This is very, very dangerous.
Talk on the radio focuses on allowing this because it’s religious belief.
However, what could happen with this encroaching Moslem garbage is the courts saying hey, OK, then there IS no freedom of religion, and one cannot use that argument ever.
IOW, gov denies refusals (e.g, homo wedding refusals) are allowed based on religious grounds, because they also deny being able to mutilate.
What we need to clarify is that there is freedom for anything AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CURTAIL THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS - which is REALLY the basis of our principles. We simply codify what is a basic natural right - to life, liberty and property (including the body). Anything violating these natural rights is verboten; doesn’t matter what one’s “religion” states. We simply will not accept it.
Napier opposed sati. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. Sati was rare in Sindh during the time Napier stayed in this region. Napier judged that the immolation was motivated by profits for the priests, and when told of an actual Sati about to take place, he informed those involved that he would stop the sacrifice. The priests complained to him that this was a customary religious rite, and that customs of a nation should be respected. As recounted by his brother William, he replied:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."