The Case for Male Circumcision

Christine A Scheller


What mother hasn’t, in the halcyon days after the birth of a son, felt her ferocious she-wolf instincts kick in when it comes time for her boy to be circumcised? Having perhaps suffered violence to her genitals during the birth, the physical ache to all that is vulnerable in her world can seem unbearable. And then it is done, and life goes on.

Anti-circumcision activists would have us believe that life does not in fact go on, that boys grow into men whose sexual pleasure (and that of the women they love) is compromised by this act of “genital mutilation.” While increasing numbers areswayed by both argument and sentiment, I’m stupefied by the controversy.

Male sexual pleasure is not my highest priority, having rarely witnessed a lack thereof. Nor is my own, if in fact I’m speaking out of my ignorance of the delight foreskin can deliver. What I am concerned about is sky-rocketing rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and the gender inequality evident in these rates.

A 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studyestimates that 25 percent of American women ages 14-19 are infected with at least one of the four most common STDs. Eighteen percent of them have human papilloma virus (HPV), which can cause genital warts and cervical cancer. Four percent have chlamydia, which, if left untreated, can lead to Pelvic inflammatory disease and sterility. Chlamydia can also bepassed from mother to baby during vaginal birth, and is reported to occur in women at three times the rate it occurs in men. Furthermore, nearly half (48 percent) of African American women in this age group were infected with an STD, compared with 20 percent of white women.

Based on multiple studies suggesting that male circumcisionreduces the risk of STDs, U.S. health officials are encouraging routine circumcision for male babies at a time when circumcision rates are declining. In a discussion with colleague Emily Bazelon, DoubleX editor Hanna Rosin surmised that the recommendation is ultimately about confronting a decline in Medicaid funding of the $300 procedure in at-risk communities.

Even if STD prevention benefits are as overblown as critics suggest, the risks are far less dubious than those related to prevention measures like the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which young women are coerced by their governments into receiving. Last year Andrew Jones, also known as Tall Skinny Kiwi,reported that his 13-year-old daughter had been “jabbed” with the vaccine in her British school after she and her parents had opposed it in writing. Earlier this year, the FDA agreed to investigate possible risks for deadly Lou Gehrig’s disease-like symptoms after at least three young women developed such symptoms soon after being vaccinated.

Meanwhile, Intact America, an anti-circumcision group, saysthat boys can be taught the good hygiene necessary to ensure that their foreskins don’t harbor disease. As the mother of boys, I wouldn’t entrust my sexual health to the grooming habits of young men.

And why should women?

We bear the brunt of the communal sexual and reproductive health load in our bodies. We take birth control pills and fertility drugs laden with side effects. We have unnecessary C sections and hysterectomies. We are surgically sterilized at five times the rate of men. We have elective surgery, both cosmetic and bariatric, to attract them. We diet obsessively.

Opponents would argue that we have choice in these matters, while baby boys don’t. To which I say, “Hooey!” Absent the enthusiasm of a male OB-GYN and the cultural ascendancy of second-wave feminism in my formative years, I doubt I would have had an irreversible tubal ligation at age 23 or taken birth control pills at 16.

Call me ignorant if you want, but in this debate, I’ll side with women—women like Marjan Hezareh, scientific director of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Research Alliances. In 2007, sheconcluded, “The health benefits for women of having a circumcised partner have been sufficiently proven, and the medical benefits should outweigh any stigma against both adult and infant circumcision.”

As for the biblical mandate to circumcise, the apostles settled that one for Christians in the first century (Acts 15:6-11; Gal. 5:6). It’s unnecessary.

Go Circumcise Your Vocal Cords, You Stupid Fucking Whore

Many avid readers of this site are probably well aware of my attitude toward women who feel like “female issues” (periods, bras, etc.) are some secret fucking taboo “in” thing that should be shared only between women and men have no place even hearing about them from a self-respecting woman unless she HAS to tell him (“I’m on my period, no we can’t fuck!”). In fact, I wrote a rant about it in 2004. It’s a subject that pisses me off to no end. Women, thinking their fucking crotch is so goddamn special that it needs to be all “hidden” and “secret”, like Idiana fucking Jones is the only man who should be trying to find out. And what’s worse is the idiot men who were taught that this is the case by their stupid fucking cunt mothers and feed right into the bullshit. Seriously, this elitist attitude about your smelly fucking hatchet wound really pisses me the fuck off, girls!

