Tuesday July 29, 2014
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com
Zip Weather


Weather Forecast
Keizer is a thriving community near Salem, Oregon

 

Jan-31-2008 11:00printcomments

'Thou Shalt Not Circumcise'
The 2nd Commandment Abolishes Circumcision*

"I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to..." great-grandfathers.

Bible image
Image: Sigismond

(PARIS, France) - John the Baptist and Jesus died for baptism by water against the trauma of the “original” punishment, intended to prevent the famous “sin”.

Queen Jezebel and King Achab, the Seleucids (many of whom have been slaughtered by the circumcising Machabees), Spinoza, Olry Terquem, Bernard Lazare, Freud, Bettelheim, Wald, Alice Miller, Tobie Nathan, Derrida also stood up against circumcision.

It is also noticeable that several of the great Books of the Bible: Numbers, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Solomon, and the great majority of the Books of the prophets: Kings, Malachi, Lamentations, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, do not mention the terms: "circumcised", "circumcise", "circumcision".

A very accomplished criticism came from German Reform rabbis in the 19th century. They based on socio-political and juridical motives (the criminal and segregationist custom is the deep cause of Judeophobia), and also on religion: (1) circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses, (2) the Book of Deuteronomy (Moses's book, and the Ten Commandments) does not order it, (3) Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), (4) it was not practised as long as he was the Hebrew's chief (it was set back into practice in Gilgal, for men only, after his death – Joshua, 5: 2-9), (5) there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls. (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).

Prior to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine equivalent, the Egyptians practised – they still do – upon children, the most terrible repression of infantile sexuality that can be imagined.

Spanking already chastises the back for the gentle caresses done in front, as illustrated by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus” (Ludwig Museum, Köln), where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin. But sexual mutilation adds up to it, castrating the human person from the specific organs of autosexuality (the clitoris and the foreskin).

It had been imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement and Moses the liberator could not tolerate it. Considering that these ablations make the phallus a fetish and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry, the Second Commandment exposes chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis. Similarly, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism, praised by present day Jewish writers, rather than the genocide of his Canaanite brothers.

This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites.

Similarly qualifying circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Rabbi Abraham Geiger and his mosaicist, democratic and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision.

The community responded with an outcry orchestrated by Hirsh (a founder of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the Orthodox rabbis attacked their arguments, most dissidents, after twenty years resistance, came back to circumcision. But the “heresy” had reached the United States where many practise non-mutilating nomination.

However that may be,

1 - through ruling out everything that is not included in it, the Book of the Deuteronomy bans circumcision:

“Observe everything I lay down for you, without adding anything to it...” (13: 1)

2 - abounding in our sense, Professor Thomas Römer, with tenure of the "Biblical environment" chair of the Collège de France (the highest French Academic institution), brought us the support of modern exegesis:

"..., you are right asserting that Gn 17 presents another vision of circumcision than Gn 15 or the Deuteronomy. The "lay" writers were seemingly less interested by this practice, and even opposed to it. The expression "circumcision of the heart" might even contain a polemic stand against "circumcision of the flesh."

3 - the Second Commandment in the book of the Exodus:

“You shall have no other God than I. You shall not make yourself idols, nor whatever image... for... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generations for those who offend me, and who extends my benevolence up to the thousandth for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus: 20: 4-6 – literally translated from the translation of the French Rabbinate. Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999), also forbids circumcision. But the rabbis do not interpret it in the light of verse 20: 22:

“If... you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay.”, in which Moses seems to be condemning the fanatics who refuse the intact burial in cemeteries, or profane corpses in order to bury them "within the Alliance". They read it as if it said: “...who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but,

- 3.1 on the one hand, if the sentence had that meaning, it would also have that construction,

- 3.2 on the other hand, if “the crime of fathers” referred to criminality in general, the text would then either say “the crime of the father” or “the crimes of fathers”. “The crime of fathers” can only be the well-known crime perpetrated upon children: sexual mutilation,

- 3.3 and above all, giving the term "jealous" the immoderate meaning of "suspicious" till injustice, that interpretation punishes innocent children in an aberrant way. That sacrilegious amalgam projects into the Second Commandment a notion of collective responsibility that is only dear to far right paranoia. Professor Sami Aldeeb indicated us that Ezekiel (18: 1-20) objected to it:

"... the son will not bear the fault of the father..." (20), God can only be jealous of his creation; man cannot modify it without usurping his place. But the false interpretation survived the protest of the wise Ezekiel,

- 3.4 the Sixth Commandment (“Do not commit homicide.”) already condemns criminality,

- 3.5 the Second Commandment comes right after the first because mass pedo-sexual criminality is particularly reprehensible. Stigmatizing sexual mutilation as a crime against creation (humanity), it punishes it in an imprescriptible way,

- 3.6 the dissymmetry between a boundless reward and a limited in time punishment is due to the dissymmetry between ascendants and descendants; one does not at all see why, if it were the descendants, the divine wrath would stop at the fourth generation, whereas, in the other way round, the issue does not arise,

- 3.7 the terms “whatever image” may include circumcision,

- 3.8 and the conjunction “for” may mark the link of cause to effect between the ban of idols and images and the crime that alters the image of the human body,

- 3.9 the version of the Second Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9), a book of priests which was easy to modify, rubs the terms: "children up to” out, which tends to make believe that the chastising would aim at descendant generations. But who could admit that the most sacred text of the Torah, carved in stone by God in person would have varied? That physical falsification has favoured the intellectual falsification of the Book of the Exodus, impossible to alter since it was well-known to the people. The blue-pencilling may have been operated at the return from the exile of the Jews in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled re-establishing circumcision that had to be given up in captivity; it was a custom of the Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar's worst enemies, from whom it was vital to be distinguished (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002),

- 3.10 at last, through abolishing sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion from the people” of the opponents; an identity of particular sign through a so-called divine order had instituted discrimination and segregation with the "elected". The abolition of this kind of racism is very obviously linked with "circumcision of the heart".

The divine periphrasis: “the crime of fathers”, was therefore denatured and God changed his mind between both Covenants. Moses abolished Abraham’s commandment because law may not speak against life (the foreskin is a very erogenous organ and a protective sheath). Against the alliance through submission (Gen., 17), he contracted the alliance between equals (Deut., 5: 4) of the great Judaism, authentic and universal. The legislator founder of a judicial system with three degrees of jurisdiction decreed the first abolition of the death penalty and the first ethical condemnation of sexual mutilation in history. So, the Second and Sixth Commandments make the Decalogue, the first declaration of human duties and rights in history, a declaration of the very first, indivisible, inalienable and sacred human right: the right to the body. We are requiring its inscription as article 1 of the Universal declaration of the rights of the human person.

For a thorough demonstration, see: circabolition.multiply.com

RELATED ARTICLES: - A New Biblical Breakthrough: Genesis 15 Deciphered (Young Abram against circumcision, forced upon old Abraham) - A Biblical Breakthrough: Moses's Son Forcibly Circumcised

(*) This text is summarized in an 15.01.08 e-letter of Sigismond to the editor of the British medical journal:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180#183746 (towards the bottom of the page)

On 4 September 2008, this subject was given as a lecture in the University of Keele (UK), during the 10th international symposium of NOCIRC nocirc.org/symposia/tenth/symposium08.pdf, organized with NORM-UK and the School of law of the University. Römer T. Personal correspondence. 2010.

(Editor's note: This article was updated 04 Feb 2011)


Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux (Sigismond) is the author of "Sexual mutilation: excision, circumcision, the victims' point of view", for free at circabolition.multiply.com; he is an Independent psychoanalysis researcher (Chercheur indépendant en psychanalyse) based in Paris, France, who works with Salem-News.com to help raise awareness of the massive societal problems connected to the blindly accepted, mutilating practice of circumcision. He says, "Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, justice and injustice. But power is at the tip of the tongue and the sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons."

(La non violence est aussi fondamentale que la violence, l'amour et la haine, le juste et l'injuste. Mais le pouvoir est au bout de la langue et la douce violence de la parole, si l'on s'en empare, peut faire taire les armes.)




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



binjilc August 17, 2011 3:01 am (Pacific time)

http://sectesetreligions.meilleurforum.com/t773-abram-contre-la-circoncision#14181


Sigismond August 30, 2010 1:08 am (Pacific time)

Circumcision non longer refunded! Spare your money, daddy!


Sigismond (Michel-Hervé Naviseau-Be August 14, 2009 1:11 am (Pacific time)

A young mum castrates her child instead of circumcising him The circumcision polemic has recently come to an extreme point in Houston (Texas). Indeed, on the next morning of an argument with her husband about circumcising their baby or not, a young and pretty mother has castrated her baby. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6567872.html http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/localandid=6961392andrss=rss-ktrk-article-6961392 This caricature of circumcision is the most ferocious lesson that can be given to the collective circumcising madness that has been raging for decades in the United States. Indeed, the only way to explain that desperate gesture is to understand that the young mum's troubled mind has merely mingled the whole sex and the foreskin. Psychoanalysis teaches that this is a typical form of unconscious reasoning, commonly called madness. Freud calls it "condensation"; Lacan, pointing out that it is a purely mental and linguistic process, calls it "metonymy". The metonymy at work in this case is: the whole instead of the part. The young mum is of course irresponsible. American collective circumcising madness is responsible. The American Medical Association must immediately pronounce the abolition of circumcision.


Kyle July 30, 2009 9:56 am (Pacific time)

Hi all. If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read "President Can't Swim". I am from Senegal and also now'm speaking English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Us representative chris van hollen has introduced legislation to establish a green bank as a tax exempt wholly owned corporation of the." THX :-D, Kyle.


Anonymous April 6, 2009 11:33 am (Pacific time)

JEWISH HUNGER STRIKE AGAINST CIRCUMCISION IN FRONT OF THE CAPITOL http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003312.html?wprss=rss_print/style Rallying in the Name of the Unkindest Cut? Sharp Rhetoric Abounds In Circumcision Debate Washington Post By Dan Zak Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 31, 2009; Page C01 In the shadow of the nation's most recognizable phallic symbol, they gather and march. There are about 50 of them, all ages, both sexes, nearly all white, smiling, quiet, enjoying the sun as they make a slow loop in front of the White House with their signs of protest. Their mounted photos of pink squealing babies make the event look, at first glance, like an anti-abortion rally. But look closer at the squealing baby photos and see why they're squealing. On second thought, don't. Just read the big black sign with bold white letters: WHOSE PENIS? WHOSE BODY? WHOSE RIGHTS? These people are intactivists. As in, activists who want male genitalia kept intact. As in, people who want a federal ban on male circumcision for newborns... ...There is, of course, a serious, disturbing side to this. Leading the pack are two 21-year-olds, Jason Siegel and Zachary Levi Balakoff, who are on Day 3 of a hunger strike. They say they won't eat until genital mutilation is exposed. Go ahead, ask them why. They'll tell you, for many minutes, about the "entire realms of exquisite feeling" they are missing by not having foreskins and the corresponding nerves. The "giant monstrosity" of circumcision "envelops" their entire lives. "If we have to die, then that's what's necessary," Balakoff says. They say they'll sit in front of the Capitol until they starve.


Sigismond March 6, 2009 8:36 am (Pacific time)

I hope I mhave highlighted enough that the 2nd commandment (and the Ten), are much more a human right issue than a religious one/


Sigismond March 6, 2009 8:30 am (Pacific time)

It has also been the subject of a lecture given at the 10th symposium of NOCIRC in the School of law of the University of Keele (U.-K.).


Sigismond March 6, 2009 8:29 am (Pacific time)

I'm happy to anounce that my denunciation of the falsification of the 2nd Commandment has been accepted for publication in WIKIPEDIA English (TEN COMMANDMENTS - Discussion), French (Les DIX COMMANDEMENTS - Discussion) and Spanish (igual).


