Question about Religious Reasons

[Silvery_skies]

What are the religious reasons that people chose not to get their children Circ'd?

The way I see it is that God would not put something there that he didn't want there.


Thanks,
kayla

[rubylark]

Hi Silvery skies!

Welcome to our forum. Just a friendly FYI, we actually don't host discussions about the religious aspects of circ in the Case Against Circumcision Forum. For details, please read the thread "Religious Discussion in this Forum" located at the top of our forum in a "sticky," or just click here:
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...threadid=14943

As explained by Cynthia:
If you would like to understand and discuss the spiritual laws related to circumcision as they are presented and practiced in the faiths of the world you may take that discussion to the Spirituality board with respect, appreciation, and sincerity.

Consequently, I'm sliding this over to the Spirituality forum for you.

Again, welcome to our forum! I look forward to having you join our conversations!!!

Love, Jolene

edited to make the link work

[DaryLLL]

I'll bite!

Genesis 17:9-14 describes what happened between Yahweh and Abraham. It seems a strange way to establish a covenant, doesn't it? Cut off a body part?

Why would god ask/demand this? I have heard/read that, it would be considered healthy for men to have no foreskins, if, as the Jews were at the time, you were a desert nomad, with very limited water supplies. All water was needed to sustain life, not much was left over for washing the smegma out from under your foreskin. And I guess smegma buildup can lead to infection. So, circumcision was a discovery men made, which contributed to their health in their living conditions. Then it was ascribed to god's covenant, back in ancient days, when legends were born.

This is my understanding, but I am no expert.

[Xenogenesis]

Smegma just sounds like a yukky word.

It actually serves a purpose.

Womyn also have smegma.

Back then circumcision involved cutting off a small part of the foreskin whereas in the last sixty(?) years with the advent of that bell thingy they now strip a whole lot of skin from the penis. Kinda like peeling an orange.

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by laila with the advent of that bell thingy they now strip a whole lot of skin from the penis.

No Mohel uses the "bell thingy" as for the jewish reason for bris milah here is a link for you , enjoy. But I won't be back to debate.

link removed because if you really want to know, look it up, if you want to make fun of our laws, start a whole new thread. I am certainly not providing a link for you to pick apart.

-BelovedBird

[Xenogenesis]

Thanks for the link. That's what I thought.

<edited cuzza nakking>

[JessicaS]

here is a good quote

1 Corinthians 7: 18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

[lilyka]

here is my take on it.

In Genisis God commanded abraham to make this covenent. I don't know why for certain, I don't care. My best guess is you had to really want to be a jew to do this. only a serious jew would whack off part of his penis. Not a poser. Also, when your pants were down you would really have a hard time hiding the fact that you were a Jew.

In the New Testement, Paul addresses circumsission specifically. He makes two points. One is it is no longer a big deal. You are circumsized fine you can still have Jesus, you are not circumsized fine you can still have Jesus. His second point was ,that since blood has been shed for a new covenent (Jesus' sacrifice) we are no loger under the old covenent and there is no reason to keep circumsizing your children or yourselves. And if you do it thinking you can please God then you are sinning because chopping off parts of your body isn't where salvation lies. So I really don't understand when a Christian's excuse is "Well God commanded it". Becaus no he didn't.

[marymom]

ok, that is scary to me.
I have in the past and would continue to support anyones right to sacrifice their newborn infant in this manner as it is a part of their faith,
but that web site was so...
detatched from the mother/infant it seemed.

[merpk]

marymom, that web site was one person's explanation. If you want warm and fuzzy about bris, I can find that for you, too, but I'm sure that would be horrifying to you, too, "how can they get all sentimental about genital mutilation," and all that.

So never mind.

- Amy

[Meiri]

Mothering ran a good article on the history of this a good couple of years ago.

From what I remember the original circumcisions weren't as complete as they tend to be today. This was to the point that young Jewish men could "pass" in order to get into the Greek Olympics(in which circumcised men were not allowed). I had the impression that they were the first to discover the skin can be stretched a bit to its original length with time and a bit of ribbon. Thus the change to a more 'definitive' level of circumcision. I guess the historical Jews felt that if you were make a commitment you should really make the commitment.

I'm not getting into any more debate on this either way either.

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by amyrpk marymom, that web site was one person's explanation.

Right one person's technical explaination!!!

-BelovedBird

[Xenogenesis]

http://www.brismilah.com/guide0.htm

"The circumcised penis is then bandaged and the baby is diapered and swaddled. At this point, most babies have stopped their crying."

