Issuu on Google+

Circumcision, the Bible falsified (French: Circoncision la Bible falsifiĂŠe)

Michel HervĂŠ Bertaux-Navoiseau



Introduction - Circumcision and the history of Judaism (page 3) Chapter I - The differences between the three Covenants (page 6) Chapter II - The First Covenant (Genesis 15), young Abram abolishes sexual mutilation (page 8) Chapter III - The Second Covenant (Genesis 17), circumcision is imposed upon elderly Abraham (page 12) Chapter IV - The circumcision of Moses' son against the will of his parents, heroic Sephora saves Moses' life through circumcising their son (Exodus, 4: 24-26) (page 15) Chapter V - The Third Covenant (Exodus 20: 4-6, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5: 9), the Second Commandment reabolishes circumcision (page 16) Chapter VI – Like the Koran, the Book of Deuteronomy excludes everything that is not in it and does not mention circumcision (page 22) Chapter VII – Genesis (2: 7, 2: 21-24, 2: 9-25, and 3) at the risk of psychoanalysis (page 25) Conclusion (page 28) All quotes from the Bible are literally translated from the translation of the French Rabbinate (Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999).



Introduction Circumcision and the history of Judaism

Professor Thomas Römer, the tenant of the chair "Biblical circles" of the Collège de France, the highest French academic institution, welcomed our interpretation according to which the Second Commandment forbids circumcision, published by the British medical journal1. He confirmed to us that the circumcision polemic goes back to the beginning of Judaism: "..., you are right in asserting that Gn 17 presents another view of circumcision than Gn 15 or the Book of Deuteronomy. The "lay" writers were seemingly less interested in that practice and even opposed to it. The expression "circumcision of the heart" might even contain a polemic stance against "circumcision of the flesh." "2

Sigi Sigismond. The 2nd commandment forbids circumcision. A rapid response to "Is infant male circumcision an abuse of the rights of the child? Yes". BMJ, 2008. 2 Römer T. Correspondence to the author. 2010. 1


Encouraged by the distinguished exegete who teaches that the Bible was a history book before becoming a religious one, and enlightened by the findings of "Secrets of the Exodus"3, 4, to which we bring several new arguments, we shall compare the Covenants of Genesis 15, Genesis 17, and that in the Sinai (Exodus 20), and ponder upon their important differences. That will allow us to explain, on the one hand, the odd institution of circumcision at birth in a culture where, for thousands of years, it had been a rite of passage into adulthood, and, on the other hand, why it was imposed on Abram in his old age. Above all, we shall tell how Abram had started with abolishing circumcision (Genesis 15) and how Moses, in the Second Commandment, reaffirmed that abolition. We shall also show why circumcision was imposed on Moses' son against his parents' will and shall finally stress that the Book of Deuteronomy excludes it whereas the Book of Genesis prepares to it. Professor Römer was thus understating. Drawing upon the disclosures of the Sabbah brothers who assert that circumcision was the tenth plague p. 393-94, we show that the Hebrews who began drafting the Bible or transmitting it orally, were adamantly opposed to it. Only after Moses' death could the religious and military elite re-enact it (Josh, 5: 2-9). Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision) castrates the human person of the specific organs for autosexuality, considered as taboo to the point that there are no words for clitoris in classical Arabic and for foreskin in ancient Hebrew (" ‫שא ר אאת‬ ‫עעבא רַׂשלבתֶככ ם בב ַׂש‬ 5 ‫( "ונבַׂשמבלֶכת ם‬Genesis 17: 11) means "You will cut off the flesh of your outgrowth." ); the taboo on the organs of autosexuality is strong! Contemporary psychology, psychoanalysis, medicine, sexology, and lately law 6, agree to say that those practices are harmful. But traditional puritan societies (Africa, Middle East, etc.) or modern ones (Anglo-Saxon countries) conceive of autosexuality as the sin par excellence: the original sin, and severely repress it. That "sexual education" through a banalized violence is the most often accompanied by corporal punishment: slaps, spanking, blows 7, up to the Spine Crown and the Cross. Max Ernst’s painting 8, in which the halo falling from the head of the infant Jesus being smacked by his mother evokes the cut-off foreskin, illustrates that abuse.

