As for now, I think the interviewees in the article represent the demographics fairly well. Circumcision is a religious tradition akin to baptism. Luckily, the Christians went with a more benign celebration of birth, but I don't think people who practise these religions will see it that way.
Which I why I like the Dutch for this. Circumcision is a ritual, not a regular religious observance. Nobody is calling for anyone to stop observing their religion. They are being asked instead to validate their ritual. Solid medical grounds are being used to oppose it, and the only reason being returned is:
It is written in the Islamic text the Hadith that Muslim men should "cut the things that grow".
"It's written in the Torah, in the Bible, that we should circumcise the child when the child is 8 days old. What God tells us to do, we must do," said Rabbi Jacobs, one of the Netherlands' most senior religious leaders.
Compelling these people to give a better explanation than that brings the fallacy of their beliefs into focus.
If the Muslim motivation is simply to "cut the things that grow", they must explain why they interpret this to specifically refer to the foreskin. Why not also remove the nose and earlobes of a baby too. These too, are "things that grow
As for the Jewish assertion that "What God tells us to do, we must do", why aren't they stoning adulterous women in Jerusalem any more?
They claim the right to mutilate their children on the basis that they are carrying our their god's instructions, and to do otherwise would go against their beliefs. In that case they should be made to answer why they do not obey every
instruction from their god. Why would failing to remove their son's foreskin be more offensive to their god than failing to kill someone who turned on a light on the sabbath?
Each belief carries instructions to kill non-believers. While they happily get on with doing this in their own back yards, they cannot condone that when on the world stage. Because the world stage is secular. The global community couldn't exist if it was otherwise. And the secular moral code is of a standard that is too high for most religions. It respects people that religion would condemn. It values life, liberty and the rights of the individual. It asks people only to obey the community, the opinions of which can be challenged, not a god who's ancient word is final.
If your God told you to do something as heinous as mutilate a child, then we have a right to ask you to prove that god exists. And until you can, we say leave the kid with his foreskin until he's old enough to decide for himself what he wants to do with it. And I'd leave that decision until at least 16.