Jews Increasingly Questioning Circumcision Ritual

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Jewish understanding of something that God told them to do in Genesis really shouldn't be reduced to '"tradition" and idiotic bulls[inks] like that'. It's not the same as the Irish Catholicism thing, it's really not.

Having said that, it definitely makes sense that Reform and Conservative Jews would be having these conversations nowadays, and I'm generally supportive of this kind of dialogue within the religion or culture concerned.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Jewish understanding of something that God told them to do in Genesis really shouldn't be reduced to '"tradition" and idiotic bulls[inks] like that'. It's not the same as the Irish Catholicism thing, it's really not.

It is if the Jews in question don't really practice any other aspects of Judaism and don't keep kosher/observe the Sabbath/holy days, etc. Like the vast majority of American ethnic Jews.

Most American Jews have historically been on a sliding scale of observance, with relatively few either completely observant or completely nonobservant. The fact that the circumcision ritual is one that far more than not have kept, even otherwise generally nonobservant ones, means that I think you're underestimating just how much of a group marker this is. It's one of the first things that God requires of Abraham, predating the kosher laws and holy days--at least in the Biblical narrative--by quite a lot. I know you don't agree with this but it's not 'idiotic bulls[inks]' even to the extent that the Ireland thing (which is also about group markers that you have some difficulty understanding, much less having sympathy for) is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of all the myriad cases where a mainstream religion gets a free pass and people refuse to pass judgement because religion exists in a realm where critical thinking and reason dare not trespass, routine male genital disfigurement is the most thoroughly revolting.  To impose such an irreversable thing on a baby who, obviously cannot consent, should be a felony and cause for widespread social disgust. I don't know how people can willingly chose to ignore such a gross and commonplace violation of personal autonony.

Whoooa, easy there, sport! Hold your horses! Cool your jets! Don't hitch your wagon to a star!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of all the myriad cases where a mainstream religion gets a free pass and people refuse to pass judgement because religion exists in a realm where critical thinking and reason dare not trespass, routine male genital disfigurement is the most thoroughly revolting.  To impose such an irreversable thing on a baby who, obviously cannot consent, should be a felony and cause for widespread social disgust. I don't know how people can willingly chose to ignore such a gross and commonplace violation of personal autonony.

Whoooa, easy there, sport! Hold your horses! Cool your jets! Don't hitch your wagon to a star!

I suppose the above quote will suffice when too lazy to form an actual rebuttal. Or when the situation is so clear cut that no reasonal rebuttal is plausible. Or are you actually going to defend routinely altering the genitals of babies just because religion says so?

It will suffice when my interlocutor is literally arguing for criminalizing an important ritual of at least one major religion, because sarcastic use of old-person cliches and posting in the Sage Garden without remark are all that such a stupefyingly disgusting suggestion deserves. On further reflection, should instead have said 'Poo-tee-weet?', but oh well, it's too late now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of all the myriad cases where a mainstream religion gets a free pass and people refuse to pass judgement because religion exists in a realm where critical thinking and reason dare not trespass, routine male genital disfigurement is the most thoroughly revolting.  To impose such an irreversable thing on a baby who, obviously cannot consent, should be a felony and cause for widespread social disgust. I don't know how people can willingly chose to ignore such a gross and commonplace violation of personal autonony.

Whoooa, easy there, sport! Hold your horses! Cool your jets! Don't hitch your wagon to a star!

I suppose the above quote will suffice when too lazy to form an actual rebuttal. Or when the situation is so clear cut that no reasonal rebuttal is plausible. Or are you actually going to defend routinely altering the genitals of babies just because religion says so?

It will suffice when my interlocutor is literally arguing for criminalizing an important ritual of at least one major religion, because sarcastic use of old-person cliches and posting in the Sage Garden without remark are all that such a stupefyingly disgusting suggestion deserves. On further reflection, should instead have said 'Poo-tee-weet?', but oh well, it's too late now.

Gotcha. You're not going to defend cutting off parts of babies genitals, even as some babies die from the procedure and others catch nasty diseases because the superstitious monsters who perfom the procedures sometimes don't have enough common sense to follow basic hygiene standards. Instead, you're just going to hide behind religion, which is exactly what I suspected you would. Never mind the horrid ethics involved. No thoughtful reflection required. It's a "religion", so game over. If millions of men must silently suffer with parts of their penises missing, that's a small price to pay so that you can smugly pat yourself on the back for blindly believing that religion must never be questioned because it is more important than personal autonomy.

MILLIONS OF MEN MUST SILENTLY SUFFER!!!! You sound like, quite literally, a bad joke.

What I'm 'hiding behind' is the First Amendment, and, yes, sometimes a few sacrifices do have to be made around the margins to ensure that our fundamental freedoms of expression and belief are secure.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, the notion that routine genital mutilation of babies ought to be a crime is a bad joke. And in order to be free, the religious simply must cut off parts of babies' penises. Anything less would be tyranny. Un-Inksing-believable! Shall we bring back the castrati as well? Virgin sacrifice? Suttee? Divine rule of monarchs? As Nathan says, some must suffer to appease the religious.
If you want to alter your penis, I have no problem with that. It's yours, after all, and none of my business. All I'm asking if for other to leave alone the penises of babies. I don't think that's much to ask.

Not to interrupt your hysterical and frankly worrying straw-manning of the position on this--that it's the parents' business and that the benefit of the doubt in a society with freedom of religion should generally go to those who want to when possible avoid prosecuting aspects of religious practice as felonies instead of those whose preferred set of priorities for making policy on the subject makes the analogous provisions of the Volstead Act look like kum-ba-yah multiculturalism by comparison--that most sensible people hold, but do you genuinely consider circumcision a comparable violation to the other things that you're mentioning, or is it just that degree and scale have no meaning to you?