Circumcision ban 'would hand Hitler a posthumous victory'

Circumcision ban 'would hand Hitler a posthumous victory' March 2, 2018

A heated debate has erupted in the wake of Iceland’s plan to abolish male infant circumcision – a ban that, according to  UK Jewish academic Dr Irene Lancaster, above, should be rigorously opposed by all observant Jews, even if it means breaking the law.
Writing under the headline “Banning circumcision would give Hitler a posthumous victory” in Christianity Today, Lancaster said:

Circumcision of the baby boy at 8 days, known as brit milah in Hebrew, is the single most important marker of Judaism, surpassing everything else, including Shabbat.

She added:

By circumcising a son on the 8th day, Jewish people are re-enacting the creation of the world, the completion of the 7 days of creation. And the occasion is regarded as a great simcha, a time of food, joy, singing, dancing and celebration.
Circumcision marks the expression and dignity of self through acknowledging and internalising the Creator as one’s King. It is the primary step that must be cultivated in order to ascend to the next level.
The next level, attained through childhood, is complete trust and bonding to G-d – giving oneself over to G-d as a result of one’s awareness and awe. That trust, bonding, awareness and awe is not possible without the initial first stage of circumcision on the 8th day …

Although it is incumbent on Jews to obey the laws of the land, this is only when these laws are not opposed to G-d’s laws.

Lancaster went on to say that she expressed her concerns to Dr Rowan Williams, above, Master of Magdalene College Cambridge, and asked him to comment on the banning of circumcision. His response was:

It has to be recognised that circumcision is an integral aspect of Jewish identity, not a mere cultural extra. A ban on the practice in any country would amount to an expulsion of observant Jews.

Meanwhile it is reported by IBTimes that Iceland’s bill likens ritual male circumcision to female genital mutilation (FGM), which is already outlawed in most European countries.

If the law is passed by the Icelandic parliament, parents who have their sons circumcised could face up to six years in prison.
Muslims and Jewish leaders have condemned the bill, describing it as a “dangerous attack” on religious freedom.
Following the Icelandic proposal, British medical bodies are facing mounting pressure to support a ban on non-therapeutic, ritual circumcision.
Around four percent of boys born in the UK are circumcised by the age of 15, according to the most recent study in 2000.
The British Medical Association (BMA) is undertaking a periodic review of its guidelines which currently do not outline a clear policy for doctors dealing with religious circumcision requests. The procedure is considered lawful if both parents consent.
The Royal College of GPs told The Times that current guidelines put doctors in a “difficult situation” as there is “very little guidance for GPs and other medical professionals on how to manage requests for circumcision.”
The General Medical Council (GMC) states that doctors are “not obliged” to perform the procedure, but says that “cultural, religious or other beliefs” must be taken into account.
Anti-circumcision campaigners hope that an age of consent for the procedure will be introduced in the UK, in line with the NHS consent age, which is 16.

Richard Duncker, above, who founded the campaign group Men Do Complain, described ritual circumcision as “without doubt an infringement” a young boy’s rights. The group is staging a protest in Brighton in June, to coincide with the BMA’s annual meeting.
Duncker previously said:

I think an enormous amount of doctors are sympathetic to our cause but are shouted down with a religious freedom argument.

Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis, said a political campaign to ban ritual circumcision sent a negative message.

While open anti-Semitism has become politically incorrect in our time, we witness covert initiatives to rid countries of its Jewish population. It is clear as day that once circumcision will be outlawed in Iceland, it will become impossible for young parents to stay in this country. We call on Iceland’s lawmakers to fully comprehend the implication of this law.

Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, told IBTimes UK:

We can only assume that this attempt to ban a core practice of Jewish communities comes from ignorance about the practice and its effect on Jewish children, rather than to send a message that Jews are no longer welcome in Iceland.
We call upon one of the world’s oldest legislatures to respect the values of openness and tolerance for an age-old practice and for which there is absolutely no evidence that it is at all harmful.

And in this report, Jonathan Romain, above, rabbi at the Maidenhead Reform Synagogue, has called for a national authority to be set up to regulate the practice of circumcision.
He said such a body could be accredited and serve faith groups other than Judaism.

Ultimately circumcision is a medical procedure and so whether done for religious or health reasons, it should be monitored and safeguarded like any other medical procedure.

He called for:

A national audit, so that we can have a true understanding of how many circumcisions take place and crucially, whether there are any issues, or problems, or complaints.

He claimed criticisms of circumcision were reaching “greater levels of intensity than ever before,” and a national regulatory body would help to quell concern.
Rabbi Romain said much of the criticism was focused on the process of Muslim circumcision, which he described as:

Often unregulated and undertaken by those with little training or medical knowledge.

He also said a climate of concern about child abuse in general and protecting children from adult harm was a reason to have a regulatory body.

The appalling revelations about what has been happening in schools, churches, football clubs heightens awareness of the rights of children and how they have been breached, and which some are also applying to religious procedures.

A national body would help

Weed out untrained circumcisers and give parents confidence in standards of safety.