But alas, I have come to the conclusion that turnabout is fair play. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. And other stupid euphimisms.

You see, there’s an ongoing debate raging among liberal farts in this country about male circumcision. There’s no medical reason to do it, it’s purely cosmetic, it’s unneccesarily traumatic to the infant, you shouldn’t perform such a procedure on someone who can’t consent, and blah-de-blah-de-blah. Well, truth be told, I actually agree with most of these sentiments. Yes, it’s barbaric and I’m totally on the fence about whether to have my own son “cut.”

But that’s not the issue at hand. No, the issue at hand is a very interesting trend I’ve noticed. Bring up this topic in any liberal circle of friends, message board, chat room, etc. and you will invariably get a flood of anti-circumcision propoganda. What’s the problem with this? Well, the neat little thing I’ve noticed is that 99% of this “don’t cut the penis!” talk is coming from fucking WOMEN!

So, lemme get this straight… If I were to be a royal asshole about something like “you should let your daughter shave her legs whenever she’s ready” or “You should let your daughter use tampons instead of pads” or some other shit, you’d call me a pervert, tell me it’s none of my business, don’t worry about your daughter, it’s a GIRL thing, and then tell me to fuck off. But YOU get to be a total fucking cunt about my SON’S PENIS??? Well, alrighty then…….


Here’s the deal: YOU get to SHUT THE FUCK UP about what I, a MAN, decide to do about my son’s PENIS, because it’s a GUY THING, you stupid bitch!

Oh noes, if I get him cut, it’ll be barbaric and blah blah blah. Hey, guess what, Suzy Homemaker? CIRCUMCISED MEN DON’T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE! Guess what else? I’m a circumcised man. And y’know how much I feel like I’m missing out? That’s right, dipshit, not one little bit. I like my nice CUT cock just the way it is. In fact, I’m GLAD that my dick looks the way it does. And, hey, every other man is too, unless they just have a strange looking (or small) dick. Uncircumcised men are ALSO perfectly happy with the way their dick looks and don’t WANT to get circumcised! MEN are perfectly happy with their dicks – whatever their dicks may be – for the most part. Oddly, it seems to be YOU BITCHES who are kicking up such a fucking fuss about it!

Now, as I stated, I haven’t decided what to do about my son. Honestly, I haven’t even decided if I SHOULD decide at all! But here’s what I *am* VERY certain about. Whatever I, a man decide to do about my male child’s penis is a “male thing” and it’s none of you wimminz’ business


Here’s the deal: YOU get to SHUT THE FUCK UP about what I, a MAN, decide to do about my son’s PENIS, because it’s a GUY THING, you stupid bitch!

Oh noes, if I get him cut, it’ll be barbaric and blah blah blah. Hey, guess what, Suzy Homemaker? CIRCUMCISED MEN DON’T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THIS ISSUE! Guess what else? I’m a circumcised man. And y’know how much I feel like I’m missing out? That’s right, dipshit, not one little bit. I like my nice CUT cock just the way it is. In fact, I’m GLAD that my dick looks the way it does. And, hey, every other man is too, unless they just have a strange looking (or small) dick. Uncircumcised men are ALSO perfectly happy with the way their dick looks and don’t WANT to get circumcised! MEN are perfectly happy with their dicks – whatever their dicks may be – for the most part. Oddly, it seems to be YOU BITCHES who are kicking up such a fucking fuss about it!

Now, as I stated, I haven’t decided what to do about my son. Honestly, I haven’t even decided if I SHOULD decide at all! But here’s what I *am* VERY certain about. Whatever I, a man decide to do about my male child’s penis is a “male thing” and it’s none of you wimminz’ business

MRA’s Target Female Pediatrician

Most MRA’s are enamoured with the intactivist movement regarding circumcision. They make silly comparisons between FGM and circ, making people laugh at how ridiculous they are.