3 Sabbah M. and R. Les secrets de l'Exode. Paris: Jean-Cyrille Godefroy; 2000 (Secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004). 4 cf. the 20 September 2000 front page and inside double page of Le Figaro. 5 All twenty-three English translations of Genesis 17: 11 are inaccurate saying: "the flesh of your foreskin" instead of "the flesh of your outgrowth". 6 1st October 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe pronounced with a strong majority against ritual sexual mutilation (excision and circumcision) of minors. 7 Martin S. Thy Rod and thy staff they comfort me, Christians and the spanking controversy. Sorensic; 2006. 8 The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus in front of three witnesses: André Breton, Paul Eluard and the painter. Köln: Museum Ludwig.


The body being the first temple of the sacred, circumcision should be banished from a religion that refuses images in its temples but circumcision was relatively little contested in the history of Judaism. Apart from the leadership of young Abram (to be later addressed in this book) and Moses (circumcision was abolished during the Exodus), the reigns of Queen Jezebel and King Ahab, and those of the Seleucids (slaughtered by the circumcising Maccabees), it is the norm in an important part of the Bible. John the Baptist and Jesus paid with their lives for supporting baptism by water rather than by the trauma of the "original punishment". So, the Jewish claims of abolition of circumcision were late in history and, but for the United States and Israel where the Jews against circumcision have had some success, they arise from rare personalities: Spinoza, the French liberal leader Olry Terquem, the French intellectual Bernard Lazare, Kafka, the psychoanalysts Freud, Reich, Bettelheim, Alice Miller, Tobie Nathan, the philosopher Jacques Derrida, the paediatrician Aldo Naouri, the children judge Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, the teacher in La Sorbonne Jérôme Ségal...


The most accomplished one came from a movement of reformist, Mosaic, democrat, and feminist German Rabbis, born in Frankfurt in the middle of the nineteenth century. They based on socio-political and juridical reasons (the criminal and segregationist custom is the deep cause of Judeophobia). But they also relied on religious arguments9: firstly, circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not Moses, secondly, the Book of Deuteronomy (Moses' book, of which the second version of the Ten Commandments) does not order it, thirdly, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), fourthly, it was not practised as long as he was the chief of the Hebrews (it was put back into practice after his death – Joshua, 5: 2-9), lastly, there is (no longer) no equivalent for girls. Deeming circumcision "a barbarous and bleeding rite" 10, Rabbi Abraham Geiger and his friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refuting circumcision. There was an outcry in the community, orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood that Moses opposed circumcision, the reformist could not discover the real meaning of the Second Commandment and oppose to the Orthodox that it forbids circumcision as we shall see in Chapter V. The Orthodox attacked their religious arguments and above all refused to inscribe the names of the newly born in civil registers, so that, deprived of legal existence, they could not marry or inherit 11. That is why most dissidents, after forty years resistance(*), admitted defeat and returned to circumcision. But the "heresy" spread to the United States and Israel where many practise a non-mutilating nomination ceremony (Brit shalom).

9 Encyclopaedia Judaïca. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571. 10 Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris : Éditions du Cerf ; 1993. p. 433. 11 Ségal J. Athée et juif, fécondité d'un paradoxe apparent. Paris: Editions Matériologiques; 2017. (*)

The Israeli Encyclopaedia Judaïca remains mute about the administrative harassment endured by the heretic but it is the only one that admits that they abandoned circumcision (for twenty years only), and dares broaching the core of the religious controversy. Neither the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme (Paris: Éditions du Cerf; 1993) nor the Encyclopedia of Judaism (New York: Neusner; 1999) do. The latter asserts that only intentions of abandonment of the rite were worded, raising a general outcry. But most encyclopaedias mention the forced circumcisions operated by the Maccabees upon their "heretic" coreligionists. The attempts of revolt against the holocaust of the foreskins, indirectly responsible for that of the Jewish people, are the most often swept under the carpet. (


Chapter I The differences between the three Covenants

"This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations: I have set my bow in the cloud,‌" (Genesis 9: 12-13)

