3rd May 2008

“Were it not for religion, the idea that a father should be allowed to cut off part of his son's penis would be immediately dismissed as child abuse of the worst order, but sprinkle the magic elixir of religion over the issue and all things are permitted.”


5 Responses to “3rd May 2008”

  1. Terence Meaden Says:

    As is usual within the bible, the writers assured the flexibility of contradiction. Thus here:

    Genesis 17:10: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised.”
    11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
    12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations. . .”

    Galatians 5:2: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
    5:3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
    5:6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

    Foreskin is a wholly normal part of the human body.
    “It is a very important part throughout life. It’s the right of the child that he should keep his foreskin—it’s not the right of the parents to chop it off.” Dr Philip King, Western Australia, December 1999.

    Dr. King continued by saying it was an unnecessary operation performed on babies when they were most vulnerable to infection and bleeding. Only 4 per cent of boys ever required circumcision for any medical reason—in cases of trauma or infection—but “every year we see babies coming in with unnecessary circumcision who have nasty infections and require surgery”.

  2. Terence Meaden Says:

    What is worse than unnecessary male mutilation?

    It is, by far, the abominable practise of female genital mutilation—again probably initiated by religion and superstition, with some desire and excuse to overwhelm the young into cerebral subordination to wily male leaders propagating the concept of a repugnant male god.

  3. Terence Meaden Says:

    I am slightly surprised to find no other correspondence on these grave matters.

    Is it possible that through some sort of curious cultural consciousness many years ago that the parents of some of the other male discussants on this list were circumcised before they had any opportunity to decide for themselves?

    I wasn’t, and I ensured that my son wasn’t.

  4. Critic Says:

    Yes, TM, that is highly possible. This is not a topic that I have come completely to terms with, I must admit. My parents provided a hygienic justification for their actions (I’m not of a heritage which practices this barbaric act for religious reasons). Personally, I think it was pure ignorance on their part. When I am feeling less than gracious, I think it was simple stupidity.

    For what it’s worth, I have no children, but if I did have male children, I would have left them intact.

  5. Terence Meaden Says:

    Thank you. I admire your candid honest answer.