“We have no idea, so why not?” conclude researchers -or- On being undeterred by inconclusive evidence

Continuing in the vein of biased research in the service of furthering American circumcision, researchers have published an article in PLoS Medicine targeting black  and Hispanic men. [I’ve touched upon this article before. However, Aidsmap and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have chosen to give it new life by the former’s reviewing the article in their new Circumcision News page after the latter’s making a presentation of it at the Seattle STI conference. I suppose I’m now complicit in extending its life a little longer.]

Among the many absurd assertions, the authors state, “Adult male circumcision will likely have the largest impact in populations where circumcision has been rare.” And where else would it have the greatest impact of whatever sort? Among populations  where it has been common? What does that even mean?

Continuing:

They highlight findings from a study of men attending a Baltimore sexually transmitted infection clinic, which found that whilst circumcision was not associated with a protective effect throughout the whole clinic population, it was associated with a reduced risk of infection among men known to have had unprotected sexual intercourse with HIV-positive female partners. The risk reduction was approximately 55%, although the confidence intervals of this estimate were wide (0.22–0.97) (Warner 2007).

It’s hard to even know where to start with these kinds of reports when they are so over the top. The bottom line is HIV is actually quite rare in all ethnic groups. It is markedly higher in comparison with the majority white population, but that hardly makes it high enough to  recommend circumcision even if the claims for the procedure panned out. The groups where HIV is actually high are in gay men and intravenous drug users. Anyone else is wasting a good piece of skin if he thinks getting circumcised will have any effect on his level of risk. [Edit: Not to suggest gay men or  intravenous drug users wouldn’t also be wasting a good piece of skin, that being the point of this post!]

That being understood, it is simply incomprehensible that “whilst circumcision was not associated with a protective effect throughout the whole clinic population,” the authors could then go on to recommend its consideration anyway. You, the researcher/presenter, find no consistent protective effect, but you conclude “why not?” That’s not an objective scientist talking. That’s a man with an agenda. As always, tell him how you feel [after you read the article and review the presentation of course]: the CDC presenter’s email: dwarner@cdc.gov .

Aidsmap article after the fold.

Circumcision may cut HIV risk among some groups of US men

Circumcision could cut the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission in the US- especially in some groups such as black and Hispanic men, according to a new evidence review.

But any man considering it needs to discuss the possibility – and the risks associated with the procedure – carefully with their doctor.

Researchers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have analysed three randomised controlled trials of circumcision as a HIV prevention measure in Africa to find out if any recommendations for the US can be made on their basis.

In each trial – carried out in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda – men who had been randomly assigned to be circumcised were significantly less likely to become infected with HIV up to two years after, compared to a group of men who remained uncircumcised. The risk was cut by between 51 and 60%.

But the potential impact of adult male circumcision on HIV transmission rates in the US is hard to predict, say the researchers writing in PLoS Medicine.

This is because there are many differences between the underlying HIV epidemics in Africa and the US, plus differences in the prevalence of male circumcision in Africa and the US, and the considerable gaps in knowledge about the potential impact of circumcision on HIV transmission among men who have sex with men (MSM).

Adult male circumcision will likely have the largest impact in populations where circumcision has been rare, they say.

But circumcision is already very common in the US with hospital discharge data showing that around two thirds of all newborn boys were circumcised in the 1990s. However circumcision rates have traditionally been lower among Hispanic men in the United States, where only 42% of Mexican-American men participating in the Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2004 was circumcised, compared with 88% of non- Hispanic white men and 73% of non-Hispanic black men.

Circumcision rates have been declining in some parts of the United States, particularly the western states, in part because of the higher birth rate among the Mexican-American population. But they have been rising over the past few decades in African-American men, who are the highest risk group of heterosexual men in the United States for HIV
infection.

However, based on the African data the authors conclude that “it is likely that circumcision will decrease the probability of a man acquiring HIV via penile–vaginal sex with an HIV-infected woman in the US.”

They highlight findings from a study of men attending a Baltimore sexually transmitted infection clinic, which found that whilst circumcision was not associated with a protective effect throughout the whole clinic population, it was associated with a reduced risk of infection among men known to have had unprotected sexual intercourse with HIV-positive female partners. The risk reduction was approximately 55%, although the confidence intervals of this estimate were wide (0.22–0.97) (Warner 2007).