Opponents of circumcision use the contradiction between the absence of circumcision in the Covenant of Genesis 15 and its presence in that of Genesis 17 to maintain that Genesis 17 would be unauthentic. They are wrong; we are going to see that the contradiction merely means that circumcision was abolished in Genesis 15 and reenacted in Genesis 17. And Moses abolished it again in the Second Commandment (Exodus 4: 24-26). The first difference lies in the status of both partners. We are going to see that the First Covenant (Genesis 15) is a promise of inheritance made by his father to Abram, accompanied by the donation of the land where the latter founded the city where he practised his monotheistic religion. The Second Covenant (Genesis 17) is that of the submission of old Abram who throws himself down on the ground in front of the tyrant Ay, called "God" by the Bible because, in antique Egypt, the pharaoh was a living god: "Abram fell on his face and God told him so‌" (Gen, 17: 3)


Quite the opposite, the Sinai Covenant is an alliance between equals: "The Eternal talked with you face to face…" (Deut, 5: 4)

The second difference is the condition for the Covenant. The First Covenant does not mention circumcision. Quite the opposite, we shall see that Genesis 15 tells through a fable the abolition of circumcision by young Abram. The condition is an animal sacrifice that substitutes for circumcision. But in Genesis 17, circumcision was imposed upon old Abram, as well as circumcision at birth for the people; the latter was the means imagined in order to revive a practice that had become unpopular. In the Third Covenant, it is no longer a question of circumcision. On the contrary, the Second Commandment (Exodus, 4: 24-26) reaffirms the abolition of circumcision (see chapter V). The Book of Deuteronomy implicitly confirms that abolition through overlooking circumcision and stating: "Observe everything I lay down for you, without adding anything to it... " (13: 1),

As for the third difference, whereas Genesis 17 bans Abraham to the land of Canaan, in the Covenant of Genesis 15, the pharaoh promises his heir – whom he had no reason to exile – the whole Egyptian land: "On that day, the Eternal concluded a pact with Abram, saying: "I granted your race this land, from the stream of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river... " (15: 18)

The First Covenant bears upon the great Egypt including Assyria, in agreement with the thesis of "Secrets of the Exodus" that Abram was the son of the pharaoh Amenophis III. There is no mention of the land of Canaan and no reference of either lengthening Abram's name or mutilating penises. However, the Covenant of Genesis 17 clearly alludes to the First Covenant: "I shall maintain my Covenant with you,..." (17: 2)

The promise of Genesis 15 was never kept and the Covenant in the Sinai no longer speaks of Canaan. But neither the Covenant with Noah nor that of Genesis 15 impose rectifying the human body. How could God first mistake, then, compel his creatures to torture their children in order to correct his mistake?


Chapter II The First Covenant (Genesis 15), young Abram abolishes sexual mutilation

Anticipated by Champollion, Fabre d'Olivet, and Freud, "Secrets of the Exodus" disclosed that the Hebrews and Judaism draw their origin from an Egyptian monotheistic sect established in the city of Akhetaten (Tell el-Amarna, between Thebes and Memphis). Breaking religious and political taboos, that work, praised by some, has been strongly decried by others. The one who was not yet the pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenophis IV) and his spouse Nefertiti founded that new religion. Our discoverers showed that Abraham and Akhenaten are one and the same person, as well a Nefertiti and Sarah. We are now going to see that Genesis 15 describes the donation of Amenophis III to his son that enabled the birth of the new religion on the Egyptian ground.


We add to the discoveries of "Secrets of the Exodus" that young Abram's religion was especially unbearable to Egyptian traditionalists as it abolished (both-sex) sexual mutilation (Genesis 15). Techniques of submission of the individual through trauma, sexual mutilation and human sacrifice are an efficient way to enslave the people. Their abolition was a revolution dangerous to the upholders of the established order. The traditionalists prevailed and circumcision was re-imposed upon Abram in his old age (Genesis 17). But, for the exiles, Moses re-abolished it till the end of his life.