Some of these MRA intactivists sit outside medical conventions harassing any woman they can find and talking about their porn fantasies, which include the complete torture of women’s bodies and especially their genitals, while whining about how their dicks don’t work.

Whether you think circ is a good thing or a bad thing, MRA’s use it because it’s something to use as a weapon to attack women. This is precisely what happened when a bunch of them attacked Dr. Monaghan outside a convention. They held up their signs with their crotches spray painted red and told her about what they like to see happen to women’s genitals, especially when they’re at home every day beating off to it.

What they think of the doctor, after they spent days harassing her and beating off to torture of women (comments from AVFM):



Then they got sad face when the good doctor told them that hey, maybe they should cut the whole thing off so they’ll stop harassing her. OMGERDDDD! The doctor talked back! She put my male violence in my face to show me how fucking ridiculous I’m being! Then they told her to ‘cut off your pussy lips BITCH!’ ‘Cut your VULVA BITCH!’ ‘YOU’RE A PEDOPHILE!’

Now it’s true that men love watching a grown male fuck a female child in porn. Teen porn is very popular to these men. I wonder if they know how painful it is for a female child to be penetrated by a grown man. We’ve also seen a rise in men, fathers and brothers, raping their young daughters and sisters, even infant girls while whacking off to child porn. So really it’s men who are the pedos and are projecting it onto her. Ah yes, the smell of fresh MRA hypocrisy in the morning.

These MRA’s harassed these doctors for days, specifically women, and then when the good doctor got angry they took that one comment and began failling on their fainting couches. They forgot to edit out the sexual violence they wanted to do to her afterward and in a brief moment of intellect, understood what FGM is all about. FGM is about cutting girls completely whereby they have ZERO sexual pleasure and have complications their ENTIRE lives. It makes it easier for men to own women as baby making machines and fuck holes. This never happens to men, ever.

She’s not the first female they’ve harassed. This MRA made another video where he claims he met two women, who he assumed were doctors, and claimed they said they’d stop circumcision when they got equal pay. Of course he didn’t catch any of this on camera. I imagine he targeted a couple women and then started harassing them because that’s what this is really about. These MRA intactivists specifically target women so they can use circ to harass them. It’s as simple as that.

See, it’s ok for dudes to beat off to women and girl children being gagged, anally raped, vaginally torn and bruised on a daily basis but goddammit if a doctor makes a quip about MAH DICK when I’ve been harassing her for days!

Guys, you’re being dumb. Harassing women near medical conventions with your silly diatribes about man hating lesbians who circ boys is you being ridiculous. Your need to get off on the actual torture of women’s and girls genitals in porn marks you as the ultimate hypocrites. I won’t give you any tips on activism because I love watching you make jackasses out of yourselves.

Your dicks work just fine when you beat off to women and children being genitally, anally, and orally tortured on a daily basis. So I don’t want to hear your shit about how you can’t sexually function and manhating lesbian doctors are ruining your life.

You compare FGM to circ and people laugh at you and they’re right to do so. How is it that you don’t understand the differences between how and why girls are cut up to nothing and how and why you are NOT? Nevermind, don’t answer that. You should already know.


House Mouse Queen
September 15, 2015 at 12:50 PM
I have to say that I’ve been with both circed men and uncirced men and the uncirced men got yeast infections. I remember when my partner from Greece who was uncirced got a yeast infection. I had to take him to the doctors and he had to take internal medicine. The doctor flat out told him it was b/c he wasn’t circed and that he would keep getting them.

I am Jewish and it’s part of our covenant for boys to be circed and after my experiences with men who are uncirced having problems I would be more likely to circ my child.

I actually think the medical evidence is pretty compelling FOR it. I also don’t think harassing women at medical conventions accusing them of being man hating lesbians is going to stop the practice.

Either way, it’s about educating parents about it, not screaming at women.

Circumcision And Gentiles

Ellen Kavanaugh

Let’s start with *when* circumcision was given, in Genesis 17:9-14:

“And God said unto Abraham: ‘And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'”

The command is given to Abraham. Abraham is the father of the Jewish people, but this covenant is made before the Israelites have been chosen. In fact, it is given before Isaac is even born. So, circumcision isn’t given just to the Jewish people but to all of Abraham’s descendants. Abraham obeyed G-d and all the males in his household were circumcised.