‘Some sexually active men may consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but should do so only in consultation with their physician or health care provider, and with a clear understanding of the costs and risks of circumcision.’

The need to continue using other prevention measures such as condoms also needs to be emphasised. Men who choose to be circumcised should also be counselled about the importance of waiting until would healing is complete before having sexual intercourse.

Circumcision as a HIV prevention measure might be particularly effective in US Black and Hispanic men, given currently higher HIV infection rates in these populations- plus the fact that circumcision is currently less common in these groups, they add.

References

Sullivan PS et al. Male circumcision for prevention of HIV transmission: What the new data mean for HIV prevention in the United States. 2007 PLoS Med 4(7): e223.
Download SullivanPLoS article.pdf

Warner L et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men attending Baltimore STD clinics: An evaluation of clinic-based data. Society for Epidemiologic Research Meeting; 21–24 June 2006 ; Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

Available: http://cdc.confex.com/cdc/std2006/techprogram/P11223.HTM

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/EF947BEE-5467-46A1-B0F5-978DA9F2FF6C.asp

About David Wilton

Fronterizo, defense lawyer
This entry was posted in Culture and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to “We have no idea, so why not?” conclude researchers -or- On being undeterred by inconclusive evidence

  1. SunkenShip says:

    WOW!
    The US is fighting HARDCORE to promote circumcision again. Who is behind this? What’s their motivation?

  2. Joe in CA says:

    Yeah. Since the white population is already circumcised, they’re targetting the major ethnic groups that usually DON’T. Isn’t it a coincidence that it wasn’t Japanese or Chinese men on which the study was performed?
    “The need to continue using other prevention measures such as condoms also needs to be emphasised.”
    So what is the point of being circumcised, if the condom is going to do the job anyway?
    And the question remains unanswered: Why hasn’t circumcision prevented HIV transmission in America?
    “Adult male circumcision will likely have the largest impact in populations where circumcision has been rare.”
    And the least impact where circumcision has been common, (that being the USA) of course.
    Those pro-circ activists are really milking the HIV/Circumcision illusive connection for what it’s worth, aren’t they…

  3. David says:

    As it happens, second generation and older Japanese and Chinese are likely already circumcised in the US. The uptake in the Asian groups is swift in line with the general tendency towards conformity.

  4. AH-HA! As is so often the case with the zealot, he provides the method of his own undoing. Shades of Tuskeegee, anyone? In their blind rush, the circumfetishists touched one place where they should, after all, know not to go: race. This provides a great new venue to attack them. This really is after all about “cultural imperialsim” and little else. The white man’s for-profit medicine can’t (or won’t?) cure AIDS. So why shouldn’t everyone practice the common sense that is as simple as ABC to keep the spread of the disease in check? Thanks so very much, Sullivan et al. You dropped the ball BIGTIME when you proposed a medical experiment on people of color. This is gonna turn the corner, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner than I think any of us realize.

  5. Mr. Warner,
    There is a considerable, growing population of men in the U.S. and abroad who are becoming acutely aware of the damage circumcision has done to their self image and sexual sensitivity. Most of these men had no choice – an elective surgery was performed at birth on them without their consent. The Intactvist comunity is keenly aware, also, of the effort of researchers such as yourself who for various reasons are trying to “turn back the clock” on the progress we’ve made on keeping our sons as well as our daughters happy, healthy and whole. I’d like to ask you a direct question: why, when people of your pro-circumcision persuation conduct a survey among gays for example, touting circumcision as a means to avoid HIV (as in Sullivan’s Male circumcision for prevention of HIV transmission: What the new data mean for HIV prevention in the United States. 2007 PLoS Med 4(7): e223.), do you not mention that the protection is partial at best, the mechanism of protection as of yet totally unproven, and negated simply by the practice of wearing a condom during intercourse? Americans, as whole I believe are becoming aware of the disconnect. But is this selective education the message you and your cohort are giving to the men of Africa? For shame, sir. Has it not occured to you that this “Get cut and everything will be happy-go-lucky” message is in direct conflict with the ABC program that has already shown proven results? Through selectively telling the tale of HIV prevention, you may be increasing the number of potential new infections, not reducing them.
    Try a little thought experiment. A couple, a man and a woman with different views and motives about the role and act of sex, come together at the the moment of truth. The woman says “I’d like you to please wear a condom, for both of us.” The man says “Baby, I’m cut! How could I have AIDS?” How much more so will the likelyhood of this scene be to occur in a culture where women lack much of the legal and social protections of women in the West?
    Now, change the above-mentioned hypothetical just slightly. Replace the said woman above with your daughter.
    Couldn’t send it due to technical issues. Use this as or a variation of it to whom ever you wish. Just change the name of who it’s addressed to!!

