If you want to fight Circumcision:

The genital mutilation bill is now circulating amongst US lawmakers. Go to MBathmateBill.org and click TAKE ACTION for help contacting your reps about this.

My letter to W:

I was thrilled to learn that the Genital Mutilation Act had been circulated to lawmakers on February 28, 2005. I urge you to support this measure and work for its passage.

Genital Mutilation of minor girls was outlawed back in the 1990s. Boys and non-consenting adults deserve the same protection. Contrary to what many believe, THERE ARE NO MEDICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR ROUTINELY CIRCUMCISING BOYS. No national medical organization in the world (not even in Israel) recommends routine circumcision for any medical reason.

Circumcision is a permanent pleasure-reducing cosmetic surgery, and as such, only an informed adult can morally consent to such surgery, and only for his or her self. No doctor has a right to amputate normal, healthy, body parts at the behest of someone other than the patient.

Also, for your information, the following scriptural passages make it clear that circumcision is NOT part of Christianity: Romans 2:29, Romans 3:30, Acts 15:10, I Corinthians 7:18, Galatians 5:6, Galatians 5:2, Galatians 6:15, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 2:12, Matthew 9:12, and Gnostic Gospel of Thomas 53. Official Catholic doctrine also makes it clear that the healthy human body is not to be violated unnecessarily. Even the Glorious Qur'an says that God's creation is perfect and should not be altered (e.g. 3:27, 4:119).

Below I include for your reference the complete text of the 2005 version of the bill.

Please let me know how I can help you undertake the necessary public education it will take to win passage of this measure.

Sincerely,
-Ron Low
- - - - -
(see MGMBill.org)

Never gonna happen.

The link you gave doesn't work. This is urgent. They actually have a bill in congress to stop the genital mutilation of babies. Very Very important. We are doing something that people are appaulled to hear goes on in primitive tribes to young girls. It's sickening. Only the person who has it done to themselves, for whatever sick reason they want to mutilate their genitals, should be the one to do it. Where is this so I can do my part in helping save many young babies from being tortured and genitally mutiliated?

FUCK!

The correct link is http://mgmbill.org/

Sorry,
-Ron

GREAT to hear. I hope it gets passed. We all need to support this thing as hard as we can.

I didn't read this proposed bill, but I assume it makes infant circumcision illegal.

Unfortunately this has serious implications in regard to Jewish and Muslim Americans who want their children circumcised as part of their religious beliefs. This bill would seriously infringe on their religious liberties and freedoms if it is what I think it is.

This is a fairly ridiculous thing in my opinion. Even in countries where circumcision is hardly ever practiced it isn't illegal, to my knowledge. It is also not the same thing as female circumcision, in which the entire clitoris is removed. The mail equivelant of that operation would in fact be the removal of the entire head of the penis. Piggybacking it onto an existing bill attempts to suggest that the two are identical in nature and this is false.

Not that any of that matters though, in reality this will never even have a chance of passing. However, the fact that so many are eager to trample on centuries old religious traditions because they've been influenced by some fringe groups is troublesome to me. Cyclops, I believe that you are a Christian, don't you ahve empathy for the sanctity of other religions?

I did read their little FAQ, in which they just brush off Jewish concerns by saying "some Jewish people are ciritics of circumcision themselves," then go on to spit out some heated up rhetoric about how awful a Brit is. Completely absurd. Ah, okay, well some Jewish people are against circumcision, so fuck 'em all! Brilliant reasoning these groups have, brilliant. In my opinion this is hyper-emotional garbage that simplifies and polarizes on the issue.

Of course, freedom of religion is very important in the United States. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. For instance, why should we allow mutilation and not human sacrifice? Even animal sacrifices are considered inhumane, and can bring down the wrath of the SPCA on the practitioners. Why should allowances be made for the Jewish and Muslim religions on the matter of child mutilation? I guess it all boils down to power. The political power of large faith groups, and the power they exert on the offspring of their followers. You have to admit, this mutilation is done on infants without consent...infants who may grow up and decide that they do not wish to be Jewish or Muslim or...gasp... even circumcised.

Swank, I didn't think about that when I posted, but later when I read the site I realized it. Hopefully they would make an exception for religion. I think if they could make it so that doctors could only do it if it was medically necessary (which would be very rare), and Rabbis or whoever does it for Jewish people and Muslims could do it. I mean, it is a part of their religion. And as far as human sacrifice, I don't think the US recognizes any religion that takes part in that, other than calling it a cult.

