BABY CUTTING AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP: THE THEOLOGY OF
CIRCUMCISION
The Old Testament according to the Catholic Church is free from doctrinal and
moral error for it is the word of God - CCC
The Old Testament tells us that God commanded that male babies must be
circumcised at eight days old as a sign that they are making a covenant with God
and it makes them Jews.
Judaism and much of Islam obeys this command. And it's absurd for they know fine
well a baby can't make a covenant with God. Why should we respect their
obedience? And God could have asked for a tattoo instead which would have been
less crazy. And what about women? They are not circumcised.
It is abhorrent how no effort is made to give the parents a complete theological
and philosophical case for having the baby boy circumcised. This is as
manipulative as the Catholic Church saying that baptism is the most important
thing that can be done to a child without giving the persons the knowledge to
make a fully informed decision about such a huge step.
Judaism never taught that circumcision meant a violent
cutting away of sin and lawlessness. Christianity invented that
interpretation which appears in the writings of Paul. Paul gave it more
violent overtones than it actually had! He twisted the practice and its
meaning in order to insult the Jews by saying that as they sin and break the law
they are exactly the same before God as if they had never been cut. Though
Christians do not circumcise they accept the principles it supposedly conveys
which makes them no better than rogue circumcisers.
Racist Jews don't want a baby to be Jewish even if it is Jewish if there is no
cutting. Then it miraculously becomes a real Jew when the cutting is done!
A baby will still belong to the Jewish race without circumcision. Membership of
religion should be a choice. Religion unlike race is a choice.
The circumcision command is not justified because the circumcision is not that
important except to a culture. There is no need for the rush. The timing is not
that big of a deal.
Christianity believes that God has the right to make such a command but he has
made Christians exempt from it. The Christian has a duty to obey his religion
therefore the Christian has no right to campaign against any faith that requires
circumcision if the campaign is based on the fact that nobody has the right to
cut a piece off an infant boy.
Indeed to be a true Christian is to be part of the problem. It is tacitly
against the human right of the baby to bodily integrity.
A Christian cannot agree with the German court which ruled that the ritual
circumcision of baby boys was bodily harm and contravened the right to choose
whatever religion one wanted later in life. This was decreed in June 2012. The
case arose because a little boy of 4 bled terribly after undergoing a ritual
circumcision. The case was reported to the police by the hospital that had to
treat him afterwards. The court correctly judged that the desire of the parents
to have their baby boys circumcised did not justify it. The court also asserted
that the right of freedom of religion did not extend to the right to hurt
another person.
The main argument in favour of legalising the religious circumcising of male
babies is that it is a religion's own business and it has a right to obey its
traditions.
This dismisses the importance of the child. Tradition and religion must never be
put before that of a child. It is hard to respect the right of Judaism and Islam
to circumcise children when those faiths refute themselves by saying it would be
child abuse to pierce those children's ears for earrings. We have to send a
child to school and vaccinate him without his consent but that is a different
matter. It does not give us the right to remove his foreskin without his
consent. A child needs decisions to be made about his health and education but
not about his religion as he can be good without religion. And he certainly does
not need decisions to be made about removing his foreskin. Those who say he does
are really saying that circumcising religions are like women and people with
special needs or ethnic minorities - they have special requirements. But that is
absurd and insulting to say people with special needs.
The proper view is that a male baby must not be circumcised unless there is a
sufficient medical reason for removing the foreskin. The World Health
Organisation asserts that circumcision is good for sexual health as it removes
the foreskin which is a breeding ground for germs and diseases. But it must
still be left up to an adult male to decide if he will be circumcised or not.
It is not a justification for the parents imposing circumcision on him when he is
a baby. Careful washing will deal with any hygiene problems that a foreskin
causes - and those problems are only problems for a tiny number of males. The
numbers are too low so those who advocate circumcision because of hygiene are
not telling the real reason,
Circumcision must be done by a medical professional who is exercising the proper
procedure and operating strict hygiene and avoiding the risk of infection as far
as possible. Incredibly some say that being a professional medical person
means you will do it for children not adults if you have a choice. They
dubiously claim that circumcision more high risk when you choose it yourself as
an adult! That is rubbish for children can and do suffer and that is worse
than suffering when you risk it yourself. And who says the whole foreskin
needs to be removed? The expert should know how much to take away and that
is not a decision for a religionist but for a medical professional.
There is a small porn subculture around the mutilation of babies in
circumcision. Images and videos of the sick act are provided.
There is no shortage of pictures of the little boy screaming in fear and pain
when he is circumcised.
Odd that the Bible says two men having sex is an unnatural abomination. Surely
circumcision then would be an abomination too - a worse one. At least the men
haven't done any damage! Religious circumcision implies support for the notion
that God must get what God wants whether we think it is bad or not.
The baby cannot object to the circumcision or consent to it. The right of
parents to make decisions for the baby do not extend that far. Sound medical
reasons alone would be the exceptions. Would you allow it if a finger tip had to
be cut off for religious reasons? Or if a small brand mark had to be put on the
baby? What if some new faith arises demanding that babies be branded?
There is the risk of complications from the circumcision.
Jews often get their boys circumcised by a medical professional. But when God
commanded the practice he made no requirements regarding hygiene or the
avoidance of infection.
There is argument that if circumcision for religious reasons is made illegal,
then the babies will be circumcised in secret leading to the risk of infection
or losing more than the foreskin or bleeding to death. The law would need to be
sure that banning does not make the problem worse. If people choose to disobey
the law that is not the fault of the law. The law would still be right to ban
the circumcisions because otherwise the message is sent out that hurting babies
in the name of religion is okay.
