Abuse filter log

'<br /> == Heading text == SELF-ACCEPTANCE (kesh, tattoos, body piercings...) Self-acceptance is an integral part of the Sikh faith. Guru Gobind Singh, when confronted with spineless men and women of Indian society...people who blindly followed and bowed before manmade laws, no matter how degrading...introduced the Kesh-Kangha privilege: Kesh (or unshorn hair) as a symbol of acceptance of the Creator's given form, and Kangha (or comb) to take care of the Kesh...to keep it healthy and clean. In most cultures body modifications such as haircuts (many jobs are off-limits for men with kesh), circumcision, tattoos, etc., are demanded to ensure conformity and order in some instances and religions. So much so that in the 1960s when the Hippie Movement started in America, some men grew their hair long and kept their beards, some just because they liked being different and some even considered it as a symbol of change. However, the Sikh concepts of kesh-kangha ...it is a sign of acceptance of the Creator's gift and a nurturing of that gift which Guru Gobind Singh initiated with the 5 K's so that Sikhs might stand out in a crowd for the purpose of bringing about a change in India to the thinking of the people who blindly followed and bowed before manmade laws, no matter how degrading. The Hippies in America were seeking a similar end to the thinking of people who blindly followed and bowed before manmade laws, no matter how degrading in the 20th century. Q: Why does Sikhism reject haircuts, circumcision and other similar rituals that a large fraction of the world's population practices? Do Sikhs consider these people sinners or bad people? A large part of the world's population does shave their faces and trim their hair, circumcise their male and even female children, have their body pierced, etc. In this sense, Sikhs are in the minority. However, for a Sikh, acceptance of Nature's beautiful body is an important component of the Sikh value system. Acceptance of one's God-given physique without "improving" it by razors and scissors is a first step in accepting other laws, the foremost of which is becoming a universal being. Sikhs view others who engage in such rituals as people who carry unnecessary burdens in their lives; not as sinners or bad people. And western cultures often take a similar view feeling that men with more than a trimmed beard and untrimmed hair are carrying an unnecessary burden in their lives. Q: What does the Guru Granth Sahib say about body modifications such as haircuts, circumcision, tattoos, body piercings, etc.? It is common for religion texts to provide very detailed outlines of do's and don'ts. The Bible (old and new Testaments to a minor extent) and the Koran provide very detailed guidelines to their flock on daily living. The Guru Granth Sahib refrains from doing this. The Guru only provides us basic Universal principles (One God, Truth brings bliss, oneness of the human race, etc.) and the path to reach Truth (by minimizing ego and seeing oneself in everyone). In the Sikh "rahitnama" or code of conduct, kesh is to be accepted as the Creator's gift and taken care of with a kangha (comb). Acceptance of the Creator's given body is a natural outcome of a lifestyle that is in conformity with the Guru's teaching. Of course, this does not preclude the use of surgery or other medical interventions when the body has become ill. Q: I am a twelve year old boy. When I go to the gym locker room I see that most of the other boys are circumcised. I feel so different because I am not circumcised and I keep my hair long. How should I get over these feelings of being different? Jews made a covenant with their God--to be circumsized. The Rasul maintained this Jewish ritual so Jewish and Muslim babies are circumcised as a matter of their parent's' beliefs. Circumcism to the extent that it is practised in America was a result of many doctors believing that the practice prevented many deseases, even cancer. Through the 1950s most males went uncircumcised. Today the practice is becoming rare save for medical or religious reasons. It is expected that in another generation very few American boys will be circumcised (in European countries, this practice is rare). In a way, the idea of self-acceptance is spreading and more people are looking at male circumcision as a barbaric practice. Respected child psychologists and the American Association of Pediatrics are raising their concern against this practice. Even some Jewish groups are arguing for the discontinuation of the practice of circumcision. So don't worry about your differences as boys are all trying not to pay much attention to each others 'private parts' in the locker room while nude as that is a sure way to get tagged as a deviate. Q: If a person gets circumcised for medical reasons, will he no longer be a Sikh? [[Gurbani]] informs us that the