So we'll make it a felony for them to practice a millenia old religious tradition? I wouldn't say it's teh power of any religious lobby that's somehow keeping circumcision legal against popular opinion. Like I said before, I don't know of any countries where it's illegal to begin with, so I doubt they're actually concerned about it. Congress, like most of the general public, are probably not terribly worried about circumcision.

Like I said, I don't believe that it's actually illegal anywhere, circumcision rates are dropping nationwide. The bill is still quite sili in my opinion. What congressman are actually sponsoring this? I just find it interesting that anti-circ people are so quick to brush off religious freedom. Like I said before, this all preys on quick emotional arguments and fast answers to build support, but the bill is a farce. I can't think of any politician in his right mind who would champion it in congress.

Your post brings up some interesting points cyclops. The proponents of this are arguing that it's barbaric mutiliation of infants, therefore I don't see them being entirely sympathetic to religion.

The natural pet-scenario that the anti-circ crowd will use goes something along the lines of "well what if a religion advocated cutting off a hand at birth? Why don't we allow that mutilation?" or, like you said, the human sacrifice example.

First of all, no major religions advocate that kind of insanity and legal systems and governments draw distinction between real, established religious practices and cultish behavior. For instance, exceptions are made from drug laws in many states so that Native Americans can use peyote for religious practices. But as Kong's post demonstrates, they're fully prepared to deny religious freedom and the choice of parents for the anti-circ crusade. To them, it's butchery no matter what, so this prompts me to ask what is this mutilation?

Circumcision, despite what many would say, is in fact a primarily cosmetic procedure. It leaves the penis perhaps less sensitive and you do not produce the smegma substance. Neither of these consequences particularly impare men in any way, sexually or otherwise. There are millions of happy, healthy, circumcised men who suffer no ill effects and never give it much thought. Their lives have not been severely altered in almost all cases, and their penises, with exception of bad surgeries which we have seen are actually quite rare, work just fine. This is a reality the extreme anti-circ ideology doesn't like to acknowledge. Most people probably never think about circumcision much, if at all, because they have no need to. That's why they try to scare the living daylights out of men with all the trumped up and hyper-emotional recruitment rhetoric. Just linking up the words mutilation and infant in the same sentence invokes an emotional response in anybody - these people aren't unaware of this.

The original female bill appears ban female genital mutilation. I believe this is generally referring to the practice of removing the clitoris, which does have extremely serious sexual ramifications. The removal of the clitoris is similar to removing the entire head or more of man's penis in terms of sexual function and trauma. Likening the two is a cheap tactic to stir up anger and support, but they're not the same thing. Circumcised penis - works just fine. Woman with removed clitoris - serious sexual impairment.

Like I keep saying though, the chances of circumcision ever becoming a felony are ridiculously low, to the point of non-existence.

>> I assume it makes infant circumcision illegal. <<

The bill extends existing protection to both genders, and to adults who don't give consent.

>> This bill would seriously infringe on their religious liberties <<

Amputation at birth restricts the religious freedom of the infant.

>> not the same thing as female circumcision, in which the entire clitoris is removed. <<

Female circumcision usually removes or just slits the prepuce, or clitoral hood, without directly damaging the clitoris. That is now already illegal despite muslims' claims that it is part of their tradition. More extreme (less common) mutilations, and sewing-up, and all that nonsense is also covered, of course.

>> don't you have empathy for the sanctity of other religions? <<

You're free to practice your religion until you mutilate someone else. The Qur'an says "I will smite the necks of the disbelievers" (8:12) and "Kill disbelievers wherever ye find them" (4:91). Are muslims free to to practice that on their children, too, if they happen to express disbelief?

>> simplifies and polarizes on the issue. <<

According to every major medical organization the world over, it's cosmetic surgery - not medically justified. Simple.

In the UK, you can't give your cat a pierced ear. In Isreal and New Zealand you can't trim dog tails or ears. It IS illegal in the US to circumcise a farm animal, and in England they ruled a girl had the right to decide for herself whether to participate in a Hindu ceremony her dad wanted for her where her hair would have been cut.

We've got the Penn & Teller Bullshit! anti-circ episode coming up (the season kickoff was delayed for some reason), lots of newspaper press lately, Howard Stern is still with us. All it would take is for Oprah to get on board and I think this bill has a shot; maybe not without religious exemption (which would be immediately challenged on constitutional grounds). Maybe not this year, but someday soon.

-Ron Low

:clap: ron