Abraham and Sarah The Amarnian episode finds its origin in a family affair. Incest was frequent in the royal family and both Amenophis III and his son succumbed to the charms of their daughter and sister, the beautiful Nefertiti (Sarah). When the father took his son's girlfriend as his wife (Genesis 12: 10-20 and 20: 12-15), the lovers ran away with a chariot of the royal palace. Lenient, Amenophis III decided to abandon Nefertiti to his son. In order to train him for his future life, he gave him a piece of land by the Nile (Genesis 15: 7-11) around one of his hunting pavilions, where the lovers had taken refuge. He authorized him to build a city that he would rule. Junior Amenophis (Abram) had everything he needed: slaves, architects, priests, and so on. It was a golden age of fine arts with liberal and universalistic customs: pacifism, cosmopolitanism, monotheism, and a pronounced taste for nudity. The Sabbah brothers' thesis, here summarized and hardly romanticized, is backed up firstly, by the link between the various Biblical manuscripts and Egyptian history, secondly, by the likeness between each letter of the Hebraic alphabet and the corresponding hieroglyphic symbols, thirdly, by the facts that vowels are absent from both writings and that hieroglyphs, like Hebrew writing, are mainly written from right to left. So does the pronounced resemblance of temple plans, religious ceremonies, and dresses, jewellery and accessories of royalty.


Other similarities are quite as striking. The end of human sacrifice by Akhenaten tallies with the divine behest to Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac: "Do not touch the child!" The Egyptians knew the custom of "carrying mothers", used when the spouse was sterile; it is found again in Genesis (cf. the history of Agar, Gen 16: 1-16). With some resemblance to Abraham, the God Ra cut his penis. Both cultures practice the embalming of the deceased. Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator of the Egyptian department of the Louvre, underlined the relationship between both cultures 12. For instance, wearing a beard as a sign of mourning p 181, and the practice of anointing kings p. 187 . She quotes various similar terms p. 183, phrases p. 188, and proverbs p. 246-47, and indicates the great resemblance between the history of "Joseph and pharaoh’s wife" and the Egyptian tale of "The two brothers" p. 198-99. The Sabbahs explain that Adonaï, which designates God in the Bible, corresponds to Aton, the sun god, and to the man-god: the pharaoh Ay-Joseph p. 10 and 137-38. Eventually, the identity between the Torah and Egyptian history starkly bursts out in the assimilation between the pharaoh and the divinity that ensues from Moses' declaration to the gathered people: "Moses called the whole of Israel and told them: "... I kept you walking for forty years in the desert... so that you should learn that I, the Eternal, am your God!" (Deuteronomy 29: 1-5)

Only an Egyptian pharaoh could speak like that. That sentence indicates that at that moment, Moses had succeeded Ay, under the name of Ramses 1 st (Ra-Mesou). We understand why archaeologists never found a trace of a large allegedly captive population in Egypt, rich as it is in all kinds of written inscriptions; those who became the Hebrews were Egyptians like the others. According to the Sabbah brothers, the lie in the Bible about the identity of the Jews was intended, several centuries later, at the time of the deportation to Babylon, to make their gaolers believe in the priority of the colonists in Palestine, and in their non-belonging to Egypt. They invented that lie in order not to be slaughtered by the Assyrians, Egyptians’ enemies p. 168, 258-60, 262-63 and 276-77. So, the Levite priests disguised various important passages of the Bible (*) for the attention of the Babylonians. In order to make them believe in a non-Egyptian origin of the Jews, they hid the prime abolition of circumcision by Abram and ascribed the invention of the eighth-day circumcision to an immaterial God. It must even be thought that the Pentateuch, of oral transmission, was written in the jails of Babylon to the attention of Nebuchadnezzar. Names and dates were tampered with in order to hide the resemblance with known events. The shrewd lie of Abraham’s birth in Ur, in Mesopotamia, made him Nebuchadnezzar’s ancestor. That of the captivity in Egypt was also intended to stir him. Those lies gave the Hebrews the key to their release. Those to the Bible remained the attribute of the initiate. An archaeological discovery brought formidable support to that thesis; Desroches12 Desroches-Noblecourt C. Le fabuleux héritage de l’Égypte. Paris: Télémaque; 2004. (*)(*)We

shall see that, for the sake of their faithful this time, they forged the text of the Second Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9) and in chapter 34 of the Book of the Exodus.


