I would say though that there's a - to me, fully and entirely justified - degree of criticism of religious freedom where that freedom allows for religion to be imposed on a non-consenting subject, as is the case with circumcsion. It's a tribal mark of the parent's religion, not of the subject himself (who is unable to give informed consent by virtue of not being old enough).
Ritual slaughter of animals is the other area where IMO religious freedom is too free.
But then shaker your agenda doesn't stop there with ritual slaughter, it extends into all sorts of areas.Hunting? Stopping people fishing?
Stop them eating meat?
I Hate to think what else, it wouldn't just stop with ritual slaughter.
No way would I support you on such a thing, because some people have different agendas to the ones they claim, the ones they can justify, I don't trust your motivations.
You obviously object to people passing on their religion to their children,but religion is about community and families, so you'd do a good job of splitting families too.
Ok some people object to circumcision purely based on humanitarian concerns, but many don't.
Yours would just be a stepping stone, to some weird sense of depriving a child inclusion of their parents religious community.
Next you would be claiming taking a child to church was child abuse.
