Cultural circumcision in babies/young boys

[junipermarten]

1 of my DS's is circumcised due to a medical issue, he was 3 at the time and it was bloody horrific.

When he was going through it, a good friend gave me tips on after care and offered the number of a private doctor. She has sons who were circumcised shortly after birth for religious reasons.

I personally don't agree with circumcision unless medically required however I respect others choices for religious reasons.

It got me thinking about the high % of boys in the US who are circumcised for cultural reasons, just over 2/3rds. Why is it so prevalent there?

I was having a look at % of male pop per country and the highest were mainly Islamic, but also Samoa was almost 100% which surprised me but apparently its cultural as opposed to religious (I think).

A ban would clearly have to be done in a coordinated way so that it is happening in more than just the UK. Iceland was the first country to propose a ban and yes, it's proving difficult to do. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.

And if it means people choose to live elsewhere - so be it. Religious freedom doesn't override the right of a newborn to not have needless pain inflicted on it.
I sincerely hope that in the event of a ban, people who break the law would go to prison for it. Enforcement of the law on FGM needs to be much tougher too and yes, people should go to prison for carrying that out and supporting it. I don't see how anyone with morals can support this tradition in 2023. If your God tells you to cut pieces off your perfect newborn children then your God is not worthy of worship.

Religion is at the root of so many of the evils humans inflict upon each other.

@Weefreetiffany

So a religion that's been going strong for thousands of years needs to change a fundamental part because Btitish sensibilities have changed, and British sensibilities are obviously the gold standard.

Anglocentric much?

@mathanxiety no, a religion that has been going strong for thousands of years needs to recognise that we are living in 2023, the world has changed and it's time to adapt instead of continuing to inflict needless pain on newborns. Why should any religion be exempt from examining its rituals and practices? Saying 'but we've always done it this way' is not an argument that should be used against change. In many countries women can vote, slavery has been abolished, marital rape is illegal, homosexuality is legal. All this progress wouldn't have happened if we had stuck with 'we have always done it this way'. There's still a ways to go on all the things I've just listed, since they are global wrongs. Infant circumcision is also a global wrong, no matter what non-medical reason is given for it.

So it’s fine to be anti anglo? Just so I’m clear with what prejudices are allowed

I hope the irony of using your mobile phone to convey your thoughts on this isn’t lost 😂

Also you’re essentially saying Religious peoples standards are sacrosanct but the national identity ones aren’t. That’s very divisive and self-alienating . Come back with a stronger position that “we’re more special than the rest”

Re the C of E.

That's a little simplistic. I was there at the time.

There were the Anglo-Catholics who were staunchly against it because tradition. Most of them subsequently cleared off to the Roman Catholics.

There were the liberals who were staunchly in favour because they wanted to move with the times.

There were the evangelicals who (apart from a few) were OK because in their view there wasn't anything in the New Testament that clearly opposed it.

So it certainly wasn't an example of an institution changing its mind just by re-reading its own doctrines. It was influenced by the world outside, as is quite proper.

I'm referring to the ordination of women in my previous post. I should add that other Anglican provinces had done this decades before. The same thing is happening re blessing same-sex unions - the C of E needs to crack on.

@Weefreetiffany

Are you claiming to speak for all of British opinion then?

It's not 'anti Anglo' to point out that many people in Britain don't hold your views. Some of them are circumcised Jews and Muslims.

Why should any religion be exempt from examining its rituals and practices?

Why should any religion be forced to? Just because other people have decided their version of morality is superior?

Freedom of religious expression is a fundamental pillar of the entire platform of human and civil rights in the UK. It's an all or nothing proposition. As I noted elsewhere on the thread, you're on a slippery slope back to the days of public executions the minute you start deciding whose religious practices are acceptable and whose are not, and dictating to religious organisations what they may and may not continue to do as part of their religious practice.

The idea that Judaism or any other religion should be pressed into change of some fundamental element by public opinion is a peculiarly protestant one. Is it really acceptable to force the basic assumptions that underlie western European protestantism on another religion?

@FloydPepper

Disingenuous much?

You weren't accused of anti Semitism for voicing an opinion.

@Weefreetiffany

Nobody is offended that you took offense.

What is offensive is the language you like to call 'evocative'.

You do in fact see the problem here. You know exactly what it is and why it is problematic. But you refuse to stop using the intemperate and inflammatory language.

For some reason you're trying to push the tone of the debate far into realms of religious and ethnic intolerance.

