Saturday, 8 July 2017

Old Testament/Jewish Circumcision - Male Genital Mutilation.

I don't care about 'races', as far as I am concerned there is only the human race. However I do care about 'cultures' inherited sets of rules that may arbitrarily define a behaviour for no reason other than historic. Whether the culture is followed citing history, deity or anything else is irrelevant, we may choose to follow traditions, but cannot be bound by ancient phantoms.

I am a libertarian, I want the best for myself and would like that to be available to everyone. Life can involve irreversible choices, so if at all possible they should only be made by the person they impact.

Irreversible non-medical surgery on infants offends me because I would not want it done to me if it could be avoided.

If today in the UK there was a culture that called for the destruction of children's feet I would unreservedly condemn this aspect of it - that this used to be required in the Chinese Imperial Court centuries ago, and has some traditional following to this day would carry no weight with me in the modern UK.

Now onto the meat (no sniggering).

The Old Testament clearly does call on Abraham and his male descendants (natural or purchased(!)) to be circumcised or rejected by the community (I guess this implies Christians too - unless the new testament says something about it - I doubt googling this would get the kind of results wanted!).


Now if this can't be reconciled with modern UK culture it must simply be banned - soz, this is my starting point, the status quo is not acceptable, we recognise this for girls (even if our disgraceful police forces refuse to act on the law they are sworn and employed to enforce).

But if it can be reconciled, maybe that would be better...

Well, we already reject the purchasing of children that this old testament bible passage seems to allow, so there clearly is flexibility. Also it calls on eight day old boys to be circumcised but does not say who by, and suggest no penalty against anyone for not doing so.

So there is no penalty for anyone refusing to perform a circumcision, the only sanction is against an individual who should be 'cut off from his people' if uncircumcised. It is inconceivable that a child should be punished if they are not in a position to make a decision - so the lack of circumcision can surely not mean that a child should be punished or cut off from his people? (We've already ruled out selling them off!).

So if a child is not circumcised there is no punishment or sanction to be imposed on anyone.

However, this would change when the boy comes of age and is then competent to make a decision - in this case, they have the choice as to whether to follow this passage or not. They can freely choose whether to be cut off from their people, or from their foreskin.

Simples.

Just to reiterate, in any case mutilating infants should not be allowed in the UK. I believe there is an acceptable solution in keeping with the old testament, but if that isn't acceptable... tough.

2 comments:

  1. I applaud you for speaking out on this issue and for rightly describing the excision of healthy natural erogenous tissue from the genitals of defenceless infant males mutilation. I was subjected to this indignity as an infant at the behest of my mother, and was unaware for over fifty years how much that inconsiderate act had perniciously and profoundly detracted from the quality of life I have lived and will continue to live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have had discussions with a number of non-religious 'assertive' females who have insisted that they would have any male children circumcised -- they used the usual weak arguments (all of which are countered by saying let the child decide when they are old enough), now I honestly believe they were really proposing as an anti-male control freak thing.

      You don't choose the hand you are dealt, everyone must play what they get as best they can -- and hopefully ensure future generations are ensured better hands!

      Delete