If the practice is driven underground because it's illegal, and if it therefore
becomes more dangerous, then the answer is to keep it illegal but maybe
prescribe lighter penalties for the breaking of the law of the land.
If a faith has the right to circumcise, we cannot celebrate that right. We grant
it reluctantly. The only way we can get rid of the practice is by discouraging
the religion and to encourage its practitioners to leave it. Religious freedom
does not mean there is no right to discourage religion.
The evidence that circumcision reduces the chances of getting cancer or diseases
is flawed. The risk does not justify circumcising a baby. Let the baby decide
for himself when he is big enough. And the risk can be reduced by mild
antiseptics and washing carefully.
Children need to be taught good citizenship - not religion. So nobody can say,
"Let's allow them to be circumcised as it is the way they can be entered into
religion which will teach them sacred values".
Even in religious schools, responsibility, self-confidence, healthy eating,
exercise, hygiene, manners, personal finance, alcohol and drug awareness are
taught in a manner that is entirely or largely secular. It is hypocritical for a
believer to teach children, "Binge drinking is dangerous. It will wreck your
head and your body and you may fall and kill yourself etc etc." Or, "Be
confident for God loves you" - if you are feeling low hearing that will only
make you feel worse.
The believer's concern should be about how God feels
about it. That will exclude those children who do not have much faith or any.
But religion as an ideology undermines fairness.
The Jewish child circumcised before he can decide for
himself. Is that because the parents want to force religion on him? They would
let him grow up and decide if they did.
Some claim that the child should be circumcised though he cannot make a choice
because there is more to right and wrong than just choice. But they need to
listen to themselves. They go on as if the child's inability to choose does not
matter! If there is more to right and wrong than just choice, then clearly
choice has to be considered in forming ideas of right and wrong. And besides how
could you ever do right if you don't have the choice to do it? In theory, it
would be ideal to let choice be the be all and end all. But our choices have
impact on others. The limitation of choice is a necessary evil otherwise society
will be torn apart.
A child needs the parents to decide how he is going to be fed, what school she
is going to and what name she will have and what kind of house she will be
brought up in. It does not follow though that the parent has the right to
decide. The parent has only the freedom to decide. What is the difference? Does
the child have a right to have its parents make decisions for her or him?
The freedom of the parent is limited. A rich parent who feeds a child on dog
food is breaking the law. That is child abuse. A child does not need a religion
but to learn how that people need to try to get along and compromise. Even if
the parent had a right to make decisions for the child it does not follow that
this includes religion. Making a child a follower of your religion is really
about what you want for the child. But it is not about what you want. A child is
not a commodity.
If parents try to inculcate a faith based on intolerance, hatred of science and
wisdom, authoritarianism and violence nobody thinks they have the right to do
so. The problem with Judaism is that its scriptures command and encourage and
promise a reward for those evils. The Jews are nice people and condemn those
things but they are still supporting them indirectly. If you adopt a faith and
part of that faith is endorsement of the evils and you advocate peace and
harmony you are a hypocrite. It's a kind of, "The religion is correct but I
disobey it." That is still endorsement of the evil but in a less obvious way.
One of religions major lies is that Article 14 of the UN Convention gives it in
the form of the parents has the right to shape a child in the religion of the
parents. The article actually says the child has the right to freedom of thought
- meaning the child needs to be educated about other faiths too and given the
option of having no religious affiliation. In this understanding, trying to cut
a piece off a little boy to make him a member of the Jewish religion is evil.
The arguments for male circumcision are similar to those for female circumcision
or as we should call it FGM - Female Genital Mutilation. To support it for males
is to pave the way for having it done for females too. FGM takes many different
forms - some forms do little damage. Other forms involve cutting off the
clitoris and the vaginal lips and all. To support male circumcision is to
implicitly justify the circumcision of females as well. It paves the way for it
for it's hypocritical to demand that males be circumcised in the name of God and
to forbid wanting to do it to females as well.
It can be assumed that the biblical support for circumcision has bled into Islam
and is the reason for the following appalling facts. Two nationwide studies in
Indonesia carried out by population researchers in 2003 and 2010 found that
between 86 and 100% of households surveyed subjected their daughters to genital
cutting, usually before the age of five. More than 90% of adults said they
wanted the practice to continue.
A study published in 2010 by Yarsi University in Jakarta tells us that Indonesia
doesn't practise the severest forms of mutilation which are to be found in parts
of Africa and the Middle East, such as infibulation (removing the clitoris and
labia and sewing up the genital area) or complete clitoral excision. The study
found the Indonesian procedure "involves pain and actual cutting of the
clitoris" in more than 80% of cases.
Catholics claim that bread and wine can be transformed into the body and blood
of Christ without us being able to see any difference. To tell a child like a
Catholic would that the communion wafer is alive is to oppose the basic
principles of science which help us tell what is alive and what is not alive
apart. And the child will be forbidden to hold that his action man is really his
dead grandfather in the same way that the wafer is supposedly Jesus. How is that
fair? Religion creates all kinds of problems for the rights of the child.
Circumcision is to be understood as an expression of the doctrine, "It is our
duty to obey God whether we understand his rules or not." That alone is
dangerous. We know of how this attitude led Abraham to obey a command from God
to slay his son Isaac in sacrifice to God.
Circumcision is primarily an act of worship. Freedom of religion and freedom of
worship are not the same thing. Religious circumcision is not medically
necessary or about medicine and plus too much flesh may be removed.