Sigismond March 6, 2009 8:25 am (Pacific time)

IT'S A GREAT DAY TODAY! A JEWISH BABY HAS BEEN SAVED ON HUMAN RIGHT GROUNDS! 22nd February 2009, I received the following message from our famous French circabolitionist Timoté: "Hi, Hervé ! I'm writing you because it's a little late for calling but I must tell you that it is a great day today. It took enormous proportions in the whole family and by dint of making an impossible mess, snatching it, we nevertheless succeeded to get a giving up. They will not circumcise the toddler but only make a prayer instead. I did want telling it to you right away. Friendships. Timoté


Sigismond February 14, 2009 10:14 am (Pacific time)

The foreskin is man's best friend.


Sigismond February 1, 2009 10:18 am (Pacific time)

And, of course, happy clitorises too, for the whole 2009!


Sigismond December 24, 2008 2:54 am (Pacific time)

HAPPY FORESKIN TO EVERYBODY Sigismond (author of "Sexual mutilation, the child's point of view", for free at intactwiki.org)


Sigismond September 15, 2008 11:33 am (Pacific time)

An elephant victim of the circumcision campaign in Africa: http://intactwiki.org/Image:El%C3%A9phant.png Charlie-Hebdo 27 August 2008


Sigismond September 14, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

The restoration of the foreskin has become popular in the USA and the movement is spreading to Europe. Jewish sportsmen devised it in antiquity; as they were a little more naked than the others in the Olympic Games, the crowd gibed them. They imagined covering their glans through stretching the remaining of their foreskin. But this caused Jewish new-borns an additional torture non-prescribed by Abraham: the peri’ah (see chapter V). It cuts off the whole outer and internal foreskin all the way to the basis of the glans, including tearing off the inner mucosa, closely stuck to the glans at that age. Atrociously cruel, the operation seems having discouraged young Jews from restoration but contemporary Americans, who endure the peri’ah like them, brought it back into fashion. Obviously, growing again lasts longer with the peri’ah (from three to six years) but those persevering are largely rewarded by recovering their glans sensitivity. The success of restoration demonstrates both the pointlessness of a wanton torture and the sexual harmfulness of circumcision.


Sigismond September 9, 2008 11:09 am (Pacific time)

First consequence: the mutilated need strong stimulation. They more fre-quently resort to marginal sexual practice such as anal or oral sexuality and homophilia.


Sigismond September 9, 2008 11:08 am (Pacific time)

Love is intended by nature mucosa against mucosa (some see there a promise of subtle exchange) and not skin against mucosa. It is not an exercise of gymnastic or massage but a demonstration of tenderness.


Anonymous September 9, 2008 11:06 am (Pacific time)

A study (National organization of circumcision information resource centers. Men scarred by cir-cumcision. San Anselmo: 2000. http://www.cirp.org/news/nocirc12-7-00/) showed that penile sensitivity of whole men is 25-30% higher than that of sexually maimed men.


Sigismond September 9, 2008 10:58 am (Pacific time)

The hypersensitive mucosa of the glans becomes dry and coarse skin, 10 times thicker (Foley J. The unkindest cut of all. Fact magazine 1966; 3 (4): 2-9. http://www.cirp.org/news/1966.07_Foley)


Sigismond September 9, 2008 10:52 am (Pacific time)

“The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.” (Care of the uncircumcised penis: Guidelines for Parents (pamphlet). Elk Grove Village, IL: American academy of pediatrics; 1984)


Anonymous September 9, 2008 10:51 am (Pacific time)

Who said: “My kingdom for a skin!”? - The glans.


Sigismond August 24, 2008 7:17 am (Pacific time)

Another quote by Saint Paul has preceded that of Mohammed: “God put every member in the body as he wanted it.” (1 Corinthians, 12: 18). Sigismond


Sigismond August 15, 2008 9:39 am (Pacific time)

Paul also wrote: “Was he found uncircumcised by the call? He must not get circumcised!” (Letter to the Corinthians, 1, 7: 18)


Sigismond August 15, 2008 9:38 am (Pacific time)

It seems that Mohammed had read St Paul; indeed the latter wrote: “God put every different part of the body, just as he wanted it to be.” (1 Corinthians 12: 18)


Sigismond August 15, 2008 9:30 am (Pacific time)

“Did you see the gifts God granted you? You hold some lawful, others unlawful. Did God allow you this?” (The Koran, 10: 59)


Godsofchaos August 10, 2008 9:22 pm (Pacific time)

" I do allow people to say what they want to say but insults are not part of an intelligent conversation."Tim King "As for the fantasy law of sedition that you blabbed about; you are really a total nut job. Go back to your soap operas now you little Nazi freak. Funny that changing one letter on your names makes it "Liar", how appropriate is that?"Tim King Wow that was intelligent conversation.....love the double stranded on this site Tim King "Go bow to your picture of Bush now and be sure to get to bed by 8:30."Tim King’s response to Godsofchaos. Wow looks like its past my bed time...its 12:11PM


Godsofchaos August 9, 2008 4:47 pm (Pacific time)

"Censorship does not apply to private business practices."salem-news

To quote Dr Phil"Hows that working for you?"

Though I can't say I know the exact financial position that Salam News is in but I know what is happening to the newspaper industry overall. Its dying...I don't anyone under 30 that subscribes to a news paper. If you continue to censor people that disagree with you...your site will always remain small. What attracts people on the blog-sphere is a site that will allow them to (within reason) to say what they will.

Tim King: I do allow people to say what they want to say but insults are not part of an intelligent conversation.  You know your posts appear here.  


Godsofchaos August 9, 2008 3:39 pm (Pacific time)

"Hey man, I am getting tired of your offensive crap and this post is cut off."Tim King

And I am getting tired of you censoring my posts...I thought journalists were against censorship: Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you have fair grounds to delete my posts.

Censorship does not apply to private business practices.


Godsofchaos August 9, 2008 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

"Why on earth would I be surprised if you bashed people trying to bring sense and logic to this ridiculous, outdated medical practice."Tim King Why on earth do you allow someone to keep posting 20 times to himself to keep a debate that died out about a year ago? Should I keep trying to post to myself on the M-16 debate just because I am interested on that topic.Have you read Sigismond's last post? If that isn't spam then nothing is....


Godsofchaos August 8, 2008 6:30 pm (Pacific time)

"In autosexuality, the foreskin, unrolling and stretching in width and length, literally makes love to the glans, for the greatest pleasure of each of both organs, but without sliding nor rubbing and thus without need of lubrication, in both braced and smooth contact; mmmmmmmmm! Cordially yours,"Sigismond...

Tim King: Hey man, I am getting tired of your offensive crap and this post is cut off.  I have worked quite a bit with this gentleman in Paris and he is dedicated to an important cause.  You on the other hand don't stand for anything except being some kind of a bizarre "anything the government says is true" mentality company man,  People like you are not heroes for anybody.  Why on earth would I be surprised if you bashed people trying to bring sense and logic to this ridiculous, outdated medical practice.


Sigismond August 6, 2008 9:20 am (Pacific time)

In autosexuality, the foreskin, unrolling and stretching in width and length, literally makes love to the glans, for the greatest pleasure of each of both organs, but without sliding nor rubbing and thus without need of lubrication, in both braced and smooth contact; mmmmmmmmm! Cordially yours,


Sigismond August 6, 2008 9:16 am (Pacific time)

Diamonds are forever, the clitoris and the foreskin too!


Sigismond August 6, 2008 9:16 am (Pacific time)

French medical oath: “I shall respect all persons...I shall intervene to protect them, if… they are threatened in their integrity...” Cordially,


Sigismond August 6, 2008 9:15 am (Pacific time)

SEXUAL MUTILATION A DOUBLE DISCRIMINATION: of the individual and of the people The absence of mutilation entails a casting out by the ethnic group. This is an intolerable attempt against the right of the individual to be considered by their relatives whatever their physical appearance may be. This systematic accessory of sexual mutilation reveals its deep meaning of measure of exclusion, of a barrier to marrying outside the group by dissuading the youths from mixing up with those of neighbouring groups. Intended to separate the group from others, sexual mutilation is a sectarian act, sometimes committed under the guise of religion. But exclusion calls for hatred and some great thinkers (Spinoza, Freud) denounced circumcision as a source of hatred from neighbouring peoples. Therefore, sexual mutilation is encouraged by tyrannical regimes that use it as initiation for their troops and sign of tribal distinction or phallic, perverse rallying. It has a sexist character. It is incitement to discrimination, insidiously disguised under what could be finery were it possible to easily take off, and taking for alibi the festivities of folklore. Imposed by military-religious elites, the community sign is always a call for nationalism, a threatening provocation to strangers, a sign of war. The French legislator did not misunderstand it by forbidding the carrying of religious signs at school. Veil, foreskin, clitoris, the death penalty, to arms et cetera, the escalation of mutilation, sexual or other including mental, is the great instrument of the war between generations. Being latent and insidious, this neurotic war, a source of genuine wars, is no less atrocious. In order to channel human needs at the service of the interests of the ruling classes, it attempts to divert sexuality against love for the sake of the reproduction of the group. Sexual mutilation is both antisexual and antidemocratic. More fascist than fascism, it is unbearable by fascists themselves; this is not a reason for democrats to tolerate it. Cordially yours,


Sigismond August 6, 2008 9:12 am (Pacific time)

A definition of infantile sexual mutilation: In order to submit the child and enhance their societal (and sometimes mercantile) “value” by diverting sexuality from pleasure (above all for women) towards reproduction, infantile sexual mutilation irremediably castrates them from the specific organs of autosexuality, while deeply traumatizing the human person. Cordially yours,


Sigismond July 24, 2008 12:57 pm (Pacific time)

Circumcised to death at 2 and 1/2 months! http://www.repubblica.it/2008/07/sezioni/cronaca/bari-bimbo/bari-bimbo/bari-bimbo.html http://www.repubblica.it/2008/07/sezioni/cronaca/bari-bimbo/bari-arresti/bari-arresti.html


Sigismond July 12, 2008 10:55 am (Pacific time)

Norway: 60% of the rapes are committed by 2% of circumcised. Hofvander Y. Professor at the university of Upssala. Male Circumcision in Europe: Is there anything we can do? in Sexual mutilation, a human tragedy. New York and London : Kluwer Academic/Plenum publications. 2008. (non published yet). Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond June 22, 2008 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

