> Except, ironically enough, male circumcision is the perfect example of something that was done for "traditional" religious reasons, but for which now there is ample medical support for it.
There is no medical support for it; all the "medical" support that was published in the past was never replicable and was only a thin veneer over superstition.
IOW, you've already made you mind up that male circumcision is a positive. You'll look for evidence to support your conclusions after establishing your conclusions, just like all the other "traditions" do.
There is no medical support for it; all the "medical" support that was published in the past was never replicable and was only a thin veneer over superstition.
IOW, you've already made you mind up that male circumcision is a positive. You'll look for evidence to support your conclusions after establishing your conclusions, just like all the other "traditions" do.