Jews and circumcision!

I was watching South Park and the episode over Ike's Briss was on and was wondering that If according to The Torah that no one is allowed to donate organs and bans body modification and orders that all persons be returned to God intact what makes it ok to perform a circumcision as would that not violate The Torah?

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

Good point.
Good thing im not jewish.

Circumcision is not Jewish , it was a tradition brought out of Egypt .This tradition existed long before Israel or the coinage of the name Jew. I don't know how they ever became credited for the practice .There are many heiroglyphic depictions through-out Egypt .

Good question.
I would think though that a lot of body art is adding to the body (or poking holes in it), and not taking away from it.

I'd also take it that one direct verse over-rides another, so if boys are circumcised as young as 8 days the male circumcised body is complete.

Also, I suppose accidents and amputations don't "un-Jew" people either.

it was a covenant between God and Abraham to circimsize 8 day old boys.

one reason it isn't against any law

Circumcision is such a brutal thing, and IMO nothing short of child abuse.

I can never understand what it's based on religously, I mean why would god even give you a foreskin just to be chopped off when your a baby and don't understand anything of what's going on?

Crazy

reply to post by lifttheveil


we all have our cultures and beliefs, just because 1 person sees circumsion as brutal or barbaric does not make it true.
I am not Jewish but it was a common practice to circumsize children back in the day in Australia, I have never complained that I do not have a foreskin as I know no different.
I have never met a woman who complained about my circumcision either, in fact none of them had any reason to complain

reply to post by lifttheveil

Circumcision is such a brutal thing, and IMO nothing short of child abuse. I can never understand what it's based on religously, I mean why would god even give you a foreskin just to be chopped off when your a baby and don't understand anything of what's going on? Crazy

Is it, , Religious mmm so why do Australian Aborigines practice this custom, they were around lot longer before any Jew or Egyptian for that matter, anyway we will move on you have your own theory on life


I just thought I would get in this thread before it turns into a man hatter thing, barbaric even
Wal

I understand what your saying and where your coming from munkey66 but I can't see any justification in subjecting a baby or child to this, chopping a part of the body off for no medical reason is what circumsition is. In itself, thats fine, if the person chooses to do this. The sad fact is that the majority of people circumsised are children and babies, and thet don't have the choice one way or another, they are butchered because of a religous belief.

To be honest, I think it's similar to the blood transfusion issue, you have two parents with a dying child and they can save them with a transfusion or body part, but the parents refuse it and would let their child die over an unfounded unproven religous belief?

Mainstream religion is the cause of so much pain and suffering in the world today, all because of people believing in 'tooth fairy' tales of old that have been handed down through the centuries, diluted, added to, retranslated and misinterpreted

Is it, , Religious mmm so why do Australian Aborigines practice this custom, they were around lot longer before any Jew or Egyptian for that matter, anyway we will move on you have your own theory on life

I'm very fond and interested in the Australian Aborigines and their cultures, could you explain to me why they do it?

Maybe in the past among people with poor hygiene circumcision did serve some purpose to prevent infections. In modern times, I do not think it is ethical to mutilate penises of children just because of some stupid tradition, tough. Let them decide for themselves when they grow up.

I've read accounts by doctors in the British colonial armies of the horrors befalling uncircumcised men in desert or tropical situations. I cannot repeat the details here, but it is gruesome.
Suffice to say that sand under the foreskin is not a pleasant or healthy experience, and the British had major circumcisions drives in the late 19th century.
Strange, before that, in Europe (especially Spain) being circumcised could attract the attention of the Inquisition.
Hence, the statues of David are all ironically uncut.

Many of out local black tribes in SA also practice it, however usually as part of a puberty initiation into manhood. In fact dozens of boys die every year from infections and complications.
King Shaka stopped the custom for Zulu boys, since the healing time took too long and prevented young men from entering battle.

Now there is a major drive in SA for clinic-based circumcisions, since it apparently lowers the spread of HIV.
HIV is spread to men (through vaginal sex) via cells at the bottom of the foreskin, and the juices remaining in the prepuce. Circumcision also hardens the glans, which prevents fissures. However, critics say this only marginally lowers risk, and may encourage a false sense of security.
I was circumcised for medical reasons, and it didn't prevent me from getting the virus.
I must say though that I don't like uncircumcised men - it looks ugly and unclean.
In the mines uncircumcised men slept apart, since others said they stink.
People didn't always have access to daily washing.

One should recall that the Israelites wandered the desert for 40 years without any wet-wipes.

reply to post by Maslo


I believe you have the real reason for it right there being hygiene in cultures from hot areas where regular bathing to remove the bacteria that can thrive under such a skin fold wasn't a practicality so it really was just common sense for those people and probably based on their long term experience of health problems associated with the foreskin that didn't manifest in circumcised individuals (or get passed on to their partners). It became a fashionable thing and even a sign of the rite of transition to manhood in some African tribes.

In modern society and developed cultures with more hygienic conditions it's really not a necessity any longer though with most boys being circumcised simply so they're 'the same as their father' and, in fact, a lot of surgeons these days will refuse to do it when it's requested by parents for such superficial reasons.

I did some digging about Circumcision in Australia today and in history, this is a generally reported and supported and accepted view...