AN OPEN LETTER TO MONSIEUR ET MADAME NICOLAS SARKOZY, MOSES JESUS AND MOHAMED, DEFENDERS OF THE RIGHT TO THE BODY Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux Mr and Mrs Nicolas Sarkozy 89 rue d'Hauteville Palais de l'Elysée 75010 Paris 75008 Paris Paris, June 22, 2008, Madame, Monsieur, The efforts made for decades by associations, international institutions and governments against child sexual mutilation, relayed by medicine and social workers (the efforts of Mr. Bertrand in 2006 and 2007 were laudable but ineffective) run up against multimillenary beliefs. There is ample evidence that male sexual mutilation is the major source of violence in the world, particularly violence against women (in Sweden, eighty percent of rapes are perpetrated by two per cent of the population who are circumcised) and urban violence, but also wars and genocide (see my e-book: "Sexual mutilations, the child’s point of view" on the site http://intactwiki.org). However, the research that I conducted over many years enable me to give you, here below, the proof that the three greatest prophets: Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, spoke against it but their message has been stifled by priests. Because it is normally based on ethics, religion should convince where med-icine is incapable. This is why I ask you to allow that the teaching below be broadcasted by the media as soon as possible since, every day in the world, eight thousand girls and thirty-five thousand boys undergo the knife. Thankfully yours, Sigismund (my author’s name) “THOU SHALL NOT KILL.” MOSES, JESUS AND MOHAMMED, DEFENDERS OF THE RIGHT TO THE BODY. I – DISCOVERY OF A THREE-MILLENIAL FALSIFICATION THE 2ND COMMANDMENT: “I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to…” great-grandfathers..., FORBIDS SEXUAL MUTILATION http://salem-news.com/articles/january312008/circ_paris_13108.php (PARIS, France). In ancient times, John the Baptist and Jesus, among the first, gave their lives for baptism by water, against the traumatism of the “original” punishment, that of the prime erection. It leads straight to that of the cross, or to beheading, for those who rebel. Since then, numerous attempts of abolishing circumcision occurred. The most elaborated one was that of German Reform rabbis, in the middle of the 19th century, for socio-political and legal reasons: a criminal assault against the child, the custom isolates the Jews, and also religious ones: the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of Moses, and thus the Ten Commandments) does not prescribe it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised under his reign (it was set back into practice for men only, after his death, in Gilgal – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571). Previous to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised, and still do, upon both sex children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality (a scientific discovery by Freud). Spanking hits behind what is so gently done in front. Strikes accompany it, up to the Spine Crown and the Cross, as shown by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus in front of three witnesses: André Breton, Paul Eluard and the painter” (Köln: Museum Ludwig) where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin. For sexual mutilation (ISM) castrates the child of the specific organs of autosexuality. It was imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement. After having freed them, Moses could not tolerate that some would carry on these barbarous customs. Thinking that these ablations make the phallus a fetish in seemingly permanent erection (“It's so much prettier!”) and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry, he denounces, through the 2nd Commandment, chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis. In the same vein, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism praised by nowadays Jewish writers, rather than genocide of his brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites. Similarly deeming circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Abraham Geiger and his Mosaic, democrat and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision. It was an outcry in the community – orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the rabbinical authorities answered their arguments, most dissidents came back to circumcision, after twenty years resistance. But the “heresy” gained the United States where some practise non-mutilating nomination. The falsification here denounced hides that the 2nd Commandment forbids circumcision and that God seems to have changed his mind between both Covenants. It interprets the following verses: “... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generation, for those who offend me, and who spread my benevolence to the thousandth, for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus, 20: 5-6, French Rabbinate translation (literally translated). Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1966), as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but: 1, if the sentence had this meaning, it would also have this construction, 2, the version of the 2nd Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 8) rubs out the terms “upon children”. But how could the most sacred text of the Torah since carved in stone by God in person, have varied? The Book of the Exodus, well-known to the people, could only be falsified intellectually. The thing was favoured by the blue-pencilling in the Book of Deuteronomy, a book of priests, easy to modify. The cut making could be operated at the return from the exile in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled setting back into force circumcision that had to be abandoned in the jails of Nebuchadnezzar; it was a custom of the “Egyptians”, his worst enemies (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004). 3, the text does not say “the crimes” but “the crime”, a precise, well-known crime upon children...: sexual mutilation, 4, asserting that God punishes children for the crimes of fathers, the orthodox interpretation gives the term “jealous” the aberrant meaning of suspicious till the injustice of condemning children and grand-children irresponsible for paternal criminality. The just will not allow such interpretation; a jealous God is jealous of his own creation, which man may not alter, 5, besides, one could not understand why a punishment of criminality applied to the whole family would dead abate at the fourth generation. On the other hand, it is natural that the punishment of circumcising criminals could not be applied beyond great-grandfathers, 6, it duplicates the 6th Commandment: “Do not commit homicide.”, 7, the 2nd, at the contrary, brings out mutilative paedo-sexual criminality as very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of mass crimes, striking a whole part of the population, children in the case in point. Justly locating sexual mutilation amongst crimes against creation (humanity), he distinguishes it from ordinary crime, 8, consequently, for the first time in history, a legislator enacts an imprescriptible penalty, striking the elderly years after their crime, 9, a few verses below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlightens it: “If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay. You must not either go up on my al-tar through degrees so that your nudity does not uncover itself there (let us not that Moses, in shrewd sexologist, advocates capped penetration).” (Exodus, 20: 21-23) 10, at last he tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion” of the opponents that institutionalizes identity discrimination, the worst one. The meaning of the divine periphrasis was therefore denatured. In order to hide that the expression: “the crime of fathers” aimed at sexual mutilation, their supporters – and blind victims – cleverly twisted it through blasphemous introducing an inexistent double meaning. We owe the great Jewish liberator and legislator, an enemy of slavery and barbarity, the invention, against infantile sexual mutilation, of the concept of crime against humanity, with imprescriptible penalty. Abolishing Abraham's, the 2nd and 6th make the Ten Commandments: the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man, a declaration of the right of the child and the human person to the first of their rights: that to physical integrity and property of their body. It forbids any mutilation without grave and strictly medical motive. Religions and animisms valuing one hair of a child less than temples, books and oral tradition, deserve seeing them destructed or forgotten. This is a summary; read the whole article at http://intactwiki.org II – THE KORAN AGAINST SEXUAL MUTILATIO The Koran already criticized, in a barely veiled way, feminine and masculine sexual mutilation. Indeed, verses 6: 115, 10: 59 and 16: 89 exclude everything that is not included in the holy book: “Did you see the gifts God granted you? You hold some lawful, others unlawful. Did God allow you this?” (10: 59) Besides, it abounds in affirmations of the perfection of creation: “… no changes in the creation of God, here is religion in its rightfulness…” (30 : 30), and appears condemning the generalization of circumcision by Abraham: “When the Lord tested Abraham by certain words and he had accomplished them, God said: “I shall make you a guide for men.” Abraham said: “And my offspring?” The Lord said: “My alliance does not concern the unjust.” “…Cursed be he (the devil) who said: “I shall take a certain part of your servants, I shall lead them astray, I shall make them empty promises, I shall order them to cut the ears of cattle and change God's creation.” Whoever takes Satan for master, rather than God, is obviously doomed to loss.” At last, verses 2: 136 and 3: 84 render homage to Jesus, an upholder of baptism by water: “We believe... in what has been entrusted to Moses and Jesus...” But now that we know that the 2nd commandment condemned sexual mu-tilation, we are forced to consider that the preference of the Koran for Moses and Jesus by comparison with the other prophets implies a rejection of sexual amputations: “We gave certain prophets a preference over others...” (17: 55) and that the fate made to his two great predecessors by the supporters of circumcision caused Mohammed not wanting to forbid it straight out. However, the fact that, like Jesus but unlike Moses, Mohammed did not know what a foreskin is: "No one has ever seen my foreskin." (Haddith) probably has a lot to do in this decision. Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux) – oldsigismund@hotmail.com – researcher in psychoanalysis, a specialist of ISM, author of “Sexual mutilation, the child's point of view”, available free at http://intactwiki.org and http://groups.msn.com/circabolition Sign the world petition against ISM at http://montagunocircpetition.org. Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, beauty and ugliness. But power is at the tip of the tongue and sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons. “Fascism is: “Shut up!”, democracy: “Talk all you want!”. Psychoanalysis is neutral; “You talk to me; I heal you; I speak to you, you cure me.” There are only facts; interpretation is that of the prince. ANNEX THE DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES AGAINST SEXUAL MUTILATION Blacks from both Americas bring an historical proof of the cogency of the fight against sexual mutilation. Indeed, when Césaire affirms that no man may have a right of property on another man, he obviously includes children and women. And when he quotes the odious colonial saying: "Beating a nigger is feeding him”, he stands against all colour enslavers who dispose of the body of children, women and men to assault them affirming: “It’s for your own sake.” He does not seem claiming African tradition: "The umbilical chord has been cut.” At all events, he never made sexual mutilation a “value of niggerism”. Like the Marrano Jews forcibly converted to Christianity by the Inquisition, the descendants of the slaves profited by the prohibition of excision and circumcision. For a slave costs a lot. When they noticed the number of deaths through haemorrhages and infections, without speaking of botched operations (slaughtered vulvas, amputated glans, etc.) provoked by sexual mutilation, the enslavers forbade it. It was the great benefit of slavery. It eased the life of the deportees. So, at the time of the abolition, the ancient slaves did not come back to sexual mutilation. They had realized the number of saved lives, avoided infirmities, days of forced immobilisation during healing and the considerable time spoilt in festivities during which the laughter of some fed in the pain and tears of others. But foremost, their excised and circumcised ancestors had been able to notice the benefit in sexual pleasure and blooming of their intact children, without them becoming profligate for all that. Custom is one of the sources of law. The example of the American slaves shows that it is for customs as for laws; those that should never have existed must abolished. MUTILATING THE SEX OF CHILDREN IS ENSLAVING THEM THROUGH MONSTROUS TERRORISM: KILLING A PART OF THEM AS A THREAT TO KILL ALL OR PART OF THE REST. GET UP, STAND UP AGAINST BABYLON! DO NOT LET BABY ALONE AGAINST THE KNIVES!


Sigismond June 19, 2008 1:42 pm (Pacific time)

AIME CESAIRE AND SEXUAL MUTILATION. Blacks from both Americas have an historical responsibility in the fight against sexual mutilation. Indeed, when the poet Aimé Césaire affirms that no man may have a right of property on another man, he obviously includes children and women. And when he quotes the odious colonial saying: "Beating a nigger is feeding him”, he stands against all colour enslavers who dispose of the body of children and women to assault them affirming: “It’s for your own sake.” He does not seem claiming African tradition: "The umbilical chord has been cut.” At all events, he never made sexual mutilation a “value of niggerism”. Like Marrano Jews converted by force to Christianity by the Inquisition, the descendants of the slaves profited by the forbidding of circumcision imposed by enslavers. Not mad, the enslavers! A slave is worth a lot of money! When they saw the number of deaths through haemorrhages and infection, not to say anything of the botched operations (slaughtered vulvas, mutilated glans, etc.), they forbade sexual mutilation. It was the great benefit of slavery that eased the life of the deportees. At the time of the abolition, no one thought of coming back to sexual mutilation, to the loss of time, the terrible pain, provoked maiming, lost lives and forced immobilization during healing. At last, the excised or circumcised ancestors had reported, on their remained intact children, the considerable gain in sexual pleasure, without them to become profligate or vicious for that much. MUTILATING THE SEX OF CHILDREN IS REDUCING THEM TO SLAVERY THROUGH MONSTROUS TERRORISM: KILLING A PART OF THEM IN THREAT OF KILLING PART OF ALL OF THE REMAINING. GET UP, STAND UP AGAINST BABYLON DO NOT LET BABY ALONE AGAINST THE KNIVES! Custom is one of the sources of law. The example of the American slaves shows that it is for customs as for laws; those that should never have existed must abolished.


Richard Matteoli June 13, 2008 3:58 pm (Pacific time)

According to Jewish anthropologist in "Marked in Your Flesh" the account of Abraham was added about 500 years after Solomon and 500 years before Jesus. The Moses account is in the oldest known text "The Book of J." It is thought to have been written by a female in Solomon's court. Anthropology is leading the way where we should start reading the Testaments in the light of how Robert Graves wrote his "Greek Myths." This type of analysis does not diminish matters of faith, only to understand what really happened.


