Evangelicals Wade Into Circumcision Debate

By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

(RNS) The National Association of Evangelicals is siding with Jews and Muslims in opposition of a proposed ban on infant male circumcision in San Francisco.

"Jews, Muslims, and Christians all trace our spiritual heritage back to Abraham. Biblical circumcision begins with Abraham," NAE President Leith Anderson said in a statement. "No American government should restrict this historic tradition. Essential religious liberties are at stake."

The proposed ban, which does not include a religious exemption, would prevent circumcision of male children in San Francisco. If passed, circumcisions would be considered a misdemeanor that could carry a fine of up to $1,000 or a year in jail.

The NAE said the proposal violates the First Amendment's clause protecting the free exercise of religion.

"While evangelical denominations traditionally neither require nor forbid circumcision, we join Jews and Muslims in opposing this ban and standing together for religious freedom," said Anderson.

The Anti-Defamation League has also condemned the proposed ban, calling it an "assault on parental choice, legitimate medical practice, and religious freedom." ADL leaders also expressed outrage when supporters of the ban promoted it with a cartoon character named "Foreskin Man."

Matthew Hess, president of an anti-circumcision organization that supports the ban, has written on Twitter that the "Foreskin Man" series is not anti-Semitic.

"People who forcefully cut the genitals of children are not reasonable," he wrote. "If they were reasonable, they would have stopped doing it by now."

Comments

[Aryeh Melaris]

02:04 PM on 07/21/2011

Why would the citizens of San Francisco, of all places, want to ban circumcision?!

Given that circumcision is scientifically shown to be effective against the spread of HIV among heterosexuals, and that San Francisco has one of the highest rates of infection, I question the motives of circumcision's opponents.

The CDC supports this unbiased, scientific fact and goes on to demonstrate circumcision's preventative efficacy among a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

[Uncutistheway]

12:58 PM on 06/22/2011

Anti-circumcision Comic Hero Called Anti-Semitic
Commented Jun 21, 2011 at 23:59:00 in Weird News
“Brit Shalom is a non-cuttin g naming ceremony for newborn Jewish boys. It may be performed by a Rabbi or an experience d lay leader. If desired, Celebrants can aid parents in devising their own ceremony. This ceremony replaces Brit Milah (ritual circumcisi on). It has also been termed Alternativ e Brit (or Bris), Brit b'li Milah (Covenant without cutting) and Brit Chayim (Covenant of Life). It is similar to the naming ceremony for girls.”
Anti-circumcision Comic Hero Called Anti-Semitic
“Are jews who are against circumcision are also anti-Semitic?. A group of educated and enlightene d Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism.

[Madim]

07:53 AM on 06/16/2011

Removing body parts without necessity is called mutilation. Doing it to a human being without giving them a choice is more than abuse, it's unspeakable.
Whether it's foreskin or tonsils or an arm or the ears or any other body part, if God made us in His image, would He want them chopped off ? It's ridiculous.
The excuse of "hygiene" is outdated by at least a century, in this day and age, when people are (or should be) used to cleaning themselves. Infections are not prevented, but encouraged by the resulting wounds.
Does anyone honestly think that chopping off a part of a healthy human prevents infection ? C'mon...

What adults do to their own bodies is nobody else's business, but it's cruel, abusive and should be outlawed to do this to helpless babies, who will live their whole life as incomplete human beings, whether they want it or not. It's not a sacrifice of flesh, it's a branding.

[sjbeacher]

03:45 PM on 06/19/2011

Please! It is a useless flap of skin that is unclean, unhealthy, unsightly and spreads disease. Circumcised sex is 100% better.....I didn't hesitate a second to have my son's circumcised.

[Cole 33]

10:35 AM on 06/30/2011

Ah ignorance, always nice.

you do know you're completely uneducated and wrong about everything you just said right. maybe talk to a dr and find out the truth

[graceaustin]

01:11 AM on 06/15/2011

I was naive about circumcision, and allowed it with my boys. In those days it was expected, and you went along. I didn't consider the pain it inflicted. They took the babies off and did it. I wouldn't allow it today. It is child abuse, IMO. I believe in freedom of religion, but child abuse isn't acceptable, and religious freedom doesn't mean freedom to hurt your kid.

[Keyop]

05:30 PM on 06/14/2011

All you anti circumcision people can enjoy the penile cheese,yuck.

[Kafkasbug]

05:38 PM on 06/14/2011

It's called a shower. Perhaps you've heard of it?

[Cole 33]

10:36 AM on 06/30/2011

clearly the person doesn't know that soap has been invented.

[bellenwhistles]

05:53 PM on 06/14/2011

Girls have ALOT more "cheese" then boys do. Should we start circumcising the baby girls too?

[dctackett]

05:01 PM on 06/14/2011

it is all about control... if it was really about sacrificing your flesh to god, then they'd do it to themselves as adults... now that would be genuine sacrifice, not cutting up a helpless baby who has not say and in order to save some dignity must believe that it's the right thing to do and cut up their own baby...

[dctackett]

04:38 PM on 06/14/2011

Stop the tyrannical baby mutilators!

[WhereSheStops]

01:50 PM on 06/14/2011

Dang. This is a tough one for me. Is following the law of God as you understand it child abuse?

