To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

Concern about the mutilation of babies targets no one group or culture. It is fundamentally wrong whoever is doing it.

This is not a "sudden desire" to lecture Jews. This is a basic discussion about right and wrong. It has always been wrong.

Why do some people think men are glad it was done when they are young? What is the sense in that when it simply need not have been done at all?

Why beat around the bush? Please enlighten us as to which scripture and which passage? And which community? Please enlighten us if this is common practice or an extreme frigne and approximately how many cases?

Or are you perhaps slightly obsessed with the fringe practices of a certain group which you dislike for many reasons? And kinda got in there with the preemptive 'oh, ill be accused of racism if I say anything'

The irony is hard to miss. Within living memory, countries across Europe (like UK and Ireland) shut their doors to Jewish children fleeing the Nazis or happily gave them up to them to be murdered (most of the others). Now Europe suddenly wants to lecture Jews about the wellbeing of their own children, expressing outrage over so-called “mutilation.” Given Europe’s long history of exclusion, persecution and indifference toward Jews when it actually mattered, it’s hardly surprising that Jewish communities are deeply skeptical of this sudden concern. When anxiety about the wellbeing Jewish children only surfaces as a way to attack Jewish life and persecute jews and accuse them of child abuse (WTF?!) , it doesn’t come across as care — it comes across as hypocrisy.

Oh I've educated myself on all the pros and cons. And complications are greater as an adult.
And the fact that most men circumcised as infants are glad it was done then is important. Shouldn't we be listening to their voices? Its not like adult men are some marginalised group. The fact is that there are many circumcised men in positions of power and yet they are not the ones advocating to ban circumcision.

This is not an area for compromise. Mutilation is mutilation. You can't say OK you can do a bit of mutilation under particular conditions.

Of course the ramifications of making it illegal will be problematical, but that is no reason not to do it. Upholding basic principles often is problematical.

If the law will not protect these babies then who will?

I think the first step, the compromise, is to allow it for religious reasons but ensure it is performed by a doctor with pain relief. Proper anaesthesia. Not just topical numbing cream. Parents would have to have the risk of general anaesthesia (or heavy sedation) explained to them, and sign consent forms accordingly, just as they would for any other surgery. It also needs to be classified as cosmetic surgery, because it has no medical basis.

Perhaps if we made parents aware of how painful (and potentially dangerous) it really is they would hesitate to consent, and might opt for the less damaging ‘original’ version, or decline it completely. Once this was acceptable then we could start to work towards completely banning it for cosmetic/religious reasons.

Some religious communities insist that the mutilated penis must be sucked on by the circumcisor, in accordance with their scripture, to soothe the infant, while the friends and family whoop and holler in exaltation.
Any criticism would, of course, be most racist.

I believe the majority of american men are circumcised. It was certainly offered to me for my son when he was born. But it's declining (slowly). I put the high number down to a squeamishness about masturbation (cloaked as concerns about hygiene) which just continued because 'you want him to look like his dad'.
The scottish actor Alan Cumming has been prominent in an anti circumcision campaign in the US. I hope he's having some success.

A very odd and misleading mistake to say you were Christened a protestant and remain that by choice and belief when you are planning to convert. Sorry can't take anything seriously after that mistake.

A law change will give open minded mums the confidence to say no to old fashioned pushy relatives wedded to "tradition". The younger jewish & muslim mums i know are not dead set on it at all.

The charities Mavar and Footsteps work closely with ex Chadisim who are considered "off the derech". One of the people we work closely with is Dr Alexandra Stein who is pretty fundamental in research around cults. The reason we work so closely with her and recommend our members asosociate with her work and events is because so many people who are clasified as OTD do feel as if they have left a cult and have many commonalities with those who have been in cults that you would agree are cults.

The reason people argue against Chadisim being a cult is the lack of one clear leader. However, the dependency on a Rabbi to "interpret" the scripture and apply it to every day life, as well as make determinations about what is right, wrong, good or bad, appoints individual Rabbis and other community elders as these leaders. The fact that they might not all agree reinforces their singular control over their specific congregation. You need to speak to your Rabbi for them to make a subjective decision on how you should proceed based on how they were taught to interpret the scripture.

The answer we settle for is that Chasidic communities are definitely a cult for at least some of the people in it. Particularly those who want out.

They are confined. They are confined to areas, schools and communuties which permit one to live in accordance with the customs and values of ultra orthodox Judaism. For example, today, many Chassidic communities need an eruv, schools within walking distance and the ability to shop kosher without needing to go too far from home. You cannot just live anywhere in the UK in 2026 and feasibly live halachically as you are dependent on the community. You are even dependent on a Gentile community who are understanding and permissive and help you adhere to your way of life in a modern world. You need a "Shabbos goy" in various forms.

Coercion is rife. The threat of losing your family and friends as well as your closeness to God unless you submit to the teachings is coercion.

Trafficking also occurs. Young men who are barely educated are shipped to join their equally young wives across the country or globe. Young couples are sent away for the young man to "study". None of this is with informed consent. It is coercion.

The people who leave are often isolated and ostracised with poor employment or academic prospects, which is why our charity exists. You cannot leave and still receive recongition and belonging from the community. You cannot leave a Chassidic community and send your children to a Chasidic school. You can fully denounce the existence of God, live where you want and send your child to a Jewish school. Judaism is not a cult.

Chasidim arent raised Jewish with equal access to education and information and then, as adults, choose to become Chasidic. In fact, people who have taken that journey (Baal Teshuva) are seen as inferior by many Chasidim. The ideal is that you were born into it and know no differently.

I see that you want to convert. For the people who have experienced the perils of Chassidic communities, it can be very frustrating when other Jewish people are oblivious or minimise the reality of ultra-orthodox communities for those who want to leave them.

This is the most sensible and realistic solution. It’s surgery, and only qualified medical professionals should be performing surgery. Anyone else that does needs to be prosecuted. Tradition is not a good reason to allow something barbaric to continue.

They report "normal" sexual function because it is their normal with a modified penis. They have no idea how it might have been if they had not been mutilated.
But, again, this is neither here nor there ... the basic principle is "Do not mutilate babies."

Still, there is zero reason to tolerate it in 21st century - and any faith unable to reflect and adjust isn't worthy of respect in a state where it isn't a state religion.

In defence of @Carla786 i think she is trying to look at what would realistically work when, as others have said, a ban would mean people go overseas for it or leave altogether.

It will take a change in interpretation tgat I think can only come from the rabbis, imans, elders, etc. Or perhaps when that generation die off, there might be a window open for discussion.

It's medically closer than you realise. It causes significant desensitisation of the most sensitive area of the penis - partly through removal of tissue when most of the nerve endings are and partly changing the remaining surface so it's no longer a mucus membrane and loses sensitivity. I suppose the closest female equivalence would be removing the clitoris hood and leaving it exposed - that would end up desensitised too.

At the end of the day, hacking away at a child's genitals in the name of religion is fucked up in this day and age, regardless of gender or the faulty belief behind it.

Just shrugging it off by saying a total ban won't work is a very poor attitude. Everything has to start somewhere, and as a developed nation we should lead by example. It's not going to stop it overnight, but it will open up people's minds and make it a global issue. Or we could just keep on sweeping it under the carpet and ignoring it.

Of course the nonsense of that statement is that if one generation stopped butchering babies then all future generations of boys would still "look like their father"

No religious community is being targeted. The target is the prevention of knife attacks on babies which are being carried out on the grounds of their sex

Am I mixing you up with someone else? I thought you said previously that you were looking to convert to Judaism but now you remain Christian by belief.

Apologies if I've confused you with someone else.