So who is Schofield? He won't say much other than that he's a 58-year-old who used to work for a "major hotel chain." He lives with his partner near Buena Vista Park, and they have no children. His Facebook page notes he's a fan of "The WHOLE Network", "Bring Back Saving Penises" and "Catholics Against Circumcision." But don't bother asking whether he had the procedure done himself.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=77266
This is completely about a homosexual pervert telling you what you can do with your kids.
Kids may misbehave sometimes but are not animals. They are not property.
If you saw a guy cutting into his own child, you'd make every effort to stop him and would alert the authorities. "God told me to" wouldn't satisfy, it wouldn't satisfy a court and he'd be given a psychiatric evaluation.
Circumcision defenders see certain parents as falling into a protected class, with special exemptions to American ideas of individual liberty with their children as chattel.
Children are thinking, feeling, free human beings to be instructed, not incised, to be protected, not pared.
If persons insist on cutting others, whatever their justification, they can violate civil law and suffer consequences accordingly. Sometimes faith runs contrary to civic values.
Constitutional freedom of religion is about the freedom to gather, to worship, to pray, to live by your moral code and instruct your children in the same.
If you extend that to include use of instruments to remove flesh from someone other than yourself, you can justify anything under the umbrella "he's just practicing his religion."
But wait, what if we limit the exception to just "recognized" religions like Judaism or Christianity? Government picking-and-choosing an official list of religions is a non-starter that falls far afield of the 1st amendment.