The rabbi’s comments come after he caused controversy earlier this week by suggesting more Jews were opting to hold naming ceremonies for their baby sons instead of following the tradition.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn (Romain report)

"A pretty creepy kettle in itself, though.Actually, I've read that a bride's white dress is ..."

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."
"Exactly. And what about the advertisers' freedom to express THEIR views?"

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."
"They have had 2,000 years working through their views. While still "working" they were torturing ..."

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."
"White as a symbol of sexual purity is a whole different kettle of rotten fish ..."

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Angela_K

    What a stupid bell-end, as soon as it said that mutilating children or barbaric kosher/halal has no place in the 21st century they start wailing “islamophobe, anti-semitism, it’s the holocaust again”

  • Daz

    Hitler was also quite keen on fresh air ‘n’ exercise, well-built roads and full employment. Obviously, we should be striving for couch-potato-ism, rutted single lane mud tracks and mass unemployment. Anything else is nought but handing him a posthumous victory!

    “Circumcision of the baby boy at 8 days, known as brit milah in Hebrew, is the single most important marker of Judaism, surpassing everything else, including Shabbat.”

    Yet strangely, fifty percent of Jews seem to manage Judaism without having bits of their penises carved off. (You know—the fifty percent who were born without ’em.)

  • barriejohn

    Angela_K: Agreed. It’s as if Adolf Hitler is their “Get Out of Gaol Free” card. What an insult to the memory of those who suffered and perished in places like Dachau!

  • Henri

    Go for it Iceland. Show the primitive barbaric shitehawks that the protection of children from dogmatic genital mutilation is far more important than caving in to wailing, shreiking, hollering demands of fundamentalist bigots. And all civilised countries must do the same.
    And if the fundies don’t like it invite them to fuck off to Israel or any other country where citizens have to live under the threat of violence on the mere whim of a cleric.
    Dr Irene Lancaster is a nasty bitch. Fuck women rights. What about the rights of the defenceless child. If she came near me I would slap her face so hard she could not look that smug ever again.
    Rowan Williams needs to be censured by the whatever the fuck University he is leeching off these days. The man is a professional double taking hypocrite. He thinks Sharia should be allowed in the British legal system. He is a dangerous fool of the worst sort. Dogmatic to the point of wanton reckless stupidity.
    I think it would be a good thing if men circumcised without medical need should take up a class action against the religious bodies. Get a good barrister such as Geoffrey Ronald Robertson AO, QC, an expert in human rights litigation, to break the bastards to the tune of tens of millions of Pounds Sterling. Make them bleed money like the children bled under the Moyels razors.

  • andym

    I too think that childhood circumcision should have a national body over it. Let’s call the body “the Police.”

  • Broga

    Lancaster’s comments make my skin crawl. As for Rowan Williams, for whom I had some respect, I should have known better. His intelligence is submerged by his beliefs and he lacks the courage to oppose cruel, religious bigots.

  • John the Drunkard

    It is odd that ‘observant’ Jews are actually a minority. How many people really keep up with the absurd extremes of kosher?
    Demanding the ‘right’ to cut their sons. While eating ham and cheese omelettes under the Xmas tree.
    Its easy to insist on the most brutal submission to ‘the law’ when the victim has no consent.

  • andym

    According to this,it’s getting nasty-a particularly vicious variant of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Proper Jews don’t mind having been circumcised-those that do aren’t real Jews, so don’t count.Guess which side Giles Fraser is sneering in favour of?

  • L.Long

    What ever the jews are claiming is pure BS! What they really fear is that 20yr olds will tell the others to piss off! you aint cutting my dick OFF!!! And their source of money & power will dry up even faster!!

  • Johan

    Make it a crime to circumcise unless there is medical necessity judged by three non Jew medics. The punishment should by 25 years imprisonment for the Moyle and £50,000 fine for the parents.
    Section that idiot Williams.

  • DOM

    How many Muslims and Jews live in Iceland by the way?

  • 1859

    The white man went to the New World and scalped the ‘Indians’ and tied the scalps to his belt to show off his prowess. The ‘Indians’ – surprisingly – didn’t like this and so they too began scalping the whites they killed.
    The Jews cut off foreskins because they clearly believe their god wants this sacrifice as a sign of their submission and of his prowess. Female girls have their clitoris amputated because a religion demands it. And all this blood-letting, mutilation, amputation, cutting and scarring is sanctioned because people still believe in 2018 that some Hooplah in the sky wants it? Holy fuck – get me off this planet. And Putin boasts of invincible Russian missiles raining down on Florida!

  • StephenJP

    DOM: Wikipedia says 250 Jews. Other sources say 1500 Muslims.
    Circumcision is pretty barbaric. It used to be fashionable, even among non-Jews, for “medical” reasons, now fully discredited (as a son of the 50s, I was snipped myself). I fear it will only disappear for good when it becomes socially unacceptable, as it clearly is among Jewish communities that now hold naming ceremonies instead.
    The question is whether simply banning it is likely to eradicate it or drive it underground. FGM has been illegal for 20 years but has not been eradicated (and there have been no successful prosecutions). Is it worthwhile making male circumcision illegal if it just ends up in the hands (and mouths) of insanitary mohels?