Sigismond June 11, 2008 10:07 am (Pacific time)

It’s highly interesting to notice that just one month after my article in Salem-News, a Jewish researcher published an article affirming that Moses and the Jews who followed him in the desert were a gang of junkies taking hard drugs, so that the Ten Commandments of which I strongly recommment the respect of are considered as a product of delirium: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/960407.html Of course Abraham’s behaviour throwing himself at the feet of some supernatural being ordering him to cut off the most intimate part of his body cannot be considered as dictated by some extremely psychotic autodestructive melancholic delirium!!! Cordially yours Sigi


Sigismond June 11, 2008 9:16 am (Pacific time)

THE 2ND COMMANDMENT AND EXCISION Before this discovery, the Muslim world considered that excision was not ordered by religion. From now on and since the Koran considers Moses as one of the main prophets of Islam (2: 285), it must be said that religion forbids excision. Cordially yours, Sigi


Sigismond June 10, 2008 10:32 am (Pacific time)

Hi! A nice poem against circumcision: Go all the more gentle on your first day, Young age smiles and sparkles in starting May, Love, love against the blades and the dismay. Fool men at their end wish to take away Your lovely and defenceless skin, you may Go all the more gentle on your first day. Frail infant the first grin by, how lay Your silky sex might dance in so deep bay, Love, love against the blades and the dismay. Fierce men’s religions try to cage the day But find imprisoned birds cannot be gay. Go all the more gentle on your first day. Desperate and anxious men near death may Avenge on you, for their lust make you pay. Love, love against the blades and the dismay. And you sister, there on this blissful pray, Smile, bless me now in your glittering way, Go all the more gentle on our last day. Love, love against the blades and the dismay. Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux)


Sigismond June 3, 2008 9:24 am (Pacific time)

Sorry, friends, it's taken me a long time but I've become aware that the religious argument shall prove the most efficient against sexual mutilation. This for a very simple reason: sexual mutilation all around the world is foremost done for religious reasons: Muslims (1.2 billions), African animists (quite a bunch), Filipinos, Jews. Above all, a very stupid argument against FSM is that it is not ordered by religion. Sorry since SM is prohibited by religion, then FSM is also probihited. Indeed we now know that the 2nd Commandment forbids not circumcision but "the crime of fathers" (SEXUAL MUTILATION of girls and boys as a whole). Now, the Koran acknowledges all prophets and therefore Moses: one of the main prophets. Consequently, we have in our hands the very best argument to convince all religious people: Muslims in first place (1.2 billions), African animists (quite a bunch) and Jews, the remaining will follow. Consequently, all religions (Islam, Christian, Jewish) forbid infantile SM, either FSM or MSM. Therefore, we must win the battle. Cordially yours, Hervé -- Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, beauty and ugliness. But power is at the tip of the tongue and the sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons. La non violence est aussi fondamentale que la violence, l'amour et la haine, le beau et le laid. Mais le pouvoir est au bout de la langue et la douce violence de la parole, si l'on s'en empare, peut faire taire les armes. Sigismond


Sigismond May 29, 2008 8:16 am (Pacific time)

Circumcision is the child Jesus not inside his velvet pants but robbed from them.


Lynn May 27, 2008 8:01 pm (Pacific time)

Thank you for sharing this, please share any other information you have on this subject as it is of interest to me.


Sigismond April 17, 2008 7:24 am (Pacific time)

Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love, hatred, beauty and ugliness. But power is at the tip of the tongue; only the sweet violence of speech, if the mass take hold of it, can silence weapons. After Moses, Marx, Freud, Mao, Gandhi, Lacan, Baez and many others


Sigismond April 12, 2008 9:16 am (Pacific time)

The amputation of the foreskin is irreversible; it destroys around 90-120 cm2 of skin and mucosa.


Sigismond April 5, 2008 9:14 am (Pacific time)

A PROPOSAL FOR PEACE: Create Internet game rooms in the whole IRAK to occupy the warriors at playing war peacefully. Love and peace, Sigismond


Sigismond March 30, 2008 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

An interesting Gastro-enterologic view about circumcision: Masculine stupidity has no limits. A physician taught us the alimentary reason of Jewish and Muslim cruelty to animals. The mutilated of the foreskin are victims of PTSDs entailing spasms of the colon. The latter are reduced through avoiding the ingestion of animal blood (meat and even fish). Torture towards young children provokes torture to animals. The abolition of circumcision is a necessity for the living. Sigi


Sigismond March 21, 2008 6:00 am (Pacific time)

Jesus-Christ! Pulling my foreskin after my both legs! Are you queer into the bargain???!!!; Les termes de recherche spécifiés - "Old covent Bible" – ne correspondent à aucun document. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 21, 2008 5:56 am (Pacific time)

Sorry I forgot the beginning: Power is at the end of the tongue...


Sigismond March 21, 2008 5:54 am (Pacific time)

Here is my last redaction (sorry it is from yesterday and I'm finalizing it): Only the weapon of criticism, in hand of the masses, can silence the criticism of weapons. I could sign: Karl-Mao-1968-2008 but it's a bit long so, Cordially yours, Sigismond will fit.


Sigismond March 21, 2008 5:50 am (Pacific time)

So now, you pass from old convent to old covent...! Here is indeed typical falsification of yours...! You decidedly smoked the carpet, which was not doctor Leveque's prescription, you bad boy! That's why you got fired! So much for you!


Sigismond March 21, 2008 5:45 am (Pacific time)

"What where you doing all 20 years in the church? sleeping?" - Looking at girls, man, and back! That was the best! Cordially yours, Sigismond


Godsofchaos March 20, 2008 5:04 pm (Pacific time)

"This is why I've just "googled" "Old Convent" but I didn't find anything of your saying. You're definitely pulling my both legs, good friend... Cordially yours, Sigismond"Sigismond If you typed Old covent Bible you would have found this at the very top. Lesson 14 - What is the Old Covenant? "Many believe that the Old Covenant refers to a harsh Ten Commandments law, while the New Covenant pertains only to grace and promises not based on law or obedience. Although popular, such traditional concepts are completely wrong. Professing Christianity has never understood the significance of the two divisions of God’s Word."Lesson 14 - What is the Old Covenant? It goes on to say:"Yet, the Bible reveals the true meaning and significance of these divisions, known as the Old Testament and the New Testament."What Is The Old Covenant? Note: This came from a Bible Introduction Course. What where you doing all 20 years in the church? sleeping? "The major part of the Bible has been misnamed the “Old Testament” when the proper name is the “Old Covenant.” Here is how it came to be misnamed:"What Is The Old Covenant? You can read the entire article at:http://www.thercg.org/bics/rcgbic-014.html. "Only the weapon of criticism, when the masses will take hold of it, will be able to silence the criticism of weapons."Sigismond Yeah many people critcized tyrants such as Saddam, Hitler and Stalin. It didn't stop them a bit.


Sigismond March 20, 2008 11:00 am (Pacific time)

Only the weapon of criticism, when the masses will take hold of it, will be able to silence the criticism of weapons. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 19, 2008 8:57 am (Pacific time)

"The experimental study by Sorrells and al. about penile fine-touch sensi-tivity confirms the works of Head about the great insensitivity of the glans. They also disclose a certain fine-touch sensitivity of the corona of the glans (a part traditionally considered as the most erogenous). Circumcision reduces this sensi-tivity of the corona by 20%. They also show on one hand that, with the intact, the orifice ring – cf. Taylor’s discovery below – is the area with the highest fine-touch sensitivity. Foremost, this sensitivity is twice that of the most sen-sitive part of the mutilated penis (scar)." excerpt of the Medicine chapter I of Sexual mutilation, the child's point of view", free at intactwiki.org


Sigismond March 19, 2008 8:55 am (Pacific time)

"they stab us in the back after 9/11. As for respect was this before or after WWII." As for heaven's sake, this is before WWIII and 9/11 was a warning you've got to face, with or without us.


Anonymous March 19, 2008 8:51 am (Pacific time)

"I mean look at this moron's name, can you say blasphemy? I guess that writes off his affiliation with the so-called Christian-right, right?" I learnt he is a Wiccan... may be this accounts for his strangeness? Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 17, 2008 8:54 am (Pacific time)

FOR GIs ONLY - another excerpt of my book: The unique autosexual function of the foreskin One cannot wholly defend the foreskin without once making oneself the histrion of it. Manusexuality of the foreskin through the prized technique known as “the prayer” is the inescapable demonstration of its formidable erogenous ef-ficiency. The circular gliding of both hands joined and rubbed the one against the other around the sheathed glans, in a lateral instead of longitudinal move-ment, is the fastest way to achieve orgasm; less than two minutes. The recipe can certainly be applied to the vulva. Ablation of the foreskin besides destroys the fraenulum. This small square centimetre is man’s most erogenous area, a true erotic acupuncture point. Never forget your evening prayer... Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 17, 2008 8:24 am (Pacific time)

"all wars happened because of circumcision." I never said this. You must be pulling my leg - instead of your foreskin :-)) . But actually, between 1996 and 2002, there were four times more wars in circumcising countries, twice more the death penalty (which is a long term affair) (look for the tables in the Annexes of "Sexual mutilation, the child's point of view", free at intactwiki.org. But indeed, over the ten genocides of modern times, only one did not imply circumcised on one side at least! As for Christianity, I've given up when I was 20, that is soon 41 years ago. However, in this country, I've never heard the "distingo" you speak about and only know the one I wrote, and I had an exhaustive christian education. This is why I've just "googled" "Old Convent" but I didn't find anything of your saying. You're definitely pulling my both legs, good friend... Cordially yours, Sigismond


Godsofchaos March 14, 2008 8:05 am (Pacific time)

"Chaos, I understand you must be somewhat disappointed learning that you've lost a so valuable part of yourself. But you still can restore your foreskin. It's only a question of patience. However, for your child, please LET THEM BE FREE TO MAKE LOVE WITH THEIR FORESKIN RATHER THAN WAR WITHOUT IT."Sigismond Yes because all wars happened because of circumcision. It could be something called resources, desire for more power, and ideological conflicts. "YOu're wrong chaos; the term New Testament is used to design the Evangiles of Christ's Apostles."Sigismond First off. Are you a Christian Sigismond? If you are I can't believe you would make such a stupid statement. Old Convent equals Judaism. New Convent equals Christianity. Old Testament equals Judaism. New Testament equals Christianity.Open the Bible and read it before making such brainless statements.


Sigismond March 14, 2008 6:22 am (Pacific time)

Hi! Chaos, I understand you must be somewhat disappointed learning that you've lost a so valuable part of yourself. But you still can restore your foreskin. It's only a question of patience. However, for your child, please LET THEM BE FREE TO MAKE LOVE WITH THEIR FORESKIN RATHER THAN WAR WITHOUT IT. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 12, 2008 11:04 am (Pacific time)

YOu're wrong chaos; the term New Testament is used to design the Evangiles of Christ's Apostles. Both Biblical Covenants belong to the First Testament. At all events, I don't see the point; what would this change? Cordially yours, Sigismond


Godsofchaos March 11, 2008 5:34 pm (Pacific time)

" "Therefore God – or Moses – did not wrongly word the Second Commandment."Sigismond ""9 Then God said to Abraham,..." you didn't realise that God changed his mind between the First and the Second Covenant?"Sigismond "3/ the text does not say "the crimes" but "the crime", which involves a precise, well-known crime upon children that can only be sexual mutilation,"Sigismond The First Covenant was the Old Testament. The Second Commandment was in the Old Testament. You stated that the Second Commandment condemned circumcision. God ordered circumcision in The Old Testament. "9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."Genesis 17 Genesis is in the Old Testament.The Second Covenant is the New Testament.


Anonymous March 9, 2008 10:26 am (Pacific time)

"the USA, through its inmense economic and military power must necessarily be at the head of important world reforms like that of abolition of circumcision." Actually, the USA, I'm proud to say because I love your country, is at the vanguard against ISM (infantile sexual mutilation). Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 9, 2008 10:24 am (Pacific time)

" Chaos!!!!!!!! " Oh, you doubt it!? See that excerpt from my free e-book (intactwiki.org): "Out of the ten genocides of modern times: Congolese, Hereros, Armenians, Jews, Biafrans, Cambodians, Hutus, Tutsis, Bosnians, inhabitants of Darfur, nine implied circumcised on one side or the other. Except for one civil war (Sri Lanka), all wars, between 1996 and 2002, involved at least one circumcising country. But they were 4 times more frequent in cir-cumcising countries. The death penalty is more than twice more common in countries practising cir-cumcision. Torture is more widespread in them. Excision (practised in half of circumciser countries) only exists in circumcising countries." Now for you complaint, YOU didn't even read my last three posts. This is not arguing, it's autistic monologue. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Godsofchaos March 9, 2008 7:46 am (Pacific time)

"chaos of the foreskin - chaos in the world! Cordially yours," Sigismond Chaos!!!!!!!!Love how you ignored my point on the Bible and any other points I made.


