Watch your conflations? Check the mirror, pal.

Is it too much to ask that you argue honestly? Tossing around words like "barbarous" does little to advance your arguments. And as you probably are well-aware, but too dishonest to mention, an overwhelming number of U.S. circs are done for other than religious reasons. You are aware that both Judaism and Islam are minority religions whose adherents are a very low percentage of the U.S. population? Yet the U.S. has a large percentage of circed males, way more than can be attributed to religious rationales. So why not address this, rather than continually dragging out the religion canard.

I guess it is possible that all these non-Jewish and non-Muslim parents are circing their boys because they hate their newborns and wish to make them sexually miserable in later life. Except of course, these boys grow up to be perfectly fine and enjoy sex after all. Whoops, there goes that argument. OTOH, we know the outcome for female victims of genital mutilation; they cannot enjoy sex, they have health problems in many cases, etc. But I am sure that to your keen intellect, it's all the same, right?

I won't attempt to wade into the circumcision morass, except to note that those who would even attempt to equate male (penile) circumcision with female (clitoral or clitoral/labia) "circumcision" (i.e., genital mutilation) should seriously question the value of their elementary and secondary school educations, specifically in the areas of biology, anatomy, critical reasoning, and logic.

Seriously, if you cannot discern a difference between these procedures (and for that matter, circumcision and footbinding), you are simply being disingenuous, and any arguments you may advance suffer as a result.

"Is there a word that describes the inappropriate invoking of 9/11?"

How about Osamwin, as in "he Osamwin-ed the thread."

And I know that's what you're shyster lawyers are pushing for - no offense to the honest lawyers out there.

Yes, let's blame the lawyers, shall we? Until we hire a few (or several take on the matter pro bono) to fight this overzealous interpretation of copyright law. I believe that even the sainted EFF employs...gasp!...lawyers! (cue eerie music)

The decision in Johnston v. Boccanfuso is available at http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2035.asp (link to PDF file on the page).

Actually, this was not a NJ Supreme Court case, but rather a NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division decision. So it is not necessarily the law of New Jersey (yet).

The permanent physical damage in question was nerve damage to the wrist as a result of one of the cops placing his entire weight on it, in an effort to hold the plaintiff's arm stationary while a hospital technician drew blood.

The fact findings by the motion judge at the Superior Court were overly cop-friendly IMHO. Essentially, the court found that because the plaintiff did not react out of a fear of needles or religious objection, the level of force used to compel the blood draw was not excessive.

I suppose this provides a primer for future objectors -- make sure to scream about one of these topics when flailing about in the ER. I suppose the fear of needles ruse is the better one, since it can be used by anyone regardless of religious belief, even atheists :-)