@vmalar said in American circumcision:
@eobox91103 said in American circumcision:
But the guy who was circumcised is not wrong. He had nothing to do with the decision, and he has a right to enjoy his sex life--and his penis--to the fullest. Telling him that he is defective and mutilated serves no purpose.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. The practice of genital mutilation in newborn babies is archaic and wrong. No matter how much you try to justify it.
There is a custom in the Philippines I believe in which circumcision is a rite of passage of sorts. Teenagers want to have this done. Fine! You are 10 years or older, you can consent to this.
But to do that to a new born is evil.
Circumcision for religious belief is not a reference solely to "Old Testament" Judaism (that would seem a very Christian-centric view!).
While is it a common practice among ALL of the Abrahamic religions, it is also a religious rite among many African tribal religions, it was practiced on-again, off-again in Ancient Egypt, as well as Hellenistic Greece.
In many of these societies, the circumcision was NOT performed on infants, but rather on pubescent males - as a rite of passage into manhood. It was (esp in Egypt) also done to slaves to inhibit sexual activity as well as prevent disease. It was considered a mark of a "real man" to "endure circumcision" stoically - with ancient writing containing "bragging" about not "hitting out, screaming out, or scratching".
The practice of performing the surgery on an infant is something new-ish (last 2-thousand years or so?) - and done primarily to bypass the intense pain caused to older boys & men. (In other words, "if you're going to do it anyway, do it to the infant so there is less - at least memorable - pain" - which doesn't sound so "evil" after all).
Alternately, in some ancient sects, it was ONLY done to the priests and/or wealthy - and it was both a "secret" (how to do it safely) and a sign of great power and/or wealth.
Also: Egyptian heiroglyphs, when they show penises, show them as either erect (when you can't really tell - at least not in an artist's rendering) or as circumcised. They are never depicted without clearly showing the glans, and therefore not as "uncircumcised".
But all that proves is that it is an ANCIENT practice - not that it isn't time to stop it!
I'm with you on the desire to stop it (in general, and in non-religious circles). Where I'm not with you is in the characterization of it as something that is vile and evil.
I agree that it is medically unnecessary in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, and while there are reports en-masse that both support and decry the practice, some 5000 years of the rite hasn't shown that much of a difference, in either sexual promiscuity or masturbation.
As for whether it makes your journey into heaven any easier, we'll have to wait to know that - on an individual basis.
But I'm not prepared to enforce my beliefs on others in this case. Why? Because it's got a 5,000-year history of being benign ... essentially "cosmetic"... I would prefer to convince others that it is both unnecessary and painful to the infant - that is: convince with facts and science; than to try to force my beliefs onto others. (ESPECIALLY lest they, later, try to force their beliefs on to me!)
There is a word to describe that.... ah! yes! I've heard it before!
FREEDOM!
Do I personally want to end the wide-scale practice of circumcision, yes!
Am I willing to call parents who choose to circumcise their male children EVIL because of the decision? Certainly not!
