When I published my first post on Christianity and circumcision, it stirred strong reactions most of them defensive, some openly hostile. But what became clear is this: many people misunderstood what I was actually saying.

This isn’t about singling out Christians for the sake of mockery or provocation. It’s about dissecting how certain theological ideas, attitudes, and structures even subtle or well-intentioned ones can create just enough moral wiggle room to justify something as violent and irreversible as infant circumcision.

I’m not claiming every Christian supports circumcision. I’m saying that certain tenets in Christian doctrine, especially when left unexamined can help normalize it, downplay its harm, or shift focus away from bodily autonomy altogether.

Ideas like:

-The body being “less important” than the soul.

-Obedience to spiritual authority being a virtue.

-Love and forgiveness

-Silence about harm being viewed as neutrality

These ideas matter not just in sermons, but in operating rooms, in parental decisions, and in what society considers morally acceptable to do to a child.

This post isn’t about personal attacks. It’s about systemic patterns.

If Christianity is going to be a force for good, it has to confront those patterns not defend them.

To put it bluntly, you cant worship male torture and suffering and then turn around oppose male genital mutilation.

Your psyche has already been prime to not just accept but glorify the idea.