Parents can't leave kids in a vacuum for 18 years until the kids reach legal adulthood and decide what they want to do. That would be violating the law of God as many (most? all?) religious parents understand it.

Does anyone reading this post who was circumcised regret it?

[WhereSheStops]

01:51 PM on 06/14/2011

Yes, answering my own question. Some parents' understanding of the law of God would lead to things I consider child abuse.

This is just a really tough case for me to get my head around. Any recommendations for good links about the medical aspects, etc?

[bellenwhistles]

05:10 PM on 06/14/2011

Sure! Do you want the medical aspects of cutting a baby girl or a baby boy?

[ramp613]

10:27 PM on 06/14/2011

WhereSheStops, here are some links for you.

http://www.notjustskin.org/node/7

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

http://www.cirp.org/

[dctackett]

04:15 PM on 06/14/2011

the thing is that it is permanent, it's removing a part of the child's natural body, the baby suffers pain, and the child has absolutely no say whatsoever about his irreversable mutilation.

[Aryeh Melaris]

02:11 PM on 07/21/2011

So you also object to childhood vaccinations? And you have all of your wisdom teeth?

[rich3324]

09:22 AM on 06/14/2011

Government keep your hands off my foreskin!

[dctackett]

04:18 PM on 06/14/2011

well... if the believers get a hold of it, there would be nothing left to protect... in this case the government is keeping other people's hands off of it until you can decide for yourself...

[bellenwhistles]

05:15 PM on 06/14/2011

medical doctors and clergy are the ones after your penis.....we want the government to stop them.

[dctackett]

06:13 PM on 06/14/2011

it's really weird how they don't get this... they often comment that banning circumcision is an attack on THEIR freedom, as if they are not the ones taking away the freedom, and body parts, of others without their consent...

freedom to mutilate babies?

[JOHNSPEAKS]

09:20 AM on 06/14/2011

Here we go again -Liberals- trying to tell us what we can and can't do, mankind has been going to Hell ever since they gave liberals the right to speak in public and the right to vote???

[HotelDrama]

01:29 PM on 06/14/2011

And -Conservatives- don't tell us what we can and can't do? Open your eyes!

[Bob Metcalfe]

12:05 AM on 06/18/2011

That's because conservatives view kids as possessions. The government should protect childrens' rights to make a decision like that once they reach the age of discretion.

[dctackett]

04:19 PM on 06/14/2011

let's see... liberals, trying to keep permanent, painful decisions to the individual, preventing others from forcing themselves on you... it's protecting the helpless minority.

[SangZe]

08:19 AM on 06/14/2011

Nice slice of life article.

[soothwriter]

11:00 PM on 06/13/2011

Some posters claim that being circumcised makes no difference to the pleasure they get from sex.
Most were probably circumcised as infants so I wonder what they are comparing their experience to?

[almostlyniceguy]

05:38 AM on 06/14/2011

That argument cuts both ways. No pun intrended.

[soothwriter]

10:33 AM on 06/14/2011

Its not an arguement: its a belief.

[dctackett]

04:20 PM on 06/14/2011

it's defense... I don't see how it could be more pleasureful if an extremely sensitive area is cut off...

[pphhrogg]

10:53 PM on 06/13/2011

As an R.N. who worked in GU surgery, beliee me it's MUCH better to have a male circumcized as an infant than have to have it done as an older boy or an adult. It should be the parents' decision...not the government's.

[DakkonA]

12:25 PM on 06/14/2011

That argument only makes sense if you're relatively sure it would have to be done later in the boy's life.

[DakkonA]

12:26 PM on 06/14/2011

And fyi, it isn't the government's decision, it's the guy with the penis's decision.

[Cole 33]

05:14 PM on 06/13/2011

Religion of any kind is absolutely NO reason to take a knife to a tiny baby's genitals, at all.

My god, the idea of someone coming near my tiny infant with a knife to cut off a part of his body with no anesthesia is nutty. I have absolutely no relation to whatever that rationalization is in someones brain, that would be ok with infant genital mutilation of any kind, male or female.

Now you can rationalize a LOT with religion, hurting babies, flying planes into buildings, or sewing up little girls are not rationalizations I can wrap my head around.

If it was for some medical necessity, I get it, but since it's only a cosmetic procedure, why would you do that to a little baby?

[soothwriter]

10:50 PM on 06/13/2011

It serves a similar purpose to a gang tattoo.

[sjbeacher]

04:02 PM on 06/19/2011

It is called MOT..Member of the Tribe. If you are an uncut Jew, you certainly are not an MOT!

[dctackett]

04:23 PM on 06/14/2011

it's showing that baby right from the start that a bigger, much powerful being can and will rule you.

[Mr Bobo]

03:13 PM on 06/13/2011

I think circumcision is wonderful for families or individuals with poor hygiene habits. Lord knows the problems you'll have while tending sheep and going for weeks at a time without bathing.

Hey, if you think God got it wrong and you're just fixing his mistakes, where's the harm? I'm an atheist myself.

[dctackett]

04:24 PM on 06/14/2011

it's called natural selection... if you're not bathing for weeks and you're dirty enough to cause medical problems, then something is wrong.