I can understand why people want to believe in God. I can understand why they want to believe in heaven — even hell.
I can’t understand why they think God wants them to remove a part of their penis, however. But maybe that’s because I’m not a sadomasochist.
A Canadian loony has been convicted of “criminal negligence causing bodily harm for a botched amateur circumcision he attempted on his four-year-old son”:
However, Justice Marion Allan acquitted the man, who along with his family can’t be identified under a publication ban, of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.
The child, now aged six, was treated in hospital for what doctors said was an incomplete circumcision and has since made a full recovery.
The boy’s father, who subscribes to a religious philosophy that incorporates Hebrew elements, previously tried to circumcise himself and also had to seek medical help.
He learned about circumcision on the Internet and sent away for special instruments.
Now normally I’d pass something like this off as mental illness. But that would be mistaken, for most of the major world religions think the same way. They think God wants penile foreskins removed. Others think God wants the clitoris removed.
Normal people think this.
It’s kinda scary.
It is VERY scary. My little boy is still intact. When he was born they asked if I wanted him circumcized. I was ready to leap out of the bed, while being stitched, to make sure a knife did not come anywhere close to my baby.
It is such a sick and twisted idea, really.
What’s sad, is there are those who aren’t the least bit religious and have this procedure done because they are convinced it keeps things sanitary and more healthy.
A lot of education is required.
Why did god create foreskins it they are unhealthy? Just another argument against intelligent design.
God created man in His image. Clearly God had a foreskin and circumcised Himself. So why did He create the foreskin? As a way to Test People’s Faith! Duh.
Once again it is obvious that the world is intelligently designed.
I honestly think circumsicion (best described as Male Genital Mutilation) was devised as a way of figuring out who was really serious about being an Israelite.
They aren’t unhealthy, that’s the point.
There’s some pretty tenuous studies showing a correlation between circumcision and a lower incidence of HIV transmission and penile cancer. But both of these can be combatted just as effectively by using protection and maintaining proper genital hygiene.
Even if you make the argument that circumcised penises are easier to keep clean (which they are), to what ends will you take this logic? Will you cut off your ears because you have to wash behind them; pull out your teeth because you need to brush them? How about vaginas? They could surely be surgically tidied up a bit.
For a group of religions that usually only treats women like garbage, the Abrahamics really sock it to men with this one.
Maybe there is circumscision because god prefers kosher calamari?
Doesn’t the catholic church keep a relic it claims is the prepuce of jesus?
“Doesn’t the catholic church keep a relic it claims is the prepuce of jesus?”
Don’t be silly, it ascended to heaven with jesus and became one of the rings of Saturn.
hahahahaha this is just soooo funny hahahah
Great!!!
‘Comment awaiting moderation’
This is probably going to happen a lot on this thread, given the relevant vocabulary.
In the meantime, I think this tradition is one of the biggest skeletons that western cultures still have in their closet. Besides lingering racism and misogyny, which can get pretty intense depending on locale.
It really amazes me that we don’t find this to be the utterly barbaric human rights violation that it is, and I sometimes wonder if the practitioners of female genital mutilation feel the same way about what they do, i.e. if they think twice about it, and if when they’re confronted, they are surprised to hear that it’s a problem.
It’s for this reason that when I discuss male circumcision with its proponents, I can’t help but imagine them defending female genital mutilation, and it makes it hard not to scream at the top of my lungs.
Excuse me, but there are many excellent reasons for Female Circumcision. Just ask a completely unbiased Muslim website:
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/45528
For example:
Makes sense to me.
In a society that thinks like that, I doubt you’d need to worry about the woman becoming aroused…
Damn right, if she’s enjoying it you are doing it wrong.
(and ignore the sepsis, it’s a natural side effect)
If people are really that serious, why don’t they get the procedure done medically? This really doesn’t take a rocket scientist. I’ve learned how to do a lot of things via the internet, but I know there’s a chance that I’ll mess it up, so I don’t take chances with dangerous things like advanced electrical wiring, glass-blowing over a stove burner, dentistry; I stick to things like upholstery and drink recipes, that don’t maim or endanger anyone if you can just throw them out when they suck.
