Circumcision Should be Stopped

July 2, 2012

circ.jpg

Circumcision is a needless operation

that maims and traumatizes male babies.









(Editor's Note: I do not endorse the information or conclusions presented here, but post for discussion purposes. I think anything that decreases male sex drive is a positive.)


by David Richards

(henrymakow.com)


(David Richards is a 24-yr-old Brit who teaches English in Mongolia.) 


The World Health Organization estimates that 30% of men across the world have been snipped. Circumcision is part of the religious tradition of Muslims and Jews.

In the West, most commonly in America, many Christians and secularists circumcise for health reasons.
However, the American Association of Pediatrics says there is no evidence that circumcision improves penile hygiene. (Urine is sterile and the foreskin can be easily retracted and cleaned.)


Cir Traumatizes Baby Boys

A University of Michigan Study found that circumcision causes excruciating pain that lasts days (the operation is performed without anesthetic!). Some boys cry so much that they cannot breathe and turn blue due to lack of oxygen. One baby cried so much he ruptured his stomach.

After the operation, the boys nurse poorly and do not bond normally with their mothers. Some psychologists speculate that the trauma of circumcision may stay with a man into adulthood, existing as 'a feeling of anger he cannot place.'

Sexual Problems

Circumcision causes a true loss of sensation. Canadian pathologist Dr John Taylor and his team found that the foreskin contains specialized nerve endings comparable to those in fingertips and lips.

'Whereas the foreskin is loaded with nerves, the head of the denuded penis is a blunt instrument, insensitive to light, touch, heat, cold, and, as far as the authors are aware, to pinprick"

Medical researcher Tina Kimmel found that the penile sensitivity of intact males is 25 percent to 30 percent greater than that of circumcised males.

The foreskin also acts as a mechanical lubricant during sex. The penis is not designed to slide in and out of a woman, but in and out of its own skin during sex. Without a foreskin, a man has to build friction to feel pleasure.

Many circumcised men have voiced their struggle to achieve sexual satisfaction.

Here are some comments I found online. A man who got circumcised 'out of curiosity':

"Getting circumcised was the most foolish thing I've done in my life...  I was quite sexually active before marriage, and had a pretty normal sex life after marriage for two years before my reduction. Now I am essentially only interested in oral sex, as vaginal sex does not provide the detailed sensations that it did when I had a foreskin.  The analogy of "seeing without color" is perfectly apt to describe sex without a foreskin.  Rather than being a touch-sensitive organ, it becomes merely a pressure-sensitive tool. Big difference!"

A promiscuous gay man:

"I have a lot of insight about this subject... Over the years I have noticed that uncircumcised men plainly have more intense pleasure (I see it as uncontrollable and very intense), erections and last much longer and with much less stimulation. Circumcised men always need to be stimulated or they lose the feeling of pleasure."

I have often wondered why all male porn stars are circumcised. Are they snipped purposely to reduce sensitivity? Does it help them have sex for hours without ejaculating?

The Effect on Women

Circumcision can also hinder a woman's sex life. Firstly, the friction a circumcised man needs to build can cause her pain.

Secondly, circumcised men get less satisfaction form typical sex and require 'compensatory sex', such as oral sex and the use of lotions. Many women may resent giving these services and feel demoralized that their partner cannot reach satisfaction through normal sex. As the saying goes 'sex is between the ears'; if a woman feels the man isn't enjoying it, neither will she.

Here are some comments I found online by women. A 44-year-old woman who experienced her first uncircumcised penis later in life:

"I discovered that since the penis goes in and out of its own skin, the vagina does not get sore from frequent sex. It is a much smoother process. I have had times when I was having frequent sex and got so sore and raw from the common circumcised penis I had to sit in a hot bathtub, and then smear cortisone cream on my vulva. With a 'ragtop' that does not happen.

I never performed oral sex on an uncut guy and they never seemed to want it. I assume they were getting enough stimulation from regular vaginal sex."

