Honestly, I think you're the only one in here who has actually associated it with a religious agenda (aside from SD's Jewishness). We all think it's merely an aesthetic thing nowadays. I know that in my opinion, and I suspect in plenty of others, if somebody actually does have a real religious concern for having his kid cut, then they can knock themselves out. Snip snip. Mazel tov. Today you are slightly less of a man.
Yea, I don't doubt that many people nowadays choose to have their children circumcised by social convention, tradition, preference, etc rather than religious motivation. But, again, why choose to ban all male circumcision? I don't see the practice of circumcision any more pernicious or any less traditional than the piercing of the ears of infant girls. I assume that the piercing of the ears could, also, in an extremely unfortunate case perhaps lead to infection or some other bodily ailment. I can imagine that would be extremely rare, but the possibility would still exist, wouldn't it? So why allow the piercing of ears and not allow circumcision? It seems to me that the entire stance is not being consistent with its premises. Hell, the premises the ordinance was supposedly established upon could even lead one to see as the clipping of nails, the cutting of hair, the removal of appendixes or even perhaps the removal of umbilical cord as "mutilation" too, or at least as actions that should be taken only when a child comes into an age in which "he can make the decision for himself." Such inconsistency with the adopted premises, coupled with a strange obsession with what occurs to foreskins leads me to see the move as one motivated to deal a blow to a tradition that was founded in religion, however aptly disguised in a "caring" or "anti-mutilation" it may be, and however alienated or divorced from that religion it may be now.