body is a temple of the Lord ''"Within the body, the Divine Lord is embodied. The body is the temple, the place of pilgrimage, and the pilgrim. Within the body are incense, lamps and offerings. Within the body are the flower offerings. ||1||"'' and also: ''"The One who pervades the Universe also dwells in the body; whoever seeks Him, finds Him there."'' (SGGS page 695) So to care and look after the body is a must and a compulsory duty of a Sikh. So if one has to have any medical treatment for the proper maintenance of the body, then this appears to be acceptable as far as Gurbani is concerned. Medical treatment of any kind for a Sikh is generally accepted as part of life and this cannot be considered a violation of Sikh code or rehat. However one needs to be certain that the reason is a medical one and not disguised as such. So there is no simple answer to this question as personal motivation has to be considered. I am sure that there are many Sikhs who in wars as have people of other religions who had their reproductive organs blown off or injured. Does such an involuntary 'circumcism' or worse ever excluded them from any religion? Unfortunately like the vocal shiboleths of many wars, the forced lifting of a male's garments since the Partition, (doubtless earlier and later?) has lead to the deaths of many Muslims and Hindus (even Jews caught on a wrong bus, ect.) over the years in India. Sikhs would have avoided having to do this as their 5 K's left little doubt who they were. What is that you are talking about lifting of males Garments? What is it? I also believe your body is the thing that you should be taking care of. Sikhs should not take anything literally, since Guru Nanak Dev ji were themselves against the wrong beliefs and traditions. I think there is no right and wrong. Sikh should do good deeds and live a good life. For example if a guy or girl with piercings and tatoos, does good things and raise the dignity of sikhism in the world is better than who formally is a sikh but arogant and have no real values who thinks just reading guru granth sahib will do some magic to him/her. You know what i mean. I have seen many sikhs reading gutkhas or arranging "paths" in gurudwaras, thinking that it will do some magic. I think what Guru Granth Sahib is, is like a Guru. Where if we have any questions in life, it has the answers.I very much believe sikhism is the religion of freedom. ==FOR THE RECORD== I find it difficult to believe that the militarily minded Sikh Guru's of antiquity (1500s onwards) would have been against circumcision par se (see http://www.circinfo.net/what_caused_many_cultures_to_remove_it.html). There are many Sikh's who (probably due to the below reasons within various world militaries) _HAVE_ been circumcised. THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS ASSERTION WITHIN THE >>>>>>WHOLE<<<<<< OF THE SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB WHICH PROHIBITS CIRCUMCISIONS (WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A QUOTE WHICH PROHIBITS IT). It is CERTAIN that the Muslims who fought on behalf of Sikh armies were circumcised. It is PROBABLE that Sikhs incorporated within their ranks/battalions/military units were ALSO circumcised. You are also **MISREPRESENTING** WHAT THE SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB STATES ABOUT CIRCUMCISIONS via SELECTIVE QUOTATIONS, and POSSIBLE selective language translation methods (though I am uncertain on this latter point). "Another compelling explanation referred to earlier involves the ritualization of circumcision's prophylactic effects, especially as many different human groups and cultures that live in desert or other hot environments have adopted it as part of their customs. Infections, initiated by the aggravation of dirt and sand, are not uncommon under such conditions and have even crippled whole armies, where it is difficult to achieve sanitation during prolonged battle. A US Army report by General John Patton stated that in World War II 150,000 soldiers were hospitalized for foreskin problems due to inadequate hygiene, leading to the statements: “Time and money could have been saved had prophylactic circumcision been performed before the men were shipped overseas” and “Because keeping the foreskin clean was very difficult in the field, many soldiers with only a minimal tendency toward phimosis were likely to develop balanoposthitis [432]. Army urologists stated “Had these patients been circumcised before induction [into the Army] this total would have been close to zero”. In the Second World War Australia had to send urologists to circumcise all of its troops fighting in the North African campaign who were not already circumcised [529]. Similarly sand was a problem for uncircumcised men during the Gulf War in Iraq (‘Desert Storm’) in the early 1990s [195, 512]. In the Vietnam War men requested