Lopping skin off of ….. I mean, he tried it on himself and he messed it up. What was he thinking? That is fail. I’ve never been inclined to perform a circumcision, or even try to pierce my own ears. I don’t know why people want to slice that foreskin off, but I don’t understand even more why anyone would consider that a DIY, and even if it’s your own penis for which you’ve accepted responsibility (and jeez, would any one of you all even dare?), don’t try this at home… on someone else’s penis! Daddy, don’t slice my junk, ‘k?
” . . . clean garbage bags and towels, with Band-Aids and a veterinary powder . . . ”
It’s true . . . the lord DOES work in mysterious ways!
I don’t mean to defend the practice of circumcision … but the ancient Hebrews didn’t originate it. They heard about it from the Egyptians. Specifically, members of the Egyptian priesthood were circumcised around the time they came of age and became acolytes in service to their cult (anywhere from c. 12 to 16 years of age).
The Hebrews, then, engaged in a little “one-upmanship” (if you’ll pardon the expression). By circumcising ALL Hebrew males, they were, essentially — in terms of the Egyptian culture which they knew well, in the first centuries of the last millennium BCE — asserting themselves to be an entire nation of the priesthood. Of course, this principle was contravened within a few generations by the rise of the Hebrew priesthood within the Hebrew nation. So it was an idea that didn’t last too long, in that form. They did, however, choose to retain the practice anyway, as a marker of national identity.
I have to laugh at “as a marker of national identity.” We got little flag pins for that now. You can wear a t-shirt if you’re really into it.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with body self modification – For example, I myself have seven body piercings, four of which I did myself (all genital, by the way) – but then I’m a nurse and have relevant knowledge of anatomy and aseptic technique – and access to sterile instruments.
Self circumcision, however? Just no. It’s not just the foreskin that you take with a proper circumcision, it’s a layer of muscular tissue, the frenum, a small area of skin which is probably the single most nerve-packed spot on a male human body (essentially the equivalent of the clitoris. Intact men: it’s at the very tip of your foreskin when it’s pulled forward, on the underside of the shaft), and a significant portion of the skin of the penile shaft. It is, in fact, brutal. The fact that in the USA it’s done almost routinely is just sick – babies DIE of botched circumcisions. It’s not that uncommon for babies to have to have their penises amputated because of a knife-wielding Rabbi, either.
Health benefits to men: None that have ever been adequately proven and not strongly contested. Health benefits to women: Helps prevent spead of Human Pamloma Virus, which causes cervical cancer. However, since there’s now a perfectly good vaccine against HPV (which is given to ALL girls in Britain except Catholics who opt out on the grounds that it promotes promiscuity), is now an utterly pointless act of genital mutilation for which a baby should never, ever forgive their parents.
Godless Comedy from That Mitchell and Webb Look – Abraham and Isaac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqC73omSk4o
The defendant did what countless millions have done before, he followed “God’s orders” and made the baby look like daddy. Perhaps what frightens people reading this case is how severe it all seems outside a hospital or synagog. How brutal genital mutilation is when it doesn’t have the phony guise of respectability a rabbi or doctor gives it. No doubt Judge Marion Allan’s ruling this as negligence is to keep us from seeing it and all circumcisions of children for what forced circumcision always is, aggravated sexual assault.
If the judge had ruled that this was aggravated assault then logically she, and the rest society would have to look at the quack doctors who commit these crimes on non consenting children every day. The reason the defendant got away with it is simple. It’s more important for this judge to keep the status quo, and keep the public from questioning circumcision of children than to actually protect children from this insanity.
For those who buy the story that the defendant’s religious fanaticism was the result of a brain injury I can’t agree. When does that happen in real life? In real life religious fanaticism always stems from early childhood indoctrination. I believe this man shows all the signs of being seriously poisoned from early childhood. That’s what this whole thing is about, but nobody want to say it.
This is soooo stupid, if God existed and wanted for us not to have foreskins wouldn’t he just like make it happend??? ain’t he all mighty anyway??? it’s none sense, I try really hard to respect these people but they don’t use their brains at all. They’r just godblocked.