Another 'experienced' woman:

"Circumcision can harm sexual relations. If you've ever had sex with both a circed and an uncirced man, you'd know. Some women say that it doesn't make a difference, but I know that it definitely did for me. (Think "ribbed for her pleasure".)

When you rub the (uncircumcised) penis with your hand, the foreskin makes it "glide" up and down easier. Sex is better, too, for the same reason - the foreskin helps it slide in and out better."

Historical Background

It has been known for centuries that circumcision damages healthy sexual behavior.

Circumcision was introduced into Western culture by puritanical Victorian elites hell-bent on reducing sexual activity.

In her 1978 paper The Ritual of Circumcision Karen Paige wrote:

"The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin was to control 'masturbatory insanity' - the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"

Writing in the Australian medical Journal, Robert Darby provides some background:

"In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation.

The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814-1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred.

William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age.

Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828-1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised."

At the same time, female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) was also practiced on women to 'treat' female masturbators.

Can the foreskin be replaced?

It is possible to restore the foreskin. This involves steady extension of the shaft skin, allowing the man to recover some of the functions of the foreskin.

Restoration involves tugging or stretching the skin using elastics or weights.

One man who is 2 years into an on-off restoration attempt reports:

"I can definitely report differences! During sex, the dominant sensation is no longer friction, but the tension of the skin being pulled in and out... an additional pleasurable and very different sensation entirely absent before restoration. It's hard to describe, but I must say it was well worth the time and effort put into restoration!"

Conclusion

The foreskin is an essential part of a functioning penis.

The removal of the foreskin causes great trauma to a newborn baby and may cause him serious sexual problems in the future.

Given the negative effects of circumcision, what justification is there to continue the practice?


 

 -------

 

Cir trauma babies - http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

 

Info on the loss of sensation - http://www.babyhealth.co.za/circumcision.html


The personal accounts http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/sex-cut-uncut.htm

 Pediatricians Favor it

 

Karen Paige 'The Ritual of Circumcision' http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm

 

Historical background on 'circumcision as a way to stop masturbation' -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_to_prevent_masturbation


--

First Comment from Lulu 


As followers of Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), we emulate the actions of our prophets, since they are the ones who have set the examples for the rest of us to follow when it came to worshiping God and following His commands. To speculate otherwise will lead us away from the true way we are meant to live and thrive as God's creations.

Aside from being practiced by God's true believers, circumcision is a tradition that has been passed down by our forefathers and that has many benefits that continue to reinforce its validity, most notably where health and hygiene is concerned.

The foreskin is a warm and moist incubator under which infections can easily develop, and removing it not minimizes the accumulation of smegma, which is a trap for bacterium buildup, but circumcised penises are known to help prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, and significantly reduces the risk of acquiring and transmitting the HIV virus.

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing!
 

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

  • A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
  • A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men (and women).
  • Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
  • Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
  • Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

As for sexual pleasure, my husband, who is circumcised, has had no problems in that area and is definitely NOT "maimed". Also, let me tell you men a little secret: most of us women prefer the way a circumcised penis looks.

Some communist-minded residents of San Francisco tried to ban circumcision last year, claiming it is traumatic for the baby and an infringement on its rights (same arguments the Germans are making now, with their recent circumcision ban). This is merely yet another attempt to pry a wedge between parents and their children. NO ONE will love and care for a child more than its own parents, and parents have the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of their child - like the big decisions about vaccinations, knowing that for long term benefit to the child and others, the pain of the injection and often the fever which follows are worthwhile.

As one who follows the traditions all our prophets have left for us, I plan on having my husband arrange the circumcision of our sons. I will not let atheistic humans try to convince me that their ways are better than what God and His prophets have laid out for us. Humans have been circumcising and procreating and enjoying sex for millennia with no issue at all... why is it just a problem now?!! Something to think about!

