Foreskin Man was apparently active around the globe recently. A regional court in Cologne, German, found that circumcision of a child below the age of consent was a crime. A governor of Vorarlberg Province in Austria banned circumcision of boys at state hospitals as "physical abuse." An initiative banning the procedure gained enough signatures to be placed on a San Francisco ballot, before a Judge tossed it off.
It hasn't been all one way, however. Germany's parliament endorsed the right of Muslim and Jewish parents to have their infant sons circumcised. Though the resolution was non-binding, it appears that the parliament is preparing legislation to back it up.
Male circumcision is a vital part of the Jewish religion and is important to Muslims as well. So important is it to the former that a ban on this procedure would be seen as "outlawing Judaism". It is difficult to imagine an American or European government going that far. Religious liberty is one of the core principles of modern liberal democracy. Indeed, it virtually defines the peace treaty on which liberal government is based. In return for accepting the authority of the secular state, religious groups can practice their various faiths without being molested.
This doesn't mean, of course, that religious liberty confers immunity to the laws. To take the extreme cases, a religious minority cannot practice human sacrifice or allow adults sexual access to minors. Somewhere between those extremes and teaching your kid Hebrew, a line has to be drawn.
While a reasonable person might believe that male circumcision is repugnant or unhealthy, there is simply no case that it justifies a broad violation of religious liberty and parental authority. In the United States, most circumcisions are motivated by health concerns rather than religion. That this is at least as reasonable as the other side is indicated by the following news, from the New York Times:
The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks.
But the academy stopped short of recommending routine circumcision for all baby boys, saying the decision remains a family matter. The academy had previously taken a neutral position on circumcision.
In short, this is the kind of judgment call that parents are called upon to make. Let them make it. If circumcisions offends you, print your literature and make your speeches. If you try to legally ban it that makes you a busybody. While you are printing your literature, you might want to make sure there aren't any foreskin comics in the mix. There is no doubt that some of the force behind the intactivist movement is old fashion hatred of Jews.