I've been thinking about this queston for a while, but it has recently been brought back to my attention by the circumcision issue in Germany. For those who are not familiar with the situation, circumcision was declared illegal (first in one province, then throughout the country, if I am not mistaken). As a result, a mohel (a rabbi performing ritual circumcision according to Jewish Law) has been jailed. Recently, circumcision done by a doctor has been allowed, but one done by a rabbi remains forbidden. (Which doesn't help the issue, since such a circumcision would not be considered proper from religious point of view because of technical details. Nor does it make much sense, since mohellim are actually more skilled at performing circumcisions than the doctors and can be certified by the state for that purpose.)
So, here is my question:
How do you draw the line between a child's safety (whatever is considered to be a safety issue by the society) and religious or simply parental preferences? One extreme is: parents own their children and can do whatever they want. Including ritual sacrifice, hacking off limbs, female circumcision, and other good stuff. Another extreme is: the state determines fully what the parents do to their kids and how they raise them. Also obviously unattractive picture. So, where should the line be drawn? And what's the algorithm for drawing it? (Short of asking an Oracle for the correct answer.)
This is not even state vs. individual issue, since even in an anarchic society, presumably, parents that would abuse or neglect their child would be considered to have abandoned their claim to raising him. As a result, a third party would be free to interfere and take the child. If brought to a private court, the private judges/legal experts would determine (according to evolving "common" or "natural" law) whether the abandonment took place. But the question even here is the same: how do we draw this line and determine this?
As an aside, branching off on a tangent from the last question, if we say that "well, whatever the common legal trend of thought in the society considers abandonment, that's what abandonment is legally at the moment in the particular society", isn't that the same tyranny of the minority at the hands of the majority? Imagine that in a society where modern secular views dominate, religious circumcision is considered an abuse. Isn't that a case of tyranny of secular majority over a religious minority? (And vice versa would be true; for instance, imagine a religious majority considering it abandonment of a child if the parents don't teach him how to pray or don't circumcise him, since according to their worldview, this really endangers the child's body and/or soul, just like, say, not immunizing would.)
Well, parents don't necessarily own their children. They have the right to raise them, which I believe can be observed all throughout nature. However when the welfare of the child is in peril because of the religious beliefs/practices of the parent, I'm not exactly clear on the subject, however it would have to qualify as child abuse in order to be punishable. It sort of goes along with the kind of person who would go on a shooting spree and claim that his or her religion made him or her commit that act. Regardless of what it had to do with religion, that person is still going to get punished as it was a large infringement of the rights of multiple other individuals.