  6. Joe in CA says:

    David, I happen to be a 3rd generation NON-WHITE (not revealing race, you racist bastard), and I happen to be intact. I happen to know for a fact that many Asian communities, esp. Chinese, Hong Kong-ese, Japanese and Vietnamese tend to be very close-knit, and very resistant to “western” ideas, so no, races don’t always “conform.” We’re talking close knit communities that still practice Buddhism and chastise young that marry out of race. People from India tend to be the same way. Yeah, you have your exceptions, but those are few and far between.
    That’s kind of a sick, Hitleresque line of thought to assume that everyone that comes to America tries to assimilate themselves to white people, particularly, and specifically by mutilating their children.
    From the pro-circumcisionist’s perspective (and must I assume this is a white American pro-cirucmisionist perspective?), where everyone must be as circumcised as possible, it makes sense to target the larger ethnic groups. The more men you can target at once to circumcise, the better, because then they’ll want to circumcise THEIR children, and the rate of newborn circumcision grows exponentially. I mean, why target minorities that are resist conformity? Target majorities that already suffer from an insecurity complex as it is. Make them feel as unclean and “Un-American” as possible. What with Hispanic Americans being called Wet-backs amidst the growing immigration problem and all, and Black people struggling to keep out of the “n…er” stereotype, members of such ethnic groups are sure to jump at another chance at acceptance.
    Very smart these mutilators are.
    And that’s where the line is crossed. Intact White Male hits it on the button. “Conformity” and “assimilation” are terrain that the circumcisionists should not have stepped into. They’re really in for it now.
    The implied nuance seems to be that circumcised = white = American.
    What are these “researchers” trying to say? That Latin Americans, Asians, and other ethnic groups simply don’t count as American because they don’t circumcise their children? That people that move here from Europe (even though most “white” people descend from there) can’t be called “American” unless they circumcise themselves and their children? When did America become Jewish? When did the term “American” begin to mean “white,” or “circumcised?” Who ever said that you must circumcise to be American, save the pathetic pro-circumcisionists? Is the only way to truly melt in the melting pot to sever part of your body and your children’s bodies?
    Once everyone is circumcised, what next? Will Asians have to operate to get that extra fold of eyelid skin removed so that their eyes will look rounder, “like all Americans?” Will African Americans have to bleach their skin and the skin of their children to look white, or “American?” Will they have to straighten their curly hair? How much do circumcisionists care about “American assimilation?” Or does their concern only extend as far as their foreskins?
    What kind of democracy requires its citizens to be marked in their flesh? Marking in the flesh is what you do to cattle, to slaves, and to prisoners of concentration camps. If being American means I have to cut part of my body cut off, or cutting part of my children’s bodies off, then I want out. If that is what it means to be an American, to hurt, mutilate our children in their very first days of life, then I am ashamed to be called an American. It is not a free nation where a man has no choice over what happens to his own body.
    These circumcisionists have a sick vision of what it means to be an American.

  7. Joe in CA says:

    The question remains unanswered: Why hasn’t circumcision prevented HIV transmission in America?
    How has an HIV “prevention” method that hasn’t worked in America, worked in Africa?
    Something is wrong with results of studies that don’t correlate with reality.

  8. David says:

    Not too long ago, a white Canadian friend and I remarked how white the intactivist movement seemed to be. I decided I wanted to do something creative to bring more visibility to the non-white folks who share your point of view. Despite my efforts, I found few takers to be interviewed for a short video project. If your feeling is common, where was everyone as I reached out to my friends and even posted on craigslist for participants?
    Without revealing my preferences (you homophobic bastard ;-)), I have first hand knowledge that the majority of the second, third, and fourth generation Asians of this country circumcise their boys. I hate it as much as you do. But I know of what I speak in this one limited area. I could be wrong about the conformity issue. It could be for other reasons. I would be interested in what you believe the other reasons might be.
    Latinos are the only ethnic group in the United States that are meaningfully resistant to circumcision. And the farther north you go, the weaker their resistence gets.