••••••••••

John Replies to Lulu:


As to the idea the BMJ suggests circumscision to prevent HPV transmission, where do I start?  The BMJ has a long history of producing and promoting fraudulent research in abundance like all organs of Allopathy Inc.  just the tip of the iceberg regarding that Pharma peddler of junk http://whale.to/a/british_medical_journal.html

The HPV vaccine is a classic in this regard http://whale.to/vaccines/gardasil_h.html that just highlight the shoddy and fraudlent science to get an HPV vaccine on the market.  Bear in mind they have suppressed for 60 years the well proven cure for all infections, Vitamin C http://whale.to/a/vit_c_cons.html that would not only destroy any credibility they have in regard to medicine but would completely destroy all vaccines and all propaganda regarding viruses.  So why would anyone even think of believing what they say about HPV?  And then a 10$ zapper will kill any virus http://whale.to/a/zapper_q.html along with most cancers, and then we have the long well documented proof of the suppression of dozens of cancer cures http://whale.to/a/cancer_c.html from the Medical Industry, the BMJ being the main organ in the UK of that industry along with the Lancet.

To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/

Doesn't it strike you as illogical that Creator would create a body that needs surgery to make it perfect?  Absurd at best, and also destroys all credibility Jehovah ever had/has even assuming you can extract any biblical text that promotes circumscision.

It just highlights the way religion was designed to get in the way of direct contact with god, to destroy spirituality, and it does this mostly by suppressing sexuality, circumcision being a major tool in that regard http://whale.to/b/suppressing_sexuality_h.html

Is it just a coincidence the most violent and misogynist races on the planet use circumscision the most?

As to the idea man's sexuality need suppressing in any way, that is a symptom of not dealing with the root cause of excess badly directed sex drive which all comes down to religion and the sex industry, such as porn, along with great support from Allopathy Inc.  Not forgetting their attacks on mother child bonding http://whale.to/a/bonding_h.html that leads to emotional stunting that men then try to cure through sex.

A typical western medical circumcision results in the loss of ....between 50 and 80% or more of its erogenous sexual nerves.'--- Rich Winkel


 

 



Comments for "Circumcision Should be Stopped"

S said (July 10, 2012):

I was circumcised as a baby, although not for religious reasons, and I have had my sons circumcised also in their turn. Those who deny there is a hygienic advantage to the process are ignorant and the suggestion that the foreskin can be cleaned (with adequate water supplies) is beside the point. Without the foreskin it is not a problem anyway. There is also plenty of evidence that uncircumcised penises more easily contract and spread certain diseases and I can say that whilst I was never refused sex with a woman because of my circumcises penis, I was only permitted it in some cases because of it.

The argument made by the author about the foreskin enhancing male pleasure in the sex act, is astonishing and I find it to be highly suspect. It is possible that the enhanced friction from clothing may reduce the sensitivity somewhat over time, which results in a man’s ability to last longer in the sex act, something my wives and girlfriends over time have surely benefited from. I am accustomed to giving satisfaction in this respect anyway and can control my orgasm by a considerable degree and maybe this is harder for an uncircumcised man, yet another advantage of the practise if giving your lady pleasure is a priority, which it should be. The author being circumcised really doesn’t know the difference, obviously and is only imagining it I guess. The fact is that if it was possible to enjoy sex more than I do, then I frankly don’t need it. I have enjoyed orgasms of such intensity that I have blacked out on occasion, and an orgasm is a terminal pleasure experience, a sensory overload so any suggestion it can be enhanced is pure nonsense.

If you achieve orgasm, you have reached the peak, and the only things in my experience which can make a difference are the degree of arousal and time taken to reach there, both enhancing the experience in intensity and duration. I realize the uncircumcised do have a problem worrying about we who are, but I think they should spend more time concerning themselves with their business and worry less about how much we who are enjoy ours.

Having converted to Islam recently, I am very glad I had this done as a child I can say. Those who practice it for religious reasons are NEVER going to respect those who do not and their views on this disgust and offend us.

To the uncircumcised, I admonish you to mind your own business, you protest too much I think and only make me wonder more seriously about the conventional aspects of the practice. You seem to be shilling for the devil I think, and if you don’t want some uncomfortable truths about yourselves being explored by the keepers of the covenant, they get your filthy hands out of my underpants you sick freaks.