Sigismond March 9, 2008 5:39 am (Pacific time)

" "Therefore God – or Moses – did not wrongly word the Second Commandment."Sigismond "9 Then God said to Abraham,..." you didn't realise that God changed his mind between the First and the Second Covenant?


Sigismond March 9, 2008 5:36 am (Pacific time)

""God (The Koran) did not prescribe circumcision to Mohamed. At the contrary, The Koran (30: 30 and 4: 118-119) shares the Mosaic conception, both theological and humanitarian, of respect of the physical integrity, dignity, privacy and modesty of the child," Sigismond" Then they slap C-4 (I'm not American and I can't understand this techno-colloquial language) on them and tell their child to run at Americans." Actually, didn't the circumcised Americans run at quite a few Muslim countries in order to get some more oil? Put Sigismond's fuel in your tank, not Irakian blood! All this nonsensical bleeding settlements of accounts between circumcised are just a fight for world supremacy.


Sigimsond March 9, 2008 5:31 am (Pacific time)

" "Here, I do not have a chance."Sigismond" Why is that? Because Europe was the first hit by the Nazis and that this dreadful souvenir impedes every reform which might appear antisemitic, which the old Jewish guard exploits. "Why can't you make sweeping reforms in your nation? Why not fix your nations problems and leave Americans to fix theirs." Because we are all interdependent and because the USA, through its inmense economic and military power must necessarily be at the head of important world reforms like that of abolition of circumcision. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 8, 2008 9:37 am (Pacific time)

"The experimental study by Sorrells and al. about penile fine-touch sensitivity shows on one hand that, with the intact, the orifice ring – cf. Taylor’s discovery below – is the area with the highest fine-touch sensitivity. Foremost, this sensitivity is twice that of the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis (scar)... The synergy between fine-touch sensitivity and erogeneity makes the foreskin an irreplaceable sexual organ." Cordially yours, Sigismond


Anonymous March 8, 2008 9:34 am (Pacific time)

"Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and glans." (excerpt from "Infantile sexual mutilation, the child's point of view" by Sigismond, free at intactwiki.org)


Sigismond March 8, 2008 9:33 am (Pacific time)

The only touch organ possessing an as rich erogenous innervation as that of the foreskin is the clitoris. (excerpt from "Infantile sexual mutilation, the child's point of view" by Sigismond, free at intactwiki.org)


Sigismond March 8, 2008 9:30 am (Pacific time)

chaos of the foreskin - chaos in the world! Cordially yours, Sigismond


Godsofchaos March 8, 2008 7:08 am (Pacific time)

"Here, I do not have a chance."Sigismond Why is that? Why can't you make sweeping reforms in your nation? Why not fix your nations problems and leave Americans to fix theirs. "God (The Koran) did not prescribe circumcision to Mohamed.At the contrary, The Koran (30: 30 and 4: 118-119) shares the Mosaic conception, both theological and humanitarian, of respect of the physical integrity, dignity, privacy and modesty of the child,"Sigismond Then they slap C-4 on them and tell their child to run at Americans. "Therefore God – or Moses – did not wrongly word the Second Commandment."Sigismond "9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."Genesis 17 Seems like God would disagree with you.


Sigismond March 7, 2008 10:48 am (Pacific time)

I forgot to tell it's a free book, I'm doing this to occupy my old age... take it and use it, it's a pleasure for me.


Sigismond March 7, 2008 10:46 am (Pacific time)

Actually, chaos, you've mistaken me. I do not intend to represent my country, we have an administration for that. I only wish I could save a few babies through my book; I have a hint that if it is successful in this country, then the great news could spread to the whole world and even to my own land, who knows. Here, I do not have a chance.


Sigismond March 7, 2008 10:15 am (Pacific time)

"this unfriendly and hostile character " may be a victim of circumcision?


Sigismond March 7, 2008 10:12 am (Pacific time)

Hi, Chaos! This world is indeed going to chaos, this is a good reason to ignore frontiers. Isn't pushing away the "frontier" an old American dream? This is why my free e-book you appreciated so much fights sexual mutilation as a whole all over the world. Read it at www.intactwiki.org. "assuming you meant "I didn't protest" instead of "I did protest." " Ask Tim. I can even tell you I was not the only one to "protest.


Sigismond March 7, 2008 10:02 am (Pacific time)

BEAUTIFUL: One Woman's View If I talk to women about circumcision and they don't seem to get it, then I make it personal. Sometimes I tell a story. (This probably works best woman to woman.) I'll tell them to: - Imagine that you are admitted to a hospital for some minor surgery. On waking up from the anesthesia, you realize that your inner labia and the hood over your clitoris have been cut off. When you confront your doctor, he explains that the tissue that was removed was "redundant" and not necessary for sexual functioning. He goes on to say that you will be much easier to clean and have less odor, there will be less chance of infection, and he felt that you would look "better", more aesthetic. He says that when he told all of the "risks" and "benefits" to your family, they gave informed consent for the procedure. How would you feel? Now imagine that you were awake and resisting, but they did it anyway. If they don't get it right away, they usually will later, when they are alone. - Susan Peer Parents of Intact Sons. Information about the advantages of keeping your sons intact and support group for parents of intact boys. Susan Peer, RR 1, Box 1324- A, East Stroudsburg, PA 18301. Tel: 717-223-1337.


Godsofchaos March 6, 2008 6:13 pm (Pacific time)

"Just remember that most Americans respect and admire France and know that people there are as great as anywhere."Matt Johnson Are you refering to the time before or after they stab us in the back after 9/11. As for respect was this before or after WWII.


Matt Johnson March 6, 2008 4:28 pm (Pacific time)

Hey Sigismond, just remember that this unfriendly and hostile character below is the kind of "ugly American" that we find shameful. He and his small crowd of confused and angry white men in this country have a loud voice because their cause is related to greed and money. I mean look at this moron's name, can you say blasphemy? I guess that writes off his affiliation with the so-called Christian-right, right? Just remember that most Americans respect and admire France and know that people there are as great as anywhere. It is no surprised that what's his name, chaos boy, thinks babies should keep having the end of their penises whacked off. People of his type run from any new idea that is progressive or that saves humanity a little pain, their idea of "the American way" is the opposite of what most of us see it as.


Godsofchaos March 6, 2008 10:50 am (Pacific time)

"In thye country of Lafayette, we never wait for helping!"Anonymous Well stop it.America broke away from England for a reason. We are an self relient socity. We don't need France telling us what to do. We the people of America guide ourselfs not France,not the UN, and not any other nation in the world.So unless you become a citizin of the United States please stop acting like your going to make sweeping reforms in OUR Nation. I would suggest to instead look at YOUR nation's promblems and what needs to change in YOUR nation instead of looking at a nation problems on the other side of the world. "I did protest!"Anonymous You got all high in mighty when I bring your nation's flaws to light. So now you know were I am coming from. You are like the next door neighbor who is willing to notice a small weed in his neighbors garden but misses the overgrowth of problems in his yard. Worry about your yard not your next door neighbors.By the way I assuming you meant "I didn't protest" instead of "I did protest."


Anonymous March 6, 2008 8:23 am (Pacific time)

"Sigismond Once again your posting to yourself." Oh, thanks for being my self...! Blind me: a Frenchphobic self! "beat the horse", I think I have a guess but I'm not really sure, could you tell me more about it. "a part of the United States", what a great honour! Thank you, Sarkozy! "the speak in our eye and ingoring (inverted?) the plank in yours" this we call "la paille et la poutre" (literraly the straw and the... beam - I had to look it up) "firing people." I did protest! "I have right to my paycheck" Oh, that's you! So glad you are back! In thye country of Lafayette, we never wait for helping! and thanks for the Evangile, it's been a long time since I did not read it. Love and peace.


Godsofchaos March 5, 2008 8:08 pm (Pacific time)

“... torture or inhuman acts inspired by political, philosophical, racial or religious motives and organised in a concerted plan against a group of civilian population...” Cordially yours, Sigismond Once again your posting to yourself. Move on. Every aspect of this debate has been shown.You have repeated your idology (anti-circumscion) over and over. In fact your coming off as a raving insane because you talk to yourself so much.Second off all you are French. "Secondly, being French, I do not understand what the expression "beat the horse" means...?"Sigismond So unless France becames a part of the United States you just pointing out the speak in our eye and ingoring the plank in yours. Such as people that riot when a law is discussed about firing people.(God no I haven't shown up for work in two years but I have right to my paycheck) So unless America activlly asks for help from France I suggest you stay out of our busniess. "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."Luke 6:42


Sigismond March 5, 2008 9:57 am (Pacific time)

INTACTIVISM FOR PEACE: Daniel Burman's proposal. "THE LOST EMBRACE" (film criticism) ELIJAH’S SON SITS IN ELIJAH’S ARMCHAIR (1) Marilyn Milos (a nurse founder of the American movement NOCIRC (2) against infantile sexual mutilation) wrote me a letter saying: “I would put my own body between the scalpel and the baby.” Reproaching her son to come home late without warning, the excessive mum of Ariel, the thirty-year old or so hero of the movie, also brings her body into play, possibly because of her un-conscious guilt for having let him be circumcised; why else would she have taken the cake knife that she is holding out to him, saying: “Kill me!”? With a better understanding of those responsible of the antique threat of castration (for boys) and, indirectly, excision (for girls), the young man gently ignores this dis-course and puts the blame on his father, Elijah, and the rabbi. To his father, a fighter back from Israel where he found “refuge” after di-vorcing his unfaithful wife, he calls out: “You cut the wee-wee of a new-born knowing that you cannot stay?!” (We should readily say: “You cut the wee-wee of a new-born, that’s why you ran away!”) The rabbi shows him a document that has been cut with scissors. And he explains that it has been done so that no one can reuse it. - “Oh! Like circumcision!”, the hero retorts. However, the father comes back with an arm having been amputated, an escalation that strongly makes one think of “Monty Python, Holy Graal”. Blade of the mother’s knife, edge of the father’s surgeon’s scalpel, scis-sors of the rabbi, icy steel in the hand of the mohel during the unbearable scene (sensitive souls, shut your eyes) of circumcision, the knife is very present in this movie that rises up against the torturing and shameful mutilation of humans treated like fetishes, marked like the manufactured objects of the shopping ar-cade where our hero earns his living. With the implacable serenity of the judge, mixed up with filial tenderness, the son opposes these castratist blades with the sharpness of a language that both condemns and forgives, deciphering and disentangling family bonds tied down in the ball and chain of thousands of years of obscurantism. The weight of this antiquity has made sadism and torture a feature of eve-ryday life in cultures practising circumcision: the release of the movie coincided with the scandal of torture of Iraqi prisoners by mostly circumcised (without an-aesthesia) American soldiers. We can ask ourselves whether the only difference between filming a baby’s circumcision for the family album and sending one’s friends pictures of torture does not lie in the intensity of the torture. The later sa-dism of the victims of the shocking mutilation thus stresses the deeply paedo-phobe nature of circumcision which tortures and mutilates the child in the most intimate part of his person. Nature welcomes us in a world of lack, it is really useless to lay it on. There is no necessity for the abuse of power of cultures that make the individual their victim by an act of terrorism against the child. This victimization consists of losing a protective envelope, a shelter, the house where it is good to be. Seeing one’s house being destroyed is like being chased from paradise, from the Garden of Eden, and condemned to wandering. The lesson running all along the movie is that of indignation and revolt against violence set up as educational system. Unable to embrace his father and communicate with him, the son, without a single word, provokes him to a walk that ends up in a race of both amputated. The scene reminds one of Godard's “Breathless” as well as of the 1968 “Run, run, fellow, the old world is after you!” Daniel Burman (3), with ingenuous but firm simplicity, prophesies the abolition of infantile sexual mutilation, only possible alternative to the terrorist and general extermination promised by foreskin hunters who think they are chiefs (“An uncircumcised is not a man!”) by advocating the oldest crime against humanity (4), minor but outside the statute of limitations, obnoxious be-cause it is committed against the child. Burman's lesson goes much further since the hero spends a good part of his time trying to return and live in his country of origin: Poland. Advocating the right to the return of the Jews in European countries, the film gives a solution to a conflict that tears the world apart. Sigismond (oldsigismund@hotmail.com – http://groups.msn.com/circabolition) revised by Marilyn Milos (nocirc@cris.com – http://www.nocirc.org) (1) A piece of furniture in Jewish ritual circumcision. Elijah having preached the return to cir-cumcision, the Jews are Elijah’s sons. (2) NOCIRC already obtained in sixteen states the cessation of reimbursement of circumci-sion by insurance companies and masculine infantile sexual mutilation is rapidly declining in the USA. (3) Great award of the jury in the 2004 Berlin festival. (4) “... torture or inhuman acts inspired by political, philosophical, racial or religious motives and organised in a concerted plan against a group of civilian population...” Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 4, 2008 10:11 am (Pacific time)