Some tribes subincise (slit underneath), not just the foreskin, but most of the length of the penis, opening up the urethra. The reason given for the operation is to draw blood for ritual uses, but that does not explain why so much is done, and just there.

North-western tribes circumcise, and they believe the foreskin turns into a bat (it is elastic like a bat's wing), a symbol of death, because the initiation is seen as a kind of death. You may say that is "primitive", but very similar imagery is used when nuns prostrate themselves, "dying to this world," (and looking very like bats!) to take their vows.

It has been suggested that - contrary to the common view that Aboriginal culture has been isolated since time immemorial, with a commonly quoted figure of 40,000 years - circumcision was brought to Australia by traders from the Indonesian archipelago. Australian Aboriginals from other areas are reported to protest that in general, they did NOT traditionally practise circumcision. Like the Tikopians, Aboriginals place immense importance on their initiation rituals, but their circumcision, where it occurs, is only the beginning of a long period spent apart from the tribe, being instructed in tribal secrets. Little was known about these rites until they were studied by late 19th - early 20th century anthropologists, and they did not affect European practice.

www.circumstitions.com...

To be honest, I see "foreskin turns into a bat (it is elastic like a bat's wing), a symbol of death" as quite a religous view, something based on a supernatural belief that has no evidence in the real world.

Don't get me wrong, I would not interfere with any ancient cultures and their traditions as these are things that need to be cherished and protected in todays world, but that doesn't mean to say I agree with each and every practice.

It's fairly black and white though how I see it, there is no medical reason to chop of the end of a child or babies penis, if anything I would have thought it would be better off left in place, after all nature put it there for a reason, the most sensible presumption is it acts as a hood to protect what lies underneath, but that's only a common sense guess as I don't have any medical qualifications.

At the end of the day with no medical or even aesthetic benefit to a human being I think the choice should lie with the human in question as to whether or not he wants a bit of him chopping off or not, it's not like the choice of his baby clothes, this is something that will stay with HIM for life, not his parents.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I've read accounts by doctors in the British colonial armies of the horrors befalling uncircumcised men in desert or tropical situations. I cannot repeat the details here, but it is gruesome.
Suffice to say that sand under the foreskin is not a pleasant or healthy experience, and the British had major circumcisions drives in the late 19th century.
Strange, before that, in Europe (especially Spain) being circumcised could attract the attention of the Inquisition.
Hence, the statues of David are all ironically uncut.

Many of out local black tribes in SA also practice it, however usually as part of a puberty initiation into manhood. In fact dozens of boys die every year from infections and complications.
King Shaka stopped the custom for Zulu boys, since the healing time took too long and prevented young men from entering battle.

Now there is a major drive in SA for clinic-based circumcisions, since it apparently lowers the spread of HIV.
HIV is spread to men (through vaginal sex) via cells at the bottom of the foreskin, and the juices remaining in the prepuce. Circumcision also hardens the glans, which prevents fissures. However, critics say this only marginally lowers risk, and may encourage a false sense of security.
I was circumcised for medical reasons, and it didn't prevent me from getting the virus.
I must say though that I don't like uncircumcised men - it looks ugly and unclean.
In the mines uncircumcised men slept apart, since others said they stink.
People didn't always have access to daily washing.

One should recall that the Israelites wandered the desert for 40 years without any wet-wipes.

edit on 16-4-2011 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

was under the impression it was something that transfered through "alive" fluids not dead cells ,

I've always wondered about this concerning Christian literalist sects, like the Westboro cult.
Are they circumcised, and do men who marry into their community have to get the snip?
Will Reverend Phelps check?

I once read and heard that if one converts to some Judaic sects the Rabbis demand to see the evidence at the airport when one lands in Israel, and they make an incision or so just to make sure.

reply to post by zerbot565

What "dead cells"?
The foreskin is alive, and can actually be grown back with some stressful encouragement.

The inner foreskin is very sensitive as a mucous membrane:
www.health24.com...

reply to post by halfoldman


Thanks for that link halfoldman, I still stand under everything I said above, but I would certainly agree that the reason of protecting from HIV in a HIV prevelant region is a good moral decision

I wasn't aware that there are medical grounds for circumcision, I thought it was all based on religion, I even understand in some religions it's done to reduce pleasure during intercourse in later life as it's a sinful thing?

On religous grounds based on the religous beliefs of a parent I don't think it's right though, the parent should wait until the child is old enough to make the decision for himself based on his own beliefs.

Originally posted by lifttheveil
reply to post by halfoldman

 

I wasn't aware that there are medical grounds for circumcision, I thought it was all based on religion, I even understand in some religions it's done to reduce pleasure during intercourse in later life as it's a sinful thing?

You may have that backwards
The removal of the skin leaves the nerve bundles exposed for a longer duration, if anything it would probably highten the sensation.

once again I can only speak for myself having been cut

reply to post by lifttheveil

Well, the most common reason is a foreskin that becomes too tight in some boys, leading to very painful urination.
However, some anti-circumcision activists in the men's movement say even this resolves itself eventually.
I'm not sure, because I think the operation also caused me pain.
But as long as everybody is happy, and I like the way I am now.
I had a lover once who also had to have it done in his 20's.