[Reposted because it was accidentally blocked by filter]
Has anyone came across Wikipedia’s article on Brit Milah? It’s one of the most biased articles that I’ve ever seen on the website. Essentially, it’s an unending rant that portrays it as barbaric, horrible, damaging, and harmful. The sources are overwhelmingly from anti-cir-umci-s-n-ion activists attempting to make it look as bad as possible, and it’s the first thing the average person will “find out” about it if they look it up online.
Some selected “facts” from it.
The steps, justifications, and imposition of the practice have dramatically varied throughout history; commonly cited reasons for the practice have included it being a way to control male sexuality by reducing sexual pleasure and desire, as a visual marker of the covenant of the pieces, as a metaphor for mankind perfecting creation, and as a means to promote fertility.
The original version in Judaic history was either a ritual nick or cut done by a father to the acroposthion, the part of the foreskin that overhangs the glans penis. This form of genital nicking or cutting, known as simply milah, became adopted among Jews by the Second Temple period and was the predominant form until the second century CE. The notion of milah being linked to a biblical covenant is generally believed to have originated in the 6th century BCE as a product of the Babylonian captivity; the practice almost certainly lacked this significance among Jews before the period.
The desire to control male sexuality has been central to Milah throughout history. Jewish theologians, philosophers, and ethicists have often justified the practice by claiming that the ritual substantially reduces male sexual pleasure and desire. [Quote from Brian Earp: It is agreed among scholars that the original purpose within Judaism… was precisely to dull the sexual organ]
Vast portions are the article are exclusively cited from anti-cir-um-cdecision activists like Brian Earp, Leonard Glick, Marilyn Milos, Michael Kimmel, and Robert Darby. (Amongst others) Needless to say, saying they are not perfectly neutral sources on the matter, if you know anything about them, is quite the understatement of the year.
Other related articles are even worse. According to the Wikipedia viewership statistics, these articles have been viewed millions of times by people. Am I the only one concerned about this?