A common argument is that Gentile believers don’t need to be circumcised because they come into G-d’s covenant not through Torah or Jewishness, but through Abraham. Yet we’ve just seen circumcision was the *very sign* of the covenant G-d made with Abraham before Torah was even given. So this argument doesn’t excuse Gentile believers from being circumcised.

What Does Yeshua Teach About Circumcision?

Both Yeshua (Luke 2:21) and Yochanan (Luke 1:59) were circumcised. Yeshua only discussed circumcision once, in a comparison to healing, but He did uphold both the importance and priority of circumcision in His remarks:

“I have done one work and you are all surprised at it. Moses gave you circumcision–not that it comes from Moses, but from the fathers–and even on the Sabbath you give a child circumcision. If a child is given circumcision on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?” John 7:21-23

An indirect reference to circumcision is Yeshua’s command that believers partake of the Passover each year in remembrance of Him:

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19
“And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:24

The indirect reference to circumcision is that in order to obey Yeshua’s command one would have to be circumcised, because Torah forbids anyone uncircumcised to partake in the Passover:

“And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the YHVH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. Exodus 12:48

From the TaNaKh and the gospels, there is no reason any Gentile should think circumcision isn’t for him. So let’s find where the confusion begins.

Timothy’s Circumcision In Acts

“Paul had a desire for him to go with him, and he gave him circumcision because of the Jews who were in those parts: for they all had knowledge that his father was a Greek.” Acts 16:3

Now knowing that Timothy’s father was Greek, the Jews would know that Timothy had not been circumcised as an infant, so Sha’ul had Timothy circumcised. The Christian argument is that since Timothy was Jewish (because his mother was Jewish) that Timothy’s circumcision doesn’t count. Afterall, Timothy was Jewish but Gentiles aren’t obligated to do the same. Are there two paths to G-d? Are there two sets of rules? A Jewish Way and a Non-Jewish Way? Of course not! In Galatians 3:28 Sha’ul explains “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Messiah Yeshua.” One. So either circumcision applies to all, or to none. If none, then Sha’ul should have simply explained to the people that believers didn’t have to undergo circumcision. He didn’t. When Sha’ul circumcised Timothy, he was showing that this new faith in Yeshua *also* upheld circumcision.

Sha’ul’s Teachings Regarding Circumcision

A common misconception about circumcision is that “circumcision of the heart” replaces physical circumcision. Yet the Brit Chadasha (New Testament) passage that mentions circumcision of the heart is directed *only* to the Jewish people, let’s look:

“But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Romans 2:29

Yet in the preceding verse 17 it reads: “But if you bear the name ‘Jew'” and in the preceding verse 23 it reads: “You who boast in law.” The audience here has been clearly identified as a Jewish audience. Sha’ul is really just reiterating Torah to His Jewish brethren:

“Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.” Deuteronomy 10:16″And the LORD thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” Deuteronomy 30:6

Sha’ul is *not* introducing a new concept so that Gentiles can circumcise their hearts instead of undergoing physical circumcision. He is reminding his Jewish brethren that physical circumcision *alone* is not enough.

Jeremiah repeats this need:

“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest My fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.” Jeremiah 4:4

Note, at no point in Jewish history did anyone *ever* interpret these texts to mean that circumcision of the heart replaced physical circumcision. *Both* are G-d’s commands, both circumcisions are important.

Sha’ul To The Romans

Let’s look at the Romans 2 passage:

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

The group being addressed are Jews.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

“Circumcision” here is Jewishness, those born into the covenant. A Jewish person who does not keep Torah is likened to a person outside the covenant (a Gentile).

Romans 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

A Gentile who obeys Torah is likened to a Jew. To keep the righteousness of Torah includes being circumcised since circumcision is included in Torah. So this text contradicts itself if we make ‘uncircumcision” mean anything other than a “non-Jew” or “Gentile.” Stay close to the text here, Sha’ul is debunking His fellow Jews confidence — they boast *because* they are Jewish and were given Torah. The discussion here isn’t about circumcision but Jewishness.

