There’s this debate in Norway about circumcision of baby boys. Some are arguing for prohibition. They say it’s the best for the babies, so that they later in life can choose what to do themselves. They then will have consciousness. It’s not right to give someone without free will an irreversible mark on the body.
The religious motives is not taken into account in the debate, it’s overseen or used as an argument against it. The only argument for those who practice it, and yet the human right fighters doesn’t mention it. The question of faith, of whether God can do something without our consciousness, the beginning of secularism.
If religious freedom is a human right, why isn’t it a perspective in the debate?
Jews where not allowed in Norway in 1814, some (indirectly) think it should still be so.