  9. Joe in CA says:

    Maybe you’ve met up with the circumcised exceptions? I suppose it may also vary by region.
    San Jose, San Francisco region here, and there are tons of different Asian ethnic groups. Lived in an international dorm during my undergrad, and interested in Asian languages and/or culture. Interacted mostly with Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese though. Participated in many Obon festivals, as well as Chinese New Year. Not to mention I had many Vietnamese friends. (I did a minor in music, and there tends to be a majority of Vietnamese pianists and violinists…) HOW do we get to talking about sex? Well. Let’s just say the subject came up a lot. Actually talked about circumcision practice, because I have been involved in intactivism since then, and it seems that circumcision was the exception with most of the Asian fellas I talked with. The closer to the 1st generation, the more intact they were.
    The few Asian exceptions were the Korean and Philippino community, where in Korea, circumcision has been a norm since about 50 years ago, and the Philippino community generally sees circumcision as a passage of manhood; you are concidered feminine without it.
    I don’t have the first hand knowledge like yourself, so it could also be that some Asians were misreporting, as some people don’t know that they have been circumcised. No, really, some people are just that ignorant.
    I don’t think Latinos are the “only” ethnic group to meaningfuly resist circumcision. It is important for some Christian communities, and some Indian Hindu communities to be intact. But I do believe that the Latino community may be the LARGEST ethnic group that meaningfully resists conforming to the circumcision norm. You may also have a point that the further north you go, the weaker the resistance gets. It makes sense, as the more north you go, the less closer to the heavy influence of the Mexican border gets.
    Next to Latinos, statistically, it’s black people that don’t circumcise. So basically Latinos and Blacks are the pro-circumcisionists’ cash cows when it comes to infant circumcision. Target the adults and you get the children for free automatically by proxy. All it takes is a huge wave in many generations. A kind of circumcision “amnesty” if you will.

  10. Joe in CA says:

    To give you a context of where I’m coming from, I cut and paste from the original blog:
    “Circumcision rates have been declining in some parts of the United States, particularly the western states, in part because of the higher birth rate among the Mexican-American population. But they have been rising over the past few decades in African-American men, who are the highest risk group of heterosexual men in the United States for HIV infection.”
    So, target the larger non-circumcising Mexican American population, and shore-up the declining rate of circumcision of African-American men.
    Seems to be the goal of recent pro-circumcision activists…

  11. Joe in CA says:

    To give you a context of where I’m coming from, I cut and paste from the original blog:
    “Circumcision rates have been declining in some parts of the United States, particularly the western states, in part because of the higher birth rate among the Mexican-American population. But they have been rising over the past few decades in African-American men, who are the highest risk group of heterosexual men in the United States for HIV infection.”
    So, target the larger non-circumcising Mexican American population, and shore-up the declining rate of circumcision of African-American men.
    Seems to be the goal of recent pro-circumcision activists…

  12. Joe in CA says:

    I totally think it’s comformity. Well, actually, REVERSE conformity.
    It’s all in Aesop’s Fable, “The Fox Without a Tail”
    “One day while in the forest, a fox was caught by a trap. He struggled to break free, and finally did, but his beautiful bushy tail was torn off. After that, when with the other animals, he felt so uncomfortable that he developed an insecure body image. Not liking this, he thought to himself that if he could persuade the other foxes to cut off THEIR tails, his own loss would not be so noticeable. He called together the other foxes and said, “How is it that you still wear your tails? Of what use are they? They are heavy to carry. They take so much time to clean, and are ugly to look at. I enjoy my life so much more, now that I no-longer have mine. Cut off your tails, my friends, and for the sake of your children, cut off their tails too, so no-one would have to be burdened by such a useless body-part.” Upon hearing this, a sly old fox replied; it seems to me, that you would not be so anxcious to cut off our tails, if you had not already lost yours.”
    Check out who’s behind all of this “research” and you will find that it’s mostly American and/or Jewish doctors. Of course. Who else, but people that already practice circumcision that need to find a legit medical “reason” to circumcise?
    Double check, WHO is funding the African HIV/Circumcision effort?
    How do you normalize a stump in the middle of a forest, so it doesn’t stand out?
    Cut the rest of the trees down.