Noblecourt revealed that a transcription of the Ten Commandments was found in a tomb of the time of the pyramids13. It is certainly the grave of a follower of Moses. Under his royal privilege, young Abram-Akhenaten had refused a mutilation that was at odds with his personality; he enjoyed being represented by hermaphrodite features and it is unlikely that he would have accepted the loss of the most feminine part of his person. His hedonist monotheism abolished the barbarity of minor's sexual mutilation. The lower classes were hostile to it; he released them from that requirement while easing slavery. That abolition was made official by the sacrifice described in chapter 15 of the Book of Genesis, which must be interpreted as a fable indecipherable by Nebuchadnezzar: "I am the Eternal, who took you out of Our-Kasdim, to give you this country as a legacy(**)." He answered: "God-Eternal, how shall I know that I inherit it?" He told him: "Prepare me a three year-old-heifer, a three-year-old goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove and a young pigeon." Abram took all these animals, split each one of them down the middle, and placed each half in front of the other, but he did not split the birds. Birds of prey swooped down on the bodies; Abram put them to flight." (Gen,15: 7-11)

That enigmatic passage is to be interpreted in the same way as Judaic rituals that symbolically recall the law even in the menus of feasts. It tells in a colourful way, inscrutable to the Assyrians, the first Covenant between young Abram and the pharaonic power in the person of his father. The key to its interpretation lies in the different treatment of the birds; why does Abram cut the other animals into two parts? That grotesque metaphor quite simply recalls that, in contrast to mammals, birds do not own a foreskin. For circumcision too cuts the body into two parts. So that, on the one hand, splitting the other animals symbolizes sexual mutilation and, on the other hand and above all, an animal sacrifice is substituted for the human sacrifice of sexual mutilation (feminine and masculine since we were in Egypt). If excision is a castration, circumcision is a poorly veiled threat of castration, aggravated by a beginning of realization. From the point of view of the unconscious, for which the part amounts to the whole, it is, like excision, a threat of death. Abram expresses his horror of that barbarity by taking care that the bodies should remain on display for the people. A defender of the integrity of the human body, he testifies to the repulsion that those barbarian customs inspire in him through a nauseating exhibit. Abram-Akhenaten freed his people from the torture of sexual mutilation.

13 Le Figaro Magazine. May 13 2005, n° 18902. ((**) Rather than "possession" used by the French

Rabbinate, according to some American Rabbis who so bring a new argument to the Sabbah brothers' thesis that Abram was the son of Amenophis III. The sacrifice symbolizes the maintenance obligation that the pharaoh asks his son in exchange for the donation of the city of Akhetaten.


Chapter III The Second Covenant (Genesis 17), circumcision is imposed upon elderly Abraham

The Covenant of Genesis 15 was thus the first Covenant between the "Eternal" (the line of the pharaohs) and Abram. But in Genesis 17 (4-14), the terms and persons are very different; Abram has grown old and he does not deal with his father but with the vizier who took over and imposes circumcision on him. "Abram fell on his face and God told him so: "Myself, yes, I am treating with thee: thou shalt be the father of a crowd of nations‌ And I shall give thee and thy offspring the land where thou are travelling, the whole land of Canaan‌ Here is the covenant that thou shalt observe which is between me and thee till thy last descendants: circumcise every male among you. Thou shalt remove the flesh of thy outgrowth and this will be a symbol of a covenant between me and thee. At the age of eight days, that every male, within your generations, be circumcised by thee; even the child born in the household or bought with money, among the sons of the foreigner, who do not belong to thy descendants. Yes, he will be circumcised, the child of your household or the one thou will have bought; and my covenant, forever, will be carved into your flesh. And the uncircumcised male, who will not have cut off the flesh of his outgrowth, will himself be cut off from his people for having broken my covenant."