No surprise that he was acquitted. Polygamist Winston Blackmore recently got off the hook, also in British Columbia, regardless of the fact that he has over a dozen wives. Our beloved Prime Minister is a religious fundie who is quietly waiting to have a majority government, after which women in Canada, and probably gays will have to look behind them for the ax to fall.
“Normal people think this.” Umm, no – they don’t.
Some but not all normal people think this. ;P
Daniel: “most of the major world religions think the same way.”
No, only Islam and Judaism. Christianity used to be dead set against it, but in the US some Christians now think they should do it because “it’s in the bible”. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto won’t give it the time of day.
Kodie: ‘I have to laugh at “as a marker of national identity.” ‘ Don’t laugh, some people do it because “It’s the American thing to do.”
St. Paul was oddly obsessed with circumcision or the lack thereof. He dwelt on it extensively. God himself ran into Moses at a lodge and almost killed him because his son wasn’t circumcised yet. So – apparently we weren’t made perfect and God had an odd fixation on this little piece of skin.
Not so little: 15 sq in (100 sq cm) in the adult. Not just skin: muscle (involuntary, the dartos fascia), blood vessels and thousands of specialised nerve endings.
That’s a lot of work in designing for god, only to cut it off :-p
My guess is that was one of the projects he sub-contracted.
lol
The reason for Paul’s apparent “obsession” is really pretty simple and obvious. In his time, and in places where the Judaizers dominated his Christ-cult, circumcision was the biggest impediment to Gentile converts. The idea that Christians had to follow Mosaic Law … which is what Judaizers believed … obviously meant that male converts to the cult had to be circumcised. I’m sure anyone can well imagine that this was not too attractive, and tended to scare away Gentiles.
Paul’s “obsession,” then, was really his effort to remove this impediment. The result of the so-called “Jerusalem Council” was that Jews who joined Christian churches should continue following Mosaic Law (in which case circumcision was not a problem since most had been circumcised in infancy), while Gentiles did not have to (in which case circumcision was unnecessary and ceased to be an impediment). Of course, over time, the “should” that applied to Jewish Christians keeping Mosaic Law became “could,” and that, in turn, became “an unnecessary affectation,” and that, eventually, drifted into condemnation of any Christian group that did retain the Law, and condemnation of e.g. the Ebionites and Nazarenes as “wicked heretics.”
But really, Paul’s obsession with circumcision is not really “odd” if you understand that it was a hurdle to getting Gentiles into some churches (those in which Judaizers dominated anyway). It was anything but an irrational obsession.
Frakking politics.
Ok. I can see why you think its “brutal”. But explain this away… Why is it soooo “brutal” for an infant to be circumcised and causes such a huge debate and uproar but for a 2 month old little girl to have to be taken to a gynocologist because she is so small to have her ears pierced; that’s considered “pretty”. Hmmmmmm. And also a way to identify her as being a girl. Seems like to me you people talk out of both sides of your mouth. And another thing. Uncircumcised penises are GROSS. The look disgusting and are (for the majority) dirty. My brother is in the Army and half of the men in his barracks weren’t circumcised. Finally, his Major came out and said the government isn’t going to pay for your medication anymore (they were having problems having multiple UTI’s) and he made them ALL get circumcised. Funny. I thought it was ALL a good thing. Obviously not. As a mother of 3 (two boys, one girl) I have circumcised BOTH of my boys and I am not ashamed of it. Call me a freak if you want to, but there are probably lots of things that go on in your house that I would never let go on in mine. I spank also. *gasp* I was spanked as a child and I am not mentally impared. You kind of people always have some kind of crack-pot opinion to everything. Facts are facts. They are MY children, I carried them for 9 mos, I birthed them, and I am raising them. Whatever I decide is the best choice for my son or daughter is my choice. I don’t push it off on you, don’t push your crappy opinions off on me. If you want your “stuff” to look like an elephants trunk, by all means, go right ahead :).
Ditto.
