Circumcision, is it a good thing? Is it really mandated by God?

[Revoltingest]

If that's their culture, that's their culture. The issue here is religious mandate tho, which isn't the case with female variants.

As with MGM, some FGM advocates also claim religion.
Lawyers claim female genital mutilation is a religious right

 

[Revoltingest]

Because female circumcision is worse.

Not all variants.
Types of female genital mutilation

If you're OK with MGM (male circumcision), then
why not be OK with a comparable extent of FGM?
Or is it that cosmetic genital surgery on infants is
fundamentally wrong for girls, but not for boys?
Why would this gender disparity be?

 

[firedragon]

What about female circumcision?
It can be done safely with modern medicine.
And the FGM-lite versions are comparable to make circumcision.
If boys can have genitalia cosmetically altered without consent, then why deny girls this benefit?

I think as Rival already said, it is not relevant to her because her scripture does not mandate FGM.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As with MGM, some FGM advocates also claim religion.
Lawyers claim female genital mutilation is a religious right

And surprisingly it worked:

Congress lost fight to save female genital mutilation law. Now what?

The last charge was dropped last year. But that is in another article.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think as Rival already said, it is not relevant to her because her scripture does not mandate FGM.

As I pointed out, some adherents of FGM do claim a
religious basis. But this raises questions....
- Is a cultural basis any less cromulent than a religious basis.
- Is a religious basis justification for any denial of bodily
autonomy for a person who hasn't given consent?

 

[Revoltingest]

And surprisingly it worked:

Congress lost fight to save female genital mutilation law. Now what?

The last charge was dropped last year. But that is in another article.

Those who oppose FGM would do well to oppose MGM too,
lest the un-defendable gender disparity defeat their arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those who oppose FGM would do well to oppose MGM too,
lest the un-defendable gender disparity defeat their arguments.

And that may be why the law failed constitutional muster.

 

[Rival]

As with MGM, some FGM advocates also claim religion.
Lawyers claim female genital mutilation is a religious right

They do, but it's not in texts, so to speak. It's just a cultural thing disguised as religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

They do, but it's not in texts, so to speak. It's just a cultural thing disguised as religion.

I notice that many religious beliefs aren't specifically stated
in scripture. They're inferences. Who are we to say that
people's religious beliefs are illegitimate just because we
don't see the source?

From the OP....
"...the Bible clearly mandates circumcision."
"The Quran has no verse speaking of circumcision. Zilch,
but for Muslims though they call it Sunnath, it is almost
mandatory."

If it had to be in scripture, then Christians & Jews could
practice MGM, but Muslims could not. That would be a
big legal problem, ie, a right for some religions, but not
for others.

 

[Rival]

I notice that many religious beliefs aren't specifically stated
in scripture. They're inferences. Who are we to say that
people's religious beliefs are illegitimate just because we
don't see the source?

Mostly because once folks are educated on FGM they tend to stop doing it. If it were religiously mandated, i.e., to be part of the covenant, you can't just stop doing it. If it's a cultural practice you can have flexibility, but directly from scripture? No such flex.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What about female circumcision?
It can be done safely with modern medicine.
And the FGM-lite versions are comparable to make circumcision.
If boys can have genitalia cosmetically altered without consent, then why deny girls this benefit?

Surprised at your use of the term "benefit," I am.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mostly because once folks are educated on FGM they tend to stop doing it. If it were religiously mandated, i.e., to be part of the covenant, you can't just stop doing it. If it's a cultural practice you can have flexibility, but directly from scripture? No such flex.

Religious mandates are subject to culture & laws.
Believers can still have their religion, even if they
aren't allowed to do everything their faith requires.
Typically, they make exceptions for exigent circumstances.
MGM (male circumcision) could simply be delayed until
the kid is older...say 12 years old.

There appears to be growing concern for bodily autonomy
in the west. Unnecessary genital modification/mutilation
on a person without consent....its days are numbered.

 

[Revoltingest]

Surprised at your use of the term "benefit," I am.

Sarchasm.
If boys benefit from losing that unnecessary foreskin,
then it's unfair to girls to be burdened with unnecessary labia.
Fight the patriarchy!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

First, an admission: as a gay male, I frankly greatly prefer my partner to be circumcised, and have all of my life.

However, as an adult who has thought about the issue, and has discovered a few (there aren't many, a bit less than 1%) references to botched circumcisions, including one statistic that says there are about 100 neonatal circumcision-ralted deaths (9.01/100,000) annually in the United States, and a few where the penis has been lost altogether resulting in boys being surgicaly altered and raised as girls (see David Reimer, a Canadian), I have to say I am opposed.

As to FGM, I am unalterably opposed. There is simply no justification for the removal of any part of the vagina (labia minora and majora and clitoris). It is barbaric and I would jail anyone, including doctors, who did it.