  • Michael Glass

    Everyone is hyperventilating. The legislation hasn’t even passed yet.

  • Ron

    Giving ones self to god…..when did an 8 day old ever give himself to anyone?

  • barriejohn

    The press are breathlessly announcing today that His Royal Gorgeousness, Prince William of the Paparazzi, will be visiting Israel this summer to help celebrate the establishment of the Jewish state. Sadly, no member of the Royal Family was available to help commemorate the 70th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel in 2016, but that’s life.

  • Henri

    Circumcision ban ‘would hand Hitler a posthumous victory’
    What a contemptible untruth.
    So if the Government of Iceland criminalised circumcison of male babies every Jew in Germany, Poland, Czech, Republic, Latvia, Estonia … every Jew in the world would suddenly drop dead thus granting posthumously to Hitler his earnest desire that Jews should be totally exterminated? Is that what she meant. Horrid bitch. I suggest she goes see some unfragrant dried up old crone in Somalia to get her bits sawn off with a piece of unsterilised napped flint which is what girls in such places have to tolerate, and, if they are lucky, survive.

  • Brian Jordan

    By circumcising a son on the 8th day, Jewish people are re-enacting the creation of the world, the completion of the 7 days of creation.
    i.e. they declare the creation a botched job and procede to rectify it by chopping off a bit of that creation.

  • The Bible God commands circumcision. Jesus supposedly abolished this but he made it clear that circumcision was right not wrong. It was abolished for unknown reasons – none of which were ethical reasons. Jesus did not abolish it because it was wrong – so even if a Christian does not circumcise he is not to say circumcision is a sin or wrong. He just says, “We don’t do it. We don’t need it.” The principles that the Church sees in circumcision have supposedly being transferred to baptism which means the baptiser and the circumciser have a pots, kettles and black thing going on.
    Circumcision often involves male babies but in fact can involve much older children who are cut before they can decide for themselves. Religion remember does not consider the objections of a five or six year old to be valid and he will be cut against his will. It is only luck that that is not the norm. Remember the principle. What if it were the norm? What if it will be? The Bible speaks of late mass circumcisions.
    The Bible itself says circumcision is an act of violence: “And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed” (Joshua 5:8).
    The other principle at stake is most who have undergone the practice did not have circumcisers with todays medical and ethical knowledge. Even today too many are cut by amateurs. Does a practice that led to so much harm deserve any respect?

  • tonye

    To think this barbaric practise could have been avoided if their ‘god’ had made man without a foreskin – damn that pesky evolution.

  • sailor1031

    I’m rather of the opinion that Hitler would in fact have been mightily amused by the jews lopping off the ends of their penes as a sign of a mythical contract with a non-existent deity. I find it quite laughable myself. However I do not find the King David Hotel business in the least laughable nor admirable. Nor Deir Yassin, nor the Stern Gang, nor the kidnapping and murder of british soldiers to “name but a few” as (was it?) Harry Secombe said once or twice

  • CoastalMaineBird

    So… would Hitler be able to change address from Hell to Heaven?
    If not, then why do you care about his “posthumous victory” ?

  • Protestant

    Circumcision has already been banned by Sweden and Denmark, allowing boys to decide at age 12 whether they want to be pointlessly, ritually mutilated or not. I imagine the same old “Trot out Hitler to silence all opposition” line was also used in Sweden and Denmark. The hugely profitable sale of infant foreskins to research and cosmetic labs is rarely mentioned. Yes, ladies, it’s in your rejuvenating face cream.

  • Predicable ignorant remarks in this comments thread from people who have no idea of the medical benefits of circumcision and its vital importance in high-HIV settings. Circumcision is preventative medicine that just happens to have religious and cultural significance for some. By all means regulate it, but don’t prohibit it.

  • Protestant

    Stephen Moreton, what a sick joke! “Preventative medicine”? All that scientific research “proving” that the barbaric ritual mutilation of boys prevents AIDS is just as FAKE as all the scientific research “proving” the Global Warming Scam!
    And as for the “Improves Hygiene” argument, if that’s the case, then we should CUT OFF BOYS’ EARS, because they never wash behind them.

  • Angela_K

    @Stephen Moreton. Just because some men have an issue with personal hygiene is not an excuse for mutilating boys. Women’s genitals are more complex and we don’t have a problem.

  • Daz

    @Stephen Moreton

    “Predicable ignorant remarks in this comments thread from people who have no idea[citation needed] of the medical benefits[citation needed] of circumcision and its vital importance in high-HIV settings.[citation needed] Circumcision is preventative medicine[citation needed] that just happens to have religious and cultural significance for some. By all means regulate it, but don’t prohibit it.”

  • Protestant

    @Patrick Gormley, you are wrong to say “the Bible God commands circumcision” for Christians. Christianity begins with Christ & the NEW TESTAMENT, Christ & the NEW COVENANT, and the compassionate Heavenly Father of whom Christ teaches. It has nothing to do with the Bloodthirsty Jewish Old Testament Yareah the Moon God of Jericho = Allah the Moon God of Islam. Christians in America (not Europe) have been tricked into sacrificially mutilating their sons for four reasons: to supply the lucrative trade in infant foreskins, to help Jews conceal themselves from the goyim, and to trick Christians into denying Christ’s New Covenant, which abolished the Old.
    The fourth reason is the same for mutilating both sexes worldwide: to facilitate sodomy, with which the Globalist Illuminati are apparently obsessed.

