InvisionFree gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Learn More · Register for Free
| QUOTE (Bertha @ Nov 7 2010, 01:25 PM) |
| Can anyone explain to me how American Catholics, especially trads., justify the mutilation of baby boys i.e. circumcision. Surely it is a sin to carry out this procedure when it is not necessary. It is just that the Zionists control medicine like they control everything else. |
| QUOTE | ||
| ... Circumcision is done routinely in the American West, as though it were almost a "given"; a boy is born, cleaned up, circumcized, and sent home. In the rest of the West, this isn't so, and most Western male children are not circumcized; people from Italy, Scandinavia, Germany, Brazil, etc. are amazed at the prevalence of circumcision of Christian babies in America and, rightfully, find it odd indeed. Thankfully, Americans are catching up with their Western brothers and are refusing circumcision. In 1960, over 80% of American men were circumcized, but between 1987 and 1996, "only" 37% of newborn males were circumcised during their hospitalization as newborns. Given that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Paediatric Society, among others, don't see value in routine circumcision, how'd it happen that the American Christian parents of male children were for so long actively encouraged by the medical establishment to have their sons undergo a medically needless, excrutiatingly painful, Jewish ceremonial rite? Why were even adult Catholic men encouraged to undergo circumcision when they joined the Army during World War II? How, in Victorian times, did circumcision come to be seen as a cure for solitary sexual sins when studies on the topic have shown the exact opposite desired effect -- a positive corellation between circumcision and the sin of Onan? I leave those questions for you to research. But I do want to say this to the Judaizers who love to remind us that Jesus was circumcized. First, the Old Law has passed away, fulfilled in the New; Baptism has replaced circumcision. Roma locuta est (and besides, we recall Christ's circumcision each and every 1 January, so you're telling Catholics nothing new!). Second, while Jesus was circumcized in obedience to the Law and as a shadow of His shedding His Blood at Calvary, He did not undergo the procedure that is used by modern, post-Temple Jews and by doctors in Western hospitals today. ... I implore parents to not mindlessly, routinely circumcize their sons. Reserve the procedure for valid medical reasons (circumcision under such circumstances having been always allowed by the Church). Study this issue and learn about the medical, psychological, and sexual ramifications of this highly invasive and painful procedure. Dispel the malicious myths about "hygiene" and "aesthetics." If you are a healthy, faithful Catholic, the decision about circumcision has already been made for you by the Church, as far back as the New Testament Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-21).
|
| QUOTE (Clare @ Nov 10 2010, 10:19 PM) |
| Perhaps if I split the last couple of posts into a new thread, and call it "Circumcision" people might notice it and opine! I'll do it... |
| QUOTE |
| The crime of circumcision By Michael Gerson, Published: July 6 “This is my covenant which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10 A district judge in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that ritual circumcision is a crime, violating “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights. “This change runs counter to the interests of the child,” the court concluded, “who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life.” Jews and Muslims have traditionally viewed male circumcision in a different light — not as an expression of individual choice but as a form of initiation into a community. German religious figures from all the Abrahamic faiths criticized the Cologne ruling, with particular outrage expressed by Jewish leaders. Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, called it “outrageous and insensitive” and warned that a general application of the decision would “coldbloodedly force Judaism into illegality.” Though the ban directly applies in only one region of Germany, secular supporters count it a triumph and a precedent. One academic, Holm Putzke, celebrated the rejection of “religiously motivated violence against children.” “The court has,” he said, “unlike many politicians, not been deterred by the fear of being criticized as anti-Semitic or antireligious.” Normally such deterrence would be viewed as a healthy thing, particularly in a country that relatively recently — within living memory — sought to be judenrein, “clean of Jews.” But the fearlessness of modern secularism is a thing to behold. Before World War II, about 600,000 Jews were living in Germany. Today there are a little more than 100,000. This remnant is now informed that its 4,000-year-old ritual of identity — perhaps the oldest Jewish tradition — is a violation of enlightened notions of individual rights. Jewish sensitivity on this subject is understandable. Anti-Semitism has always focused not only on Jewish beliefs but also on Jewish bodies. And circumcision has attracted particular attention. The Roman historian Tacitus called it a “base and abominable” practice, by which Jews deliberately chose to “distinguish themselves from other peoples.” The banning of circumcision by the Emperor Hadrian may have helped foment a Jewish revolt in 132 A.D. During the Middle Ages, the practice was linked to the blood libel — accusations that Jews used the blood of murdered Christians in circumcision rituals. Joseph Stalin banned ritual circumcision along with other Jewish religious practices. Most of the current opposition to circumcision — found not only in Germany but in Sweden, Norway, Holland, Finland and the United States — would dispute the charge of anti-Semitism. The arguments opponents claim are resolutely modern: It is medically harmful (a difficult case, in light of the fact that the World Health Organization and UNAIDS recommend the practice as part of effective HIV/AIDS prevention efforts). Along with the Cologne judge, most critics of circumcision also regard it as a violation of individual self-determination, which raises religious-liberty issues larger than a single snip. A strain of modern liberalism contends that only individuals and their rights are real in the legal sense — and there is no other acceptable sense. It is the role of the state to defend individual self-determination against oppressive institutions, including religious institutions. Since circumcision is coerced, it is unjust. The same claim might be made — and has been made — of early religious indoctrination of any kind. Liberalism thus leads to an aggressive form of assimilation to the values of the liberal order. Many Jews naturally view compulsive, state-sponsored assimilation with suspicion, even if it is described as social liberation. Along with many other religious people, they regard children as members of a community that precedes individual decisions and outlasts them — a community created by a covenant, not a choice. Circumcision is the outward sign of this spiritual reality. In the traditional view, religious communities are not only real but irreplaceable sources of meaning and belonging. They are the ties that free individuals from isolation and ennui — even at the price of a little unremembered pain. There is a story from Holocaust history about a woman at the Janowska concentration camp who demanded a knife from a guard. Taken by surprise, he complied. The other inmates thought the woman intended suicide. Instead, she reached down into a bundle of rags and circumcised her infant boy — then prayed aloud for God to receive him back to heaven as a Jew. If this is the definition of a crime anywhere in the modern world, it is a sad regression from freedom. |
| QUOTE (NWansbutterEsq @ Feb 7 2013, 07:32 PM) |
| There are hygiene benefits to circumcision (done in a hospital, not ritually in a synagogue) and I believe this is why it was a standard procedure in North America at one time. It seems to have fallen out of use -- no one even asked us when our sons were born. That said, having the procedure done out of necessity due to infection later in life is NOT pleasant. |