It's barbaric. Unless there is a genuine medical NEED, there's no reason for doing it.

You really are reaching aren’t you?
So far you have compared Circumcision to abortion and now it’s the death penalty and also suggested that your whole religion is pointless without this one vile act.

People should be free to modify their own genitals to suit their religion, but not someone else's.

Math, why do you assume I’m replying just to you when I make general comments? The was a poster up thread who was hugely offended by the whole thread and said it’s antisemitic, that’s who the comment was directed at. Egoism of adults and individuals has no place in a debate about what’s best for children. Nor does an appeal to pleasing vs less pleasing semantics.

The religions that value Genital Mutilation also usually have a coming of age ceremony. So they value and mark the difference between childhood and adulthood. Why not make that change at 16/18 to be in line with laws in the rest of the world and let men choose to be circumcised then? It’s not a hop skim and jump to the death penalty to pose that question. That suggestion is laughable and distraction tactics.

Religion is a protected characteristic under the law, but it is the law that comes first and grants the protection. The law is not a buffet where you can pick and choose. We protect children from other body modifications until they are 18, why is GM exempt? This is not morality, this is an issue of consent to a life changing, usually medically unnecessary procedure.

We have a plurality of voices in the U.K. and we find strength in our differences, as I said up thread, but the privilege of that also means having to adapt. It’s not just the complex and varied majority changing for one minority interest, sometimes that minority has to consider if it needs to be in line with the majority. And performing genital mutilation on babies is something that those communities need to consider belongs in the modern Anglo/European world. Because that’s where we are. I wouldn’t dream to tell another country how to run their affairs, but in my own country I’m taking a vested interest in the well-being of ALL children born here.

@mathanxiety don’t @ me, I wasn’t talking to you and I do not want to engage with you

Yes, it should be acceptable.
Human rights should trump religion.
Mutilation of a baby's genitals trumps the parent's religious wishes.

If the practise was to chop off the little finger on the left hand according to some religion, nobody would be OK with it. Even though finger amputation is occasionally medically necessary.

We've banned the docking of dogs tails. But not routine circumcision.

If a loads of circumcised men were arguing that being circumcised was a breach of their Human Rights, I'd agree with you @howaboutchocolate. But they're not.

I'd argue that the repercussions of a law banning circumcision would result in even greater damage to human rights as it would mean the government of the day forcing citizens to give up their religion or leave the country.

Why would they have to give up their religion? Why can't the religion adapt to the 21st century?

@TooBigForMyBoots lots of men are. They just aren't being listened to. All you have to do is use Google to find out that the Intactivist movement is growing.

How many men with physical/sexual/psychological issues from a non-medical circumcision they never consented to would you think is acceptable? In relationships the only acceptable level of abuse is none - do you disagree with that principle too?

Circumcision is their Covenant with God. It is integral to the practice of Jewish faith. As history shows time and time again, Jewish people move countries rather than give it up.

A law banning circumcision will result in the creation of 300,000 Jewish refugees from Britian, yet another exodus.

Why does it have to be circumcision though? I'm not being goady, I just want to understand why lopping a bit of skin off a baby is a covenant with God, especially when there would have been far more risk of infection when this covenant was passed.

laws already restrict many long-practiced religious traditions. I’m not going to start listing the kind of things that are simply not allowed anymore despite the fact that many people believe they are important parts of their religion because some of them are extreme enough that comparing them to circumcision will bring accusations of incitement and hatred which is not my goal. I’m simply pointing out that societies do
restrict the practices of religions while attempting to be tolerant of all religions all the time. It’s never going to be perfect. There will always be conflicts between religious beliefs and societal morality

Body autonomy and consent seems like a moral principle that should transcend culture and borders. I would rank it with believing everyone should have access to clean water and food. It’s not a newfangled western idea. It’s simply that we are finally beginning to recognize (in the grand scale of human history) that individuals other than the men in power count as people too.

Ramp - why does it have to be? It is - Judaism isn't a Protestant religion where you just make up your own branch of it if you don't like what it says. Very few countries have ever benefited from losing their Jewish community...

Have any/many people of Jewsih faith not questioned why this has to happen?

Judaism isn't a Protestant religion where you just make up your own branch of it if you don't like what it says.

Aren't there different branches of Judaism? There was a fascinating thread on mumsnet a couple of years ago (where everyone remained polite and respectful) that explained the different branches. Would that not be similar to the idea of various protestant religions branching off into C of E, methodist, baptist etc?