  • Daz

    “Allah the Moon God of Islam”

    What? Now, you could make a case that Allah was originally a rain god, since pre-Islamic Meccans worshipped a creator–rain-giver by that name. But even that’s a stretch, to be honest. The word “allah” is generally agreed to be directly related to the Hebrew “elohim,”which is often used as a generic term—equivalent to our lower-case “god(s).”
    The “moon god” bullcrap, though, is merely a twentieth century Christian evangelical attempt to smear Islam as paganism.

  • Stephen Mynett

    @Stephen Moreton
    The HIV stuff is a load of crap, you are just trying to justify circumcision any way you can.
    As a haemophiliac I have been aware of HIV problems for a long time and taken part in several research programs but in all of the time since AIDS was first noticed I have never heard of any decent doctor or specialist saying circumcision would help in preventing HIV.

  • Broga

    Stephen Moreton: Please continue to comment. I know it is a send up as your comments are so inane that you cannot be serious. But they really are so funny. Have you thought about a career as a stand up comedian?

  • Protestant

    @Daz—Sigh. Where to start with you? How about Whirling Dervishes?
    Muslim Sufi Whirling Dervishes begin their Moon Worship Rituals at night, by first shuffling past the priest in their twirly white skirts, bowing forward to receive his kiss behind their ear, for reasons best known to themselves. They whirl in a satanic counter-clockwise direction with one arm raised toward the Moon and one lowered toward the Earth, while visualizing the “Face of the Man in the Moon” in the palm of their upraised hand, and imagining transferring the Earth’s living energy upward toward the Moon. This was all explained quite clearly for initiates on a Sufi website long since taken down, even showing a drawing of an upraised palm with an old bearded fellow magically appearing in it. All Judeo-Islamic “holy days” begin at night, tied to the phases of the Moon, because Islam is just a branch of Judaism.

  • Daz

    Since the foreskin aids lubrication, and hence lowers the chance of abrasion, if anything I would imagine circumcision very slightly raises the chances of catching all kinds of blood-borne diseases.
    But quite simply, any slight health/hygiene benefits conferred by circumcision are massively overwhelmed by condom-use and soap-and-water.

  • barriejohn

    Daz: I’d put money on it that he thinks that Elohim is the “true” Hebrew god, and all other names ascribed to him those of pagan deities!

  • Daz

    “This was all explained quite clearly for initiates on a Sufi website long since taken down”

    Your only evidence is one solitary now-defunct (how convenient!) website? I think you just made my case for me.

    “All Judeo-Islamic “holy days” begin at night, tied to the phases of the Moon”

    Well, yes. In the absence of stationers’ shops selling fluffy-kitten-covered calendars, just what do you think early civilisations judged the date by?

  • Protestant

    @Daz—1) Ask a Hindu, and they will tell you that “Allah” is their own Sanskrit word for worshipping Cannibal Kali the MOON Goddess of Death, and there are many Hindu websites pointing out that the Muslim Kaaba “Black Cube of Mecca” is built over an apsidal temple to Kali/Durga. The foundation wall of the apse can still be seen outside the Cube (photo on wiki), and inside is a dedication to Durga.

  • Protestant

    @Daz—2) Christianity is not tied in to any Moon phases.
    3) You can look up Sufi Whirling Dervishes yourself, or ask a Muslim, if you can find one honest enough to tell you the truth instead of practicing “Taqiyya”.

  • Protestant

    @Barrie John—Christ never told us the name of Almighty God, but taught us to pray to Our Heavenly Father, as He prayed to His Heavenly Father in the Garden of Gethsemane.

  • Oh dear. The ignorance continues. Even the old “lubrication” myth is trotted out. Never mind the high quality studies finding that there is less pain on intercourse for both participants if the male is circ’d. For those interested, debunkings of the common myths, and links to scientific studies, can be found on a website I edit and contribute to:

  • Daz

    “Christianity is not tied in to any Moon phases.”

    None of what you’ve said in any way refutes the majority-held opinion that the word “allah” was originally a generic term for god(s). Kali,to take your example, is a god. I’m not arguing with that. (Well, not in this context, anyway.)

  • Protestant

    @Daz—First, Easter week may be calculated from lunar phases because that’s when the Jews had Jesus crucified. Secondly, “No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a number of controversies.” (wiki)

  • Gaurav Tyagi

    A lot of Hindu right wingers actually believe this Mecca to be a Hindu temple;
    As an atheist, I strongly believe that both Hindus as well as Muslims are fools to believe in their ‘imaginary friend(s)’

  • Daz

    “Even the old “lubrication” myth is trotted out.”

    It’s not a myth. The oily substance known as smegma is secreted by glands on the inside of the foreskin.

    “Never mind the high quality studies finding that there is less pain on intercourse for both participants if the male is circ’d.”

