I know this question belongs in a bigger context, but my take on one part of it is this: "why is Ramadam acceptable but female circumcision isn't?" "Female circumcision" is irreversible mutilation, with risks of serious complications, including death, designed to control someone's experience of life and of their own body: Ramadan is a conscious choice to fast and can be negotiable if the person is sick, travelling, young, or (perhaps most importantly) ceases to practice Islam. Also, fasting is required in the Koran by any person who wishes to follow that faith, FGM (I understand) isn't required, and happens outside Islam. So my yardstick would be, that which is the person's free choice is acceptable (no matter how odd it may seem to someone outside that faith) and that which is imposed and cannot be reversed, isn't. I don't find halal, or kosher slaughter particularly humane, but compared with the gross abuses (we're talking about pigs and chickens scalded to death, cows skinned alive) that are documented in western abbatoirs, it just demonstrates that no-one's hands are clean where animal slaughter is involved. Ultimately IMO it's not down to us to police people's choices (and to my mind that includes wearing a full face veil) but it is down to us all as human beings to prevent abuse of those who cannot help themselves - whether they're a small girl being mutilated, or a sheep being shipped across Europe with no water, trying to stay upright on two fractured legs and not fall down and get trampled to death. And when it comes to what's acceptable culturally, there's usually some grey area involved - in our own culture binge drinking is the norm, and socialy acceptable to many, while cannabis and amphetamines are not.