Most babies.

"Notice the adhesions [arrows] between the inner side of the foreskin and the glans. These are present at birth in almost all babies and will be released just prior to the actual circumcision."

That would HURT. Can't help but think about the peeling of the skin from an orange. I am sorry.

According to the site the inflammation can take a week or two to heal. That's a long time for a small person coming from the warmth and security of the womb and having his most sensitive parts cut.

Our Resident Raving Lunatic, lilyka seems to have answered the original poster quite well. And Meiri, I have also read about how they used to remove a "sliver" of skin from the very tip of the foreskin because it was a symbolic gesture not being the quantity of removing something that serves many purposes.

Let us all show respect, appreciation, and sincerity.

[wemoon]

How they stated: the penis will take on a 'normal appearance' in about a month, had a sick humor to it. They put the quotes around 'normal appearance'.

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by wemoon
How they stated: the penis will take on a 'normal appearance' in about a month, had a sick humor to it. They put the quotes around 'normal appearance'.

What could you possibly be hoping to accomplish with this post?
They obviously put quotes on 'normal appearance' because everyone is aware that only to us is it of normal appearance. The link was not meant to be humorous. It WAS meant to be informative, I see that noone wishes to get informed only to degrade. How sad for all of you.....

Yes very sad for us that mutilate our children.:

-BelovedBird

[USAmma]

What are the religious reasons that people chose not to get their children Circ'd?

Hindus never circumcise their boys because they don't believe in it. As you said there's nothing wrong with it so why change it? Another reason is that Muslim in India are circed so Hindus want to differentiate between them. During partition (if you've ever watched the movie Gandhi you know what I'm talking about) they would undress the men and determine by their privates if they were Muslim or Hindu. I know it's terrible.

My Hindu friend did circ her son because she believed the doctor when he said it was better for health. Many Indians feel that doctors are gods and will follow their advice. She felt horrible about it. Then she had another son and had him circed so there would be no feelings of jealousy between the two brothers. On the other hand I read of a Hindu couple who sued the hospital big time when their son was circed against their consent.

No one's ever going to touch our son's privates!!

Darshani

[asherah]

You know, I'd been avoiding this discussion because the subject can be so inflammatory.

However I feel compelled to say this:
I am of Jewish heritage. I put it that way because I have rejected the religion to become a Pagan. However my family is Jewish and I honor my heritage and the cultural/historic aspects of it.

My son is NOT circ'd. And circing is one of the things that made me reject the religion.

I would never accuse someone Jewish of "mutilating their child." That is offensive.

However I strongly object to circumcision. My mother tells me I questioned it as a child in religious school. (I was quite the little trouble maker at Hebrew School I am told)

Anyway, I know other Jewish people that have rejected the practice as well, at the risk of being rejected by their religion.

I am sorry if I offended any of the Jewish people here. But I am simply telling my story.

[Arduinna]

Re: Question about Religious Reasons

**What are the religious reasons that people chose not to get their children Circ'd? **

Here are my religious reasons for not circing:

My religious beliefs are that we are born perfect, the foreskin serves an important function.

[DaryLLL]

Well now, that is interesting. I did not know Muslims also circumcise. For the same reason practicing Jews do, I guess. The covenant. Since Jesus isn't the Messiah to either faith.

Like many of us, I never gave much thought to any of the Muslim's practices, until the tragedy of last year. But now it seems a good idea to be as informed as poss.

Perhaps genital alteration would be a more pc description, to avoid insulting our devout Jewish/Muslim friends? Just wondering.

As we call it breast reduction or augmentation, not breast mutilation, in circumstances where women have enormous breasts that give them backpain, or have a breast removed for medical reasons. they have their reasons for not thinking their bodies are perfect and should be left as is too. so whether it is medical, or religious, everyone has a path to follow.

OTOH, every person has a right to question traditions from any holy book, as they see fit. We are not robots, we have rational minds that want things to make sense to us, and everyone has to determine their own comfort levels.

[Arduinna]

[i]As we call it breast reduction or augmentation, not breast mutilation, in circumstances where women have enormous breasts that give them backpain, or have a breast removed for medical reasons. they have their reasons for not thinking their bodies are perfect and should be left as is too. so whether it is medical, or religious, everyone has a path to follow.

Except that an infant isn't making the decision that their body isn't perfect. This is something that done to them without consent. And routine infant circumcision is not medically necessary.