  13. SunkenShip says:

    It is really interesting how poignant the Fox without a tale fable is in the case of circumcision. The US is one sly FOX!

  14. David says:

    Well, to illustrate my point about Asian-Americans … I compiled a list of people I wanted to approach for the video project. I came up with 18 people I personally know who I knew from various sources were intact. Nine were foreign born Vietnamese. One was from Singapore. Two were Chinese-Malaysian. One was from Japan. One was French-Canadian. Another was German. As for the only American born intact guys I know, one was white from Yolo County, (Northern) California and the other was Mexican-American from Brownsville, Texas. Of the 20 or so American born Asians I know, not one was intact.
    I agree with you that Vietnamese tend to be the most intact among the foreign born. I know of a number of circumcised Chinese, both mainland and Taiwanese, a circumcised Japanese guy, and several Chinese-Malaysians who are cut. My suspicion is that the more educated and economically (rich) well off the person’s family is, the more likely they are to be circumcised.
    Maybe it’s the age group I run around with, which is not college age. I dunno. But I do know that circumcision exerts a bizarre almost magical attraction for certain groups. It’s a kind of belief in modernity or scientific advancement that these groups believe this surgery represents.
    This should be a frontpage post. Oh well.

  15. David says:

    Well, to illustrate my point about Asian-Americans … I compiled a list of people I wanted to approach for the video project. I came up with 18 people I personally know who I knew from various sources were intact. Nine were foreign born Vietnamese. One was from Singapore. Two were Chinese-Malaysian. One was from Japan. One was French-Canadian. Another was German. As for the only American born intact guys I know, one was white from Yolo County, (Northern) California and the other was Mexican-American from Brownsville, Texas. Of the 20 or so American born Asians I know, not one was intact.
    I agree with you that Vietnamese tend to be the most intact among the foreign born. I know of a number of circumcised Chinese, both mainland and Taiwanese, a circumcised Japanese guy, and several Chinese-Malaysians who are cut. My suspicion is that the more educated and economically (rich) well off the person’s family is, the more likely they are to be circumcised.
    Maybe it’s the age group I run around with, which is not college age. I dunno. But I do know that circumcision exerts a bizarre almost magical attraction for certain groups. It’s a kind of belief in modernity or scientific advancement that these groups believe this surgery represents.
    This should be a frontpage post. Oh well.

  16. Joe in CA says:

    It’s kinda funny, how what is supposed to be “high class” is actually bad for you. You know, like white granulated sugar, white bread, as opposed to brown sugar and wheat bread, etc…
    Remember that in Malaysia/Singapore, Islam is rampant. I believe it’s the reason it may exist in the Philippines? Not too long ago there was a case in Taiwan where the man lost his glans, and a case in Singapore where a couple lot their baby after circumcision “for a UTI.”
    http://www.cirp.org/news/nst2007-07-09/
    http://www.cirp.org/news/singapore2007-06-25/
    (Can’t find links to the Taiwan one…)
    Anyhow, I wondered “Singapore? WTF?” But then I realized how close that was to Malaysia. I just don’t understand the Taiwan thing. HOW did it get there? The case was a man, though. I’m not sure if they do it to children. To my knowledge, they didn’t but I could be wrong.
    Actually, I will not lie to you, I’m currently living in Japan as an English teacher. As you may or may not know, the Japanese are a communal bathing culture; they like to get together and bathe naked. There is an expression: “Hadaka no tsuki ae.” It refers to a connection one can only make while naked. Almost as if to say “You don’t know someone ’till you’ve seen him naked…”
    Anyhow, I often go with friends, and needless to say, very few people are circumcised. Most, from the children to their fathers, to their grandfathers sport a foreskin.
    There are a couple of nation-wide circumcision clinics (look up Ueno Clinic) that target young audiences in girlie books and comics. They tend to blow phimosis out of proportion by claiming something like 7 in 10 men get phimosis? And they play the “girls like it better” card. But if you go to the baths and hot-springs, you will see that not too many men fall for it. A few, yes, but for the most part, this is an intact country.
    I’ve actually grilled all my friends about it. WHY do they show these adds in young men’s comics etc.? Did they (my friends) ever care about it? How many Japanese would they say go get circumcised at these places? The response I get from most of them is, no-body really cares. Most men just pick up girly books and porn and ignore these. People that go get cut might be suffering from insecurity issues and they fall for the magazine gimmick.
    And according to my friends, and adult parents that I’ve asked (I’m an intactivist here too, so if the subject of childbirth or sex comes up, I usually squeeze the subject of circumcision in there…) NOBODY circumcises their kids here. (That they know of.) I go to the baths and onsens pretty often and I can attest that this is true.
    I’m surprised to hear that all those people you knew were cut. Region could play a role, and so could age-group too I suppose…
    It would be interesting to study circumcision in China, and Taiwan. Singapore/Malaysia, go without saying because of Islam, but wondering if the Chinese circumcise their children, or if grown men choose the elective procedure. The Taiwanese case that I was telling you involved an ADULT man, so I can only guess is he chose it for himself. Too bad it was a botch…

