability to cope with the strain (what hour did you get to bed?) perhaps some magnanimity can be shown given the late hour of my posting.

I wonder if a Liberty Party with rational views on conservatism, international relations, and liberty is in order?

I'm on back-shift at the moment, James. I don't finish work till midnight, so 4:30's not late. Try getting sense out of me before midday, though.

I like your thinking but isn't one of the great things with libertarianism is that it isn't set in stone. I always thought the main point about it is that if somebody else does something which doesn't effect you - then it is non of your business - and leave it like that!

As for the Jewish question, it is a matter of tradition. As a child, your parent teaches you wrong from right and if they feel that chopping a part off the child is the right thing to do - who am I to argue. The kid doesn't know any better and isn't in a position to make a rational decision due to their immaturity (well, they are a kid) so let them do what their parent want for them.

That is where teenage rebellion comes from!

FOul,

There is evidence pro and con on the subject. Some say it works as a health measure. Some say it is a disfigurement.

I was under the impression that where there was controversy Libertarians preferred to leave a subject untouched, so to speak.

What seems to drive so many Libs nuts is that it is a health measure encoded in religion. A bigoted attitude IMO.

Squander - that was most enjoyable. Thank you.