Jun
27
2007
Nipping Religion?
Posted by: stuartdelony in Blogroll, Christianity, Uncategorized, circumcision, decline, nipping religion, religion
I recently read an interesting article on the decline of circumcision (found here) in America. It seems that the practice has been in a steady decline since the 60’s. Now around half of American born infant boys are circumcised. You also look at the decline of Christianity in America (or Christian values). It’s also been on a steady decline since the 60’s.
So, is there a correlation between our slide as a country religiously and the drop in circumcision?
Is one an indicator of the other or are they not related?
Any thoughts?
Sphere: Related Content
Entries (RSS)
I have some general thoughts about circumcision. Firstly, how is it that when it is done for religious purposes, those who carry out the actual operation hold God to be the perfect creator of the world, but at the same time believe that the genitals of a newborn require surgical augmentation?
Secondly, and I don’t have the data or reference to hand at the moment, there is some medical evidence that male circumcision lowers the risk of infection by the HIV virus. Not sufficiently to permit unprotected sex, but there is a marked decrease in the rates of HIV risk in circumcised men. This is explained on the grounds that skin cells found in the foreskin are particularly susceptible to infection by the virus, and that their removal therefore lowers the risk slightly.
Finally, you may well question whether or not there exists a marked correlation between the tendency to circumcise newborns in a particular culture with that cultures propensity for warfare and torture (of native and foreign captives, including hospital and mental ward inpatients). I’ll leave it up to you to find out about that.
There is a very interesting discussion of circumcision in Christopher Hitchens’ new book God Is Not Great, particularly in the chapter entitled “A Note On Health”.
AN, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
I think this is just an issue where there is also science to suggest that circumcision can be dangerous. I know where we used to live a little boy died from it (he was allergic to the anesthesia, I think). I don’t really think there is a legit correlation here. I’m not really sure one has anything to do with the other.
R&L
Thanks for stopping by and your input.
If you’re actually looking for discussion, I’ll do my best to answer your questions. But let me first note. I don’t know everything (not even close) and I don’t believe that the Bible answers everything. There’s a mystery about God and I’m okay with it.
So that being said:
1) Why would God not make us precircumcised? Well my thought are simply this: it’s a sign of distinction and obedience. In the Bible it separated the people who followed the Lord and the ones who didn’t.
2) Not knowledgeable enough to even comment on the medical aspect. So your guess is as good as mine.
3) I’ll answer your the third question/statement with another question: What society hasn’t been waring? I’m not condoning it but some of it’s the sin disposition, greed, and the human condition. Which all of that points for the need of a Savior.
I’m assuming your standpoint is Religion (Christianity) = Right Wing Bush War Machining. And if that’s your assumption or observation, then I’d agree with you on the rest. But being a Christian or follower of Christ (better connotations than the first term) has nothing to do with politics and all that you’re speaking about. Have people have warped their beliefs to suit their politics (ie religious right)? Oh you bet.
But is any of this true nature of Christ or even Biblical? Not in the least.
Thanks for taking time to comment and I’d love to hear more.
Stuart
Wow Staurt. You have some interesting people posting on your website. First of all, cool post. Is there a correlation? I have no idea.
But to answer some questions posted by your posters…
Circumcision is a sign of obedience but also an analogy of what God can do to a person. Remember that we also have circumcised hearts - ie, the dead flesh ripped off our hearts and made vulnerable and susceptible to God’s ways. Any guy with a penis understands the, umm, sensitivities of this comment.
The comment about AIDS I think lacks any substance. What I do know is that Jewish women have the lowest rate of cervical cancer in the world. The medical world connects this to circumcised Jews having less bacteria in their privates due to the fact that they have no skin covering up their member.
The comment about cultures is a bit far fetched also. Jewish boys are asked to be circumcised on the eighth day as it takes 8 days after birth for the boys blood to reach peek coagulation - meaning that at 8 days, the boys blood has the best ability to clog up the cuts in the skin and not bleed to death.
Umm I wonder how good ole Abe knew this thousands of years ago? Maybe God knows a thing or two about humans huh?
Joe’s comments - circumcision didn’t kill the boy - his allergy did.
I can’t believe no one has commented yet on Stuart’s choice of picture for this post….disturbing? Why, yes!
Layguy,
But without the unnecessary procedure, he may never have had to find out about that allergy. My point is, that circumcision is not a necessary medical procedure. If I ever have a boy, I don’t know if I’ll do it.
Hi Joe,
In western society, it’s highly unlikely a person will live a life without exposing him or herself to anesthesia.
I have a boy. I had him circumcised when he was a few weeks old. It was a simple procedure where his foreskin was rolled around a tight band. After a few weeks, his foreskin simply shriveled and fell off. The ugliest thing about it was the suture - seriously!
Me on the other hand is another story. I was circumcised as an adult - wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy.
Jacki - I hear you!
Why am I squirming as I read this?
Lay guy. A little warning next time! I was sipping my coke as I read that. Hahah. I’ll be laughing the rest of the day. It’s still an unnecessary procedure. We’re not called to do it Biblically and the medical benefits are debatable at best.
–Still laughing.
I would like to address stuartdelony’s points.