    Measured how, and calibrated upon what scale? And how many participants had engaged in intercourse both before and after being circumcised?
    Furthermore, no one here is arguing that adults should not be circumcised if they so wish. So yes, certainly, if an adult finds sex painful due to an over-tight foreskin or similar condition, it is quite right that they, as an informed adult, should be able to take that decision.
    But a baby is not an informed adult.

  • Protestant

    @Daz—As you know, there are thousands of Hindu gods, but they only use the Sanskrit word “Allah” to worship Kali.

  • Protestant

    @Gaurav Tyagi—Thank you for taking time to look things up and find out for yourself, instead of just sneering.

  • Daz

    “First, Easter week may be calculated from lunar phases because that’s when the Jews had Jesus crucified.”

    Surely you mean the Romans, yes? Still, thanks for the heads-up. We now have a little more information concerning your religious affiliation.

    “Secondly, “No details for the computation were specified; these were worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a number of controversies.””

    And yet it’s still a Christian holy day (the most important Christian holy day, in fact), which is calculated by using phases of the moon. Does this make Christ, and therefore his father-who-is-himself, a moon-god? If not, why should similar calculations made by members of other religions for much the same reason (it being the only commonly-available “calendar”) make their gods moon goods?

  • Protestant

    @Stephen Moreton—Please see the website of “DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION”, which says,
    “Aside from the United States, no other country in the world routinely circumcises its baby boys for non-religious reasons.”

  • Gaurav Tyagi

    @protestant, I just sent the link for the Western readers as an Ex-Hindu who spent almost 3 decades of my life in India. I know loads of bullshit stories of both Hindus as well as Muslims.

  • Daz

    Another passage worth quoting from Doctors Opposing Circumcision:

    “The [American Academy of Pediatrics] makes the key claim, repeated numerous times, that “the benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks,” without ever quantitatively comparing them. Indeed, it admits multiple times that the true rate and impact of circumcision complications is unknown, but still illogically makes this claim.
    • “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.” p. e772
    • “It is unknown how often these late complications require surgical repair; this area requires further study.” p. e772
    • “Based on the data reviewed, it is difficult, if not impossible to adequately assess the total impact of complications.” p. e775
    • “Financial costs of care [after complications], emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery are unknown.” p. e775″

    In plain English: The AAC are just making shit up in order to justify the unjustifiable.

  • Protestant

    @Daz—1) No, the Romans just got the blame for caving in to incessant whining demands by the Jews, who wanted Pontius Pilate to do their dirty work for them. He didn’t want to whip or crucify Jesus, but the Jews demanded it.
    2) Why do you say “Christ, and therefore his father-who-is-himself”? Jesus never claimed to be Almighty God.

  • And still the pseudoscience continues. Now I am being told to visit the website of “Doctors Opposing Circumcision” a fringe group hiding behind a pretentious name, many of whom are not doctors (its vice President is a retired air-line pilot, others are lawyers) and which peddles long ago debunked claims. That is like referring someone wanting information about evolution to Sigh. I have not the time to reply to all the nonsense here, but happily most of the common claims, including the lubrication myth are covered on, and backed up with references to the scientific literature. And, for the record, the studies disproving the lubrication claim were on men circ’d as adults who had before & after experience. After was better for both them and their female partners.

  • Daz

    “No, the Romans just got the blame for caving in to incessant whining demands by the Jews, who wanted Pontius Pilate to do their dirty work for them. He didn’t want to whip or crucify Jesus, but the Jews demanded it.”

    That certainly is one interpretation. Unfortunately, it’s an interpretation which, 99.999% of the time signals that the interpreter is an anti-Semitic wanker of the first water.

    ” Jesus never claimed to be Almighty God.”

    You deny the Trinity, then? Methinks you should change your name. Antitrinitarians are seldom accepted as protestants.

  • Daz

    “the studies disproving the lubrication claim were on men circ’d”

    Which goes to show that the site is not trustworthy. It is a matter of biological truth that the glands supplying the lubricant exist, and that they are on the inside of the foreskin. This is non-debatable and entirely demonstrable, and anyone denying it is quite plainly not interested in the truth.

  • Protestant

    @Daz—1) You have obviously never read the New Testament. Neither have most Catholics, who are actively discouraged by their priests from reading it in their own languages. And neither have most Jews, who are forbidden to read it by their rabbis. I wonder why.
    2) The “Equal Triplet Trinity” lie was foisted upon Christians by the Jewish “Popes of Alexandria” at the Council of Nicaea, but I’m quite sure your fellow atheists on here do not want to hear all the details, so I will leave it at that.

  • Daz

    I’m quite sure that I and my fellow atheists on here have, for the most part, read the NT, as well as books concerning the history surrounding it, its origins and so forth, with far more of an open mind than you have.
    I’m equally sure that many of us have read works about the history of Christianity, including the Council of Nicea. Why do you assume ignorance, rather than mere disagreement? All you had to say was “Yes, I deny the Trinity.” You’d not be alone. Isaac Newton, for one, also did.

    “I will leave it at that”

    I would if I were you. First rule of holes, and all that.

