December 26, 2004

To the editor of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution

Dear Editor. I submit the following for publication and hope that it will find favor in your eyes as provocative in a matter involving church and state. My reference to the South Florida situation involves a telephone call I had with a person of great integrity of a "miscarriage" at a brisk in which the head of the penis was cut off. She and her daughter were horrified, I mean horrified, witnesses. However if this claim cannot be established independently by you then I think we ought to drop the last sentence in the third paragraph. The letter now follows:

Can a society permit the mutilation of children for religious purposes only? I was mutilated, i.e., circumcised, as an infant by a doctor and thus for supposed reason of health (or was it just to fit in?). And that is always permissible for the health or welfare of the child, done in good faith even as a parent would urge the removal of an appendix or the tonsils in certain cases. But can we as a society permit the merely ritual mutilation for the purpose of compliance with some religious law? I would think not. I would think not in a secular setting. Suppose some religious group thought it were important to amputate a finger of every new born child to comply with some tribal cult? or something even more horrible?

Does that infringe upon religious rights? or does it preserve the rights of all humans until they are old enough to decide for themselves if they wish to comply for religious purposes? Perhaps it would be permissible sometimes to cut or prick the skin, but never to remove any, and which ought to serve well enough for religious rituals. Is it really wise to permit mutilation without the express will of a person? Except for the welfare of the child. Is that really a good idea?

I think the Attorney General should consider this matter. Religious rights do not trump human rights. This point must be established in law. And there is growing evidence that this practice by religious people who are not doctors has proven to be a curse to some in South Florida already.

The religious minded are of course free to push for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing religious people the right to mutilate their children as they see fit. Perhaps: religious groups may mutilate their children only in the following way, and then describe it. [But that language really doesn't seem to fit the decorum of our Constitution.]

Sincerely,
--

Philip McPherson Rudisill