So circumcision keeps demanding our attention. Is circumcision unnecessary? Is it always right? If it is right for males, why not for females as Muslims insist?

Muslims show their hatred of women by the angry, aggressive, and abusive practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision. This mutilation is now popularly called cuttings since that sounds better. The Koran never commands circumcision of males, much less females and FrontPageMagazine.com revealed that 97% of women in Egypt have been circumcised, meaning their clitorises have been amputated.

I wrote in my 2016 book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse in Burning!: “In fact, if a female has not had this ‘surgery,’ she is considered unclean and only the surgery can make her clean! Many times the victim dies after going through the torture; others suffer from chronic infections for a lifetime. But possibly, worse than the suffering is that the surgery makes them less than God intended them to be. God gave females the clitoris to permit them to have sexual pleasure within the confines of marriage. It is not an exaggeration to say that about 75% of women do not achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation. The clitoris has nothing to do with child bearing, only sexual pleasure. However, warped Muslims apparently believe women should have no sexual pleasure, so they try to undo what God did. Many of those unfortunate women are traumatized for a lifetime with sexual, emotional, and mental repercussions.”

Because of the above butchery, sane people have come down hard against FGM surgery, but the left is strangely silent because to criticize it would be to criticize Islam. And we must not do that, after all, they might get offended. They might long for and return to their own country where such practices are not only recommended and relentless, but also required.

At least two medical doctors in Michigan have been charged with performing such surgery on children, so this is one issue normal people might win.

FGM is recognized as a violation of the human rights of women and girls according to the Guardian. The United Nations general assembly voted unanimously in 2012 to work for the elimination of female circumcision throughout the world. Good for them.

There is no debate about the deleterious effect on females but what about circumcision of boys? Is this discrimination? Poor logic? I don’t know any professing Christian or Conservative who defends female genital mutilation but few feel strongly about male circumcision. If female circumcision is so wrong, why is male circumcision not wrong? Inquiring minds want to know.

Most people were introduced to circumcision when God required it of all Jewish males on the eighth day of life in Gen. 17:12. Gen. 17:11 commands, “And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.” Those Jews who were not circumcised were to be “cut off” from their people as revealed in verse 14.

It should be understood that God did not command circumcision because of faulty design but as a sign of His new covenant. Each family must decide if the procedure is desired for them.

Religion has not been the motivation for all advocates of male circumcision. In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure “masturbatory insanity.” It was thought by many professionals that masturbation caused insanity so it was suggested that circumcision might curtail that practice. I don’t think it was successful.

About 39% of males worldwide have been circumcised; about half for cultural or religious reasons. In the U.S., about 80% of American males have been circumcised according to the Mayo Clinic.

Only 45% of baby boys receive anesthesia during circumcision, but circumcision without anesthesia is inconsistent with ethical guidelines that forbid surgical procedures on humans without the use of anesthesia. We are told that infants do not feel pain as adults do, but that is not true. Moreover, a vocal critic of circumcision wildly estimated that 117 baby boys die annually in America usually from infection or blood loss as a result of being circumcised. However, that number is disputed by many and the CDC says that deaths from circumcision are “rare.” My research proves the rarity of difficulty with circumcision. Of course, there is always an added risk from any anesthesia.

Male circumcision has become a major issue, even a human rights issue, and may be one reason why the number of circumcisions has been declining in recent years in the U.S.

Author of many circumcision studies Robert Van Howe, M.D., a Michigan pediatrician, describes the infant’s response. “Circumcision results in not only severe pain but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing. Medical studies show significant increases in heart rate and level of blood stress hormone. Some infants do not cry because they go into shock from the overwhelming pain of the surgery.” Even when anesthesia is used, it does not alleviate all the pain.

One reason for some physical problems with circumcision could be because the circumcisions are not done on the eighth day as prescribed by God. Daniel Eisenberg, M.D. wrote, “the baby’s coagulation factors appear to peak at the eighth day.” (I wonder how Moses knew that thousands of years before men!)