circumcision to avoid “jungle rot”. Thus, historically it was not uncommon for soldiers to be circumcised in preparation for active service. --http://www.circinfo.net/what_caused_many_cultures_to_remove_it.html" Bottom line : Sikhism NEITHER condones NOR PROHIBITS circumcision (certainly, this is not mentioned within the SGGS). As a religion, Sikhism evolved (Some state with "Divine" intervention in its aspects) in close proximity with other religions which DO circumcise. It would have been militarily disadvantageous for Sikhs within the armies of the various "Gurus" of that time period to NOT circumcise. Hence they likely did. This is DE FACTO evidence that Sikhism DID not at its inception (nor does it currently) prohibit circumcision. Rather the religion is NEUTRAL on this issue (as, say, Buddhism would be). As a further issue, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (in its 2000 pages) does not state ONE single advantageous aspect to lust or sexual cravings. Thus, if one could REASONABLY argue that circumcision has the effect of reducing/eliminating lust by reducing sexual sensitivity, then circumcision is entirely consistent with Sikhism (as would NOT being circumcised be - as per the following quote from Maimonides, which attempts to provide a scientific/reasonable rationale for why circumcision might be socially desirable to avoid the downfall of societies which focus overly upon lustful temptations rather than upon the higher nature/aspects of reason which lead to God/Truth). As a further point, it is useful to note that, if Sikhism were truly the religion of freedom, it would leave the choice of adult circumcisions to the individual. The issue of child circumcisions would possibly be for parents - but Sikhism is neither for nor against on these issues in absolute terms. It should also be borne in mind that Guru Gobind Ji's attitudes towards circumcisions were shaped by the inhumane outcomes of such events during this lifetime (men and babies who would have been killed/died/mutilated by circumcisions done by those who were not medically trained/experienced, etc....). Nowadays, circumcisions have much lower risk associated with them, and are carried out more humanely, and hence would be less morally questionable than those carried out during the time of Guru Gobind Ji. They are also militarily advantageous under certain circumstances, and it would be odd to suppose that a religion which had evolved in such militarily active circumstances would prohibit circumcision (it would not). Clearly, much can be said on this issue, and no absolute scientific rationale's can be provided - the best that can be done is for complex reasonable argumentations to be given. Ideally, the issue of circumcision is beyond religious commandment and up to INDIVIDUAL choice (which can be delegated to parents when dealing with newborns - though the morality of this is something which can be questioned). ===Opinions of Circumcision=== In his "Guide of the Perplexed", Maimonides is reputed to state the following {{citation-needed}} : "As regards circumcision... [s]ome people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. This tcommandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning [ie: from the BIRTH of the child who is being circumcised]." I imagine that the Gurus would have not rejected this line of reasoning outright, and would have very probably accepted aspects of it (especially given military considerations). Also, in regards to quote on main page, Guru Nanak states "I am against it", in relation to whether HE supports circumcision - but he is VERY careful not to state that God would be against circumcision (which is not a position which would be taken in relation to adultery or other sins, which are prohibited by divinity....). [[User:ConcernedSikhi|ConcernedSikhi]] 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC) == A reply to "For the record" and "Opinions of Circumcision" and History of Circumcision== There is no record of Sikhs at the time of the Guru being circumcised. Showing information from circinfo.net, a highly doubtful and fradulent website on the facts of circumcision will not help this issue. The creator of this website is Brain Morris who is not even a medical doctor and has a pro-cutter attitude. He is part of a religous society called Gigal Society (http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Gilgal_Society)in which advocates circumcision in all males made compulsory. Many of his articles have been debunked many times. As the wiki page already has shown Guru Nanak did not believe in Circumcision, therefore that itself would be enough to say that Circumcision is prohibited for Sikhs, since we follow the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj. There is only assumption that various world milataries circumcised, if that were true we would hear it in