"Jews, Jews," dear Michael, what about Muslims and Christians, so much more numerous in our world? My idea is that they should be influenced by Moses's standpoint. Isn't he one of their prophets, too? However, since for Jews only, circumcision was first ordered by God, then they should lead the way to the abolition of the afterwards-probihited-by-God custom. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 4, 2008 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Thank you, myg, for the reflexions of a great American psychologist. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 3, 2008 9:07 am (Pacific time)

"if they are prepared to sacrifice their foreskin for that purpose when they are 18 or older." No one can impede someone to butcher oneself. But the one who lifts the knife upon another human being is either a criminal or a physician acting out of very serious medical reason. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Andy March 2, 2008 10:15 pm (Pacific time)

The rights of the child supercede any religious, cultural, traditional practice etc. The individual can make their own choice whether to belong to such religion, culture etc and if they are prepared to sacrifice their foreskin for that purpose when they are 18 or older. It’s way past time to end this disgusting practice and bring the criminals who perpetrate and perpetuate it to justice.


Michael Glass March 2, 2008 8:07 pm (Pacific time)

The text that commands circumcision says, “Every male among you shall be circumcised,” but Jews make exceptions on the grounds of health. The text says circumcision shall be done on the 8th day, but Jews make exceptions if the child is not well. The text commands the circumcision of slaves, but Jews don’t keep slaves any more. The text commands that if anyone doesn’t get circumcised, he must be cut off from his people, but Jews don’t do that either, though they do encourage uncircumcised Jews to get circumcised. Of the text commanding circumcision, not one clause is taken completely literally.


myg March 2, 2008 3:51 pm (Pacific time)

Sigismond, your findings are fascinating and if they help people reconsider age old practices on a newborn, all the better. In short, genital sexual mutilation, like corporal punishment, under any guise, is violence against the child and will affect the child, society and the world. May the rights of the child to safety and non-violence continue to progress.


Sigismond March 2, 2008 10:01 am (Pacific time)

John the Baptist and Jesus paid with their lives their supporting baptism by water. Question: were John the Baptist and Jesus histrions? Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond March 2, 2008 10:00 am (Pacific time)

I know I'm alone to support the article. Indeed there is nothing much to argue and the readers may very well have nothing to say, since the matter: the falsification of the 2nd Commandment since three thousand years, is simply indisputable. Secondly, being French, I do not understand what the expression "beat the horse" means...? Sorry.


Godsofchaos March 1, 2008 11:06 pm (Pacific time)

"Circumcising is sexual blinding." William Van Lewis. Sigismond move on. Almost the last 10 posts have been made by you alone. Take a hint. You have not only beaten the horse but it is now six feet under and a foot ball stadium has been erected over its grave.


Sigismond March 1, 2008 7:24 am (Pacific time)

"Circumcising is sexual blinding." William Van Lewis


Sigismond February 28, 2008 9:52 am (Pacific time)

“Circumcision undoubtedly weakens lust and sometimes pleasure.” (Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1190. III. ch. 49. Chicago: University of Chicago press; 1963. p. 609.) Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 28, 2008 9:53 am (Pacific time)

“Circumcision undoubtedly weakens lust and sometimes pleasure.” (Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1190. III. ch. 49. Chicago: University of Chicago press; 1963. p. 609.) Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 26, 2008 9:06 am (Pacific time)

“The foreskin protects the glans throughout life.” (Care of the uncircumcised penis: Guidelines for Parents (pamphlet). Elk Grove Village, IL: American academy of pediatrics; 1984.)


Anonymous February 24, 2008 8:43 am (Pacific time)

French medical oath: “I shall respect all persons..., I shall intervene to protect them, if… they are threatened in their integrity...”


Sigismond February 24, 2008 8:42 am (Pacific time)

“… For all who feel invaded, handled, bottled, packaged, All who spent themselves with combat with the plague, All who walked into the knives of humiliation or hatred. ” Pete Hamill. Preface to "On the tracks" by Bob Dylan. New York; 1974.


Sigismond February 22, 2008 11:51 am (Pacific time)

I love this beautyful one from Kathleen, one of these so shrewd and fierce US intactivists: "God made our baby with love, care and wisdom." except for his penis which needs to be 'fixed'." Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 22, 2008 10:54 am (Pacific time)

BABIES ARE BORN PERFECT Cordially yours, Sigi


Sigismond February 21, 2008 9:12 am (Pacific time)

What is this strange thing at the end of the penis? - Man!


Sigismond February 19, 2008 9:33 am (Pacific time)

Hi! BRING THE WHOLE BABY HOME!


Sigismond February 15, 2008 9:21 am (Pacific time)

Could someone ask Mc Cain and Obama their standpoint about circumcision. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 15, 2008 9:15 am (Pacific time)

MOTHERS AND FATHERS FROM ALL COUNTRIES, DON'T THROW BABY'S CLITORIS OR FORESKIN OUT WITH THE BATH WATER!


Sigismond February 15, 2008 9:13 am (Pacific time)

MAKE LOVE WITH YOUR FORESKIN, NOT WAR WITHOUT IT!


Anonymous February 15, 2008 9:11 am (Pacific time)

"All of the discussion concerning religion and circumcision is moot,..." My point is that Moses is definitely much more than a religious figure. As I emphasized in my writing, The Ten Commandments are a genuine declaration of the duties and rights of man. Their concern is certainly religious; it is also of elementary ethics. Moses was indeed a great political man and a legislator, the inventor of one of the first two level systems of jurisdiction. The Ten Commandments are universally considered as elementary ethics. And very obviously, their stand against circumcision has strong juricical value; it is a FMGM Bill dating from three thousand years!!! Moreover, they concern Christians and Muslims all over the world. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Tandy February 15, 2008 6:17 am (Pacific time)

"But in the US whether one likes it or not short of amending the first amendment to the Us Constitution you will not be able to ban male infant circumcision." It has been amended--and it is called the 14th amendment which states that any law must protect EVERONE regardless of gender. The FGM laws bans ANY female circumcision, so..?


Tandy February 15, 2008 6:14 am (Pacific time)

All of the discussion concerning religion and circumcision is moot, as research has shown that circumcision was an invention of the priests and not any kind of mandate from some god. http://home.comcast.net/~consult2/index.html


Sigismond February 14, 2008 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Who said : My kingdom for a skin!" - Answer: the glans.


Sigismond February 11, 2008 2:44 am (Pacific time)

"Genesis 17 is not original to the Bible, having been inserted into the Book by Jewish priests, newly returned from the Babylonian Captivity, where they instituted numerous "Laws" to help distinguish themselves and their people from their far more numerous, urbane, and sophisticated overlords, so that Jewish identity would not become submerged and lost." Refering the Jewish debate to the return from the exile in Babylon is fundamental. It seems indeed that circumcision was strongly set back into practice when coming back to Palestine. At this epoch indeed, a manuscript of the Book of the Deuteronomy was found again buried in the temple. But there is a very strange and dubious alteration of the text of the 2nd Commandment in Deuteronomy: the words "upon children" have been cut off in this version. Who can believe this deliberate falsification, not of the meaning this time, but of the very text itself?! Imagine a text written by God in person - therefore most sacred - on stone tables, suddenly cut short from two extremely significant words: "upon children", in the expression "the crime of fathers upon childres". And then pfft, thetwo words jump off! Who can believe this lie? Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 11, 2008 2:34 am (Pacific time)

"Perhaps the best solution to the circumcision debate is to wait until the boy is old enough and fully mature enough to understand the consequences of his decision, to fully educate him on the pros and cons and then let him decide." First, one decision cannot solve a universal debate, second, Benjamin Franklin shrewdly dismissed the idea: "The one who gives up an essential liberty for a fleeting and uncertain security does not deserve either security or liberty.” Now, on one hand medical associations agree to consider the circumcision debate uncertain, on the other hand, 80% men in the universe consider keeping one's foreskin as an essential security and liberty. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Anonymous February 11, 2008 2:14 am (Pacific time)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...". Therefore no US law can allow ("respect") mutilation of the child by whatever religion (or am I mistaken in my reading or the 1st amendment?). Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 11, 2008 2:05 am (Pacific time)

"Moses was not God and was never presented as God." This is inaccurate: indeed,(Deuteronomy, 29: 4-5) says: “Moses called the whole Israel, and told them: “I kept you walking for forty years in the desert... so that you should learn that I, the Eternal, am your God!”. According to the thesis of the Jewish egyptologist Messod and Roger Sabbah (New York: Helios press; 2004.), Moses was the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses (Ra-Mesou) Ist. This is why he calls himself "The Eternal", since the Egyptian royal family was eternal and deified. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 10, 2008 11:06 am (Pacific time)

About histrionism, we now know that the foetus gaily practices autosexuality inside the womb (up to autofellatio). It has been observed several times through ultrasound (Giorgi G., Siccardi M. Ultrasonographic observation of a female foetus' sexual behavior in utero. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1996; 175 (3): 753 and Calderone M. Fetal erection and its message to us. 1983. http://www.siecus.org/siecusreport/volume11/11-5.pdf). Is the foetus a histrion?


Anonymous February 6, 2008 10:55 am (Pacific time)

"But in the US whether one likes it or not short of amending the first amendment to the Us Constitution you will not be able to ban male infant circumcision." I'm afraid we don't need any law against circumcision; the Second Commandment, if properly read, is much more efficient than the First amendment in this respect. Don't forget that the Ten Commandments were the first declaration of the duties - and consequently rights - of man in history. It is still considered as universally valid.


Sigismond February 6, 2008 10:48 am (Pacific time)

"As for the second commandment, the text I found is "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." My quote of this Commandment is an extract of the translation of the French Rabbinate (Paris, Les éditions Colbo, 1996). It is the only translation acknowledged by the Jewish community in this (France) country.


Sigismond February 6, 2008 10:10 am (Pacific time)

"I have a severe phobia of needles (well actually of anything foreign entering my body)" Anything like the mohel's knife?...


