Basura: Freedom of religion includes genital mutilation?

“The blues ain’t killed me yet,

But they’re doin’ the best they can.”

— Chris Smither, musician & poet “Leave The Light On”

Two doctors and the wife of one of the docs have just been charged with genital mutilation. This happened in Michigan. The charges allege that two 7-year-old girls were mutilated, and that the two men and the woman performed the surgery.

The purported purpose was to decrease sexual desires of these little girls, yet to be women. This is likely a case of clitorectomy, the surgical excision of the clitoris. It is believed to be the first charged case of this type in the U.S.

There are hints already from the lawyers that this is a case of religious liberty. The three defendants are members of a religious community that traditionally practices this behavior. Already floated is the suggestion that the procedure was performed by medical personnel under sterile conditions, thereby reducing infection risk. I suppose a clitorectomy without infection is preferable to a clitorectomy with infection. But how about no clitorectomy?

Of course, we have the Hobby Lobby ruling, which decided that laws may not apply if there are claims of religious objection to the law. Religious liberty is cited often as a claim to justify discrimination.

A repair shop in Grandville refused to fix the car of someone they thought was homosexual, claiming religious liberty. Apparently, God smote the sodomite with a faulty car transmission, and didn’t want the devout repairman to interfere with His divine judgement. The things are not equivalent, of course, but the arguments are similar.

Similarly, in the Hobby Lobby decision, a business claimed the right to discriminate against LGBT people on religious grounds, despite law prohibiting such action. Genital mutilation of 7-year-old girls is far worse, yet the argument will be made that the procedure, shocking in our cultural view, is sanctioned by some religious beliefs. A small child, under control of her parents, cannot effectively choose to convert to a different religious tradition that does not practice genital mutilation.

If a conviction is rendered, I can speculate that sentencing guidelines, PSI sentencing recommendation, public sentiment, prosecutors, POs, and courts would be thinking of prison incarceration in terms of sentencing. I know I would be, if I were still in the recommending business. Defense counsel would seem to have a tough uphill climb ahead if the facts are as alleged.

But there seems to be a troubling parallel. The laws apply – unless one’s religion can be used to circumvent statute. I recall being told, by devout Christians, that the Bible instructed adherents to beat children in their care. The couple in question had already run afoul of the legal authorities for harsh corporal punishment measures. I found it interesting that the couple never seemed to accept that they had been in the wrong on this. I felt differently. So did professionals with whom I spoke. So did the court.

In Utah, in 1984, there was a murder case in which Brenda Lafferty, and her 15-month-old daughter, Erica, were murdered. Ron and Dan Lafferty were charged with the murders. They were Brenda’s brothers-in-law. A defense was mounted that God spake unto them, and ordered the deaths. They were just following orders. These fellows were members of a fundamentalist Mormon sect that believed plural marriage was ordained by god.

Brenda Lafferty didn’t want this to happen. She didn’t want a second wife to be brought into the home. But her personal view did not prevail. God ordered the Lafferty brothers-in-law to kill her for her apostasy. Plural marriage was ordained, and Brenda didn’t want to go along with the program. They believed that they had no choice but to cut Brenda’s and Erica’s throats, because god had directly revealed his will to them.

It was not entirely clear as to why a 15-month-old deserved death, but who can presume to understand God’s will? God told Ron and Dan what to do, in a direct revelation. That’s what the brothers said, and there was no way to confirm or deny their statement. The story is laid out in detail in Jon Krakauer’s excellent non-fiction “Under The Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith.”

It seems to me, those living in the United States have obligations to follow the law. Freedom to practice religion, or not, is guaranteed by the constitution. Since there are many religions, with many different tenets, and a lack of scientific or other evidence in support thereof, our founders were wise to leave religiosity to the individual and to the religious communities. Blurring the separation between church and state is disadvantageous to both.

The case of genital mutilation of the two 7-year-old girls in Michigan has yet to be adjudicated. It seems to be headed to an exploration of not what was done, or by whom, but rather whether religious beliefs can trump the law of the land. The girls were harmed for the rest of their lives – that much is clear. The courts can’t restore them.

The message must be sent that this sort of thing is not OK. And it will not be tolerated in our society. Hiding behind the skirts of religious belief, and calling it religious liberty, as justification for this type of law breaking can be rude – or it can be tragic.