Persian (zorasterian times/pre-islamic especially when one can see the Parsees of India do not circumcise either) and during the Mahabharat wars of warriors doing these mutilations and yet none have appeared in history or tradition. The agrument that Sikhs might have is based on imagination and wishful thinking. Just because muslims who fought with the Gurus were circumcised doesn't mean the Sikhs who were in the same ranks were especially since the ritual was done at birth or early age. That argument who holds no sound reason whatsoever, it a logical fallacy. It is not probable or logical to think the Sikhs circumcised especially when the Guru Granth Sahib speaks against it (referring to p.477 of SGGS) and because they were around others who did. Many people live together with other people who may or may not circumcise. There is also no misinterpreting happening, it plainly states that Guru Nanak does not believe in mutilation of genitals and saw the inequality and sexism in it. Citing one source of an American general suggesting his troops be circumcised becaused of the infections of the intact males recieved is not valid at all, especially from a country at the time in which was very pro circumcision even when based on faulty claims. What about Vietnam? The majority of people there are not circumcised and yet there were no reports of their side having the same infections. What about the Britsh, Celts, Scotts German, Vikings, Samaurais, Nihangs, France, Russian, and Chinese armies, how come no ritual circumcision mentioned with their armes? The whole claim of Sikhs being circumised or open to it because there were milatary minded or warriors holds no logical stance or truth for that matter. In terms of the Gurus being open to it to stop lust or sexual cravings is purely fictional and quite the assumption. We merge with the SatGuru and cure all our poisons through the Shabad, through Naam, through the Guru's teaching (which has no warrant for circumcision) and not through worthless rituals. You have mentioned Guru Gobind Singh Ji was against this during his time because surgery was dangerous, but even presently babies stil die America every year for surgery which has no medical benefits (http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html). There is nothing more humanely in the circumcisions carried then, than now as you can see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW1a9VUu4i4. In the end I agree Circumcision should be up to the Individual, if that Individual were an adult and not a non-consenting child for no medical reason. Also no recognized medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcisions. I will not say those who are circumcised cannot be Sikhs, but that Sikhism is not for circumcision as a religous belief or requirement. Another interesting article to view, which was also posted on Sikhnet in Februrary in 2012 about Sikhs and Circumcision can be viewed here : http://www.kaurista.com/2012/02/01/the-societal-temple-male-circumcision-and-sikhi/. '''History of Circumcision''' This short summary has been taken from the Sikhnet discussion page: Sikhs in America and Circumcision by forum user Maharaja Ramgarhia. (http://www.sikhnet.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6367&p=33445&hilit=circumcision#p33445) The history of circumcision in the west is both a quite sad and interesting one. “The weak medical arguments are tempered by the importance of cultural and religious factors.” (Dunsmuir & Gordon, 1999) (1). The start of the routine infant circumcision was to curb masturbation because masturbation was thought at the time to cause many diseases such as blindness, club foot, seizures, epilepsy, and many other outrageous and false reasons. Especially from John Harvey Kellogg (Yes the same guy who created the cereals) who stated “A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment...” (Kellogg, 1888) (2). As one actually starts to read history of circumcision they eventually observe that the procedure has never changed but what it has cured, has. Also during the early 1900s saw the rise of the puritan age in where human sexuality was seen as not pure and looked down upon therefore in cutting the most sensitive parts one can be “purified” of this sexuality. This did not really work because only sexual sensitivity is found in the genitals and urgres or desires are found in the brain. Besides these initiatives, circumcision was mostly practiced by Jews and Muslims. It is also interesting to note that Moses supposedly prohibited circumcision during his time in the wilderness and it was reinstated by Joshua after Moses’ death (3). Another interesting point is that the Greek and Romans held the prepuce (foreskin) to be sacred and banned the practice under their rule (Offord, 1913) (4) (Hodges, 2001) (5). In the 1950s and 1960s circumcision was in high and Doctors