NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/kids/30919

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 3.6 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: misc.kids
Path: sparky!uunet!emba-news.uvm.edu!griffin!gdavis
From: [e-mail] (Gary Davis)
Subject: Re: >>>A few facts about circumcision
Message-ID: <gdavis.724948040@griffin>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: default
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:27:20 GMT
Lines: 60

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Valerie Noronha) writes:

>The reason for circumcision dates back to the Bible.  My husband and I recently
>looked it up out of curiosity.  It is mentioned in Genesis where God makes a
>covenant with Abraham that he will be the father of the chosen people, the
>Jews.  As a sign of this covenant, Abraham was to have his sons circumcised
>on the eighth day and so on with all descendants.  I believe that Moslems
>also following this practice as many Jewish prophets are their prophets
>as well.  Perhaps a Moslem can confirm this, though. This, of course, changes
>in the New Testament in which Paul states Jesus came to save all, not just the
>Jews; hence, Christians are not bound by the covenant of circumcision as with
>other Jewish rituals.

What you state is ofcourse quite correct;Chritians are under no obligation
to circumcisize. However,it remains a mystery to me why so many Catholics
and Evangelicals believe that this is "what God commanded".
Historically circumcision pre-dates even the old testament as it was
practiced in ancient Egypt. Scholars have found that not all Egyptians
were circumcised. This has lead to the hypothesis that circumcision was
a cast or tribal marking. It is not true that all Pharoes were circumcised
so we cannot contend that this was an upper socially practiced rite.
Some contend that while the Hebrews were captive in Egypt the practice
was imposed upon them and only later did Biblical authors call upon
the power and authority of the All Mighty to assure all complied.

Orginally the Jewish rite cut only a very small section of tissue from
the foreskin,leaving most of it intact. In periods of severe
anti-semitic persecution Jews could not be distinguished from non-
Jews based soley upon foreskin inspection.
Many Jews who did not wish later in life to be Jewish began to streach
the foreskin which lead over zealous Rabbis to demand a full excision.
This last hypothesis is only found in one research source so it may
not be entirely reliable.

It is know that the Nazis required suspected Jewish males to present
their penis for circumcision inspection. It is known that a few Jewish
men who had experienced only a bit of skin removed often were relaesed
since the Nazis could not establish if the subject actually was circumcised.

I understand that USA hospitable circumcisions remove all foreskin
issue,leaving the glans entirely nude even when the penis is not
erect.
 The extremely "tight" circumcisions men born in the 1940s and 1950s
was due to both medical zealotry and the lack of the so called
GOMCO clamps which came into fashion in the early 1960s.
The GOMCO is still widely used complete with cone which comes in
various sizes.. right down to premie.
The cone is shoved under the foreskin before ammutation primarily
to protect against "nicking" the glans during the cutting away phase.

Some persons have reported that their penile shafts seemed longer
than the skin covering them. This is yet another dysfunction caused
by too zealous a circumcision.



--
                       Gary E. Davis /WQ1F/
              Dpt. Electrical Engineering and Com Sciences
              University of Vermont @ Burlington