This post is in response to a question poised by one of my adult children.
He made the comment, "We must fight with all our might to defend [Religious Freedom]. And I believe that means we must fight just as hard to defend the religious freedom of others, no matter how strongly we disagree with them." I agree completely with him.
This and his other comments boiled down to these 2 questions:
1. Do we have the right to limit another person's freedom to practice their religion?
2. If we do, don't they have the same right to turn around and limit our freedom to practice our religion?
Very good questions. Here are some answers as I understand our freedoms. I found lots of backing through Court cases, but won't list them here now.
First, it is important to understand that no one in the United States of America, the Land of the Free, has the unfettered right to do what every they want. There is an old adage that best explains this:
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
And I would add, "Regardless of how emotionally charged or upset you are."
We are guaranteed many rights by the Constitution that a lot of other people in the world do not have, but with those freedoms, come restrictions. These restrictions are there to "provide for the common good", or to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the most people possible.
Example: We have the right to drive our car anywhere on the public roads, but speed limits, stop signs, and stop lights have been installed to help us share the road with others and to prevent personal and property damage. We also have to obtain a valid driver's license and proper insurance before we can legally drive. Most of us do our best to abide by these restrictions and see them as advantageous because we know how serious the damage can be if we don't. So even though we have the freedom to drive, there are restrictions put in place to protect all of us, and this freedom can be revoked or suspended if we fail to use it responsibly.
Other freedoms such as freedom of religion and expression, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, the right to vote, etc., all have some limitations when the unrestricted exercise may not be for the public good and safety.
So to answer the first question, yes, the Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court rulings do allow for restrictions to the exercise of religious freedom. This should not be confused with limiting religious freedom. We are still free to believe what ever we want, but our exercise of those beliefs can be limited for the public good.
These restrictions should not be dictated by the President (one person), the Supreme Court (5 people), Cabinet Members or their departments, but by the Congress, which is composed of over 400 individuals selected to represent their constituents. This allows for a healthy debate on the pros and cons of every issue and should bring about a correct decision.
Therefore, to answer the second question, if we agree to limit the rights of others when their actions run counter to the common good, we should also be willing to allow those same types of restrictions to be placed up on us, should the same conditions arise.
If we don't like those decision, we have the right, and obligation, to lobby or petition Congress to re-evaluate their actions and propose new legislation. Many of the liberal left have chosen to bring a civil suit against a standing law and ask the Supreme Court to make a ruling in their favor. While the Court was created to ensure that neither Congress nor the President violated the Constitution, activists have been able have the Court overturn established law and their rulings have created new laws, not just negated a poor law as was the original intent.
A recent example is the Court's decision on Gay Marriage. In reality, 5 people decided it was the right thing to do, in spite of the fact that the Congress and all but 2 State Legislatures felt it was wrong. But that is off topic.
Back to the issue of Female Genital Mutilation. I understood the fact that you would like to equate it with Male Circumcision and remove the mutilation definition, but I am not sure that changes the issue. I see them as similar, not identical.
Male circumcision removes the foreskin from a male penis. It actually does have some health benefits by limiting a place for bacterial growth, it is legal in all 50 states and most countries of the world, and therefore is usually done in a hospital under sterile conditions. Sexual relations are not impeded nor restricted. It does not require additional surgery to have sex or to father children. It is more like removing a wart or a mole.
FGM on the other hand, removes the sexual pleasure points of a female, removes the labia or the outer skin of the vagina, and often the vagina is stitched close to prevent intercourse. To become pregnant, a reversal operation may need to be performed to allow for sperm implantation and the birth of the baby. It is universally banned in most countries of the world, except in those with predominately Muslim cultures, who dictate governmental policy. In other word, there is no separation of church and state.
It is quite often performed at home by non-medical professionals, without anesthetics, with infections and emotional trauma not uncommon. I understand, as you stated, that many mature women have chosen to undergo this procedure as adults. When a consenting adult chooses to alter their body without a life-threatening condition, they have the right to do so.
But allowing parents to medically alter the body of their young girl, who may not agree to have it done later in life, is irresponsible of government. I think the same argument applies to parents who are today choosing to medically change the gender of their children. It is not wrong to allow a child to dress and act like another gender, but to physically change their body at that age is wrong. There are too many instances of a child who wanted to act differently as a child, but as a teen or adult really wanted to be their original biological self. They shouldn't have their options restricted by surgery.
There are also a large percentage of adults who consent to gender reassignment surgery and then change their minds in a few years and reverse the procedure. Even for those who don't reverse, regret seems to be a far too common and suicide or attempted suicide rates are hovering between 40% - 50%.
Here are 2 well documented articles that reference nearly a dozen different studies world-wide o this topic.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/19/transgender-regret-is-real-even-if-the-media-tell-you-otherwise/
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/trouble-in-transtopia-murmurs-of-sex-change-regret/
There are some cases throughout the world challenging the right of male circumcision to a child. They use the exact same arguments you and I have listed above, although a lot of them are parents suing the other parent for not obtaining permission first, so their motives may be questioned.
Should legal legislation ban the practice, it would be a law that should be followed, but it should be debated, explored and made into law by a majority of elected officials, not a handful of appointed judges.
Then the final questions,
1. If a family holds a particular religious belief, and the exercise of it is banned by the country they live in, do they have the right to continue to practice it contrary to established law?
2. Since, no one in the United States is prevented from leaving should they choose, why should our country be obligated to change our laws to placate a minority, who often chose to come here, particularly if there are other countries who will allow them to practice their beliefs unfettered?
That is similar to choosing to moving to Arizona and complaining that there is too much sunshine and it is way too hot.
