One thing that continually amuses me is the twisted non-logic that people trot out in defense of the so-called religious right to circumsize infants. A very good example of this may be found in Jonathan Wolfman's piece about how a circumcision ban would infringe upon the religious rights of Muslim and Jews.
I've addressed that nonsense in an earlier post. But let's just put it to the good ole American sniff test. My rights end where yours begin. That's a pretty simple concept that circumcision defenders just cannot seem to grasp. My religious rights also end where yours begin. I cannot force you to go to church, etc. Now, if we apply that logic to circumcision we get: Your religious rights end where your child's rights begin. A child has a right to his or her own body. That is not a controversial statement. It is just basic, human decency. If your religion calls for you to tatoo a child, your religious rights just ended. No one has the right to tatoo and infant without his or her consent, for religious reasons or otherwise. On those grounds, banning circumcision is a no-brainer. Your relious rights end where your helpless infant son's begin. He has an inalienable right to his own body.
There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about the above. We get that in high school civics class. Only through twisted non-logic can one arrive at the position that mutilating a helpless infant is okay. And that's the kind of non-logic that only religions can provide.
Wolfman goes on, in the comments section, to make some nebulous claim about the uses of law. He actually disagrees that just laws should protect the most helpless among us. That, too, is a good example of twisted non-logical thinking. I wonder if he disagrees that the elderly should be protected by law from being exploited. I wonder if he disagrees that a good use of law is to protect women from domestic abuse. Child abuse?
What reasonable person could disagree that good laws protect the most helpless? That is a no-brainer.
In other words, what one can see in Wolfman's comments is that to defend circumcision one has to do some reptilitan wiggling. He or she is forced, if their arguments are extended logically, to be FOR infant tatooing, FOR practically any practice that would infringe on religious freedom. If my religion calls for the slicing off of a portion of an ear, just a little off the top, or a nose, just a little off the end, Wolfman must, by logical necessity, be for it if it still allows for hearing or smelling.
Most telling: when confronted with logic, he swiftly shut down the debate and then deleted my comments. When one must defend such an untenable position, no other tactic is available. That, unfortunately, is a typical human failing: when confronted with logic that doesn't jive with their arguments, rather than revising their arguments, they dig in deeper, or they just shut down the debate.
But make no mistake about it: A law protecting a helpless boy would be a just law. Your religious rights end where that little boy's rights begin.