Circumcision

[Tallguy88]

It's cultural as much as religious. Nearly everyone I know is circumcised. So they tell me.

As of the early 2000s, nearly 80% of all US males were circumcised. Even today, the rate of newborn circumcision is around 50% nationwide and is covered by Medicaid in the majority of states. The rates of circumcision are highest in the South and Midwest and lowest in the West (partially due to the high Latino population, who do not have a cultural practice of circumcision).

And yes, parents should continue to have the legal right to have their children circumcised for medical, religious, and cultural reasons.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And how do you square that with the commandment to have it done at the ripe old age of 8 days?

If one is Jewish then that would obviously apply.

It's not really applicable outside of a Jewish context, certainly not within a Christian one. I'm not saying it's wrong to circumcise--I don't believe my parents did anything wrong when they had me circumcised as a child, though they did it due to a wide scale belief that it was good medical practice which has since been shown to be not true--but the commandment doesn't apply to Christians. Indeed, my circumcision is not a circumcision under halakah, and were I to convert to Judaism would still need to under go bris. Religiously speaking, I am very much an uncircumcised goy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Teslafied]

The bible tells us we should circumcise our children. It's better for their hygiene and health, not only that it looks better. :0

 

[MehGuy]

The bible tells us we should circumcise our children. It's better for their hygiene and health, not only that it looks better. :0

It doesn't look better.. lol.

 

[Teslafied]

It doesn't look better.. lol.

I personally think it does.

 

[Meowzltov]

The bible tells us we should circumcise our children. It's better for their hygiene and health, not only that it looks better. :0

It's a sign of the Old Covenant. There is no reason for a Christian to circumcise.

 

[Job8]

What do you guys think?

What does this have to do with ethics or morality? For some, it pertains to their religion.

 

[TerranceL]

The bible tells us we should circumcise our children. It's better for their hygiene and health, not only that it looks better. :0

Why should little boys have their genitals butchered for the sake of hygiene instead of teaching boys how to clean themselves?

 

[Teslafied]

It's a sign of the Old Covenant. There is no reason for a Christian to circumcise.

There are many reasons for a Christian to circumcise whether it's the old covenant or not.

 

[Teslafied]

Why should little boys have their genitals butchered for the sake of hygiene instead of teaching boys how to clean themselves?

Well if you'd like to see it as butchering that's up to you, but I don't. I know men who don't regret their circumcisions, it's healthier and it's a sign of a covenant with God.

If I have a son I'll get him circumcised.

 

[Tina W]

I always just assumed it was a stupid and icky but highly convenient way to clean up the little bit of blood there is. Kind of like you get a paper cut, so you stick your finger in your mouth and suck the blood.

Oh I see, I can't stand blood so it it seems weird to me.

 

[Reeniee]

And yes, parents should continue to have the legal right to have their children circumcised for medical, religious, and cultural reasons.

What other bits of babies bodies should parents have the legal right to cut off for cultural and religious reasons?


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Teslafied]

What other bits of babies bodies should parents have the legal right to cut off for cultural and religious reasons?


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

See this is a slippery slope, I'm all for freedom of religion because after all it's not true worship if someone is forced into a particular religion. With freedom of religion you have the right to not circumcise but we should have the right to circumcise.

 

[Reeniee]

See this is a slippery slope, I'm all for freedom of religion because after all it's not true worship if someone is forced into a particular religion. With freedom of religion you have the right to not circumcise but we should have the right to circumcise.

So should practitioners of female circumcision have the right to practise it as you have the right not to? Surely there are some things that people shouldn't have the right to do under "freedom of religion"? I think that cutting bits off of their babies is definitely not okay.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Gadarene]

See this is a slippery slope, I'm all for freedom of religion because after all it's not true worship if someone is forced into a particular religion.

What about infants who have no ability to make their own choices having their genitals mutilated in the name of a particular religion?

With freedom of religion you have the right to not circumcise but we should have the right to circumcise.

You also have a right to bodily integrity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are many reasons for a Christian to circumcise whether it's the old covenant or not.

Religious reasons shouldn't be one for Christians. Other reasons, maybe.

The idea that circumcision is healthy and hygenic was proposed in the early 20th century, though originally it was proposed in medical circles as a way to curb masturbation. That idea may sound silly to us today--because it is--the idea that circumcision as a medical procedure (rather than a religious one) has remained an embedded idea in the US (and in a few other places in the Western world) in spite of the fact that there is no actual medical science to back it up. Currently, it's done largely because it's considered normal.