  • Protestant

    @Daz—1) Now you descend to outright lies just to prove a point. Even most Christians have never read the whole New Testament from beginning to end, but prefer to just dip into it here and there, like some kind of recipe book.
    2) Do not presume to tell me what I believe, you Pompous Git.

  • “It is a matter of biological truth that the glands supplying the lubricant exist, and that they are on the inside of the foreskin. This is non-debatable and entirely demonstrable, and anyone denying it is quite plainly not interested in the truth” says Daz.
    “A detailed study of the subpreputial collections and histological study of 128 specimens led us to conclude that there appears to be no evidence of any glandular tissue in the subpreputial region of the penis” say Parkash et al. 1973 (pubmed/4722614).
    “the mucosal surface of the prepuce is completely free of lanugo hair follicles, sweat and sebaceous glands” say Taylor et al. 1996 (pubmed/8800902).
    Now who should we believe? Daz, who makes a bold assertion without a jot of evidence in support, or two independent studies, replicating one another, and one by strong circumcision opponents?
    Who is “not trustworthy” and “not interested in the truth” now Daz?

  • Daz

    Actually, I’m not lying. I know from their own statements at one time or another that most of the regular commenters here have, indeed, read the NT and are knowledgable regarding the history I mentioned. I do, however, agree that most practising Christians do not, judging from their words and actions, appear to have read the foundational work of their own religion, or at least don’t appear to have done so whilst paying any attention to detail.
    Either you deny the Trinity or you do not. Your comments would seem to be to the effect that you do. That’s not me telling you what you believe; it’s you telling me. If you do not do so, then (a) you need to learn to express yourself better and (b) we’re back at Jesus being a moon-god by your own definition.

  • Protestant

    @Daz—You ARE lying, and becoming tiresome with it, so I will leave you to have the last word, since it’s so important to you.

  • Daz

    “Now who should we believe? Daz, who makes a bold assertion without a jot of evidence in support”

    Actually I did have evidence. Your evidence, however, would seem to trump mine by reason of date. My statement being based on a 1970 article. I have no problem admitting this as any reasonable person would.
    Still an’ all, every source I read still, to this day, mentions that the lubricant is collected inside the foreskin.
    And at the risk of repeating myself, you are missing the point. Which is that there is a difference between an informed adult making a decision to have surgery for a non-life-threatening condition, and forcing the procedure upon an infant who is, by definition, uninformed.

  • Daz

    “You ARE lying”

    Please point out where.

  • Daz: What is your source? Mine is peer-reviewed science. The only articles I have seen peddling the lubricant claim are not. You are too quick to dismiss what I say. There is much pseudoscience on the anti-circ side. Do not assume all they say is true just because it fits your prejudice.
    As for infant circ vs adult, in an ideal world I’d agree. But we don’t live in such a world. We live in a world of disease, suffering and premature death. The science is clear. Circ can reduce those things, very considerably so in high HIV settings. Infant circ even more so. That is just what the evidence says. Now if the price of giving all males a choice over the fate of their foreskins is that millions get HIV, then I don’t think that is a price worth paying.
    I discuss this at length in the HIV section on I will be posting two more items there soon. It is also accepted by the WHO, CDC and other bodies, that infant circ is the way to go long term in epidemic settings. If you doubt this check out

  • Daz

    As I say, my source would appear to have been refuted by yours. Why are we still discussing it, when I admitted as much?

    “The science is clear.”

    Yes it is. The USA is unique, so far as I can tell, amongst developed countries, in its medical establishment’s claim to have found worthwhile, non-negligable health benefits to circumcision. This does not make Doctors Opposing Circumcision a fringe group, as you claim. It makes the USA medical establishment a fringe group.

  • barriejohn
  • barriejohn

    Protestant: Even if the Jesus of the Bible really existed, we have no reliable records of what he said, just the accounts of the New Testament writers, so how can you be so dogmatic about his claims? Doctrines like those of the Virgin Birth, Divinity of Christ, Trinity, and so on, grew up over the centuries after the alleged events of his life, which is why the NT is so full of contradictions, even though it consists of books carefully chosen by the early Church Fathers to support their own views. Paul is said to have observed a “vow”, and had Timothy circumcised, which would seem to contradict what you say. Surely the “Apostle of the Gentiles” wouldn’t have supported such rituals if they were foreign to his new religion?

  • Daz: Medical establishments in other developed countries have simply not conducted an up-to-date systematic review of the evidence.
    As for sources, I stick to the scientific literature. I suspect you don’t which is why I was wondering where you got your bogus lubrication claim from. That you can’t see through “Doctors Opposing Circumcision” (DOC) also sets alarm bells ringing. I challenged them publicly, back in 2013, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, and again privately, to reveal how many members they have, and how many are medical doctors. They stayed silent. That they continue to peddle discredited claims about HIV and circumcision on their website speaks volumes.
    Nor are the positions of the AAP and CDC as “fringe” as you imagine. It is already consensus that circ is vital in high-HIV settings. No medical body disputes that, and no such body makes the extravagant claims about foreskins (lubrication is just one of them) that the anti-circs make. The debate is about whether circ is worthwhile in low-HIV settings. The jury is out, but the evidence is growing. Be cautious on this issue, and don’t go arrogantly asserting that something is “biological truth”, “non-debatable” or “entirely demonstrable”, especially if your sources are not credible, and you are up against someone like me who has been debating anti-circs online for years, and has a library of > 1100 scientific papers on the topic.
    Check out before saying any more about DOC.

