William Penn, founder of what would become the state of Pennsylvania (as well as its namesake), was granted a charter for a new colony based on the principle of religious toleration by the King of England, as Penn believed his goal could not be achieved in England. The colony, though founded by Quakers, was to be open to practitioners of any religion. It served as a contrast to the Puritans' colony in the north, which although founded after facing religious persecution themselves, ended up persecuting anyone who wasn't a Puritan.
Rhode Island was established in a different manner. Roger Smith, founder of Providence, Rhode Island, was initially a member of the colony at Plymouth and later at Salem. However, due to certain disagreements with the leadership in both towns, such as his ideas of completely breaking from the Church of England as well as purchasing, rather than stealing, land from the natives, he was banished from the colony. Providence, and also nearby Portsmouth (founded by Anne Hutchinson), became centers of refuge for those facing religious persecution; indeed, the charter for Rhode Island "explicitly established religious toleration for all inhabitants."
Maryland was founded as a haven for Roman Catholics who were persecuted in England; however, worshipers of all religions were welcome. Apart from declaring the colony of Maryland as free from persecution, the colonial government codified it into law with the 1649 An Act Concerning Religion, which specifically stated, 'no man should "be in any ways troubled, molested, or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion."'
Religious toleration has clearly been a mainstay of American culture; the First Amendment of the US Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Today religious toleration no longer extends solely to Judeo-Christian traditions; it encompasses all world religions, as well as the choice to not follow a religion at all. As a nation of immigrants, the United States is not only ethnically but religiously diverse.
However, multiple events in recent history have shown that the clash of religions is still present, despite people having the right to choose their religion and be free from persecution based on it.
Circumcision in San Francisco
Recently there has been a debate displayed in the news regarding a proposed ban on circumcision in San Francisco. One of the most prominent representations of this in the media is on CNN, continuing to keep San Francisco in the news after the city's attempt at banning Happy Meals. The article first appeared on November 19, 2010, outlining the basics of the proposal.
The text of the proposal states that, if passed, it would be illegal to "circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate" any part of the male genitalia of an individual under 18 years of age. The bulk of the debate and background around this ties into questions of the health benefits of circumcision (there is currently no solid medical case for either side); however, a religious issue does come into play in this case.
Section 5002 of the proposed statute which outlines 'exceptions' states the following:
(b) In applying subsection (a), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.As practitioners of Judaism in particular require circumcision for participation in religious life, this proposed ban suddenly takes a turn towards another violation of rights. The proposal makes no exception for religious practice, meaning that devout Jews in San Francisco who practice circumcision as a religious ritual would be subject to fines and/or imprisonment (the proposal requires no more than one year in prison and/or a fine of no more than $1,000), which equates itself to a form of persecution.
If passed, the proposed ban would then be a violation of the First Amendment. Peter Keane, a professor at Golden Gate University School of Law, states, '"It's not Constitutional. It would be a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion -- religions like Judaism that require [circumcision] as an essential part of the belief system."' Dr. Emily Blake, an obstetrician-gynecologist and mohel (one who performs the religious circumcision) in New York, took the point further: '"There are certainly many places in the world where a ban on circumcision is one of the prongs of an anti-Semitic movement -- anti-Jewish and also anti-Muslim."'
While the proposed ban will most likely never become law due to its legal status as unconstitutional, the discussion itself does bring up an interesting discussion of rights, which is something that the San Francisco group as well as the national group present. Where does one group's rights end and another group's begin? The national group behind the 'male genital mutilation' bill states that circumcision violates various human rights treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as being contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, by banning circumcision even for members of religious groups, it violates those same documents- CRC, ICCPR and UDHR (Article 14 in CRC, Article 18 in ICCPR and UDHR) on the basis of freedom of religion.
Media Representation
Although the circumcision debate has been covered widely in the conventional and popular media, very little of it has actually focused on the issue of violations of religious rights. Some web-based resources cover sides of the debate, with many falling on the pro-ban side. Various news sources like CNN cover the issue in a more neutral tone, while still managing to address some aspects of human rights violations. Most videos, like the CNN one below, detail the health issues surrounding the debate.
There are some videos that do discuss the religious issues at hand, if only in passing. A Boston Fox News report brings into the story the fact that bans would include circumcisions for religious reasons; however, it does not go into the infringement of rights on that end.