Anthony said (July 7, 2012):

The more I come to think of it, the more I'm starting to believe that circumcision is in fact a satanic attack. It paves the way for the agenda in a number of profound and subtle ways, as described above.

Combined with the fact that YHVH is NOT the Father that Jesus worshiped, this is far from a little nuisance: it's goes directly at the heart of the whole thing we are facing.

These are just thoughts, but they preoccupy me enough to share them with you.
Anthony

Here's a touching story about a man from a female perspective: it also links to more good information:
http://www.moralogous.com/


James said (July 4, 2012):

Circumcision was a huge issue with the early church. Several entire chapters of the New testament are devoted to it (Acts 15,
Romans 4, Galatians 2). After much disputation, the matter was settled by the apostles and Paul. For any fellow Christians who may
still be wondering about circumcision, I suggest you examine these verses (all from King James Bible):

Galatians 5
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
...
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.
======================================

(more citations to the effect that circumcision is irrelevant to Christianity)


Chris said (July 4, 2012):

Circumcision WAS for the Israelites only. Israel was intended by God as a nation set apart. Circumcision was meant as a reflection of that covenant, much like a permanent signature on a contract.

When the new covenant arrived through Jesus, the new signature was written in Jesus' blood, rather than by any sacrifice that we make, God makes that sacrifice for us. Rather than a superficial change to us, i.e. removal of the foreskin- we are now changed inside out by the Holy Spirit.

Inevitably this is why Paul said that the uncircumcised should not be circumcised- its like signing an out of date contract, taking along with it all the debts.

For circumcision to be practiced by anyone today is not only futile - it is barbaric. It was only ever intended for Israel and never for gentiles. The Jews today should not be practicing it, it only leads to death, you cannot be saved by it. That's why Paul warns against it!


G said (July 4, 2012):

The article certainly got me thinking.If one of the aims of circumcision was depopulation through desensitization, it certainly has had some effects.I got circumcised at eleven years.Now at 32, i literally have to push myself either to have sex or to masturbate.I have generally lost feeling at the tip of my penis and certainly have no prospects of regaining it.The loss cannot be attributed to ailment or any other abnormal condition, but rather to the daily contact with various surfaces and material such as clothing and underwear.I know everyone who's been circumcised remembers the extreme sensitivity at the tip of the penis immediately following circumcision.That's all gone.


Gwen said (July 3, 2012):

After giving birth to two boys who are now gorgeously gifted young men, I was given the option of circumcision for them. I decided not to, based on two things:
1. The nurse told me it wouldn't matter if they were circumcised or not ! (which turned out to be quite helpful in making my decision)
2. I didn't want them to go through any pain, period.
3. I knew what the scripture said about circumcision, that it didn't matter anymore.


Mike said (July 3, 2012):

The mis-information in the comments on this subject prompted me to write. At least the title of the article is correct. Circumcision should be stopped, but not for the reasons cited.

First, let's put circumcision in perspective. For the first two thousand years or so after Adam, God commanded no one to be circumcised. Then, he selected a very tiny portion of mankind, the descendants of Abraham only, and for them commanded circumcision, but only until the time of Christ. This was symbolic and not done for health or other reasons.

One of its purposes was as a small sacrifice to make a difference between them and other people. Let's get real, here. Circumcision is not some huge sacrifice. Over the centuries billions of circumcised men have been having sexual relations, enjoying them and producing children. I can vouch for this personally.

I suppose it is theoretically possible that I might have obtained a little more pleasure had I not been circumcised as a child, but it was awfully good the way it was and I'm not complaining and neither did the women with whom I had sex. Anyway, I can offer at least one testimony that thoroughly pleasurable sex is possible for circumcised men and their partners. This is not a big issue.


Houman said (July 3, 2012):

Here is a comment on the latest article posted on your website ("Circumcision Should be Stopped ").

From http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-altered.html

MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision


Hans F said (July 3, 2012):

I also suspect that the circumcision, as practiced in religious Judaism, is done in a way to ensure the maximum trauma for the little child, which opens deeper layers of consciousness for further programming - in such it lays the foundation for a controlled mind. This could be an explanation for the obsessive behavior, which is typical for many aspects of Talmudic Judaism.

