(Be warned this post contains as-tasteful-as-possible descriptions of genital mutilation.)

This case marks a decent blow against multiculturalism. A father has been convicted of circumcizing his two-year-old daughter with a scissors. His defense was not that circumcision was a constitutional right but that he didn’t do it.

Female circumcision is an ancient practice in some regions (including Africa), and it involves cutting off a girl’s clitoris. It sometimes stems from a belief that a woman’s sexual pleasure is immoral.

Now, I’m against imposing our standards on the rest of the world. I think Dinesh D’Souza’s forthcoming book does a good job of showing how American cultural “missionaries” offend traditional people and contribute to terrorism. I don’t think a worldwide campaign against this is a great idea.

However, in this case nothing was imposed on anyone. This man chose to come here, and that means he has to live by our rules. We say it is not appropriate to mutilate — and handicap the bodily functions of — a toddler, end of story.

For legal buffs who think this ruling hurts religious or cultural freedom, let’s imagine the man argued (A) yes, I circumcized her and (B) it was part of my religion, so it’s my right. The relevant constitutional test here is “rational purpose,” which means the government must only have a secular reason for a law. For example, peyote is illegal for drug control reasons, and American Indians are unable to win an exception, even though they use it during religious ceremonies.

Similarly, there is a “rational purpose” for outlawing this kind of mutilation, namely…well, stopping mutilation. As long as a law isn’t made for the specific purpose of interfering with religion (such as laws against animal sacrifice — killing animals is legal for other purposes), it’s likely to hold up in court.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.