We are told that circumcised males normally lose three fourths of penis sensitivity that will follow them all their life, but I wonder how they know that. Moreover, circumcised men are about five times more likely to have problems with erectile dysfunction. Furthermore, the average male will have more health problems from being circumcised than those not circumcised.

The Canadian Paediatric Society has reservations about circumcision saying in a 1996 report, “Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

But there is another side to this issue as there usually is.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks; however, the AAP doesn’t recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. According to WHO and the World Journal of Urology, there is solid evidence that circumcision is effective in prevention of HIV infection at least in parts of the world with high rates of HIV. Several analyses have concluded that massive circumcision programs for adult men in Africa are cost-effective and in some cases save money as well as lives.

According to the Mayo Clinic male circumcision might have various health benefits, including: as above, decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections “might” be less for circumcised men; easier hygiene although something called improved showers would negate that reason; decreased risk of urinary tract infections although the risk is “low”; prevention of penile problems, including penile cancer, although in my lifetime, I’ve never heard of a male with such problems, and Mayo admits it is “rare.”

Other medical associations disagree. The Royal Dutch Medical Association claims the practice is “medically unnecessary” and is a violation of human rights of males. Moreover, in 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemned circumcision as “a violation of the physical integrity of children.” Since an intact foreskin is not a birth defect, human rights groups maintain that it is an attack upon helpless individuals who cannot give consent. It is his body and he has a say in the decision, so circumcision should be delayed until an intelligent decision can be made.

However, can that argument be used to forbid controversial and questionable vaccinations shortly after birth authorized by parents in the best interests of the child? Do babies having holes punched in their ears fall into this discussion?

Traditionally, parents decide whether a male child is to be circumcised and therein is the rub. The baby has no say in a matter that will cause him pain and maybe other problems for the remainder of his life. Hence, should no child under sixteen be circumcised? The British Medical Association declared, “[P]arental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child.” Is this an anti-Jew movement to prevent Jewish parents from continuing their religion and culture? Additionally, if Muslims are forbidden female circumcision, will they not use the Jewish argument in their defense?

There is no doubt that Muslim female circumcision is wrong, but to compare it to male circumcision is not reasonable. The human rights groups have a good argument; however, God considered the surgery as necessary, at least for ancient Israel. As of today, it is best for parents to decide what decision to make.

After a long delay, the CDC took the position that “medical evidence supports having the procedure done and health insurers should pay for it.”

A final consideration in deciding about voluntary male circumcision is the cost. All but 18 U.S. states pay for male circumcision at a cost of an average of 33 million dollars annually! Some would say that it’s time to trim the nonessentials.

If pressed for a decision, I would opt to leave alone what God designed.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

A column in the news this week quoted a critic of Creationism asserting that Darwin “was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture.” That critic was simply espousing his religion, the religion of evolution. He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and unrepentant racists.

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, (Darwin was an apostate preacher) but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who faked drawings to support evolution (and was found guilty in a university court). He and others laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler’s racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, “I don’t claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible.”

I wonder what the “climate” is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness, and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin’s impact on Hitler and Germany: “We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy….The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood.”

Furthermore, Joe Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin’s book that he found on a shelf in a church school! Such books are as dangerous as rattlesnakes in a day care center.

The unreasonable, unbiblical, and unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity, and unbelief reaching into the future and adversely affecting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that Blacks were closer to man’s ape “ancestors” than the white race!
Even the title of Darwin’s book is overtly racist: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Whom do you suppose Darwin tagged the “Unfavored Races?”

Darwin’s disciple and main defender, T. H. Huxley, wrote, “It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man….The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins….” (I “siced” the above places not because he used the term, “Negro” but because it did not capitalize it.) Darwin never repudiated him or his statements. How would “dusky cousins” be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

However, it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, declared, “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Wow! The most radical KKK nut doesn’t believe that!

Edwin Conklin, was professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that Blacks had not evolved as far as Whites and “Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be.” Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever having an NAACP medal struck in his honor. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men such as Nietzsche who often said God was dead (and I didn’t even know He was sick) called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits. Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and those people and their theories and policies have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin’s shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred, and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching. Chuck Darwin was the fountainhead of racism and evolutionists are stuck with him. Breaks my heart!