[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your assumptions in the above would appear to be:

1. Only medical reasons can be compelling.

It's perhaps difficult for an atheist, agnostic or general non-adherent to understand, but religious practices and ordinances, to the devotee, are compelling in and of themselves. This is something that is recognised in law in this country and pretty much everywhere else. To object on lack of medical grounds is to miss the point entirely.

2. Parents should not conduct religious rituals on infants that can't 'give permission'.

Infants cannot, by definition, give permission. That is the parents' right and responsibility. Again, atheists etc frequently argue for parents not to do all sorts of religious things on behalf of their children as if it is somehow possible, or desirable, to bring children up in a religious household and yet insulated from the beliefs and practices that go with it. Every family brings its children up in its own customs and practices. Arguing that non-harmful interventions like circumcision should be exempt is absurd.

I'm not arguing that non-harmful interventions should be exempt. I'm arguing that it's debatable whether non-reversible outwardly visible interventions should be exempt. The degree to which reasons in favour of something should be compelling should (to my mind) be proportional to the degree to which an intervention is reversible and visible. Giving a child a cross or star of David to wear on a chain is something else than tattooing one on their forehead, and I think it would be wise if parents gave their children a choice on what happens where their body is involved.