Sorry but… who is defending having your daughter’s ears pierced at a so young age? Not me. You have the right to raise your children as you want, within certain limits. Those limits is what we are discussing here. Could you cut one of their arms, because “They are MY children”? Surely you would see that as a horrible mutilation. We see the extirpation of female genitalia as a mutilation and we forbid it. Circumsicion does cut a sensitive part of our penises, so maybe it doesn’t have to be your decision, but your child’s -when they are able to choose- decision.
“Uncircumcised penises are GROSS” That’s a personal opinion.
“They look disgusting and are (for the majority) dirty” Your kids may learn to clean them properly.
“You kind of people always have some kind of crack-pot opinion to everything” What do you mean by “you kind of people”? Do you mean people who writes on blogs?
Megan J: Ear-piercing removes no tissue and repairs itself if she grows up to decide she doesn’t want it. (It is also a breach of her human rights, but a lesser one.)
“The[y] look disgusting”. Beauty (and ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder. Many would say a circumcised (or any) penis is just as disgusting.
Your army story (if there is any truth to it, sounds like a FOAF) is truly disgusting and the Major (if he exists) is probably a pervert. Not funny.
Your own story clearly indicates that for you, as for many, circumcision is about Power and Control. You may not push it off on us, but you do push it off on your unfortunate sons. Your daughters, at least, are protected by law.
Ok. So sticking a metal bar through a soft tissue in an infant is perfectly fine? This world is so twisted these days. The Army story btw, is true. PS female “circumcision” is to prevent sexuality. Male circumcision has nothing to do with sexuality. I have also spoken to a NUMBER of mothers at doctor’s offices etc when they had to take their 4 and 5 year old sons to be circumcised because of UTIs and “ballooning”. It amazes me how many of those mothers there were and “anti-circumcision” propaganda always says how LOW the percentages are of uncircumcised boys that have issues with UTIs. My husband has never had an issue with him being circumcised and told me he would have had it done anyway if his mother had not done it because of the cleanliness factor.
And what does your arm have to do with circumcision? Does your arm harbor harmful bacteria that can cause cervix cancer in women? That’s retarded.
I get a real kick out of how complicated some people make things. God has to be brought into it. Facts are even if I had not been religious (which I am) I STILL would have my children circumcised. And yes, I do control my children. Your kids are probably the ones in Walmart that are screaming in the floor for a toy while you are calmly trying to “talk it out”. Other moms, mothers like me, think yall are mentally challenged. “Let’s let our childreb decide” is a new mindset that I haven’t seen be really effective. How exactly are you going to explain the so called “benefits” of being uncircumcised to a newborn? My son did not cry at all. They pushed his foreskin back and put a little plastic ring around him. He never cried. Never fussed with it and in about ten days, it came off. Nice, clean, painless. They didn’t have to hold him down or strap him. And yes, to head off some other sarcastic comment I have heard about the “botched plasti-bell” where gangrene set in. My question is, why wasn’t the mother more attentive? She left it on waaaaaaaaaaaay too long. 2 weeks? Thing is, we are all going to disagree on everything because we are humans, but don’t slap a label on me as “barbaric”. I am a christian mother of 3, I stay at home with them, sacrificing my own career so I can make sure they are well taken care of and have very happy, healthy kids. My children have never heard a curse word, never seen any sexual immorality because we don’t have cable television, never been exposed to some of the things that are considered “normal” for any of your families. They have never seen violence or been tainted by abuse. So if putting a little plastic ring on my son’s foreskin while he held my hand and sucked his pacifier is “cruelty” I guess then that just makes me a cruel mother. :)
Megan J:
“So sticking a metal bar through a soft tissue in an infant is perfectly fine?”
No, like I said, it is also a breach of her human rights.
“The Army story btw, is true.”
Well, it’s still an anecdote that doesn’t justify circumcising 1.2 million baby boys a year just in case they have the misfortune to be in those barracks some day. The vast majority of intact men – 2/3 of the men in the world – don’t get UTIs and don’t need to be circumcised.
“PS female “circumcision” is to prevent sexuality.”
The law doesn’t care what it’s for, it’s illegal whatever you do it for.
“Male circumcision has nothing to do with sexuality.”
ROTFLMYAO! (An expression I don’t often use) You’re joking, right? Cutting the most sensitive part of the penis off has nothing to do with sexuality? I don’t think that even requires an answer.
