Navigating the Circumcision Debate: A 15 Square Perspective
As advocates for men’s health and well-being, we encourage open and respectful discussions when questioning tradition, in this case religious and cultural circumcision practices. With the significant implications for physical and psychological health, as well as ethical considerations relating to personal autonomy, the debate on religious circumcision has created an interesting conversation around individual’s rights to their own bodies and the issue of consent. Not only do we believe that practices that risk causing harm should be questioned, but we also reject any suggestion that the questioning of long-standing practices is innately anti-religious or discriminatory. Respectful criticism of practices that do not conform to ethics is critical to evolving societal norms.
Religious circumcision has long been accepted as a cultural and religious practice in numerous communities around the world. In modern times our ethics have changed, and society has progressed to value individual rights, informed consent, and liberty.
The Progression of Children’s Rights
It is crucial to note that questioning cultural practices and rituals in light of these advancements does not equate to being anti-religious or discriminatory. If society did consider this to be discriminatory then many harmful practices would go unchecked, for example; foot binding, forcibly arranged marriage, and female genital mutilation.
Over the past few decades, significant progress has been made in the recognition and enforcement of children’s rights. One of the most important milestones is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), ratified in 1989, which set global standards for the treatment of children. This convention has brought significant changes, including the recognition of a child’s right to express their views in all matters affecting them. This demonstrates that there is a public appetite for understanding; that children can express their own feelings, and act as free agents in their own right.
This acknowledgment plays a vital role in the discussion of cultural circumcision practices, as there is a lack of informed consent of the individual.
This underlines the value in questioning cultural and religious circumcision – not as an attack on religious beliefs themselves but as part of our societal growth towards ethical behaviour and respect for individual rights.
Questioning Tradition- Raising Concerns over Religious Circumcision Practices: The Case of Neyland’s Former Mayor, Andrew Lye
Recently, the Mayor of Neyland resigned from office in the wake of a disagreement amongst local councillors. Part of the disagreement involved allegations that the ex-mayor, Andrew Lye, had shared antisemitic and islamophobic material that amounted to ‘a direct attack’ on other religions.
This accusation was made after one of Lye’s 2008 blog post was found by a rival councillor. Lye made a theological argument against infant circumcision from a Christian perspective. Specifically, Lye questioned why religious circumcision was necessary, assuming that god “made man in his own image”.
The paragraph in question was an introduction to Lye’s online blog titled ‘uncut’
‘As I have always, generally, tried to maintain an air of respectability, I thought it was time to do one that could be a bit more risque at times. So whilst you can have programmes with the smut, swearing and sexual content removed, the UNCUT version is where anything (almost) is shown. If you thought by calling it uncut, it was a blog all about my foreskin, you are now disappointed and have moved to something a bit smuttier.
For the record, I am uncut. I was born with it and cannot understand why any religion should require its removal (I can understand it if there is a medical need) because if God didn’t mean us to have one, he’d have created us without one. Doesn’t the Bible say, in any case, that he made man in his own image, therefore we must assume God has a foreskin.
So do we therefore say that those who have their boy’s foreskin removed are contravening God’s laws?’
– Andrew Lye’s introduction to his ‘Uncut’ blog
Whilst 15 Square do not use theology as a basis for our arguments against circumcision, we do question the practice and encourage others to publicly do the same. We believe that respectful discussion on this issue is important and is everyone’s right in a democratic society, as well as the right to free thought and opinion. Following the incident, we wrote a joint letter to the members of Neyland Town Council in collaboration with the National Secular Society. You can read this here.
The Harrowing Reality of Unnecessary Medical Procedures
While religious circumcision is a widely accepted practice in numerous communities, the potential risks and harm associated with this procedure cannot be overlooked. Tragically, there have been cases where children have experienced severe complications post-circumcision, sometimes even resulting in death, as seen with Celian Noumbiwe, Angelo Ofori-Mintah, and Goodluck Caubergs in the UK. These instances represent a deeply disturbing reality associated with unnecessary medical procedures performed without the individual’s consent. Beyond the life-threatening risks, circumcision can lead to long-term physical and psychological consequences. As revealed by a Freedom of Information request to the General Medical Council, between 2012 and 2022, complications from circumcision included penile deformity, infection, urinary complications, and inadequate anaesthesia, with some cases requiring blood transfusions for babies. These alarming figures bring to light the urgent need to reconsider religious circumcision practices and prioritise the safety and rights of children above all else.
UN Concern Regarding Circumcision Harm
The United Nations has previously expressed concern for the harms associated with circumcision. Similarly, in 2010 the World Health Organization, in partnership with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and the United Nations Children’s Fund, included some male circumcision ritual practices in the list of harmful procedures that need to be addressed.
