Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule

[COLGATE4]

205. As I mentioned in my first reponse to you

the legal test any restriction on religious practices must pass is that there must be a compelling need for it. Even so, any such restriction is then subjected by the courts to a test of strict scrutiny which is an extremely high barrier. Generally speaking, the only restrictions on religious practices permitted by law are those which can be justified under the rubrics of public health or public safety, i.e. no headgear in DL photos because it may hamper police identification, no slaughter of animals in public places for public health reasons, etc. I am not aware of any law which prohibits a licensed medical professional from performing a clitoroidectomy - perhaps you can enlighten me. While you may not be able to find a Dr. who'll do it, that's not the same as calling that it illegal.

Why would a 'full grown man be telling a court that he'd been "mutilated""? On what basis? What crime (or civil cause of action) would he allege?

Finally, under the First Amendment which is the law in this country, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other communities do not have to 'come up with reasons' to practice what they do. The First Amendment guarantees them freedom to engage in those practices, as different, strange or abhorrent they may seem to others. To the contrary the burden is always on the government to demonstrate to a court's satisfaction a compelling reason for a court to even agree to restrict, much less eliminate, a given religious practice. And no one has yet demonstrated to me that compelling reason.