“I have also spoken to a NUMBER of mothers at doctor’s offices etc when they had to take their 4 and 5 year old sons to be circumcised because of UTIs and “ballooning”.”
Ballooning is normal and requires no treatment. It’s part of the way the forekskin normally separates it from the glans. Circumcising for ballooning is just “chronic remunerative surgery” in that grand old phrase. Many of the UTIs would have been caused by ignorant attempts to retract the foreskin before it is ready. Too many US doctors are taught nothing about the foreskin except how to cut it off, so that is their first resort.
“My husband … told me he would have had it done anyway if his mother had not done it”
Well he may think that, but, like the vast majority of intact men, once he had experienced the joys of his foreskin (they’ve been described as a “symphony of sensation”), he would fight to keep it.
“How exactly are you going to explain the so called “benefits” of being uncircumcised to a newborn?”
There’s nothing to explain. He was born with a foreskin. It’s his, not yours, end of story. You don’t have to explain the benefits of keeping his toenails, either. Same principle.
“My son did not cry at all. They pushed his foreskin back and put a little plastic ring around him. He never cried.”
You obviously weren’t watching his Plastibell™ circumcision closely. They put a blunt probe inside his foreskin and ran it round, tearing it away from the glans. (This is so painful he was probably too stunned to cry.) Then they slit up the top. Only then could they put the bell inside, pull the foreskin over it, tie a suture tight around to crush the skin, nerves, muscle layer, arrteries and veins. Then they trimmed the skin away and broke the handle off the bell, leaving the “little plastic ring”.
“My question is, why wasn’t the mother more attentive?”
Probably because she had him circumcised to make it “maintenance free”.
“So if putting a little plastic ring on my son’s foreskin while he held my hand and sucked his pacifier is “cruelty” I guess then that just makes me a cruel mother. :)”
No, that’s not what does it.
(Next message:)
“Cleanliness, regardless of how much you argue with me its easy to keep it clean,…”
It’s very easy to keep an intact penis clean. In fact it’s fun.
“and the transferring of diseases is what caused me to circumcise my sons.”
In all the developed world, there is no significant difference in any of the disease “transferred” by having an intact penis.
“I wonder how many of you men defending uncircumcision”
A curious word. Do babies with toenails have “untoenailremoval”?
“are uncircumcised yourself?” Some of us are intact, and want others to experience the pleasure that gives us. Some are not, and mad as hell about it.
“If I was ugly in the nether-regions,”
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is a point of view that a penis with part cut off and a ring of scar tissue is ugly.
” I would want to justify it too :D”
Not having seen your nether regions, I wouldn’t know, but it would never occur to me to suggest that you got part cut off to rectify their ugliness, let alone that 1.2 million girls a year get corresponding parts cut off just in case someone like me thought girls with an “unlabiaectomy” were all ugly .
Oh and another thing, obviously someone does not know how to interpret the Bible clearly. I find that if you are having difficulty figuring it out, go get some Barne’s Notes before you get on here and make yourself look like an idiot.
Circumcision WAS a requirement in the OLD testament. But in the NEW testament(when Jesus stepped on the scene) ceremonial laws weren’t a requirement. “It is not the outward circumcision made by hands but the inward circumcision of the heart”. He was talking to a church about having it all to a T on the outside and being fumm of evil and malice on the inside. Paul was a Jew, so he was circumcised, but he made it very clear in all of the Epistles (books written to believers that were already established in the doctrine) that Jesus came for the Jew and the Greek. Meaning that he didn’t just come for the Jews to be able to go to Heaven, but for everyone else too. Geez yall… Do some studying before you establish your opinion as a fact. Basically, circumcision isn’t required to go to Heaven anymore. It isn’t the outward man, but the inward man. Meaning, its not how you look inasmuch as it is your heart and your mind. Religion had nothing to do with me circumcising my sons. Cleanliness, regardless of how much you argue with me its easy to keep it clean, and the transferring of diseases is what caused me to circumcise my sons. I wonder how many of you men defending uncircumcision are uncircumcised yourself? It’s ok. If I was ugly in the nether-regions, I would want to justify it too :D
Re: “Oh and another thing, obviously someone does not know how to interpret the Bible clearly. I find that if you are having difficulty figuring it out, go get some Barne’s Notes before you get on here and make yourself look like an idiot.”