  • Broga

    Daz: You are wasting your time. The Christian method is to read some nonsense in the bible and then spend their lives trying to justify it.
    barriejohn: your biblical knowledge is obvious. Stephen Moreton’s is propaganda.

  • Barry Duke

    Before I close this discussion at midnight tonight I should point out that when I was born around 70 years ago in South Africa, doctors there had gleefully seized on the American trend to routinely circumcise male infants. They also routinely carried out tonsillectomies on young children.
    My parents stupidly went down the circumcision route, but resisted having a surgeon remove my tonsils. The result was that I suffered years of severe tonsil infections, and eventually had to have them removed at the age of 21. Ironically, I was advised by the surgeon who did the operation to resume my smoking habit as quickly as possible as this would help reduce the post operative pain.
    If my parents had made a different choice, I would have never have been genitally mutilated and would have been spared 11 years of debilitating throat infections.
    Nowadays tonsillectomies are carried out only when they are absolutely necessary, and the same rule should apply to circumcisions.

  • Daz

    Well, now…

    “On the basis of three seriously flawed sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into female-to-male (FTM) sexual transmission of HIV, in 2007 WHO/UNAIDS recommended circumcision (MC) of millions of African men as an HIV preventive measure, despite the trials being compromised by irrational motivated reasoning, inadequate equipoise, selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects, and failure to investigate non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV+ than in those where more circumcised men were HIV+? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many men lost to follow-up? Why did men in the intervention group receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? The absolute reduction in HIV transmission associated with MC was only 1.3 % (without even adjusting for known sources of error bias). Relative reduction was reported as 60 %, but after correction for lead-time bias alone averaged 49 %. In a related Ugandan RCT into male-to-female (MTF) transmission, there was a 61 % relative increase (6 % absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men, some of whom were not informed that their male partners were HIV+ (also some of the men were not informed by the researchers that they were HIV+). It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman (Number Needed to Harm) was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed. As the trial was stopped early for “futility,” the increase in HIV infections was not statistically significant, although clinically significant. In the Kenyan trial, MC was associated with at least four new incident infections. Since MC diverts resources from known preventive measures and increases risk-taking behaviors, any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains dubious.”

    Is that one of the “>1100” papers you have on this topic, or do they all “just happen” to support your prejudices?
    And given that I’ve already proved my willingness to believe what the evidence says it does, when I ceded a point, all be it a side-point, after being presented with what appears to be better evidence than that which I was basing my opinion on, could you please fold your smug,condescending and patronising lecture on “arrogant assertions” until it’s all sharp corners, and then insert it with great force up your no doubt sunshine-spewing arse hole.

  • Daz: You people never learn do you? That paper is one of many anti-circ ones I have. I also have the point-by-point rebuttal here: Note that the rebuttal was written by people who actually knew what they were talking about, unlike the one you cite, which was authored by a psychologist and a retired airline pilot who has taken up sugar farming. I list it, and others like it, and their rebuttals (all of which I have, and one of which I wrote) in the table here:
    All the claims your favored authors make have been debunked, if only you’d bother to look. I wrote the most detailed debunking of the absolute vs relative risk reduction claim here: It is pure pseudoscience, and used also by anti-vaxxers.
    I told you to be cautious. You should have listened.

  • Barry: 70 years ago? You don’t look a day over 50!
    The WHO, CDC, PEPFAR, UNAIDS and others are promoting circ in high HIV settings to prevent HIV. It is likely to avert millions of new infections. This includes infant circ, and the S. African Medical Assoc. began making it available in KwaZulu-Natal in 2011 alongside the adult circ program.
    Whatever your views on what was done to you, rest assured you are not missing much. All the best quality studies consistently show it makes scant difference one way or the other.

  • Daz

    “I told you to be cautious. You should have listened.”

    You really are a pretentious little squirt aren’t you.
    Still, if you’re the expert, please answer a particularly important question asked by the authors:

    “Why did men in the intervention group receive additional counselling on safe sex practices?”

    Because that, for me,makes worthless any results obtained. There are now two differences between the control and intervention groups; and we have no way of telling which of those two variables makes the most difference.

  • remigius

    Daz, I hope you don’t mind me sticking my oar in but I think you were too quick to concede Stephen Moreton’s point. He posted…
    ‘A detailed study of the subpreputial collections and histological study of 128 specimens led us to conclude that there appears to be no evidence of any glandular tissue in the subpreputial region of the penis” say Parkash et al. 1973 (pubmed/4722614).;
    However, he didn’t post the whole paragraph. It continues…
    Smegma is an epithelial debris collecting in this space. This collection, if not removed, leads to chronic inflammation of the glans and prepuce resulting in secondary phimosis, which in turn appears to be associated with penile carcinoma as suggested by a review of cases.
    It is found in the summary here.
    It is clear that the paper refers to sufferers of phimosis, a condition whereby the foreskin cannot be retracted – often because it is fused to the glans. This would explain the absence of sebaceous membranes in this case.
    I have looked at other peer reviewed papers and found overwhelming evidence to support the fact that the foreskin does contain mucosa.

