A reader writes:
You wrote, "I know it doesn't make total sense, but religious practices, even when inflicting pain on the helpless, do seem to me to fall within constitutional protection – and rightly so."
I would correct you; it doesn't make any sense. The constitutional protection of religion is strong, but it should not extend to harming the innocent. Parents would not be given the right to carve a religious symbol into the flesh of their child. They would not be given the right to give it a tattoo either. They would not be given the right to deny their diabetic child medical care because of their religious beliefs. Why should a circumcision law have such a religious exception? Children are not the property of their parents, nor of their parents' church or creed.
Look, I understand that this law has unfortunate implications, some of them racial. That's why I cannot fully support the law, despite how much I despise circumcision. Writing an exception in the law so that it doesn't apply to you based on your religion? That is unacceptable. All people in this country are equal under the law, no matter what their religion is. If something is illegal for an Atheist, it should be illegal for a Jewish person, or Muslim, or Christian. Period.
Another writes:
I'm curious about something (and also wondered about it when I read the original article before seeing your post): If there were to be an exception for religious practices, why then wouldn't there be an exception for religious practices for female genital circumcision as well? To me, there's no moral difference – they're both barbaric practices that should be done away with.
Another:
Why is it that your normally coherent position on never inflicting unnecessary pain – your no-go stance on torture, which I agree with 100% – goes out the window as soon as it means some people's rights to placate whatever god(s) they believe in would be infringed upon? This case yet again shows how intelligent people make themselves look wishy-washy and sometimes outright silly when they have to warp their logic and sense of right and wrong to accommodate or respect the inanities of religion.
Another:
Just to nitpick on your legal analysis: as a constitutional matter there is actually no need for a religious exception. Laws of general applicability regulating conduct are given rational basis review, regardless of the fact that the conduct regulated might be an important religious practice. For a law to pass muster under rational basis review, all the law's proponent must do is prove that there exists some rational basis for the governing body to adopt the law – the party objecting to the law has the burden of proof and almost always loses. Therefore a state may outlaw bigamy despite the fact that it is an important religious practice, or outlaw usage of peyote and other psychedelics used in religious rituals, etc. What a state cannot due is regulate solely religious conduct – for instance a law making ritual sacrifice of animals illegal in a Hialeah, FL was struck down because it was not generally applicable – it targeted religious activity. The town could potentially have outlawed all killing of animals, but not "sacrifice".
Therefore, a blanket ban on involuntary circumcision could likely pass constitutional muster.
Points all taken. I believe in religious freedom rather passionately – and support its being treated more deferently than other forms of freedom, because the right to make one's own judgment about the ultimate things and to live one's life accordingly is a baseline human freedom.
The second point – distinguishing between female and male genital mutilation – is answered quite simply. FGM is far more hideous than MGM. It's rooted in misogyny, and its physical effects are much more severe than MGM. There's a difference between reducing sexual sensitivity and removing it altogether. I think the right balance here is to allow religious exceptions to this rule. It also seems to me a legitimate pragmatic concern that if you banned it entirely, religious groups, especially Muslims, will do it anyway, but in illicit ways that could make accidents, health complications and more pain than necessary far more likely.
The Dish 