Maggie Gallagher: Uncut Penises Are Threatening Your Religious Freedom!

Poor Mags. She’s been having a rough go of it lately. The Prop 8 trial was a disaster for her side. Marriage equality was finally achieved in Washington, D.C. She came across as knowledge-less in her debate with Andrew Sullivan. So much has gone so wrong so quickly that she has, as many a gay would, turned to the male member for wisdom, guidance, and solace.

You see, Maggie is afraid of a new bill being considered Massachusetts, one that would ban circumcision of any male below the age of 18, without religious exemptions. The bill, debated earlier this week, was introduced by state Sen Michael W. Morrissey (D-Quincy) who filed it on behalf of Charles A. Antonelli, who says that the procedure is painful unnecessary, and violates a baby’s human rights. “For some reason society feels fit to make surgical amputations to somebody’s body without their consent,” continues Antonelli. And, Dr. Paul Fleiss, Assistant Clinical professor of Pediatrics at UCLA, explains that complications from the amputation are grossly under reported.

And this is where Maggie steps in. Without regard for the infant or any mention of the nuances surrounding the choice to circumcise an infant, Maggie writes in a new column first and only about how her view of religion will be overturned if children’s bodies can’t be hacked:

New legislation now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children, comes very close to saying, “Yes, it should be a crime.” Circumcision of infant males has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham.

. . . How did we reach the point where powerful people seriously consider such outrageous intrusions on religious liberty?

If the right to religious liberty — a right clearly and explicitly established in our U.S. Constitution — were being supported and enforced equally with other First Amendment rights, traditional faith communities would not be as worried as they are about the coming attempts to misuse government power.

It is notable that Maggie is getting worked up over a law that would privilege civil rights above religion. This has been her M.O. all along — bodies must be subjected to religious interpretations. Gay bodies, young bodies, bodies. For her, religion determines the value of a body, not the other way around.

I would be interested to know how Maggie feels about female genital mutilation, also known as “female circumcision,” in places where that is the religious custom.

(image via)

One Click Comment (and/or leave full comments farther below):
LOVE (3) HATE (1) MEH (1) FAIL (1) LOL (0) WTF? (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Maggie Gallagher: Uncut Penises Are Threatening Your Religious Freedom!”

  1. twinkie1cat
    March 9, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    I’m sorry but I have to go with the conservatives for once in my life. God created circumcision to set apart the Hebrew people from the heathens, but also for HEALTH REASONS, just as were rules against eating pork and shellfish. God could not explain about bacteria in those days. They had not been discovered.

    Cancer is almost unknown in circumsized penises. Plus it is already hard enough to get boys to keep themselves sanitary without them having to do an uncomfortable task like pulling back their foreskin.

  2. twinkie2cat
    March 9, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    twinkie1cat, when you say things like “them having to do an uncomfortable task like pulling back their foreskin” you are exposing yourself as a guy who has NO IDEA what he is talking about and obviously someone who doesn’t have A)a foreskin or B)a boyfriend with a foreskin, otherwise you would know pulling back the foreskin is EXTREMELY pleasurable. And yes, we uncut guys bathe with soap and water. We’re probably cleaner than you.

  3. Jimmy Fury
    March 9, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    twinkie2 has a point. There’s nothing uncomfortable about having foreskin or keeping it clean.

    Additionally the medical community is still out on the health risks of being uncircumcised. Some studies show a reduced cancer risk with circumcision, others show no difference in the risk. “almost unknown in circumsized penises” is just incorrect though. On the other hand, being uncircumcised does reduce the risk of problematic circumcision by 100%.

    But. I just don’t know about the law. I disapprove of the act, but at the same time I know how important it is to both Judaism and Islam. Don’t know if the state has a place in banning it without a religious exemption…

  4. SteveDenver
    March 10, 2010 at 10:14 am #

    Impotence is directly related to circumcision, which is why so many men are having their foreskins surgically RESTORED.

    The circumcised penis has 40-80 layers of skin over the glans, the uncircumcised penis has 2-4. The circumcised penis is desensitized by thicker skin due to rubbing of the unprotected glans against clothing, etc.

    As for the cancer claim, I couldn’t find anything via Google.

    As for the hygiene claim, why not pull out a little boy’s teeth and cut off his ears, those are notoriously dirty, too. Such a lame argument.

  5. Wade MacMorrighan
    March 25, 2010 at 12:01 am #

    Female circumcision was finally banned in the US in 1977; in fact, many clitorises were scraped out until the Summer of that year by Drs. throughout the Midwest, such as a famous teaching hospital in Chicago. moreover, when asked, most European men have NO idea why we are allowing this to happen to our boys. i am 33, now, and I have noticed how little pleasure i actually get from masturbation or sex, because I have so little sexual sensitivity there. Studies have also shown that circumcision leads to a loss of 90% of a man’s sexual sensitivity! Why isn’t this last fact more widely known ans accepted? I have also heard accounts of American males born in Europe where the Drs. refused to circumcise them upon request; more and more males are not being circed today 9thankfully). yet…i still morn the loss of my foreskin!!!

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *


− 3 = five