On this point the words of the Bible are crystal-clear and self-evident … as you will see (I quote it below). Neither “intepretations” nor Barnes Notes — nor any other commentary — are needed to understand those words. Their meaning is simple, obvious, and plain.
Re: “But in the NEW testament(when Jesus stepped on the scene) ceremonial laws weren’t a requirement.”
Problem here is, this isn’t even close to what Jesus himself said. What he DID say about Mosaic Law … of which the things you label “ceremonial laws” are but one component … is this: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 5:17-19)
Note, this does NOT mean that Jesus (eventual) self-sacrifice would obviate the Law … because he very clearly and explicitly said the Law MUST stand and MUST be observed “until heaven and earth pass away.” He did NOT say, “until I die and ascend to heaven.” If that was what he’d meant, that’s what he’d have said.
Second, the Old Testament does not, itself, explicitly state any difference between “ceremonial” laws and other types of laws. It does contain some distinctions, such as laws the priesthood had to follow as opposed to the laity, but you will not find there any such label as “ceremonial.” You have invented a distinction that does not exist within the Old Testament.
Re: “Paul was a Jew, so he was circumcised, but he made it very clear in all of the Epistles (books written to believers that were already established in the doctrine) that Jesus came for the Jew and the Greek.”
Paul’s motivation was much more mundane than that. What he was really trying to do was open his Christ-cult up to more Gentiles, by taking away the requirement that they follow Mosaic Law, which included males getting circumcised, which was a serious hurdle to conversion. By telling Gentiles they didn’t have to obey any of the Mosaic Law, he effectively removed that hurdle.
Re: “Basically, circumcision isn’t required to go to Heaven anymore.”
As I quoted above, Jesus said the exact opposite of this … he said that “not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law.” And the Law includes — among other things — circumcision. By telling people this is unnecessary, you are one of the people about whom Jesus said, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Beware.
Oh good Lord. Like I said, I am what I am, and I believe what I believe. You aren’t going to change my opinion, nor am I trying to change yours. I am just stating facts (which if whoever you are understood the Bible, seeing as to how you don’t even believe in God, I highly doubt you would find anything in the Bible positive but would twist and pervert it to your own justification to sooth your own conscience.) Don’t slap labels on mothers who circumcise. We are just doing what we feel like is the best for our own children. You make the decision for yours, we make the decision for ours. And a scripture comes to mind for the answer to my post: “Cast not your pearls before swine” truly well spoken words.
Spare me your indignant outrage. Of course I’m not going to change your mind. You’ve made up your mind, and you don’t give a crap what anyone says … not even your own Jesus Christ. (Why you would do so, and also call yourself a “Christian” or “follower of Christ,” is impossible for me to figure out … but you can go ahead and do it anyway.)
That said, you sure as heck have some nerve coming in here, saying what the New Testament says about the Law … only to purposely ignore what Jesus himself actually said, which is part of the New Testament. If you have decided that Jesus’ own words about the Law are not to be believed, that’s your problem, not mine.
As for the “pearls before swine” remark, that’s just a roundabout way of calling me a pig. You don’t even possess the courage to call me a “pig” overtly … you have to use oblique and disingenuous tactics in order to do so. You’ve just fallen off the “moral high ground” you thought you were standing on.
Oh, and don’t complain later that you’re being put upon and maligned … the Christian martyr complex is too old and too tired for me even to begin paying attention to it any more.
I believe that female genitals should be mutilated at birth. I am what I am and I believe what I believe.
Here is a link to pictures of a Plastibell™ circumcision, like that of Megan J’s son. I think his eyes say it all. What a betrayal!
Emotional pictures does not an argument make.
Your point was?
Eactly what is “emotional” about the pictures? What would they look like if they were not “emotional”? Judging by the deletion of comments from Intactivist names, I suspect the OP has nothing against circumcision.
My point is that Plastibell™ circumcision is as I described it and not as Megan J described it.