Welcome to the new Independent website. We hope you enjoy it and we value your feedback. Please contact us here.


Letter: Skin deep

Sir: I have been following the discussion on circumcision with interest. Did I miss something, or am I correct in stating that no circumcised Jewish or Muslim male has written to protest at the practice? Those opposed to circumcision seem to be people to whom it is culturally irrelevant, and who need never fear the Mohel's knife.

The Rev Neil Dawson (letter, 29 September) writes that "new Christians ... were having none of it." This is misleading. There was fervent debate regarding circumcision in the early Church (Jesus and his disciples were all circumcised, of course, as were almost all the original Christians), and it was only to attract gentile converts that the ritual was waived. Many - if not most - of the church founders held that, to be a full Christian, one must undergo a fully Jewish circumcision.

I have never regretted being a circumcised male. My understanding is that most males in the US are circumcised. When the circumcised themselves begin to lobby against the practice it will be time to take the issue seriously. Until then, the debate should be understood for what it is - the braying of misguided PC'ers, seeking to synthesise yet another issue to browbeat those they consider their moral inferiors.


Brookline, Massachusetts, USA