[editor’s note: Since the conversation is taking an interesting turn, I’m holding this topic open for a second week - TLK]

A week seldom goes by without a story coming to my attention about religious practices ending up with someone in court, in jail, or in the grave. That, in turn, raises a question: When does a religious belief or practice stop being a private matter and become a legitimate public concern?

The Zero Aggression Principle looks like an easy answer — no victim, no crime on one hand, and victim, crime (regardless of any religious justification) on the other. But I’ve seen instances of argumentation as to how the ZAP applies. In particular, I’ve seen some libertarians argue that circumcision is a vicious and inexcusable sexual assault, any religious justification notwithstanding, while others deem it a parental prerogative for either health or religious purposes (leading into the even more inflammatory question of whether infants have rights or are mere parental property).

The latest story comes from Arizona, where a grandfather was tasered and died after police intervened in what they alleged to be an exorcism ritual, with his 3-year-old granddaughter cast in the role of the possessed.

In a statist society, the issue is separation of state. But even absent the state, there is presumably a line separating religious instruction from assault, with the former a purely private matter and the latter a case in which intervention on behalf of a victim is justifiable. Where’s that line at?