Neither emulated by true (Torah) Jews.

Its a custom that was practiced by several ancent people, Egyptians, African etc. Some believe fulfilling circumcision is for no other benefit other than part of worship of Gd (no reward or punishement). Maimonides defends or point s out that he believed circumcision was not given for something lacking from creation, but to complete something missing in human behaviour; in a round bout way, control of sexual human bahviour as Chazal (not agreeing or disagreeing just stating).

re: "Clearly condoms are still the best way to avoid HIV transmisison. " I would add to this: Clearly condoms are still the best way to stop shmokes like you being reproduced.

is now selling out America so he can lead the world (follow the UN stuff).

I'm an Atheist JEW , a 100 % one , not a self proclaimed convert as you are . And you know it , you , poor deceiving guy .

Of course that some , many , non Jews are decent or even very decent people . But there are some who are not . One can't help it , she's very ill . The second one , a fake and deceiving goyish guy [ that's this one from Raanaa ] For him "goyish" is meant [ very ] pejorative . For me , people can believe in what they want . As long they are HONEST and of course don't harm anybody .

Circumcision harmfull ? in very special circumstances , yes [ when the gestapo had me taken my pants off ! ] But in normal circumstances ? Has this an influence on someones life ? Can't he live the life he wants ? Can't he change his beliefs ? And what about this question : why did'nt you make me Jewish ? At 18 , or later it's a more difficult operation . PS Girls like circumcised boys !

funny how you, a goy like me, call someone who is actually jewish a goy. you do your little religious group no favors by the example you set. but maybe that's what it's all about.

In Genesis it says that God made man and said his crearion was good. Only in Judaism ir seems that God didn't do a good enough job and the Jews have taken it upon themselves to 'correct' God's handiwork.

Yes, I am the product of a Jewish father and Christian mother. Unfortunately, my father "died" in 1940. My mother, although a Catholic, had the wisdom to drill into my head that I had 3 God-given gifts: A conscience, an exceptional mind, and time; that I should always listen to the first, and not waste the other two. Ironically, it was a very science-oriented, albeit Catholic, education which, combined with her advice, left me no choice, but to reject all religions and to conduct my life according to those God-given gifts. To rely on other people, who may or may not be able to think as well as I, for interpretations of an unknown and unknowable Creator would be an insult to that Creator, and a blatant rejection of the value of His/Her gifts. When all is said and done and at some moment of truth, we all will have to look at and answer only for ourselves and I suspect that pointing fingers at an assortment of Good Books, Rabbis, Popes, Imams or whomever else will not work too well. Above all, it wouldn't change my regret at what I should see compared to what would confront me were I to have listened to everybody else instead of to my own mind. To put it bluntly and speaking spiritually, I prefer to live or die by my own conclusions and insights. And if that creates name-calling on the part of some people, here's something else I learned from my mother: Until they stand you against the wall and shoot you, what others think, say, and do has no bearing on who and what you know you are.

Well , at least Mrs Hartley is a half Jewish by her origin , but more Jewish as you were , are or ever will be . And of course , she's a HONEST person , contrary to you who are a deceiving one .

There is treatment for your problem.

i have a problem i was born with a huge cock, unfortunately im not circumcised will i be able to go heaven?