Romans 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Better: ‘If a Gentile by birth (nature) obeys the law, couldn’t he judge you, who are Jewish through covenant (letter), if you break the law?’ It’s a logical point — which counts more? Righteousness without covenant and birthright, or unrighteousness having covenant and birthright? Sha’ul was an early evangelist to the Gentiles, he is seeing many more Gentiles come into faith in Yeshua than Jews. He is speaking this to his brethren out of shame.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Again, Sha’ul is addressing his Jewish brethren. Yes, they have outward circumcision in accord with the covenant; they were circumcised at 8 days of age by their parents, true. But a true Jew also has circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, outside of the covenant, which isn’t performed as a ritual of identification for others to see, but for G-d alone. Sha’ul isn’t criticising physical circumcision — it is a covenantal birthright and Torah command; but there is a deeper level one should be seeking. Resting solely on birthright and the covenant will never be enough.

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

I included the above verses for continuity, to show this passage was directed *only* at Sha’ul’s Jewish brethren. (A related article on Romans 2 is: “Spiritual Jews”

What we’ve seen in the above passage is one of several cases where ‘circumcision’ and ‘uncircumsion’ mentioned are interchangeable for ‘Jewish’ and ‘Gentile’ and aren’t strictly reflecting the covenental command itself. As Sha’ul explains:”Wherefore remember, that in the past you were Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” Ephesians 2:11 “Uncircumcision” was used loosely to simply mean “Gentile.”

Romans 4

Romans 4:7-10 “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

Sha’ul is showing that Yeshua’s atonement and grace covers the Gentiles as well as the Jews. But how can Gentiles receive this blessing too, since Gentiles are outside the covenant that gives the blessings? Because Abraham himself received these blessings *before* he was circumcised and entered the covenant.

Romans 4:11-13 “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”

This is a marvelous picture of G-d’s larger plan. G-d selected Abraham *before* he entered the covenant and was circumcised. Gentiles are brought into the covenants of Israel in the same way. Faith precedes the covenant. Note Abraham *did* undergo circumcision, this passage does not abrogate the covenant of circumcision G-d made with Abraham. Sha’ul is showing that G-d made a provision for those who would later come into the faith, that the promise of righteousness could be bestowed on all through Abraham.

Romans 4:14-17 “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”

These promises were made to Abraham *before* law was given so that they extend to *all* Abraham’s seed and not just Israel. Grace is from G-d and our response of faith towards His grace *precede* law. Simply put, Torah was given later through only one line of Abraham’s seed (Isaac to Jacob). Torah set boundaries for the people but it did not provide grace nor was it ever intended to. As in chapter 2, Sha’ul is debunking the confidence of his brethren who felt grace/righteousness came only through Jewishness and Torah. Torah had been misused as a system for justification and as a way of limiting the promises of Abraham so that only the line of Jacob received them. Abraham is the father of Ishmael (the Arabs), the father of the Israel/Jews, and is the father of *all* through faith.

Sha’ul To The Galatians

Galatians 2

Galatians chapter two is often misunderstood as being against circumcision.

Galatians 2:1-2 “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.”

Sha’ul has gone to Jerusalem, to check with the Beit Din and verify the gospel he was teaching met their approval (James, Kefa, and John, the leaders in Jerusalem). Note that the early believers had accountability — no man is an island, not even Sha’ul.

Galatians 2:3-5 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yeshua, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Now, note in verse 4 *who* was pestering Titus to be circumcised. It wasn’t James, Kefa or John, it was *false* brethren who heard Sha’ul and Titus were in town. Who were these false brethren? Two hints help us, we know they are in Jerusalem, and we know they wanted Gentiles to convert (be circumcised). It is probably the same group as in Acts 15:5, that sect of the Pharisees who believed all Gentile believers should become proselytes and undergo the conversion rituals of Pharisaic Judaism. (recommended read “Acts 15” We already know from Acts 15 that Gentiles do *not* have to become proselytes. The issue of circumcision here, as in Acts, isn’t about a Torah command of circumcision; this is about ritual circumcision; to basically convert Gentiles into Jews. Had Titus been compelled by these false brethren, it would have given them more power to push others into conversion — they could then say “Even Sha’ul agrees Gentiles must become Jews in order to be saved.” Salvation was being offered to *all* people through faith alone; it was not limited to Jews (and Gentile proselytes). Yeshua wearied at such efforts to convert Gentiles: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Matthew 23:15 Sha’ul refused to submit to these false brethren, he submitted himself only to G-d and the Jerusalem Beit Din.