Sigismond February 6, 2008 9:36 am (Pacific time)

"you try and equate female genital mutilation with male circumcision and try and imply that I support such when I so clearly do not." Jesus-Christ, how and where did I do such things??? Please find quotes from me that might demonstrate it. I simply do not understand. It is true that masculine and feminine sexual mutilation are both the castration of the respective organs of autosexuality. But everyone knows that accidents of circumcision, though possibly grave, are scarce, whereas grave accidents and lifelong damage of excision are numerous. How could I deny such thing, which, by the way, is much more well-known by us French people, since our physicians have a long practice in Africa. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 4, 2008 9:32 am (Pacific time)

"I have a severe phobia of needles" At last, you get it, you harsh (for yourself) deeply buried in denial denegator ! I win, by large! Indeed, you have just avowed that you have been severely traumatized by your circumcision. How the hell otherwise would you mind for a small needle prick? Come on, tell me! Cordially yours, Sigismond "They also cry when inoculated, do you oppose that too?" Another exerpt from my e-book will answer you: Jurisprudence of European high courts tolerates limited attacks to the principle of physical integrity committed in the aim of preventive prophylaxis (vaccines) under the condition that they should be, one, operated for the protec-tion of life, two, proportionate to their aim (European court of the rights of man, 6.10.77; Conseil d'état (French State council), 26.11.1), three, submitted to offi-cial enquiry. Now physical mutilation is not limited attack but highly pervasive practice. For this reason, elementary ethics considers it unacceptable on prophy-lactic grounds. Second, considering the risks of the operation and its very doubt-ful advantages, no medical society in the world recommends ritual or cosmetic circumcision. Therefore, it has no chance to fulfil the last two conditions. It has rashly made an exception to the above principles due to sharp claims to the right of liberty of cult and to a respect of cultures ignoring that of the rights of the child. These pretensions exert a brazen intimidation impeding governments and courts to condemn infantile sexual mutilation as a whole. But this tolerance is unwarranted and this exception must end. Striking the specific organs of autosexuality, infantile sexual mutilation has to be outlawed whatever the sex of the child may be. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 4, 2008 9:18 am (Pacific time)

A POEM FOR MISHA BOLDT POEM FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD I am the child, your king. I’m the ephemeral, the Eternal in you, Who calls you back to order When you depart from virtue And spoil yourself into accounts. I am the one who is, the one you laugh about, The one you use and abuse, Whom you keep from understanding, Listening only to yourself. And whom you manipulate, The one you lie to, The one you trap and harry, Whom you censor and disfigure, The one you knock and bruise, Whom you torture and crucify, The one you mutilate and kill, Performing barbaric rites Against its most sacred rights. I am the child you make in your image To be your victim. Don't be their victim, Misha. Don't let yourself be done. Keep your independence. In our world, autosexuality is the greatest taboo; all adults do it, no one dares speaking about it and all scorn it, The fools, it's the best thing in the world, enabling you to remain independent. That is precisely one of the hidden aims of circumcision: reduce your independence, compell you to an early, non-well-thought-of marriage, a marriage arranged by them. Give them the foreskin, they'll take the whole body! At the contrary a great French poet wrote: "The happier you are, the more you love the others. If you love yourself just a little bit, then you love the others. It is not a question of pride, it is a question of rest..." Enjoy yourself, Misha, and choose physical integrity, you will find out one day that it goes with moral integrity. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 4, 2008 9:07 am (Pacific time)

"No one circumcised (properly) as an infant has any memory of it and infants know nothing of castration.. " My dear fellow, you seem totally unaware of emotional reactions and unconscious memory. I really suggest that you should read my e-book because you will learn a lot of what is definitely lacking you. Profit by the fact that in spite of your libelling affirmation of plugging it through my article, it is actually a free book available at http://intactwiki.org You will find this in the front page: The child must be defended for free and Sigismond does not wish earning royalties from the misery of infantile sexual mutilation. He keenly encourages every reproduction and distribu-tion of all or part of this work, only wishing that the author and source: “Sexual mutilation, the child’s point of view” - freely available at the site: http://groups.msn.com/circabolition - be mentioned. If you appreciated this work, come and express your support there through reg-istering yourself. Please do not fail to sign the petitions. Comments, suggestions and criti-cisms are welcome for a perpetually building site, since years (oldsigismund@hotmail.com). Thank you for the 6th commandment, I corrected the book right away (e-books are really a great issue; you can correct them endlessly. A few authors and editors do begin selling paying e-books.) About plugging, I am absolutely unable to define wether the article plugs the book or the book the article? Depending on the importance you grant the Bible, the answer will vary... By the way, about the Jews in the desert, you forget they not only have free stories and poems counted by Moses personnally but also free manna... They only complained because it was manna at all meals... Cordially yours, Sigismond


Van Lewis February 4, 2008 8:50 am (Pacific time)

Neal said, "Oh equated circumcision to slavery huh?" That is the most reasonable explanation of the origin of genital mutilation in the middle east that I have heard. Anthropologists tell us that agriculture was invented in the middle east thousands of years ago. That was territory of gathering and hunting cultures. They gathered and hunted food. That much is known. Given this background, here is the theory of the origin of genital mutilation in the middle east that makes to most sense to me: When gatherers and hunters came into farmers' paddocks and fields containing food, they gathered and hunted the farmed foods. Conflict ensued. The farmers treated the gatherers and hunters like they treated all other agricultural pests. People died. In the Bible that history is told in the story of Cain and Abel. Then the farmers, whose limiting factor in terms of food production capability in those days was human labor, realized that killing the hunters and gatherers wasn't smart. What the farmers really needed to do was to capture these human agricultural pests alive, domesticate them as they had their other farm animals, and make farm laborers out of them. Life gives you lemons? Make lemonade! Problem: How does one man demonstrate to another in a definitive, incontestable way, who is boss? Answer: Castration, also the proven agricultural technique of making bulls tractable. Three problems ensued: Castrating the human males, cutting off their testicles and probably penises, 1) killed too many of them, 2) made the survivors incapable of reproduction, thus severely limiting the future slave population, and 3) made the slaves not at all interested in following the agricultural work program outlined by the masters. All they wanted to do was kill the farmers. Solution? Modify the operation: Leave the testicles and the shaft of the penis intact, just cut off the most sexually pleasurable part of the penis, the foreskin. This identifies the man as a slave, doesn't kill nearly as many, allows him to reproduce, and gets his attention. It makes him a lot more interested in obeying his undoubted masters. The clear threat is that if he doesn't cooperate, he'll loose the rest. Talk about motivation to obey and to work! Religion comes into it several generations of slaves later. Religion didn't invent genital mutilation. It just "rationalized" it. Economics invented it. Genital mutilation was invented during the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture to slave agriculture. We know that this transition occurred in the middle east. We just haven't fleshed out, so to speak, what that transition must have been like for the people who lived it, as hunters and gatherers, as inventors, as farmers, as slaves. The process of enslaving human beings is not a peaceful one. It requires coercion. It requires violence. This is the real origin of the violence of human genital mutilation in the middleeast long before Judaism arrived. Judaism didn't invent circumcision. Circumcision invented Judaism (at least its obsession with mutilating the sex organs of children.)


Van Lewis February 4, 2008 8:16 am (Pacific time)

Neal says, "religious rites are protected by the first amendment" The first amendment doesn't say that. It says that government may not establish religion. That has been interpreted to mean that government may not favor one religion over another. The Supreme Court has also said that it is religious belief that is fully protected, and that religious practice, religious rites, must meet the tests of not violating the human and civil rights of anyone. "unless one can prove the rite is demonstrably harmful when performed properly by competent personnel in adequate facilities." Has anyone proved scientifically that the religious rite of child sacrifice is harmful? I think not. Would Neal claim that until that happens parents have the right to practice religious child sacrifice? I hope not. "You have yet to prove male circumcision qualifies as such by legitimate argument." The fact that Neal is in heavy denial of such proof from every source does not show that I have not proved that circumcision is "demonstrably harmful" ... "by legitimate argument". I have. I will do so, in brief, again. It is established science that the highest density and greatest number of nerve endings yet discovere in the penis is contained in the foreskin, in a highly complex, highly vascularized, highly innervated human sense organ new to science in the early 1990s. (This is now 2008. Education takes time.) Amputation of the foreskin always kills this human sense organ, the "ridged band". You can read the uncontroverted neuroscience in the British Journal of Urology, 1996 and 1999, available at research.cirp.org It is also well established that the foreskin contains important and functional muscle, has important immunological structures and functions, and important mechanically protective structures and functions and important biomechanical sexual structures and functions. When one chops off and kills important human sense organs and important organs of immunological and protective and biomechanical structure and function, one has demonstrably harmed the human being. That is demonstrable harm by competent argument, in my book. Deny it all you like, Neal. Your denial is unaccompanied by competent argument, only by bald assertion and false claims of hysteria, hyperbole, histrionics, and dishonesty on my part. If there is dishonesty here, I believe it is coming from you, under the influence of compulsive denial of reality, made "necessary" for you by your own trauma and mutilation. You admit that "I have a severe phobia of needles (well actually of anything foreign entering my body)". Where could that "sever phobia" have come from, Neal? Is it your body's memory of genital mutilation in infancy? Would that phobia include a Gomco clamp entering your penis? A scalpel? A needle carrying cat gut? Your claim that "No one circumcised (properly) as an infant has any memory of it..." is unaccompanied by scientific evidence, because the science says the opposite. See the studio by Taddio et al at http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/ and http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/ Denial of reality doesn't change reality, it just makes those in denial of it incompetent to deal rationally with reality. That is the mutilationist's tragic situation. Mutilationism is a sickness. It is a mental illness. It injures children by the millions every year and kills children every year. This sickness needs educational and psychological and emotional therapy, not more innocent, healthy babies to injure and kill for nothing. Calling injuring and killing babies and children "religion" does not in any way justify doing it. Injuring and killing babies and children because some misinformed and some sick adults want to is unjustifiable and it must be abolished.


Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 10:10 pm (Pacific time)

Nette - Oh equated circumcision to slavery huh? Isn't this the same guy that marched an entire generation around in the desert until they all died always telling them (lying) that they were heading for the 'promised land'? Do you think he told them honestly their intended fate? Why would they have followed them if he did? Slowly dying over forty years in the desert could not have been much of a picnic I imagine. This was but one of the reasons I never took to Judaism or Christianity etc... I found the history offensive and the deity nothing I would support or follow in a trillion years. So hardly the perfect role model, Moses OR his deity. Ah well...


Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 10:06 pm (Pacific time)

Sigismond - while I'm not Judeo-Christian by religious choice (just Jewish by family heritage)I know quite a bit about the theology and the history. Also about a lot of the flawed translations from Aramaic to English. One you just stepped in. The commandment was never thou shalt not kill... as you point out the bible is full of killing both on deity orders and otherwise. The accurate translation is more like thou shalt not commit murder. Same with the often misquoted and misapplied one about not suffering a witch to live. The accurate translation is to not suffer a POISONER to live. At those times hedge witches were the medics and midwives of the area.. if one was a poisoner... especially one trusted to heal who instead killed... that was unacceptable to the society of the time and rightly so. And what I do not see, because it is entirely absent, is there is no 'great trauma'. No one circumcised (properly) as an infant has any memory of it and infants know nothing of castration.. they cry because it hurts, simple as that. They also cry when inoculated, do you oppose that too? (There is the side issue of why it should even hurt in this day and age where they can shatter and rip teeth out without you feeling a thing but like I said that is another issue. I have a severe phobia of needles (well actually of anything foreign entering my body) but I'm getting used to it as I have an IV every six weeks for Remicade. They now give me a shot of anesthetic with a microscopic needly I hardly even feel at all then when they put in the IV I don't feel it at all.) And again you try and equate female genital mutilation with male circumcision and try and imply that I support such when I so clearly do not. Is your book as dishonest, misrepresentative and flawed too? Ah well...