at one point did not ask for the consent from the parents and simply circumcised the child when he was born. This practice of non-consent was soon stopped since many infant males were getting injured and dying. The consent form was then produced so the hospitals could cover themselves from any major law suits and liability. Not all Doctors agreed with this procedure and actually saw the fallacy in it, for example Gardiner (1949) stated that there were no medical benefits for circumcision and it was contradicted by the complications and fatalities (6). The climax of American routine infant circumcision was in 1970s but things started to change when the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1971 made a statement declaring "[t]here are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period” (Voskuil, 1994)(7). These were further restated by both Canadian and American Pediatrics in 1975, 1995 and 1997 after many articles bringing about the complications of circumcisions. In 2001 the rates reported by hospitals was 55 circumcised and 45 left intact in America and more recently the rate for 2009-10 the rates have fallen to 32% circumcised and 68% intact. People that still do this practice for religious reasons but a small and increasing amount Jews and Muslims are stopping (http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/) (http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... ision.html). Also in my opinion those who circumcise (for non-medical reasons) do it to fit in the norm or feel that its always been this way and all the male members have been so they just continue, plus it also helps when the Doctors insist or offer. The most important a factor I believe for non-therapeutic, non-religious circumcision stems from fathers who want their son to “look” like them. To me it’s a psychological issue in where circumcising their son justifies the circumcision that has happened to them thus normalizing it and devaluing it of any wrong doing. Again this statement is only my observation but I do not think I am that far off in my assumption. <br /> References<br /> 1. Dunsmuir WD, Gordon EM. The history of circumcision. BJU Int 1999; 83, Suppl. 1: 1-12.<br /> 2. John Harvey Kellogg. Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. 1888:295<br /> 3. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford 1997<br /> 4. Offord J. Restrictions concerning circumcision under the Romans. Proc R Soc Med 1913;6(Sect Hist Med):102-7.<br /> 5. Hodges FM. The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme. Bull Hist Med 2001 Fall;75(3):375-405.<br /> 6. Gairdner DA. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision.. BMJ 1949;2:1433-1437.<br /> 7. Voskuil, D, Ph.D. From Genetic Cosmology to Genital Cosmetics: Origin Theories of the Righting Rites of Male Circumcision. Presented at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, May 22-25, 1994. (Link to www.nocirc.org)<br /> Resources Chronology of the foreskin and circumcision<br /> http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/in...&Itemid=54 History of Circumcision<br /> http://www.cirp.org/library/history/ A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words<br /> http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm Short Summary of the history of circumcision<br /> http://www.stopthecut.org/history_of_circumcision.php Canadian History of Circumcision<br /> http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/history0.html '''Other Resources'''<br /> www.wholenetwork.org<br /> www.drmomma.org<br /> www.nocirc.org<br /> www.savingsons.org<br /> http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/<br /> www.cirp.org<br /> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/06/religion-is-no-excuse-for-mutilating-your-babys-penis//<br /> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids//<br /> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/08/circumcision-is-immoral-should-be-banned//<br /> Youtube Vids: Cutting through the Myths of Circumcision 1:02:14<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bx89xECfHG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=acc70D2ApFg Circumcision Just Say no : Know the Facts<br /> Part1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAo1PCDtgBY Circumcision: Assault on Men sexuality<br /> Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vUjzvNHexI&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c3190--TN8&feature=related Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlFI9zDZ_bY&feature=related Anatomy of the Penis: Penile and Foreskin Neurology<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw Intact vs circumcised care<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCpKDY77IKM&feature=youtu.be 10 out of 10 babies say no to circumcision<br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW1a9VUu4i4'