Bishop Spong on circumcision

Lee from Goldleaf Technologies writes:
"Like you, I've long been skeptical of the supposed "benefits" of circumcision and feel it is nothing more than religion-endorsed genital mutilation performed on unconsenting infants. Because of this, I continue to have sharp pangs of remorse and regret over allowing my two sons to be circumcised at birth.

This week, much to my surprise, a landmark study, published in the journal Plos Medicine by the French national agency for AIDS research, confirms that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection dramatically, by as much as 60%. If similar studies now underway in Kenya and Uganda corroborate the results, circumcision could become a powerful weapon-with condom use and other measures-in the fight against AIDS. If valid, would such research change your position on circumcision? "

Dear Lee,

In a word, no!! Mutilating the baby instead of teaching each child the arts of good hygiene is bad practice, bad ethics, bad theology and a bad idea. I do not understand how any religious system could ever endorse that. Female circumcision - I prefer to call it "female genital mutilation" is still practiced in parts of Christian Africa. It too is said to have health benefits. I think not. Both of these practices represent control tactics and guilt laden castration rites born out of the superstition and ignorance of the past. I regard circumcision in both sexes as a barbaric act with no redeeming features. I find it almost laughable that the same religious voices that oppose the use of condoms would now support circumcision as a health practice.