Walter Russell Mead objects to my use of "male genital mutilation" as a synonym for circumcision:
Sullivan clearly has no idea what a nasty and hateful thing this is to say about a primary obligation of someone else’s faith and he would react strongly and justifiably against comparable slurs made either against his faith or his sexual orientation. I expect this has to do with ignorance about where circumcision stands in Jewish life as traditionally understood even by non-religious Jews rather than from any genuine contempt for Jewish faith or the Jewish people.
To ban or insult infant circumcision isn’t an attack on a minor feature of Jewish life. In a Catholic context, it is like saying children cannot be baptized or receive Holy Communion until they are adults. To call it child abuse and genital mutilation is to become like the Protestant radicals who attacked the Catholic Mass as idolatry and cannibalism — and on those grounds forbade the Mass to be celebrated and fined those who attended.
No child's body is irreparably altered by his first Holy Communion. But I would have the same views if it were my own church practising this. I haven't exactly been deferent to my own ecclesiastical authorities in matters of public policy and morals. So sorry about the insensitivity. But someone else's taboo is not mine. And I was much more insensitive when publishing drawings of the prophet Muhammed. But anyway, this is not about Judaism any more than it is about Islam. It is about human autonomy, and the freedom to have bodily integrity. I think that's a case worth making – until a boy is man enough to make the decision for himself.