Galatians 5

1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Messiah hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Bondage here is bondage of men — the traditions of men.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Messiah shall profit you nothing.

If you convert (become circumcised) it’s validating the teachings of the false brethren, you’d be agreeing that salvation is based on conversion and works, in which case you wouldn’t need Messiah.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Dependant on keeping “whole law” for salvation — written Torah *and* traditions — no room for error.

4 Messiah is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Incidently, there is no justification through works, it was a false belief system, it is *not* a scriptural teaching.

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Yeshua Messiah neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

As I quoted earlier, ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’ — salvation is found in faith working by love, not through Jewishness or Non-Jewishness.

7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12 I would that those troubling you would mutilate themselves.

Now Sha’ul is angry. Sha’ul has been teaching the Galatians about the gospel of Yeshua, yet in came these false brethren trying to yoke the new believers into following conversion rituals and oral law/tradition. Theirs was *not* the gospel of Yeshua that Sha’ul had originally shared with them. It should have been obvious to the Galatians that these teachers opposed Sha’ul since they persecuted Sha’ul too. If Sha’ul had also taught such conversion was necessary (as these false brethren taught), then he wouldn’t be persecuted. The Galatians should have easily recognized they were false teachers instead of Sha’ul having to reteach them. But since the Galatians didn’t recognize the false doctrine, Sha’ul reshares his testimony at the beginning of his letter to the Galatians; and reminds them that gospel he teaches is in accordance with G-d *and* the Beit Din of Jerusalem (Kefa, James & John). In other words, Sha’ul’s gospel can be trusted, the ‘gospel’ of these false brethren cannot.

Galatians 6:12-16

12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Messiah.
13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

In other words, this Pharisaic group compelling these Galatians to be circumcised want to boast in their flesh, and prove to their peers that they maintained and taught Pharisaic Judaism and gained many new converts / proselytes. Yet for all this emphasis on making proselytes, they weren’t even obeying Torah themselves. If these Galatians refused to submit, then the Pharisaic believers would suffer persecution too for failing to make more proselytes.

14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Yeshua Messiah, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Sha’ul points out we glory in our L-rd Yeshua, not in making proselytes.

15 For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

This is better rendered, “For in Messiah Yeshua, neither Jewishness is anything nor NonJewishness, but a new creature.” Referring back to the fact that Israel’s olive tree is like a new man, comprised of believing Jews *and* Gentiles — with no need for the Gentiles to undergo any conversion ritual to be included. This is the Israel of G-d.

Some of Sha’ul’s writings had been misunderstood as being against Torah, as Kefa says:

“And be certain that the long waiting of the Lord is for salvation; even as our brother Paul has said in his letters to you, from the wisdom which was given to him; And as he said in all his letters, which had to do with these things; in which are some hard sayings, so that, like the rest of the holy Writings, they are twisted by those who are uncertain and without knowledge, to the destruction of their souls.” 2 Kefa(Peter) 3:15-16

It’s nothing new that Sha’ul’s teachings are being twisted into saying something they don’t (like the church today saying that Sha’ul teaches us not to obey the Torah). Sha’ul has been misunderstood for two millennia.

So, Did Sha’ul teach against circumcision for believers?

Let’s look at two very easy to understand texts of Sha’ul:

“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” Acts 24:14″And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.” Acts 25:7,8

Sha’ul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Sha’ul himself claims to uphold Torah and teach Torah. I will accept him at his word.