This is what I found on the the Internet official; sites of various medical organizations. (1) WHO (World Health Organization of the UN) recommends circumcision to all non-hemophiliac men in black Africa, as it is the best known source to prevent AIDS. (2) Because of that, circumcision became very popular in the gay circles in the US and Britain. However, recent observations by British medics discovered that, although the odds for contracting the HIV for circumcised men drop very significantly, they do NOT drop for gay men. There is no scientific explanation for that phenomenon, although some researchers think that considerably more gays that thought previously might have already been infected with HIV virus. (3) The American Pediatrics Academy, after a lot of stormy sessions, adopted this position: for the majority of newborn babies circumcision brings no medical benefits and should be left to the decision of their parents. However, the American Medical Association (the main organization for "adult" physicians) always supported the view that circumcision is very beneficial medically both for the man and his future wife (considerably fewer cases of cancer of cervix among the women whose husbands are circumcised). (4) This is what a friend who had a newly born son told me. The pediatrician informed the parents of the position of the American Academy for Pediatrics. The father asked: "Doctor, why did the Academy changed its position so drastically?" -- "There was a lot of political pressure from certain circles, mainly from the United kingdom but also from some American political groups. The American Medical Association recommends circumcision and refused to change that position under pressure of the American Academy for Pediatrics. "But what would you recommend for my son?" -- "It is up to you to decide." -- "Suppose you would have a newborn son. Would you circumcise him?" -- "I am too old to have new children." -- "OK, suppose you have a newborn grandson? Would your recommend his parents to circumcise him?" -- "Of course I would! There are clear medical benefits of that. But remember: my duty is to tell you of the official position of the American Academy for Pediatrics." (5) According to a recent article in the Wall Street journal, the American Academy for Pediatrics is under strong pressure from many pediatrician to cancel its position because new medical rea=search came to the same conclusions as the old one recognizing medical benefits of circumcision. The Academy refused to admit it made an error but its representative said that its decision did not change statistics: as earlier, over 65% of all American males are circumcised (not the Jews but ALL American males). It admitted that in 2010 it is planning to issue "new" recommendations admitting medical benefits of circumcision. (6) My own – very unscientific - observations. I am an avid swimmer and, almost daily, come to a public swimming pool to swim. Before and after swimming everyone takes a shower. My impression is that virtually all American males are circumcised. Infrequently, I see some uncircumcised men but, almost always, they are Chinese or Indian or Mexican - as far as I can tell looking at them.

#74 "The American Medical Association recommends circumcision and refused to change that position under pressure of the American Academy for Pediatrics." This is quite wrong. From the AMA's official policy at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13585.shtml "The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted as AMA policy at the 1999 AMA Interim Meeting. 1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision. 2. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. 3. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions."

Circumcising babies to prevent a circumcision later on makes no sense. In the UK, less than 1% of males ever need a circumcision for a medical reason, and it's getting rarer. That means to have to circumcise over 100 babies unnecessarily to prevent 1 circumcision later on. Circumcising later on actually hurts less though, it's safer, and the results are cosmetically better. Circumcising to prevent HIV doesn't make sense either. In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV. Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw. ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.

You can find all the medical society quotes at their own websites: Canadian Paediatric Society "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." "Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary." "After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions." Royal Australasian College of Physicians "After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision." (those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.) British Medical Association "to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate." Circumcision does NOT work against AIDS btw. In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV. Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw. ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them. Circumcision doesn't work against cervical cancer either. A 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal discusses circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following: "Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing, there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role."

Circumcising an adult is actually safer and less painful than circumcising a newborn, and the results are cosmetically better. It's also possible. If someone has been circumcised, it is not possible to give them a fully functioning intact penis. PS In some countries, the boys like circumcised girls, but that doesn't make it right. In countries where they don't circumcise boys, the women prefer intact men anyway.

@m: 20. It reminds me of a story from the Shoa "A woman with a bundle in her hands jumped a Nazi who had a little knife sticking out of his pocket and snatched it. She didn't try to kill the Nazi, nor herself, she uncovered the bundle which held a baby and circumcised the baby before the astonished eyes of the onlookers just before being killed together with her baby by the Nazi." My apologies to anyone who holds this story in affection, but it is quite monstrous. If it is true, far from a touching act of faith, it is an additional atrocity; no "quick, relatively painless" Brit Milah, but a ghastly mutilation of a baby whose short life was quite bad enough already. Who could worship the being who would look kindly on such a thing, let alone demand it? Fortunately the story is almost certainly a myth. Can anyone offer any verification (other than many retellings)? Since all the onlookers would have been murdered, and the Nazi certainly wouldn't have recounted it to any Jews, how could the story ever get out? (I suspect it has its origin in fiction. Perhaps someone recognises it.)

thanks for the further comments, as I say in the article, I think the health issue is a red herring as for that story, can't comment as to its veracity but it sounds like an echo of the story about Moses and Zipporah which I mentioned in the article. Such parallels have happened before at times of oppression e.g. the story of Hannah and her sons in the period leading up to the Hasmonean revolt where all eight of her sons are murdered for refusing to worship idolatry and she compares this fate with the binding of Isaac (a theme which recurred during the Crusades as well, for example)

If religion causes barbaric human suffering then all religions should be banned. Religious people are following ancient insane rituals that a person wrote due to the lack of hygiene or some made up story of circumcising bringing you closer to god which is nonsense because if god did not want foreskin he wouldn't have made the foreskin and all men would need to be circumcised not just the Jews. If it said to cut off one arm, they would do that as well claiming god told them to do it. These irrational people should be stopped from practicing barbarism.