According to the Sabbah brothers, Abram was very religious. Completely absorbed in the construction of his temples, he was not interested in public affairs. When his father died, he entrusted the regency to a vizier: Ay. Reigning in his place (Genesis 41: 41-44), the latter became the "Lord" and "God" of the country where he maintained sexual mutilation and polytheism. But Abram's utopia was too costly for an empire that could not achieve the protection of its frontiers. In order to finance Abram's religious constructions, Ay was obliged to overburden the rest of the country with taxes. Moreover, even localized, a monotheistic and non-circumcising schism was causing disorders. The vizier was forced to react. When, accompanied by the army, he came and told old Abram that his heresy could not last, the latter, fearing for his life, threw himself down at his feet. Ay ordered him to circumcise himself and his offspring and tried to impose circumcision on the people of Akhetaten, at birth in order to avoid all resistance. Abram's faithful, notably midwives, resisted the circumcision of babies; in rudimentary hygiene conditions, it caused numerous deaths, which explains the statement of the Sabbah brothers that it was the tenth plague. The new religion was maintained in Akhetaten during the rest of Abraham's life, at the price of the conflict that will be solved by the Exodus. It was the beginning of a civil resistance and a period of great instability, recounted in the Bible. It ended with Easter, signal of the departure for the Exodus. Ay had offered Abraham to go and settle in a remote land to reconquer: Canaan. But after his death, the Hebrews were divided between the purists who wished staying in place, keeping Abraham's religion, and remaining intact all at once, and those who accepted exile in order to persevere with their religion and escape circumcision. But Ay wanted to let them go only if they accepted the circumcision. In order to satisfy him, Moses used a subterfuge; he obtained the authorization to leave by pretending to accept the circumcision, acceptance symbolized by the tinting of the lintels of doors with the blood of a lamb (Exodus 12). But, contrary to the lie of verse 12: 50 of the Book of the Exodus, Moses and his followers, of whom many "foreigners" living in Akhetaton, abstained to obey the requirement of the circumcision (Exodus 12: 43-49). After the death of Akhenaten-Abraham, the very young Tutankhamen – whose DNA showed that he was Nefertiti's and Akhenaten's son, affected by several congenital defects likely due to consanguinity, was unable to resist the powerful interests of the spokesmen of old traditions. Urged by Ay, the heresy disappeared from Egypt through the exile to Canaan. The royal court went back to Memphis where Tutankhamen was crowned. Ay became pharaoh after Tutankhamen's death. Following the eviction of the heretics under Moses' commandment, Tutankhamen and Ay, the last pharaohs of the XVIIIth dynasty, brought sexual mutilation (excision and circumcision) back into force. The temples of Akhetaten were razed, most tablets and souvenirs of the reign of Akhenaton destroyed, the hieroglyphs rubbed out. Therefore, the Bible alone recounts that story. But Moses took over the torch of monotheism and maintained the abolition of sexual mutilation for the exiles his whole life long.


We end with the fable of circumcision by divine order. Advocates of circumcision, the authors of Genesis 17 drew the lie that humiliates the memory of Abram in favour of that of his vizier. God never changed his mind about his own creation. It would contradict the statement of Genesis: "God created man in his own image." (2: 27)

A tyrant alone, impersonating God, could imagine such an abomination. Ascribing to God rather than to a tyrant the order to castrate the child from their autosexual organ is the most monstrous lie in the history of humanity.


Chapter IV The circumcision of Moses' son against the will of his parents (heroic Sephora saves Moses' life through circumcising their son)

Brought up by one of Akhenaten's daughters in the religion of their father, Moses had escaped circumcision. The following verses of the Exodus tell how Ay forced circumcision on Moses' son: "During that journey, he (Moses) stopped in a hostelry; the Lord approached him and wanted to make him die (if he did not have his son circumcised) . Zipporah seized a stone, cut the outgrowth of her son off and threw it at his feet ( the Lord’s) saying (to Moses, with great feeling): "Are you thus united to me by blood?" The Lord left him ( Moses) alone. Then she said (to Moses): "Yes, you are united to me by blood, thanks to (other Rabbis say "because of") the circumcision!" (Exodus, 4: 24-26) (our parenthesis)

Ay wanted to force Moses to circumcise the child but Moses would rather die than commit that crime. During a scene of atrocious cruelty, in order to save her husband’s life, Zipporah, under the threat of the pharaoh who was keeping Moses enchained, cut the child's foreskin off. Enraged to have been forced to do it against her spouse’s will, she cheered up her men at the risk of her life, through defying the pharaoh with a contemptuous gesture: throwing the cut off foreskin down at his feet. That gesture makes Zipporah a heroine of the Jewish people. The pharaoh remained quiet; he very well knew what he had done through imposing that crime and deemed himself satisfied. Aware of having upset her husband, Zipporah, as an apology, delivered him a word that testifies to her deep perturbation for having had to commit a crime in order to impede another. Remaining silent, letting her answer her own question, Moses respected a gesture that he loathed. Our interpretation makes those of the preceding exegetes very fanciful. Indeed, imposed by force, the circumcisions of Abram and Moses' son are both heavily loaded with historical sense. That of Joshua was a prelude to Gilgal and the genocide of Jericho.