 

[Revoltingest]

First, an admission: as a gay male, I frankly greatly prefer my partner to be circumcised, and have all of my life.

However, as an adult who has thought about the issue, and has discovered a few (there aren't many, a bit less than 1%) references to botched circumcisions, including one statistic that says there are about 100 neonatal circumcision-ralted deaths (9.01/100,000) annually in the United States, and a few where the penis has been lost altogether resulting in boys being surgicaly altered and raised as girls (see David Reimer, a Canadian), I have to say I am opposed.

As to FGM, I am unalterably opposed. There is simply no justification for the removal of any part of the vagina (labia minora and majora and clitoris). It is barbaric and I would jail anyone, including doctors, who did it.

Let's compare comparable levels of surgical
alteration, eg, foreskin & labia.
Are you less opposed to MGM than FGM?

 

[74x12]

Well, as you see there are two questions in this topic.

1. Is circumcision a good thing? I have heard many people say that circumcision is very important to people, and even in a country like the United States, people perform circumcision on babies without their permission. I have also seen some documentary that shows it is not such a good thing.

2. If you take the so called abrahamic theologies, the Bible clearly mandates circumcision. In the New Testament of course there is a dispute, and it is disputed. The Quran has no verse speaking of circumcision. Zilch, but for Muslims though they call it Sunnath, it is almost mandatory. So considering each theology, is it mandated by God? And why??

What thoughts do you have on this?

It was a sign of being in a covenant with God which started with Abraham. So why the penis? It was to show the covenant is not just for you but your seed. Your offspring were holy also and also partakers of the covenant. In my view all this was looking forwards to the coming of Christ who would be the "holy seed" of Israel. So circumcision was showing the holiness of Israel until the promised seed came for which they were made holy in the first place.

But now since he(Jesus) came; there is a new Covenant which means circumcision has served it's purpose. I was circumcised as a child but it wasn't my choice. Now in the new Covenant circumcision is meant to be within the heart as in Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4. It means to not be stubborn and do the will of God from the heart.

The new Testament discourages outward displays of holiness because it tends to make people proud. It reasons that if you are holy within; then God will know it. Does that mean you sinned because you were circumcised or had your children circumcised? Not my place to say that. Paul does say if you get circumcised then Christ profits you nothing. (Galatians 5:2) But I think in that case the Galatians thought they must be circumcised in order to be saved. So they were basically replacing Jesus with circumcision. But, if your motivation for circumcision is not "salvation" then maybe what Paul says doesn't apply to you. But for myself I would avoid circumcising my children because there is no longer a point to it.

 

[Teritos]

According to Paul, who was a Pharisee and was taught by Gamaliel, circumcision is a sign of bondage. Whoever is circumcised commits himself to fulfilling the law and is therefore fallen away from the grace that came through Jesus, which means that he is lost, since he cannot fulfill the law anyway.
The law of Moses is carnal, the grace of Jesus is spiritual. Christians are the new spiritual Israel, they are the true heirs and children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, as you see there are two questions in this topic.

1. Is circumcision a good thing? I have heard many people say that circumcision is very important to people, and even in a country like the United States, people perform circumcision on babies without their permission. I have also seen some documentary that shows it is not such a good thing.

2. If you take the so called abrahamic theologies, the Bible clearly mandates circumcision. In the New Testament of course there is a dispute, and it is disputed. The Quran has no verse speaking of circumcision. Zilch, but for Muslims though they call it Sunnath, it is almost mandatory. So considering each theology, is it mandated by God? And why??

What thoughts do you have on this?

I view circumcision as genital mutilation, so I certainly don't think God demands it.

 

[ChristineM]

If a rational adult wants to modify their body, fair enough.
If there is a medical reason circumcision is needed, fair enough
For circumcision to be imposed an infant in the name of "that's the way it is" is barbaric

 

[Heyo]

I wonder if there is some way to know just how many times this topic has been brought up.

I think it comes up periodical every time the last occurrence is long enough in the past so that nobody wants to dig it up to link to it.

Despite that, it always seems to draw a crowd. You’ve opened the floodgates, flung wide the barn doors, unlocked the corral.

For my personal safety, and because I’ve seen this movie too many times already, I’m going to stand aside and avoid being engulfed or trampled upon.

Have fun!

I remember having had a lengthy, heated but civil debate with @Harel13 on the matter. So here I will simply state my position and then also bow out.

1. There is no reason for a pre-emptive circumcision in the civilized world.
2. Medical circumcision has its benefit, no objection there.
3. Ritual circumcision is genital mutilation which is illegal in all civilized countries. Exempting a religious group from that law is putting religious group rights above the personal right to bodily autonomy of the child. I'm totally opposed to that. At least in the civilized world we should not have such privileges.
4. Countries which are still applying for the qualifier "civilized" may retain the privilege as I think interventions in the internal affairs of other countries do more harm than good.