There's no medical benefit to be had, in fact current research indicates that it probably does more harm than good.

I'm all for freedom of religion, and so support Jews (and Muslims) the right to circumcise since it is central to their religious practice. I don't oppose Christians who do it, or non-religious or others who do it; though for Christians I do oppose on theological and biblical grounds the idea that Christians should be circumcised since the New Testament is absolute explicit that circumcision "is nothing" (1 Corinthians 7:19). There is no religious proscription for Christians to be circumcised, circumcision was the sign and seal given to Abraham as part of the promise made to him, and as part of the covenant made with the Israelites at Sinai--both of these promises (says the Christian) have their ultimate yes in Jesus Christ; and what circumcision pointed toward as a sign and a seal Christians have in the fullness of Jesus Christ through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism which is our spiritual circumcision in Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Teslafied]

Religious reasons shouldn't be one for Christians. Other reasons, maybe.

The idea that circumcision is healthy and hygenic was proposed in the early 20th century, though originally it was proposed in medical circles as a way to curb masturbation. That idea may sound silly to us today--because it is--the idea that circumcision as a medical procedure (rather than a religious one) has remained an embedded idea in the US (and in a few other places in the Western world) in spite of the fact that there is no actual medical science to back it up. Currently, it's done largely because it's considered normal.

There's no medical benefit to be had, in fact current research indicates that it probably does more harm than good.

I'm all for freedom of religion, and so support Jews (and Muslims) the right to circumcise since it is central to their religious practice. I don't oppose Christians who do it, or non-religious or others who do it; though for Christians I do oppose on theological and biblical grounds the idea that Christians should be circumcised since the New Testament is absolute explicit that circumcision "is nothing" (1 Corinthians 7:19). There is no religious proscription for Christians to be circumcised, circumcision was the sign and seal given to Abraham as part of the promise made to him, and as part of the covenant made with the Israelites at Sinai--both of these promises (says the Christian) have their ultimate yes in Jesus Christ; and what circumcision pointed toward as a sign and a seal Christians have in the fullness of Jesus Christ through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism which is our spiritual circumcision in Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

-CryptoLutheran

Yes but if one chooses to circumcise for religious reasons whether it's considered OT or not, they should have that right.

I don't see it as mutilation, maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Teslafied]

What about infants who have no ability to make their own choices having their genitals mutilated in the name of a particular religion?



You also have a right to bodily integrity.

It's a sign of the covenant, I guess I don't see it as mutilation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes but if one chooses to circumcise for religious reasons whether it's considered OT or not, they should have that right.

I don't see it as mutilation, maybe I'm missing something?

I don't see it as wrong either. I'm merely trying to make two points:

1) The idea that circumcision is somehow proscribed for Christians is wrong, theologically.

2) The idea that circumcision has a medical benefit is wrong, medically.

If someone does so for religious reasons who isn't a Christian (e.g. a Jew or Muslim) then that is its own issue. If parents choose to have their child circumcised not for religious reasons, and if it's for "medical reasons" then it is worth pointing out that the medical community does not consider circumcision beneficial; so the only reason that's left really is cultural reasons. I'm not opposed to it on cultural reasons, though I think it's worth it for parents to really consider if it's worth having their child circumcised simply because it's considered normal in our culture--especially when there are more downsides than upsides (there really isn't an upside that I'm aware of).

But to say that it's just "mutilation" is I think taking things too far, I certainly don't consider myself as having mutilated genitals, I'm quite happy with the way I am between my legs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tallguy88]

What other bits of babies bodies should parents have the legal right to cut off for cultural and religious reasons?


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

See below. Also, as someone who is circumcised, I'm quite happy with the outcome. It looks better, is easier to clean, various sexual benefits (which I won't go into, of course), and it being a sign of the Covenant.

For those who say it would be better for men to make the decision in adulthood, I quite disagree. I'm glad it happened so far back that I can't remember it.

See this is a slippery slope, I'm all for freedom of religion because after all it's not true worship if someone is forced into a particular religion. With freedom of religion you have the right to not circumcise but we should have the right to circumcise.

As you say, it's a slippery slope fallacy. Circumcision has been the practice of Jews for roughly 3000 years and of American Christians for about 150 years. If it were going to lead to other parts being cut off, it already would have. And yet, among Jews and Christians, there is no other body modification that is performed for religious reasons.