"The court could say the state's interest would outweigh the free exercise of religion: If I'm an Aztec and my religion says I must go up on top of a high, pointed building and tear someone's heart out — that's nice, but we have a murder statute that trumps that. In terms of a state interest in preventing the foreskin of a male infant from being detached — that is an interest that is very, very minor." - Golden Gate University Dean Emeritus Peter Keane, explaining why a ban on circumcision would be legal and constitutional, and also kind of comparing a bris to human sacrifice in the process.

[SFWeekly]