While I agree that religion and science don't have to conflict with each other and can indeed complement each other, using male circumcision as an example for how religious practices have been "proven to be scientifically effective" is most unfortunate.
blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/r…
blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/r…
First, you don't need to circumcise boys at birth to prevent them from contracting sexually transmitted diseases much later in life (for the effectiveness of which the evidence is not particularly good).
Second, it ignores that the boys in question had no chance to consent on what is a mutilation of their body and that most of these circumcisions are done without pain control because that was (and to some extent still is) considered unnecessary, possibly leaving permanent trauma.
Third, just because it coincidentally happens that a particular religious practice is in some cases also a useful medical procedure doesn't demonstrate anything about the use of religious practice in general.
For that, you'd have to look at what religious practices are actually problematic. Let me just mention that, as we have recently learned, singing in a church is a most effective way of contracting potentially fatal infections. I rest my case. /endrant