Even if Jews do think circumcision would be part of their religion, and based on the Old Testament, (which is wrong, as the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New and perfect One), they would still be required to fulfill old Testament law, which they are both unable to do, and also unwilling to do, as they follow the Talmud, which is of course in direct opposition to the Old and the New Testament.

Further, if circumcision is meant to express affiliation to a certain religion, then it should always be a result of a decision based on the free will of the one circumcised, but how could anyone at the age of eight days make such a fundamental decision of what religion to belong to?

As a side note, a court in Germany, where i live, has just ruled that religious circumcision is illegal. The ruling was, however, "not binding". Jewish, Muslim and evangelical Leaders, (the so called evangelical - meaning protestant - church in Germany gets huge government funding, is politically correct, is basically "judaized", and employs same-sex-"married" homosexual priests!), all protested against that court ruling.

Even the German Foreign Secretary, Guido Westerwelle, (a homosexual himself, who is married with his male partner), was quick to demonstrate obedience to the worldly powers that be, and said: "“The free exercise of religion is protected in Germany. That includes religious traditions.” He said the ruling had caused "international irritation".

Back to the Bible: the question, whether circumcision and Christianity can be combined, was already an issue some 2000 years ago. People, who wanted to go back to old tradition, are compared to dogs who return to their vomit and eat it.

Finally: ~Phil. 3:2 "Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! Beware of the mutilation! For WE are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put NO confidence in the flesh!"


Andy said (July 3, 2012):

Daniel's comment has it right. The modern day snake oil salesman is the MD, don a white lab coat and you could get a mother to feed her kids motor oil for breakfast. Circumcision is genital mutilation regardless of whether it is preformed on a female or a male.

As for Lulu's parroting of the medical establishment, an intact male organ is no more likely to produce smegma that an intact female organ. Personal hygiene? The rest of Lulu's "evidence" is simply not backed by legitimate science. So Lulu, if the foreskin is a "warm, moist incubator under which...", exactly how do describe the labia/vulva???

Now here's what really got me Henry, you say "I think anything that decreases male sex drive is a positive". Normal, whole, god given, and yes monogamous sexuality includes intact genitalia. Any sexual dysfunction, including the compulsion to inflict genital mutilation on our selves/ children, homo/pan sexual behavior is an aberration.

Do you really believe that there is something wrong with a normal (whole) man's sex drive? A healthy and whole man should have no problem controlling his innate drives. I think you have it backwards, it is far less likely that the individual mutilated at birth would experience healthy and normal sexuality.


Hans said (July 3, 2012):

Men without foreskin tend to be more aggressive than men who can enjoy sex.

Masturbation is one and having sex with a woman is two. The poor men without foreskin don't know the real sex - feeling. That's why circumcised peoples are more aggressive than the in-circumcised ones. look at Israel, and the circumcised (Jewish)
part of the USA: permanent war.


Clifford Shack said (July 3, 2012):

There is a reason why circumcision has been maintained as an involuntary process on infants. No mature man would consider the process after weighing the available information on the subject. Circumcision should be put in the same category as piercings and tattoos. It is an ancient barbaric form of tribal control that doesn't belong in the modern world. Certainly not as a procedure foisted upon an infant. It should be another form of available self-mutilation.


David said (July 3, 2012):

n Genesis 17:12, God, in a token of a covenant with Abraham, directed him to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? On the eighth day vitamin K peaks in the newborn. Vitamin K is a group of structurally similar, fat-soluble vitamins that are needed for the posttranslational modification of certain proteins required for blood coagulation. Vitamin K was only identified in 1929 by Danish scientist Henrik Dam. Today infants are given Vitamin K because doctors don’t wait till the eighth day. So isn’t it interesting that a patriarch thousands of years ago got the timing right; preventing bleeding.
Website with more info:
http://www.circinfo.net/


Edin said (July 2, 2012):

Like Al Thompson I'm having second thoughts about this.
After the 'fear of God' thing started my crisis of faith not long after passing my 30th year, I started questioning many things including God Himself.

