In the first place--why is this supposed to be about Jews? Muslims regularly circumcize their sons. Many Christians do. In every English-speaking country outside of Britain, the majority of males are circumcized. So, less than a fraction of one percent of all circumcized males are Jewish. I'm not opposed to male circumcision...it just mystifies me when people act as if the practice is somehow monopolized by the Jews.
In the second place--I hate idiots who compare male circumcision to genital mutilation (and then have the nerve to pretend that this somehow makes it enlightened!). Generally, such individuals seem to have a huge axe to grind and not a pressing concern for thinking through a matter as they are doing it. I've sometimes wondered what it is about a piece of skin on an infant boy's penis that draws such an obsession from some people.
All I can say is this: Male circumcision and FGM are entirely different practices, medically and anthropologically, according to the WHO. This isn't a gender equality thing (and, to be honest, that argument comes across as quite desperate, as well as thoroughly ignorant of the status of women's rights in areas where FGM is prevalent)--men and women, quite obviously, have different parts; proceedures that apply to one set of parts are not necessarily the same thing when applied to another. Female circumcision carries no health benefits, only risks--infections, child birth complications, exc. Sociologically, it is imposed on girls in order to curb what is believed to be the voracious female sexual appetite and to reduce their entire sexual being to the reproductive role. The severity of FGM goes on a sliding scale, from nicking the clit to completely scrapping out the outer genitalia, inner and outer labia, and sewing the whole mess into a chastidy belt of scar tissue to be ripped up by the girl's future husband. Would you really compare cutting off foreskin to that? Male circumcision is encouraged by various medical organizations for its role in reducing the spread of infectious diseases, for hygenic reasons, and reducing the risks of penile cancers, exc. It has nothing to do with a culture of misandry, the way that FGM is the product of misogynist cultures.
In the third place--There are always these silly little motions--they never get voted in. Even if they were--so what? Families that wanted to circumcize their kids would make a couple hours' drive to do it. The legislation would simply be symbolic of how ignorant the district that voted for it was.
Peace
@ Greasy Slop---I have no children. I'm just informed. Would you like to argue with the sources I've cited, or simply resort to lame ad hominem attacks--you are, after all, simply proving my point about people who make male circumcision a quest.
As for your comment about cutting off womens' parts--I addressed that. Slicing off a foreskin--a procedure that barely draws blood--has medical benefits, and simply does not compare to gauging out labia and sewing it all shut in order to ensure virginity upon marriage to a designated husband/owner. Don't you think so?