1. How is circumcision a mark of obedience in infants? Infants can’t obey God or anyone else. They don’t know their religio-cultural situation, they haven’t read scriptures or understood any sermons. If you want to use circumcision as a mark of obedience to God, do it when you’ve decided to do it as an adult. Though note layguy’s comment: “I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy.” Besides, can God not tell who is committed to his service other than by whether he has had his foreskin removed?
2. The US is by far the most violent modern culture. Just look at the military interventions they’ve participated in since WWII. Note also that its treatment of institutionalised mental patients and other places where the citizen’s welfare is at the mercy of state policy is relatively backwards. Countries without religious import or residues in their policies have better human rights. Take Sweden, Canada or Switzerland as good examples.
3. I do not think that religion or Christianity = right wing Bush warmongering. I don’t like the atheist assertion that it is. I recognise that religion has in the past inspired progressive reforms as well as terribly retrograde moves. How, for example, do you weigh up the Crusades against the abolition of slavery (Wilberforce was a religious man). So I don’t think such a facile calculus is viable.
I do think that people need to rethink religion. Both modern theism and modern atheism has shortcomings. And certainly neither justify the frankly barbaric measures layguy has decided to subject his baby boy to. Why on earth would you remove segments of a baby’s genitals?
As for morality and the Bible (particularly the Old Testament), you might be interested in the following post on atheismandreligion:
http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-terrible-texts-of-the-bible-john-shelby-spong-lecture/
AG
Well on the first point. It’s a mark of dedication and obedience of the parent. In olden days parents used to take responsibility for the raising and wellbeing of their kids. As for most practices, we forget why we were doing it in the first place, but keep doing it. Now people sell it on it’s medical benefits. But that’s missing the point or the chopped point.
And about God needing the mark? He doesn’t. As most things that he does, it’s for our perspective. I think it’s an act of obedience and a mark of his people seen by his people. I mean every time you take a leak. “Yep, I know who’s my God.”
The second point. I think that’s a gross generalization. You point out America as being overtly prone to violence and say it’s because of religion. American hasn’t been a Christian nation for a long, long time. They may be religiously zealoted (ie misguided and using the name of Christ to push forward agendas). But make this distinction. If anything fuels us as a nation it’s money, not religion. Hunger for money = neglect of human rights.
Using the Crusades vs. Abolition of Slavery is a good point. From how I see it, the Crusades a misguided hunt for land/power veiled as religion (much like what you’re describing as America today). Slavery was a right/wrong issue that needed to be fought and changed. There is a difference. Following a religion gets you know where. It’s just a set of rules and practices. Following Christ is something completely different. Life changing. I can explain more if you like (but I assume your mind is made up on this topic).
I love good conversation! Thanks for taking the time for writing.
Stuart
Gee! What can I say that hasn’t already been said.
I do think its interesting that women haven’t commented on this issue……..what’s up ladies? Since when do we have a hard time discussing our feelings and opinion?
Jackie: I totally agree about the picture! I did a double take on that one
If parents want to mark their obedience to God then let them mutilate their own bodies, not those of the infants they’re supposed to be taking care of. Secondly, what is it about God that doesn’t imprint or impress itself on mankind’s imagination or knowledge without the assistance of seeing your surgically augmented genitals? If we need to damage our bodies to remind ourselves of our commitment to God, there’s something lacking. Why can’t we be reminded of it in other ways? Religion has a bad history when it comes to a balanced approach to sexuality, whether it’s the subjugation of women (including female circumcision), its historic persecution of homosexuals or the current completely unethical policy of the Church towards contraception (especially the RC church with respect to Africa). There is something in the religious mentality that lends itself to the perversion of sexual health. Atheist Jews presumably look down when they’re standing at the urinal and instead of thinking “I know who my God is”, and are instead reminded of the pernicious effects of irrational beliefs - particularly those of parents.
AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com
Stuart, in my opinion there is a correlation between this nation’s “godlessness” and the drop in circumcision. For the past 40 years, intelligent people who are not afraid to ask questions (and who aren’t satisfied with answers based on circular reasoning) have been taking back the personal power that organized religion has long held captive. “It’s God’s Will” is no longer a good enough reason for discerning parents to subject their infants to mutilation.
Quote from stuartdelony: “As for most practices, we forget why we were doing it in the first place, but keep doing it.”
This in my opinion is the biggest downfall of some who belong to organized religions - they seem to think faith is a suitable replacement for their God-given ability to discern and think critically. Why in the world would anyone subject their newborn child to an UNECCESSARY medical procedure, simply because “that’s the way it’s always been done”???
Oh Boy, I hesitate to do this, but Jerome would you mind rephrasing what you’ve written? I’m not quite following the logic.
Thanks!
Joe,
Why the hesitation? I won’t bite, I promise.
In truth though, I’m not sure how to rephrase what I’ve written.
I guess my point was that blind faith (doing things like they’ve always been done, simply for that reason) is not a good reason (in my opinion) to subject an infant to a painful procedure physicians have deemed medically unnecessary.
I hope that clarifies things a little…
Jerome, I missed the quotation marks in your earlier post, which caused me to miss the thrust of your entire statement. I’m tracking with you now.