To cut a very long story short, circumcision is one of the things I questioned. If God made our bodies perfect, then why circumcision at all? In that regard I could argue that cos I'm circumcised I could just as well get some beautiful tattoos on my arms. To push it even further: you don't even have to lose pieces of your skin to get a tattoo, but you do when getting circumcised just as you do when you get yourself pierced. On the other hand: if there's a good reason for circumcision, why did God create us with that particular piece of skin in the first place?


Daniel said (July 2, 2012):

I just read David Richard's "Circumcision Should be Stopped" and laughed at your editorial comment. Circumcision is one of the twelve reasons why our species is too stupid to survive (I'm still working on the other eleven). Think about it folks, God's handiwork isn't good enough for you so you're going to cut the skin off your new-born baby's dick!

Leave me alone with these words .. "circumcision". If I asked any random parent if they would let me to cut off a chunk of their baby's dick I'd be thrown in jail. Put on a white lab coat and call it "circumcision" and now I have a career.

Vaccination is another reason why we are too stupid to survive. If I asked any parent if I could pump some experimental, toxic chemical compound directly into the veins of their new-born baby I'd be ignored.

Put on a white lab coat and call it "vaccination" and I become a
billionaire. We use a thousand buzz-words every day to make ourselves feel better about things we're too lazy to think about.

Howard Stern is quotable here: "We laugh at primitive cultures that worship rocks without realizing that we do the same thing - we just dress up the rock better." Amen Howard.


Anthony Migchels said (July 2, 2012):

Thanks for posting on circumcision.

I'm quite positive circumcision is basically mutilation. It damages not just sex drive,but also pleasure. It seems men compensate for diminished pleasure by 'banging' the woman harder, to the detriment, in turn, of HER pleasure.

See this groundbreaking book: www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

whale.to's compilation on circumcision (Scudamore calls it male genital mutilation) is also quite persuasive: http://www.whale.to/a/male_circumcision_h.html

Having undergone the procedure myself as a young child I hadn't anything to say in the matter and I believe there are even bigger problems in the world.

But I'd advise anybody against it. Nature is the norm. Human intervention normally wrong.


John said (July 2, 2012):

Circumcision was the old covenant. Christ Jesus fulfilled the old covenant, God's laws, prophesies, etc. and, by doing so, Christ Jesus ushered in the new covenant, which is baptism. Baptism is exclusive neither to men nor to Jew, as the old covenant, because God desires salvation for all people of all nations.

Parenthetically, I think that is why the Jews loathe God, especially Christ Jesus, so much because He brought in a new covenant for all people of all nations, thus the Jews can no longer boast for being "chosen people." Circumcision was the old covenant (restricted to men and to Jew) whereas baptism is the new covenant (men, women, Jew, Gentile--basically all people of all nations). Therefore, circumcision is no longer necessary and thus ought to be stopped.


Al Thompson said (July 2, 2012):

This procedure is something that I always believed in but now I'm having second thoughts over it; especially after knowing more about the Talmudic Jews and Zionism. I have no problem with believing that God may not have given this commandment. Just like any writing, one must try to discern the truth. Would God really make a foreskin only to be cut off after 8 days? To me, this commandment doesn't make any sense. Now, if God really said it, then I would have no problem with the procedure, but I suspect this may be some nonsense from Talmudic Jews or Pharisees. There's no way I can prove it but I wouldn't be surprised.

In my view, a commandment has to make common sense: "Thou shalt not kill..." This is easily understood. Cutting off the foreskin of a baby who has no say in the matter; well, that has the footprint of a real psycho. If it is true that the Talmudic Jews engage in child abuse, then circumcision seems to be a part of that. Given the fact that the Bible has been tampered with for centuries, it wouldn't surprise me that it was added in for whatever perverted reason. I personally have a hard time believing that God requires something like this.

So, I'm thinking that this was something that came somewhere other than God. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't circumcise my sons.
http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/10/to-circumcise-or-not-to-circumcise.html


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at