  • remigius
  • Daz

    Thanks mate. Why am I not surprised?

  • Barry Duke

    Seventy-one years ago to be precise, Stephen (and thanks for the compliment). But let me take issue with your assertion that “all the best quality studies consistently show it makes scant difference one way or the other.” This suggests that you and the pro-circ organisations you support have not considered the psychological ramifications of the procedure. This from Psychology Today: “Over the last decade there has been a movement of men who were circumcised as infants and have articulated their anger and sadness over having their genitals modified without their consent. Goldman (1999) notes that shame and denial is one major factor that limits the number of men who publicly express this belief. Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).”
    I never suffered PSD, but did suffer depression and anger, on on several occasions humiliating rejection by intact males shocked to discover I had been cut.
    The PT article concludes: “The circumcision of children has myriad negative psychological consequences that the CDC has failed to consider. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child. We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination and deeply respect this fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005). As children cannot advocate for themselves, they need adults to understand the complexities of their emotional experiences and provide them special protection. We oppose the CDC’s circumcision recommendation and encourage all parents to do the same in order to protect their children from physical and psychological harm.”

  • remigius

    Daz, glad to be of help. Did you notice that the link I posted supporting prepuce mucosa was by Taylor et al 1996. The very same paper he used (@4.00pm – 3rd paragraph) to dismiss the very same thing.
    How odd!

  • Daz

    Wow! No I didn’t. That’ll teach me to assume people are being honest when they quote from sources…

  • Daz: Daz: Well for a start it is not true. And if you’d bother to read the actual studies (it helps, you know) you would see this, and also see that the sexual behaviour of both control and intervention groups was recorded in some detail. So we actually know how many partners they were having, and how often they used condoms. It’s there in the studies (Table 4 in each case) and was very similar for both intervention and control groups. Now because the circ’d group had a wound to monitor, they had to come back for extra visits, up to 6 weeks after, to check they were healing OK. During these return visits they were asked about their sexual behaviour during this time (resuming sex before wound healing is complete is not advisable). That is NOT safe sex counselling, but has been misinterpreted as such by critics. In the S. African trial they did not have extra visits to monitor wound healing. If the checks on wound healing they got a few weeks after the trials began had an effect, that effect should all be concentrated in the first six (or 3) month period. It wasn’t. The protective effect was sustained, if anything getting stronger with time. So whatever caused it, it was not a few check-ups near the start.

  • Daz

    Oddly enough, I can’t afford £24 just to read a paper every time I get into a discussion on the internet. Sadly, this leaves me reliant on your honesty, since you have, or claim to have, read the paper in question.
    Equally sadly, it’s been demonstrated that you are not honest about what your sources actually say; you will, it appears, lie your head off if you think it will allow you to chop bits off babies with impunity. Since your lack of honesty would seem to leave us at an impasse, I cannot see any point in continuing this discussion.

  • remigius: You misrepresent both me and the paper by Parkash. If you look back at the thread above, Daz made an assertion that there were glands on the inside of the foreskin that supply lubricant. That there is a mucosal surface was never in dispute. As for the paper by Parkash, some of the specimens were from cadavers, and there is no suggestion they had phimosis, yet still they had no glands of any sort. Also, phimosis just means a tight, non-retracting foreskin. It is not necessarily fused to the glans (adhesions). That is something else again. Most of their subjects did not have adhesions, even those with phimosis. The fact remains that both papers cited looked for glandular tissue, and found none. Daz was wrong, I was right. And your misrepresentation does not change that. There are no glands on the inner surface of the foreskin.

  • Daz: Actually the papers are free. Just copy the PubMed numbers into Google.
    And I have not lied. But I have been misrepresented by remigius, and you have clearly fallen for that misrepresentation. I explain it in my reply. As with the papers on circ & HIV you need only read the sources to see the misrepresentation. But clearly you are too lazy to bother, preferring instead to throw insults around.

  • Barry: I have seen the article. It is just an opinion piece, and the others are by well-known intactivists, and hardly impartial. The claims are misleading and not well supported by the references, but it is way too late to write a debunking now. It is my bedtime. There are also papers finding no adverse psychological effects. I am slowly populating the “Risks and complications” section of with rebuttals of some of the alleged psychological harms (claims about autism, alexithymia and breastfeeding are in there) but it is a massively time-consuming chore. Perhaps the reason some circ’d men are unhappy (most are not) is because they have bought into the anti-circ propaganda that dominates the internet. This is certainly the case with Jonathon Conte who, by his own admission, accepted his circ had had “no significant effect” until he came across anti-circ materials and got duped, leading to depression and suicide. If people are led to believe they are missing something wonderful they are bound to be pissed off.
    Got to sign off now.

  • remigius

    Can’t. Be. Arsed.