Circumcision- Read it and weep.

I'm an oddball. I get that. But I'm nothing if not studious. But here's the truth about religious, biblical circumcision.

When I was pregnant with Ziva I began to become concerned about circumcision. I believe that it goes against G-d's will to prevent our bodies from functioning. For this reason I do not believe in chemical or surgical birth control. So the more I read about circumcision destroying the foreskin, the more conflicted I became. How could a G-d who made us perfect comand us to destroy something on our bodies? Sure, there are biblical references to piercing ears and noses, clipping nails and shaving heads, but these things didn't destroy the body's ability to function. Brit Periah did.

My very wise online friend Zipporah led me to the truth about ancient circumcision. Here it is: Original, biblical circumcision did NOT destroy the foreskin. It didn't. It was meant to be an identifying marker- a sign of the covenant and never a destructive tool. On the 8th day, which we now know is the time at which the baby's blood develops the ability to clot, the mother would haold the boy as the father (or later the mohel) would gently pinch up the foreskin and whatever rose above the very tip of the penis would be quickly cut with a razor sharp blade. It was quick and no more painful than piercing the ears. The recovery time was rapid, the pain subsided quickly and most importantly, the foreskin was still functional.

As a quasi- gentle, attachment parenting type I get to listen to and read tons of uneducated, pontificating and melodramatic hate-speech involving circumcision. Particularly offensive, are the people who are acually bigoted enough to tell Jews and other circumcising religious people to "get a new religion." As expected, none of these people have bothered to educate themselves about circumcision. Do they know the history? Do they know about the different methods? Do they have any understanding of the practice at all other than the dogmatic haters proclaiming it as "barbaric" and calling for illegalization of the practice? Generally, no. And the case could certainly be made that many of these rabidly anti-circumcision parents do equal or greater damage to their children with their dismissal of absolute truth, morality and a god of some sort. Studies show that children who grow up with ANY KIND of religious community are less likely to commit crimes. And the evidence of long-term damage done by circumcison? We're still waiting on that. Some studies indicate the sex is better with a foreskin (an issue resolved if we return to the ancient method) but do we see deep, psychological trauma? No. So while I do not believe that full-circumcision (Brit Periah) is the biblical method, or a kind thing to do, I certainly am not willing to vilify those parents for doing it.

And if you weren't tired of reading yet, here is a historically supported statement (not even coming from a pro-circ stance, by the way) regarding ancient circumcision and the medical version we see today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KEY POINT: The original Jewish ritual left most of the foreskin on thepenis.

The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award forgathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An AmericanHealth Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980]
Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article:
"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]
Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia whichindicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCEwhen the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those whoadopted the athletic Greek way of life.
Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute toAntiochus IV if he wouldbuild a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.
As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minorityof Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especiallybecause most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and theCovenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, fora time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The JewishEncyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]
"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks byepispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in SingerI (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, JohnHyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think theywere Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables ofJewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz ispresident of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]
It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided thatstretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination ofthose Jews who stretched their foreskins:
"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the childrenof the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like thoseof the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from theearth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, underCircumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.New York: Ktav 1901.]
But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decreeto mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son ofJohn Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother andkilling his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]
The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred onehundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising againstthe Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):
"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of thecovenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of theglans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]
"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of theglans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

It seems insane - but it's true: God originally/allegedly toldJews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are ignoring Him..

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/4233/Ancient-nude-wrestling-also-Surgeon-Peter-circumcision-best