  17. I’d like to add a point here that I think is worth exploring by greater minds than my own. Here in America, something called “Torah-submissive” or “Old Testament Christianity” has taken root in segments of the Christian population. Some people actually believe that circumcision is an accepted rite in the church. It is not, nor has it ever been since the days of Paul the Apostle. Paul turned up the heat on the circumcisers (he called them Judiazers) as he knew what they were up to. Paul was preaching to a mostly Greek audience who abhorred circumcision, tatoos and other body rites as being – well – against the natural. The Judiazers were religious, and not to mention politically minded, Jews who saw the locus of Yahweh worship shifting away from Jerusalem and from their point of view were rightly concerned. They did not want to see an important part of their ethnic/religious identity be deminished and trivialized and so sought to foist Mosaic law on the new converts to Christianity. But Paul was more concerned about the salvation of souls than the liberation of the Holy Land. Paul argued that grace through belief in Christ was the new avenue for salvation, the “new covenant” (viz. Hebrews, Galatians). He argued that while God didn’t void the covenant that he made with the Isrealites, there was a new, much lighter burden in the universal covenant of grace that was for the whole of mankind.
    Now a funny thing happened in a few countries in the West, and in the Muslim world as well. The lines got blurred. Sudden overwhelming power and general high standard of academic and civil development got equated with said certain groups of people thinking this new found wealth and influence must be of heavenly origin, the citizenry having become the “new Isrealites.” Britons, in the age of Queen Victoria (who was famous for calling herself a “British Isrealite”), Americans in the age of American Exceptionalism, and Arab Muslims converts (the disendants of Ishmeal, who in their view was the slighted true inheritor of the Abhramic covenant) all self-identified as the new “chosen people.” Being the chosen people in this world-view carries with it an attitude of exceptionalism and a stunning degree of exclusion, regardless of what the dusty old religious texts said. In other words, the Empire, the U.S., or the Caliphate has to do awful, otherwise shameful things TO SERVE THE SO-CALLED DEVINE MANDATE, but you know, God told the Isrealites to do a lot of awful things they didn’t understand on the surface and look what happened to them when they didn’t comply! Hence you get the subjugation of the Indian subcontinent, Iraq, the hunting down and elimination of the “Kafir.” Circumcision is a rite of obedience but more so a mark of imputed righteousness to people of this mindset. I suspect it is just a star in the constellation of superior-minded crappola that fills these folks view. This kind of thinking allows for the “civilization” of peoples who had already been civilized for millenia, the tinkering and interventions of foriegn politics, etc. It would be most interesting to psyco-analyze the Pro-circ researchers. They think they’re giving friendly aid to the less well-off nations of the south. I suspect, though, that there is quite a lot of “white-man’s-burden” burried in their collective subconcious.

  18. Joe in CA says:

    I know of the “Torah-submissive” or “Old Testament Christianity” of which you speak, and I think it’s really quite ridiculous.
    I may not be Christian, I gave up on religion a long time ago, but I know goddamn well what the bible says.
    The whole point of being a “Christian” is that you’re “saved” by the “grace of God,” and not by “the law.” You’re either Jewish, or Christian, not both. It’s spelled out very clearly in Galatians 5.
    So Christians that claim to circumcise “in the name of Christ” are on crack. They don’t know what they’re talking about because they don’t read their bible and just swallow opinion spoon-fed to them like good little sheep.
    There is a really good article about this for Christians wanting to know what the bible really says on Christians and circumcision. Christians wanting to remain in ignorance need look no further…
    http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s