Patriarchy: a social construct

Is male circumcision patriarchal? If yes, then Feminists should consider Judaism worse than National-Socialism. If no, then the Old Testament isn’t really patriarchal, another uncomfortable conclusion. And if someone states that dualistic logic is inherently patriarchal, then it is possible to be patriarchal and feminist at the same time. This means patriarchy is a social construct. Patriarchy does not exist.

Internalized Anti-Semitism?

Genital mutilation

Steinem wrote the definitive article on female genital mutilation that brought the practice into the American public’s consciousness.[9]:292[77] The article reports on the “75 million women suffering with the results of genital mutilation.” According to Steinem, “The real reasons for genital mutilation can only be understood in the context of the patriarchy: men must control women’s bodies as the means of production, and thus repress the independent power of women’s sexuality.” Steinem’s article contains the basic arguments that would be developed by philosopher Martha Nussbaum.[78]

On male circumcision, she commented, “These patriarchal controls limit men’s sexuality too… That’s why men are asked symbolically to submit the sexual part of themselves and their sons to patriarchal authority, which seems to be the origin of male circumcision, a practice that, even as advocates admit, is medically unnecessary 90% of the time. Speaking for myself, I stand with many brothers in eliminating that practice too.[79]

Comment: Needless to say, rabbis would call this Hellenism. Is Gloria Steinem still Jewish? Or is this shit-testing?

Brit Milah should only be performed by Mohelot

A Mohel (female Mohelet) is a shaliach (agent) for the baby’s father, who traditionally was required to perform the Brit.

Since not every father is skilled in Milah (or wishes to be!), a tradition derived to assign an emissary to perform this Mitzvah in the father’s place.

While traditionally males performed Brit Milah, there is no prohibition against women assuming this Mitzvah. In fact, in the Torah two people are mentioned in relation to Milah. The first is Abraham who circumcised Issac. The second is Tzipporah, Moses’ wife, who circumcised her own son.

Today more women are learning the ritual of Brit Milah and following in the footsteps of Tzipporah.

I am pleased to be able to carry on this tradition.

I think the best way to handle all ritual circumcision is to require that all ritual circumcisions, or possibly all circumcisions, should be done by women. Let’s face it, Muslims constantly brag about their heterosexual prowess due to circumcision, so it is logical to have male circumcision be done by women.

Honor killing and FGM: “culture”?

Muslims often claim that honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, because they are also found in non-Muslim cultures. But this is ridiculous. We could just as easily claim that male circumcision, or the belief in God have nothing to do with Islam, because they are also found among non-Muslim cultures. Muslims will scream that honor killing and FGM cannot be compared to male circumcision because male circumcision is wonderful, but that is beside the point. Whether something  is part of Islam, or part of culture is totally unrelated to whether something is wonderful. When something can somewhat defended, Muslims will claim it to be part of Islam. When something is generally hated, it suddenly becomes “culture”.  But why would eradicating Somali “culture” NOT be “racist”?  Why is it that diverse cultures like the Somali, the Moroccan, the Turkish and the Pakistani ALL have honor killing, and only place “culture” above “Islam” when it comes to honor killing? Why do Somalis only consider “culture” more important than “Islam” when it comes to FGM?  Weird, weird. Another reason why Muslims can get away with claiming that honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, is because honor killing and FGM are not clearly found in the Koran, like chopping off hands for theft. But actually, the Islamic teaching that sex between non-Muslim men and Muslim women is blasphemy, and the teaching that Muslims must take the law in their own hands, is solid proof that honor killing is Islamic.

“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

There you have it. This is a far better proof of the Islamic nature of honor killing, than the fact that parents and grandparents can kill their children without paying blood-money. After all, lawful killing of offspring would also cover abortion and euthanasia, actions generally abhorred by Muslims.

Interestingly, the same Muslims who place scorn on local cultures, did adopt foot-binding in China. In general, Islam only copies local culture when it is sick and disgusting. In the Netherlands, Muslims are starting to have vicious attack dogs.

Finally, if honor killing and FGM have nothing to do with Islam, it is obvious “Islamophobes” are far worse liars than Anti-Semites; this would mean that “Islamophobia” is worse than Anti-Semitism. “Islamophobia” would kill 1.5 billion innocent people, Anti-Semitism would only kill 20 million innocent people.