Chapter-a-Day Joshua 5

At that time God said to Joshua, "Make stone knives and circumcise the People of Israel a second time." So Joshua made stone knives and circumcised the People of Israel at Foreskins Hill. Joshua 5:2-3 (TM)

Circumcision is never a comfortable subject for any of us in the male persuasion. I think it’s interesting that God chose to set Israel apart from their neighbors by differentiating the male sex organ. It would forever be a reminder to the men that they are called to be different than the other nations in their sexuality – especially in a time when sex was an integral part of the fertility cults around them. It’s a good reminder for me and for all men in a time when open sexuality without boundaries is thrust at us as "common" and "normal". We need to remember that sexuality is an important part of our being "in the world but not of it."

technorati tags:  

2 thoughts on “Chapter-a-Day Joshua 5”

  1. Male circumcision is genital mutilation performed on unconsenting children. It is a violation of human rights and an assault on the defenceless. It reduces sexual pleasure for both partners. It’s health benefits have been investigated by all the major medical authorities in US and Europe, and declared proven health benefits to be virtually NIL.
    In the US there is a thriving market in neonatal foreskins, which are paid for by weight (think about it), with a typical one netting $100 for the doctor, who never reveals this to the parents. They are used in very high price anti-aging creams ($800 per tube). I didn’t believe this either but if you dig on google with care and intelligence you will find it’s true.
    Finally, this is a religiously loaded topic, and there is a steady flow of propaganda trying to establish health benefits.
    Much notice has been given to a recent study from Africa and France suggesting that being circumcised decreases the risk of getting HIV by 50%. Resulting in proposals to start a huge campaign of mass circumcision.
    I am very concerned that this flawed study (google will find it for you) may lead to millions of africans being misled into believing that having themselves mutilated will reduce their vulnerability to aids.
    I have examined the original paper and it commits the cardinal error of assuming that because two things occur together, one must be causing the other.
    The relationship is almost certainly tied to geography, and hence to variations in cultural practice.
    Put simply, the data shows that Aids increases as you go south, whilst circumcision increases as you go north.
    These two trends could have any number of causes. Examples are – climate, missionary penetration, geographical spreading of disease or cultural practice over time from an original source.
    If being circumcised actually reduced aids risk, the effect should not disappear if we group countries from the same geographical area together. Follow the link. Look at the graph yourself. Within each geographical group of ten or twelve there is no connection at all. It is a North-South effect and disappears when we group contries from similar areas.
    What this means is that circumcising more africans will not reduce Aids incidence at all.
    To tell them the opposite, and persuade them to mutilate themselves, would be a crime.
    This whole topic gives us in the west a rare opportunity to open our own cultural blinkers, and see that our indignation at Female Genital Mutilation and its defenders is pure hypocrisy if we defend male circumcision ourselves.
    The brainwashing and irrational cruelty we think we see in them – it is in us. We are the same. We are as blinded as they. For all our vaunted education.
    Even in a religious context, it should be illegal to mutilate the body of any child too young to understand and consent. It should be a free choice on the verge of adulthood. Otherwise it should be a crime.

  2. Male circumcision is genital mutilation performed on unconsenting children. It is a violation of human rights and an assault on the defenceless. It reduces sexual pleasure for both partners. It’s health benefits have been investigated by all the major medical authorities in US and Europe, and declared proven health benefits to be virtually NIL.
    In the US there is a thriving market in neonatal foreskins, which are paid for by weight (think about it), with a typical one netting $100 for the doctor, who never reveals this to the parents. They are used in very high price anti-aging creams ($800 per tube). I didn’t believe this either but if you dig on google with care and intelligence you will find it’s true.
    Finally, this is a religiously loaded topic, and there is a steady flow of propaganda trying to establish health benefits.
    Much notice has been given to a recent study from Africa and France suggesting that being circumcised decreases the risk of getting HIV by 50%. Resulting in proposals to start a huge campaign of mass circumcision.
    I am very concerned that this flawed study (google will find it for you) may lead to millions of africans being misled into believing that having themselves mutilated will reduce their vulnerability to aids.
    I have examined the original paper and it commits the cardinal error of assuming that because two things occur together, one must be causing the other.
    The relationship is almost certainly tied to geography, and hence to variations in cultural practice.
    Put simply, the data shows that Aids increases as you go south, whilst circumcision increases as you go north.
    These two trends could have any number of causes. Examples are – climate, missionary penetration, geographical spreading of disease or cultural practice over time from an original source.
    If being circumcised actually reduced aids risk, the effect should not disappear if we group countries from the same geographical area together. Follow the link. Look at the graph yourself. Within each geographical group of ten or twelve there is no connection at all. It is a North-South effect and disappears when we group contries from similar areas.
    What this means is that circumcising more africans will not reduce Aids incidence at all.
    To tell them the opposite, and persuade them to mutilate themselves, would be a crime.
    This whole topic gives us in the west a rare opportunity to open our own cultural blinkers, and see that our indignation at Female Genital Mutilation and its defenders is pure hypocrisy if we defend male circumcision ourselves.
    The brainwashing and irrational cruelty we think we see in them – it is in us. We are the same. We are as blinded as they. For all our vaunted education.
    Even in a religious context, it should be illegal to mutilate the body of any child too young to understand and consent. It should be a free choice on the verge of adulthood. Otherwise it should be a crime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.