For the most part, common sense should tell you where the line is.
With all due respect, "common sense" should tell you that mutilating a child's genitals is some way over the line.
Grey areas would need to be debated and taken on a case by case basis. The common good served by preventing the domestic abuse of women outweighs a Muslim man's claim to having the right to beat his wife. On the other hand, I think a total ban on male circumcision in a country where Jews and Muslims have an established presence would do more damage to the common good than what would be gained.
But again, you are not providing any explanation for this special pleading. It seems pretty arbitrary to the objective observer.
This is especially true in the case of Judaism where a total ban on circumcision would be an insufferably onerous restriction on Jewish practice, as circumcision is a long established requirement of the religion.
So what? If the law prevents Jewish parents from circumcising their babies, god will understand. Not a problem. It's not like it's something that god is forced to impose by some higher authority.
Less so for Islam, as far as I understand it the general view is that circumcision is highly encouraged but not absolutely mandatory. After all, unlike the Hebrew Bible, there is no mentioned requirement for circumcision in the Qur'an.
Islamic practice is based on more than just the Quran. The sunnah is as important where it deals with issues not mentioned in the Quran. The Quran states
"Obey Allah and his Messenger". So whatever Muhammad prescribes in the sunnah is a religious obligation.
For one, there is no religion which requires FGM. There are Muslims who claim that FGM is a religious requirement, but I'll direct you to post #358 by Debate Slayer.
There is nothing in that post that shows FGM is not Islamic.
As I have already mentioned, there are Islamic scholars and schools of jurisprudence who claim it is mandatory or recommended. It is mentioned in the sunnah where Muhammad advises a woman cutting girls to "not cut too deeply". Clear implicit permission.
It is simply wrong to claim that there is no scriptural or scholarly support for FGM in Islam.
So, should those Muslims who genuinely believe that it was prescribed by Allah, through Muhammad and is therefore a religious obligation, be allowed to practice it? My "common sense" says no, yours would appear to say yes.
For two, I don't think male circumcision and FGM are comparable, so there is no inconsistency. I consider male circumcision and FGM as two distinct issues.
Simply repeating your initial assertion does not take us anywhere.
One form of FGM is removal of the clitoral hood. This is biologically the came procedure as removing the foreskin. So, would you allow hoodectomies to continue? If not, why the inconsistency?
Further, even if the prevailing view of the Islamic scholars were that FGM is mandatory, it would not move me to wish to permit it for the same reason I don't think Muslim men should be able to beat their wives or for Hindus to be permitted to burn widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres. Because to allow such would be against basic decency. You may think religious male circumcision is as indecent, but I disagree.
Once again, you are merely special pleading without providing any explanation. Why is giving a disobedient wife a bit of a slap (as instructed by god) so unacceptable but mutilating a child's genitals (as instructed by god) perfectly acceptable? There is no consistency in your position. A slap on the body might leave no mark but the baby is disfigured for life.
I just don't think male circumcision is so abhorrent, of so severe a consequence for the child that there is a compelling enough reason to prevent Jews and Muslims from being able to have it preformed. I do think having it done (on a child) for purely cosmetic reasons should be banned though.
Again with the inconsistency. Either circumcision is fundamentally acceptable or not.
You say on the one hand it is not a big deal and should be permitted, but on the other hand you think it should be banned.
Yeah, and I don't care. If a Muslim family immigrates to the west they can darn well live with not being able to mutilate their daughters' sex organs.
So presumably you believe that if a Jewish family immigrates to the west, they can likewise
"darn well live with not being able to mutilate their sons' sex organs" as you don't believe that religious practice trumps human decency. Correct?
Because circumcision it is an explicit requirement of the Mosaic Covenant. I don't care that you don't take Jewish beliefs seriously. I'm not interested in defending the doctrine as I'm not Jewish so I have no skin in that particular game anyway. But I would rather not live in a world where self-righteous progressives use the state to clamp down on people's religious freedoms. And I do think Jewish/Muslim/Coptic circumcision is a religious freedom issue.
But you have stated that
you would ban some religious circumcision, you self-righteous progressive. So yet again, why the inconsistency? (Saying "but I don't understand Islam" is not really an argument).
If FGM was "an explicit requirement of the Mosaic Covenant", then presumably you'd be fine with that as well.