July 24, 2005

To the editor of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution:

Dear Editor:

Private note: Last March I sent you a letter concerning the mutilation (aka circumcision) of young boys for religious purposes and suggested it be published in response to an article on female genital mutilation (FGM) at that time in the AJC. This is now a timely subject again due to the prominent article today on FGM among Africans now living in America. I have now recomposed my original letter to reflect this current article and submit it to you as follows:

In response to the article on female sexual mutilation (AJC 7/24/05 Opinions): the question is really more general, namely: can a secular society permit the mutilation of any child (boy or girl) solely for religious purposes? Many infant boys have been circumcised by a doctor and thus presumably for reasons of health. And that is always permissible when done in good faith, even as a parent would agree to the removal of a child's appendix or tonsils for medical reasons. But can we as a society permit a merely ritualistic mutilation/circumcision for the purpose of compliance with some religious or cultural law? Suppose some religious group thought it were important to amputate a finger or ear of every new born child to comply with some tribal or cultic rule? or something even more horrible?

Would this prohibition infringe upon religious rights? or would it preserve the rights of all humans until they are old enough to decide for themselves if they wish to comply with religious rules? Perhaps it would be permissible to cut or prick some skin, but never to remove any tissue. That ought to serve well enough for religious purposes.

Sincerely,
--
Philip McPherson Rudisill