This demonstrates that critiquing harmful cultural practices is not only considered acceptable across society, but as important for social progress. A 2018 YouGov poll, which showed that 62% of the British public would support a law against non-medical circumcision of boys, further emphasises the shift in public perception.
The Importance of Questioning Tradition- Established Norms
The accusations made – shortly before Andrew Lye’s resignation – underscore the societal discomfort and backlash that often follow critical discussions of established practices. These accusations are often too easy, even in the absence of legitimate wrongdoing or discriminative behaviour. These punitive responses can create a chilling effect, dissuading open conversation and stifling progressive dialogue.
It’s imperative that, as a society, we foster a culture that encourages people to challenge potentially harmful practices. This should not be interpreted as an attack on tradition but as a step towards enhancing safety and upholding individual rights, particularly when children’s wellbeing is at stake. When we stifle these discussions, we risk suppressing important ethical debates surrounding individual rights, and harm. Within the context of male circumcision, we should take the opportunity to educate those that are uninformed on the risks and consequences, and bring children’s rights and consent issues back into the frame. Many parents that begin to question routine infant circumcision do so in the context of modern values.
The accusations against Andrew Lye underscore the challenges that exist within society, and point to the need for a more nuanced understanding, and respectful dialogue surrounding religious and cultural circumcision. Whilst patience and understanding is important, so too is the right to respectfully criticise. Conversations that discuss and challenge deep-seated traditions and beliefs are never easy, but done in the right way, they can be important for healthy social progress.
Our Mission and Ongoing Advocacy
As a charity dedicated to supporting men’s health, 15 Square is committed to advocating for safe practices, informed consent, individual rights, and bodily autonomy. We are steadfast in our mission to assist those dealing with the physical and psychological repercussions of circumcision. The recent incidents involving criticism of religious circumcision have reinforced the importance of our work in representing men that have been affected by circumcision, many of whom are from circumcising cultures. As we continue to raise awareness about the potential harms of this practice, we stand firm in our commitment to encourage conversations that respect individual beliefs and traditions while prioritising children’s safety, well-being, and rights to bodily autonomy.
Questioning Tradition: Balancing Respect for Faith, Medical Facts, and Ethical Standards
The conversation about religious circumcision should be approached with respect, and when engaging in discussion surrounding religious circumcision, a nuanced understanding that balances respect and charitable appreciation of cultural differences, with ethical standards, values, and the individual lived experiences of men.
While it’s essential to respect some of the deeply-rooted beliefs and traditions of various faiths, we must also consider the compelling medical evidence and ethical arguments that call for a reassessment of some aspects of cultural practice.
We advocate for this balanced approach, acknowledging the significance of faith and tradition while also highlighting the importance of health, safety, and ethical standards. We aim to continue raising awareness and promote dialogue around this sensitive topic. We call on society to foster a culture where such debates are welcomed, not repressed and weaponised, and where children’s rights to bodily autonomy are respected.
“It is a pity Andrew Lye’s argument is not fleshed out, so to speak, in more detail. The Bible is a very large collection of books, and anyone who cares to read them through the lens of the foreskin will find much the same polarisation around the subjects as now. (… more violent and gory, though, in the Bible Old Testament – Abraham’s great grandsons using circumcision as a weapon of war, c. 1700BC; King David collecting foreskins as trophies of war, c.1000BC; in Maccabees, c. 150BC, women who had their children circumcised were killed; and, in counter-attack on change of government, all intact boys were forcibly circumcised).
There is, however, a neat resolution to this polarisation. This can be found in the New Testament, Acts 15, when, after Jesus’s death, the practice of circumcision as a requirement for social interaction was formally and vigorously debated at a specifically convened meeting in Jerusalem, c. 50AD, by Jesus’s leading followers (mostly Jews). Their conclusion, Acts 15 vs 20 and 29 (repeated again in Acts 21 v 25), was to advise intact men to keep free of frenulum breve (symptom/sign: blood); paraphimosis (symptom/sign: strangled glans); and sexual immorality (risk consequence: STD). These interpretations are far from mainstream amongst theological academics. In fact, they are non-existent. They are, though, to my simple mind, reasonable interpretations, and are, in any event, and of their time, sensible and practical responses, careful and clever to leave out circumcision itself as some kind of universal cure-all.
The mainstream academic interpretation of these verses in Acts 15 is that it’s to do with animal and food laws from Noah. Other interpretations include the idea that blood transfusions are forbidden. These, to my mind, are complete nonsense. Why would these be the conclusions when the subject of the debate was whether intact men should be circumcised before Jews / Jewish Christians, could socialise with them? Whereas, to say to intact men that there are specific foreskin conditions which it would be good to keep clear of, and you will do well if you manage that, makes logical and practical sense, and is, indeed, true.”