I totally agree with this. I am circumcised, but I was circumcised in my late 50s for medical reasons and so this puts me in a fairly small minority of men who have experienced it both with a foreskin and without. I can assure you, with is definitely better. It's obvious, surely. With circumcision, you are removing the cover for a highly sensitive part of the male, human anatomy. When performed on an adult man, the surgeon will tell you that there will be a process during which, a new layer of skin will form over the surface of the glans. This occurs during the healing period after surgery. It makes sense if you think about it, if you walk around barefoot all the time, the soles of your feet will be much tougher and less sensitive, than those of someone who wears shoes.
Circumcised men may last longer in bed, but that's because they have less feeling in their glans than uncut men. As I am getting older, I find it difficult to reach orgasm sometimes, no problem with loss of erection and I'm sure my circumcised state is part of the reason for this.
What men who were circumcised as babies will never know, is the exquisite pleasure of pulling back the foreskin on an erect penis, slowly, perhaps teasingly, exposing the deliciously moist glans.
And as for doing it to your son for reasons of faith, well that's your faith, not his. He is a baby, he has no thoughts on religious matters. It has been "normalised " far too much, it is still genital mutilation.
Apparently in the USA over 70% of men are circumcised, goodness knows why, please don't say it's more hygienic, that's like back in the 50s when people had all their teeth removed and replaced with dentures, so as to avoid tooth decay!
Any young women or pregnant mums reading this, please don't cut your sons!