The Denver Post put this story in the “Health” section, which is technically defensible in the same way putting a raccoon in a stroller makes it “family transportation.” There are health questions here. There are also legal, religious, parental, constitutional, and political questions stacked on top of each other like Colorado policy was designed by a law-school seminar after three edibles and no adult supervision.
Here is the setup. Two men, Tristan Huff of Fort Collins and Adam Schwartz of Denver, filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court asking a judge to require Colorado to prohibit circumcision of male children. Their argument, according to the report, is that Colorado bans female genital mutilation while allowing male circumcision, and that this amounts to sex discrimination. Colorado has treated certain procedures removing external genitalia or the clitoris from female children as misdemeanor child abuse since 1999, with an exemption for procedures performed for medical reasons.
That is not a small ask. The plaintiffs are not merely asking for a public conversation. They are asking a judge to take a law aimed at female genital mutilation and stretch it over male circumcision by court order. That means one judge could be asked to sort out biology, religious liberty, parental authority, child protection, medical tradition, bodily autonomy, equal protection, and criminal law before lunch. Bring a sandwich.
This is where Christians need to slow down and think clearly. Female genital mutilation and male circumcision are not the same practice with different marketing departments. They have different histories, different religious meanings, different medical debates, different legal treatment, and different consequences. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ 2012 policy statement said the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, while also stopping short of recommending universal circumcision. That does not settle every moral question. It does mean the “same thing, different sex” slogan is too neat for reality.
Scripture also refuses to let us flatten this. In the Old Testament, circumcision was given to Abraham as a covenant sign in Genesis 17. In the New Testament, the church makes clear that circumcision is not required for salvation or Christian standing. Paul writes, “For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love” (Galatians 5:6, NLT).
So Christians should not treat circumcision as a salvation issue. But we also should not pretend religious practice is irrelevant just because modern activists find it inconvenient. For Jewish families especially, this question is not an abstract policy puzzle. It reaches into covenant identity, family tradition, conscience, and worship. Christians should be careful not to cheap-shot religious communities while criticizing activist litigation. That is the difference between courage and being a jerk with a keyboard.
At the same time, parental rights are not absolute. Children are made in the image of God. Their bodies are not raw material for adult ideology, family pride, or government experimentation. The state does have a legitimate child-protection role. Romans 13 teaches that governing authorities are meant to punish evil and serve the good. But government is also limited. The family is not a franchise location of the Department of Correct Opinions.
That is the real collision here. Who decides what parents may consent to for children? Where does religious liberty end and child-protection authority begin? When does bodily autonomy become a serious moral concern, and when does it become a slogan powerful people use only when it helps their preferred side?
Those are hard questions. Colorado’s governing class often handles hard questions by outsourcing them to courts, commissions, agencies, advocacy groups, and whatever nonprofit has the most polished grant language. Then normal people are told to pick a tribe and start screaming. It is a terrible way to govern a state, but apparently a fantastic way to keep lawyers hydrated.
We should also be honest about the political incentives. Some activists may see this lawsuit as a serious equal-protection argument. Some may see it as a stunt. It may be both. And before anyone has read the whole complaint, the fundraising emails will start flying like Miller moths in June. “Emergency threat to children.” “Emergency threat to religious liberty.” “Emergency threat to democracy.” Somewhere, a consultant just bought a new boat.
Christians should resist the circus. Read carefully. Speak truthfully. Defend children. Defend religious liberty. Respect the God-given role of parents. Keep the state in its lane. Refuse cheap slogans that pretend painful, complicated issues can be shoved into one clean ideological box like a toddler forcing a waffle into a DVD player.
My bottom line is this: Colorado does need serious conversations about child protection, parental authority, bodily integrity, and religious freedom. What we do not need is another courtroom demolition derby where activists throw a live wire into public life, politicians pretend they are shocked, and ordinary families are left to clean up the sparks.
Christians should not worship politics. We should also stop pretending these fights do not matter. Public law shapes real families, real children, real consciences, and real neighbors. So we pray, we think, we read, we speak, and we act faithfully.
Christ is Lord. The court is not. The activists are not. The state is not. And praise God, neither is the comment section.
Source: The Denver Post
Share your thoughts...