Godsofchaos February 3, 2008 9:43 pm (Pacific time)

Patriots lost the Super Bowel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Nette February 3, 2008 1:46 pm (Pacific time)

Isn't MOSES credible enough, in himself? He connected circumcision to SLAVERY. Rightly so. There just have to be hard-liners in every generation, and there have always been those to disallow other's pain and grief as if it doesn't exist. Remember, not so long ago, even menstrual cramps were not believed. Inflicting pain on children without need or (their) consent has long been rationalized because "they don't feel pain", or "they don't remember it"...and we swallow that malarkey! It's all about cosmetics, and male egos, and INSECURITY. Sad.


Sigismond February 3, 2008 4:02 am (Pacific time)

Thank you, Neal, for this quote: "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." It clearly means that, in the mind of the king of the Jews, the "Thou shall not kill." was not abolishing the death penalty. However when one is against murder, one is against collective murder as well (I'm not specifically against the death penalty; I'm against murder, that's all); indeed society must give the example to the individual, especially because individual cases are symptoms of some disorder within society. However, concerning the "I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation... " it is still very likely, considering all the arguments that I have given, that "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" is a circumlocution - not a circumcision - designating sexual mutilation of girls and boys, that was an still is current practice in those barbaric countries. The abolition set up by Moses succeded for Jewish girls, it failed for Jewish boys for whom the operation was less mortal. The point you do not see about circumcision of boys is that it is a most terrible psychological traumatism, since it is a threat of (total) castration (and not only that of the specific autosexual organ). The trauma (uncouscious) is rendered more acute when the operation is made at birth because then, nothing is verbalized, that includes socialized; therefore the agression upon the infant is felt as much more terrible and totally insane. The second thing that you do not see is that this threat upon boys, in a family or social group, threatens the little girls as well. One can even say that for them, due to the smallness of the organ, the whole clitoris is threatened to be cut off! Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 3, 2008 3:32 am (Pacific time)

" Sigismond - I see... this article was just a plug for your book. Thanks for the admission. Ah well... " You got it, dear Neal; a free plug for a free book (at http://intactwiki.org). Anything else I can do for the rights of the child? Only ask. GET UP, STAND UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD Cordially yours, Sigismond


Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 1:59 am (Pacific time)

Tim King - OK your site your rules... I had noticed you chastise someone else for using the site (or trying to) in plugging their product so mentioned it here. But as you said it was well intentioned... it was anything but 'unbecoming' or 'ad hominem' as Van tried to claim in his (her?) typical hysterical hyperbolic histrionic flawed/fallacious critical thinking and dishonest way. Thank you for the clarification though. Ah well...


Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 1:55 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - re: your inconsistent interpretations regarding Christianity the fact is that the entire old testament is included in the Christian bibles. They could have excised text out had they wished to do so but they chose not to. Seems it is you who wish to pick and choose which text to apply when it is convenient to you. And there is quite a bit of 'fundie action' in the new testament as well. Face it, for all the lofty ideals Christianity, as has always been practiced, ha never actually mirrored those goals, unless you define mirroring as 'operating in the exact opposite of'. But like it or not it is the religion of a lot of folks and their religious rites are protected by the first amendment unless one can prove the rite is demonstrably harmful when performed properly by competent personnel in adequate facilities. You have yet to prove male circumcision qualifies as such by legitimate argument. Better luck next time, thank you for playing. Ah well...


Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 1:45 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - Nothing unbecoming or ad hominem in my statement. His plugging his book is inappropriate. This site has folks who PAY to plug their goods and services. It is an insult to them for folks to try and get free plugs for theirs. I merely pointed it out. Again the intellectually dubious tactics of the intactivists is expressed clearly by Van Lewis in typical hysterical hyperbolic histrionics and flawed/fallacious critical thinking dishonest style. My.. what a surprise... NOT! Ah well...

Tim King: For the record, If I did not want to publish something here I would not do it. I am happy to help get the word out about this book. Neal's concern for our financial well being is well intended but it is not the case here.


Neal Feldman February 3, 2008 1:40 am (Pacific time)

Sigismond - re: your request for Deuteronomy quote I found this in little over a minute of casual searching: "21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." As for the second commandment, the text I found is ""You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments."" and try as I might I can find no mention of male circumcision anywhere in it. Ah well...


Rood Andersson February 2, 2008 1:28 pm (Pacific time)

Genesis: The "Beginning"? Unfortunately, Genesis 17 is not original to the Bible, having been inserted into the Book by Jewish priests, newly returned from the Babylonian Captivity, where they instituted numerous "Laws" to help distinguish themselves and their people from their far more numerous, urbane, and sophisticated overlords, so that Jewish identity would not become submerged and lost. Genesis 17 was one such "Law". The Priesthood only forgot to eliminate Genesis 15, Abram's original "covenant". Cloaked in a pseudo-religious idiom, Genesis 17 is not "religious", at all. It's sole purpose was political. Convince those wayward Jews who had not suffered "captivity" to mutilate their children, while paying Temple Priests for the privilege, and they could be convinced to do almost anything. In the absence of the long dead Kingdom, who else but Temple Priests had the potential to wield authority? It's only too sad that the Priesthood is no longer around to benefit. On such tenuous, tender tissue does a people and their religion find a basis for existence. One would think religion had more important meanings and less tragic purpose. Imagine the shame in finding one's religious identity in the mutilation of helpless children.


Van Lewis February 2, 2008 11:27 am (Pacific time)

Vic says, "The Bible also says in Deuteronomy that a disobedient child is to be taken outside the gates of the city and stoned to death...more Christian love...." Deuteronomy was written long before Christ's birth and therefore has nothing to do with "Christian love". Christ talked about Biblical literalists (those we mistakenly call "fundamentalists" today) obeying the (often misinterpreted) letter of the law but losing the spirit of the law. You point to a good example of it. Circumcising children is another one.


Van Lewis February 2, 2008 11:22 am (Pacific time)

Neal says, "Sigismond - I see... this article was just a plug for your book. Thanks for the admission. ..." Neal, can you leave your unbecoming ad hominem attacks at the door, please? Addressing Sigismond's case is invited. Gratuitously insulting serious authors on this site isn't.


Van Lewis February 2, 2008 11:14 am (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman says again, for the umpteenth time with regard to circumcision, "I see the same hysterical hyperbolic histrionics starting up again." In fact, it is Neal himself who is starting up the "hysterical hyperbolic histrionics" again. "It seems that without such tactics and flawed and fallacious critical thinking intactivists would have absolutely nothing so say." It is Neal who, without "hysterical hyperbolic histrionics" and "flawed and fallacious critical thinking", has nothing to say on the subject. His case is primarily an ad hominem attack against intactivists. He assiduously avoids the real issues; human rights violations, bodily and genital integrity violations, and demonstrable harm every time and risk of more serious injury death, all for nothing or virtually nothing. Moreover, he pretends to know the future: "...you will not be able to ban male infant circumcision." That is Neal's ardent wish, pronounced as fact. "You can try and convince individual parents against the practice" And we are succeeding at that, as the rate has dropped in the USA from 85-90% to around 50% now. "... but a blanket ban by law?" Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. The law is already in place. Ever heard of equal protection of the law, Neal? All we're asking for is non-sexist, gender-neutral enforcement of presently existing law. That is the constitutional right of all of us. Just because human rights struggles against recalcitrant abusers take time doesn't mean they don't eventually succeed. They do. Over and over again in history, against all odds. It is the unstoppable march of history that Neal rails against. "It just ain't gonna happen." If wishes were horses beggars would ride.


Stephen February 2, 2008 9:54 am (Pacific time)

Perhaps the best solution to the circumcision debate is to wait until the boy is old enough and fully mature enough to understand the consequences of his decision, to fully educate him on the pros and cons and then let him decide.


Sigismond February 2, 2008 6:22 am (Pacific time)

"So his personal views on the matter are just that, one man's views... nothing more." I'm afraid, dear Neal, that the Second Commandment can by no means be considered as Moses's personal views. Now consider exegetic views as histrionic seems to come from an extremely perverted mind... please, Neal, YOU are the histrion! Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 2, 2008 6:18 am (Pacific time)

"Sigismond - I see... this article was just a plug for your book." You are right; it is an advance sheet excerpted from my book, a free humanitarian book... Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 2, 2008 6:15 am (Pacific time)

"The Bible also says in Deuteronomy that a disobedient child is to be taken outside the gates of the city and stoned to death" Which verse please? Cordially yours, Sigismond


Sigismond February 2, 2008 6:13 am (Pacific time)

"Yet it is illegal in most of the western world including the US. " Indeed, the first amemdment does not allow any religion to commit human sacrifice. But excision is now illegal in a lot of the African world too. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Hugh February 1, 2008 9:17 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: "I see the same hysterical hyperbolic histrionics starting up again. It seems that without such tactics and flawed and fallacious critical thinking intactivists would have absolutely nothing so say." Please visit The Intactivism Pages (circumstitions dot com) and point out any examples of "hysterical hyperbolic histrionics" and flawed fallacies there. The case against circumcision is quite strong enough without them. Leaving the differences between the procedures aside, according to the Islam Q and website (islamqa dot com, search "45528"), cutting of girls is enjoined by Allaah. Yet it is illegal in most of the western world including the US. How does Neal reconcile this with the First Amendment right of US Muslims to practise their religion - minimally, and under aseptic conditions, let us say - on their daughters?


Vic February 1, 2008 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

More proof of the insanity of religion. A so-called god who punishes children for the sins of their fathers can take his followers and go to Hell. This god sounds more like Pol Pot than the so-called God of Love. The Bible also says in Deuteronomy that a disobedient child is to be taken outside the gates of the city and stoned to death...more Christian love....


Godsofchaos February 1, 2008 3:26 pm (Pacific time)

The debate that would not die....Seriously it has been discused since december and it is now February.


Neal Feldman February 1, 2008 12:54 pm (Pacific time)

Sigismond - I see... this article was just a plug for your book. Thanks for the admission. Ah well...


Sigismond February 1, 2008 6:25 am (Pacific time)

Excellent, Cheo. It appears (see my free e-book at intactwiki.org) that not only medicine and religion agree about the matter but also law, psycho-sociology, history, psychoanalysis and economy (a scandalous waste of time and funds). This makes a lot. Cordially yours, Sigismond


Neal Feldman January 31, 2008 2:00 pm (Pacific time)

Not speaking as a Jew but just someone who knows the materials... Moses was not God and was never presented as God. So his personal views on the matter are just that, one man's views... nothing more. I see the same hysterical hyperbolic histrionics starting up again. It seems that without such tactics and flawed and fallacious critical thinking intactivists would have absolutely nothing so say. But in the US whether one likes it or not short of amending the first amendment to the Us Constitution you will not be able to ban male infant circumcision. You can try and convince individual parents against the practice but a blanket ban by law? It just ain't gonna happen. Let the teeth gnashing begin. Ah well...


cheo January 31, 2008 11:31 am (Pacific time)

I am no biblical scholar. I have no expertise in religious history. But I know something about science, and about modern medicine. Nobody really expects all religious practices to be rational, justifiable, and professional. It's fully expected that other people's religions (and perhaps your own) has some seriously anachronistic and ill-conceived traditions. Medicine, however, is different. Those practicing medicine are duty-bound to uphold the highest standards of professional ethics. They must respect the rights of the patient. They must base their actions on sound science. We the people have every right to sanction those in the medical profession who knowingly or irresponsibly harm their patients. We the people have every right to condition a medical license on its not being abused. We the people have a duty to treat males and females equally before the law. We have a big problem in the USA, and it's doctors who think they can practice genital mutilation on infants without medical need and suffer no consequences. We need to fix that problem. And when we do, it will strengthen rational voices within circumcising religions for updating their practices. The medical community introduced and institutionalized male circumcision in the USA, and since they're acting too slowly to change course, we the people need to give them a helping hand.

[Return to Top]
©2014 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.
comments powered by Disqus


Articles for January 30, 2008 | Articles for January 31, 2008 | Articles for February 1, 2008




Support
Salem-News.com:

Your customers are looking: Advertise on Salem-News.com!

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar