Circumcision: A Religious belief OR An outdated custom?

Circumcision should be banned worldwide and only be done for medical reasons. There is no excuse for cutting away healthy bodyparts. If an adult want it done it's their own decision but leave the children alone.

Completely against it unless there is substantiated medical need (which is EXTREMELY rare), or a man age 18 or older who is fully informed, makes the choice for himself.

I don't care what you choose to do to your own body for whatever reason. But forcing it on anyone else is sick and wrong.
Especially an infant that will go through more pain, cannot have anesthesia, does not know what's going on, and did not consent to a permanent, aesthetic procedure.
The infant never chose to be subjected to that kind of religious branding, when he's old enough to choose for himself his religion, and what he thinks is appropriate for showing it to his deity and himself, he can choose whether or not to have his/her genitals cut.

But frankly, if it's not your body it's not your choice.

I will never get over how disgusted I am that we live in a society that still tolerates genital cutting of non consenting minors of either sex.

It causes excruciating pain, risk of botching, risk of death, psychological effects in at least some, greater chance of ED, reduced sexual pleasure for both partners (Dried, calloused skin, which is less sensitive; also loss of a large amount of nerve endings, mucous membranes and estrogen receptors--and the gliding motion facilitated by the prepuce is replaced by abrasion), painful erections for some (Inadequate skin tissue remaining, which also reduces the penis's size). What is gained? The organ is easier to clean, and looks better to some people. Your fingers would be easier to clean without nails, but would you want them ripped out? And as far as how it looks, isn't its function a world more important? Shouldn't one have the right to decide whether or not he gets to keep a part of his body--especially if it isn't a birth defect, but something boys are typically born with? Why is it illegal and unacceptable to most to remove a girl's clitoral hood, but a boy's foreskin is fair game--instead of people having equal protection under the law, regardless of gender? As far as religion, children are human beings who are separate from their parents, and thus have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Infant circumcision should be abolished. If applicable should be delayed until Bar Mitzva when the lad can give some sort of iinformed concent. Actually the practice of excising the entire foreskin wasn't official until 140AD, prior to that, most Jewish males were given something more like what's called here the 'Euro-Cut'. Even Michaelangelo was aware of this when he carved David. From he tiime of Alexander til then, Judea was in the Hellenic Sphere which prized male nudity. There were also groups that wanted to integrate with the Greeks for opportunities with an early concept of globalization. They would not be too welcome at the 'gymnasia' if their glandes were exposed.

Can't do anything about Original Sin, so why baptize infants?

I said I'm anti-cutting, so why rant AT me? The info I got was from a book called "the Joy of Uncircumcision", which stated the Euro-cut was the norm until the Pharisees or whatever imposed 'radical' cuts in 140AD.

I'm writing this as a Jew, it is part of what our men are. Do I like the idea of it categorically NO it is a covenent with G-d and it makes our people clean. I don't have male children and even if I did I would circumcise. Female Genital Mutalation is wrong and women die and get infected. THAT I AM AGAINST!

Boys die from circumcisions, too. Why do you oppose circumcising females (by the way, many times the females actually have the CHOICE! not forced) but not males?

In (generally) Jewish men have a circumsition at 8 days old. YES there are sad things that happen, I personally DISLIKE the practice but I don't have boys, literally one can't be a religious Jew unless its done. Its a BS law that is written..,,,,

That's not the law, there are non harmful methods, and you should respect HIS religion, at 8 days old, he doesn't have a choice, a voice, a religion or an opinion.
It's the height of arrogance to assume he will be YOUR religion, and it's the height of child abuse to offer him as a blood sacrifice, especially in infancy.

Puzzling, you say it's obsolete but yet support it, if need be. Hope you're getting some (non-pharmacutecal) counselling for your 'Double-Think'. You seem to be in some sort of Cultural Inertial Denial. But then the behavior of God in the Torah appears to be much like a 12-year-old with (untreated) Asperger's, same could be said for Christ but His Story has been 'doctored' by paleo-Catholics.

First off fat boy I'm an atheist I have NO I reapeat NO religious belief I think the idea of circumsition to be backwards but and the but is I can't and will not spit on my culture! My people have existed for 5000 years who am I to question what kept my nation alive?

isn't a Jewish Atheist a Pharishee? Also, there's no archaeological records of the Jews prior to 1300BC. Lastly, I'm one-eighth Ashkenazi Jew but not bound to the Covenant of Abraham. Undeniably 100% prick.

Tradition for it's own sake when harm is done is so Pharisee.

I don't care what you label me I'm not religious. Do you think religious labels bother me or any religious book from the bronze age?

A "Devout Atheist" (YOU) is a classic case of DoubleThink, get some counselling (Woody Allen does).

Refer to 'The Lottery' about another 'Tradition' performed needlessly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Pharisee were noted for being HYPOCRITES, not Theists.

I suggest you look up the definition of atheist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]"

atheist [ey-thee-ist]  
Origin
a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Let me rephrase: the practice of genital mutilation on anyone who can't give (parents don't have that right) consent is abomidable & counter to (my interpretaion of) the Charter of Human Rights.
I slipped in 'The Lottery' reference as a parallel anachronism. The choice shoud be offered when the lad attains Bar Mitzvah.
Not that i'm against Tradition (if generally harmless), the practice of men doffing their hats at (most, 1 I attend allows) Church, bieng a symbol of respect/reverence.

As for Me, I'm somewhere amid Deist, Theist & Ignostic, I believe in "Something" (Good), but not (exactly) the anthropomorphed Gent that actively interacts with Man[kind], along the lines of Carl Jung.

Kathenotheism & Panen(The/De)ism are also valid options.

I'm don't like the idea of circumcision although if I were to have had a boy I would circumcise at 8 days, its quick and relatively painless from my experience of going to a Bris. The older a male the more painful it is unless its done at a hospital. I look at it just as I do ear piercing of young girls.

That I disagree with because you're impressing "Fashion" (& Vanity) on otherwise innocent children. Knew a teen chap who got mugged and lost his shoes. I offered a pair I his size but he declined because they didn't "look" right, he prefers going bare in a place where broken bottles are common. Go figure.

No that would be custom in regards to circumcision as for ear piercing maybe, the point is that both are done to very young children and if done properly are relatively risk free.

60% of circumcised infants will not take to breast feeding. circumcision is listed right next to child sacrifice in the bible. formula was developed when children in america were being cut (male and female were having the hoods removed by doctors). you can pretend this world never existed cuz you never heard of it, but then don't claim to know 5000 years of history.

Do you have any studies or citations to link?

I studied this as i was getting a Bachelor's of Arts Degree in Religious Studies from Northern Arizona University. I am Jewish and certainly studied circumcision. My biggest point is that Jews have not blindly supported circumcision throughout history. you could see what Rabbi Mamonides has to say about it. however, here are some other links. http://www.doctorsopposingcir...
http://www.jewsagainstcircumc...
www.drmomma.org/

You are making medical claims and using a religious degree (not science based) nor scientific studies to support your position.

The world health organisation, CDC, Lancet don't have a negative view of circumcision and apparently the benefits outweigh the cons.


World Health Organisation: male circumcision.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics...
Centre for Disease Control: Circumcision:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/maleci...
Lancet (British medical journal) - circumcision
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/maleci...
http://www.thelancet.com/jour...
"American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released its Circumcision PolicyStatement on Aug 27. The guidelines declare that the benefits of circumcision for newborn boys outweigh the risks, "
http://pediatrics.aappublicat...

My point is that there are mixed signals both pro and con circumcision with no conclusive proof either way, as the above links show.

the degree called religious studies is not a theology degree, it is a history/comparative cultural studies degree.
look at your own foreskin/prepuce and see if it should be removed against your will, even as an infant. would that then be okay because you "don't remember." this is the kind of mistreatment of your own people you are espousing and since you are not a professor i will not waste my time going through all my own bibliographies. if it would be harmful to remove your own foreskin, especially if it was done against your will then how can you say it okay for others? just use human empathy.

Hodges FM. (Fall 2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme". Bull. Hist. Med. 75 (3): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485.

" I look at it just as I do ear piercing of young girls."

A violation of bodily autonomy?

Please explain how it is relatively painless.
An infant has heightened senses and more prone to pain.
The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis just as fingernails are to your finger, until he grows and it naturally retracts as an adult or teen.
No anesthesia can be used, the little that is, isn't really effective, and none could completely numb it.
An adult would be put under, given antibiotics, would understand what is happening, be fully retracted, and make the choice himself.

Its no more "a violation of bodily automony than" having a series of life saving injections that protect/immunize from illness and disease. Often administered when an child is not fit to give consent.

There is evidence as cited above from at least three medical organisations that are not against circumcision although there are also medical organisations that are against the practice.

The point is there is no conclusive overwhelming evidence which supports either the pro or con position.

So called pain or even a way to measure and compare the pain is not a medical argument.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mag...
The practice is cultural or religious. My point is that I've seen no compelling evidence either way.

it is the same as removing the hood of the clitoris not piercing ears. they can't do it to premature babies because the pain would kill them, so i find it very hard to believe that an infant doesn't feel the 70,000 erogenous nerve ending being sliced off. what a great reward for being jewish. i really think you need to rethink the choice to mutilate your children based on their ethnicity. you wouldn't want to be missing part of your privates because it made you look more like you parents image of "what women look like."

Female genital mutilation are not comparable depending on what type of FGM "circumcision" is undertaken. I'm aware this practice is cultural and not religious. My reservations with this are strictly based on medical evidence. To the best of my knowledge is not for medical purposes.
See WHO below.
http://www.who.int/mediacentr...
http://www.who.int/topics/fem...
http://www.who.int/reproducti...
http://www.who.int/reproducti...
As a non-medical profession I can suggest looking at the medical studies from major medical organisation to inform your belief.
Last point I've mutilated no child let alone my own (I have daughters) and wrote hypothetically. Do read what I've written carefully. Any decision I make would be based on the most reliable and majority medical/scientific opinion.

You know, my people survived without having permanent houses, and smoking cannabis, and praying to animal gods. Who am I to question, learn, and grow?

Logical fallacy - false dichotomy.

Jews have not been doing this for 5000 years. all those people are dead except modern jews. we have every right to question it, and guess what? Jews have not been doing this 5000 years.

If I wrote in error 5000 year then I'd be wrong. Judaism hasn't existed for 5000 years. The practice is at least 3000 years old. Whilst I avoid religious discussion Jews are commanded to do circumcise male children (rightly or wrongly) its explicitly written in the books of Genesis, Joshua and Exodus (if I recall).

So you're willing to go along with child rape. You're no different than those who cut their daughters. They won't spit on their culture either. Sicko.

i am a jewish man and your statement offends me. why don't you have the hood of your clitoris removed because that is the same body part you would have removed from your own children. I am not circumcised by the way, so you statement is simply false.

Most Jews are circumcised its almost unheard of for a Jewish man not to be you are the first person I've spoken to that isn't. I can't even find figures/statistics of uncircumcised Jews. Again using the FGM is a false dichotomy - both for medical and dare I say religious reasons the two aren't comparable. I have no medical, religious or cultural imperative to have my clitoris removed.
http://www.circumcision.org/r...