Chapter V The Third Covenant (Exodus 20: 4-6, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5: 9), the Second Commandment reabolishes circumcision

"... the son will not bear the fault of the father, nor the father the fault of the son..." (Ezekiel 18: 20)


"How can you say: "We are in possession of the doctrine of the Eternal!" - Yes, but the misleading pen of the scribes made it a lie!" (Jeremiah 8: 8)

The abolition of circumcision by Moses has never yet been highlighted and the Jews often say that Moses imposed circumcision. However, it is a historical fact (Josh 5: 5) and only after his death was the custom put back into practice, in Gilgal (Josh 5: 2). The Bible speaks of re-circumcision on that occasion plainly because the first circumcision was the Mosaic one, the circumcision of the heart of the Book of Deuteronomy.


However, the memory of his son's forced circumcision was keenly present in the mind of the author of the Ten Commandments. A humiliated father, wounded in the flesh of his flesh, and in his dignity, solemnly pronounced the first historic declaration of human duties and rights, of universal value, the basis of elementary ethics and of the legal systems of all democracies(*), in front of the people. Abolishing the submission by terror of the commandment imposed on Abraham, the New Covenant respects the human body: "Do not commit homicide", and condemns sexual mutilation as soon as the Second Commandment that forbids the Egyptian cult of the phallus: " Thou shalt not have any other god than I. Thou shalt not make thyself idols or whatever image‌" (Exodus 20: 4)

Also opposed to sexual mutilation14, Muhammad echoed that verse: "You will not alter the creation of God." (Koran 30: 30)

Moses was also the founder of one of the very first three-level-jurisdiction systems (Exodus, 18: 19-26). However, the charismatic leader, on the one hand, gathered his people to recite poems to them, on the other hand, did not hesitate to commit the genocide of the peoples he encountered on his way. His limits are obvious. A law worded in the second person is that of a dictator who, affirming himself God, reserves the right to violate it for himself. (*)(*)

14 Bertaux-Navoiseau

M. The Koran against sexual mutilation. The Koran against sexual mutilation.


Pretending to rectify the male body, the surgical denudation of the glans gives a shameless, perverse image of it. It fetishizes the male phallus at the expense of the feminine one seriously damaged by excision. But a "jealous God" cannot accept the idolatry of a constantly unsheathed penis and the continuation of the text forbids the human sacrifice perpetrated upon children, a bloody homage to polytheism, to the archaic, telluric divinities of fertility and procreation; read to the letter, the Second Commandment forbids circumcision: "‌I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of the fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generations for those who offend me, and who extend my benevolence up to the thousandth for those who love me and keep my commandments." (Ex 20: 5-6)

But the Rabbis oddly do not interpret it in the light of verse 20: 22 (a little later in the text): "If... thou build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, thou made them lay."

However, two other versions of verse 20: 5 suggest that the hypothesis of the existence of opponents to circumcision, evoked by Professor RĂśmer, is true and the version of the Book of the Exodus is the original text that was carved into stone: 1/ the version of the Second Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9), a book of priests that was easy to modify, erases the terms: "children up to", which suggests that the chastizing would cover the descendant generations. But who can believe that the most sacred and most famous text of the Torah, engraved in stone by God in person would have varied? That material forgery facilitated the intellectual falsification of verse 20: 4-6 of the Book of Exodus (here above), impossible to modify since it was well known to the people. The alteration may have been operated at the return from exile in Babylon, at the time of the so-called discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple of Solomon. It enabled the reinstatement of circumcision that had to be forfeited in captivity, 2/ In chapter 34 of the Book of Exodus, the Eternal announces his will to write again the stone tables broken by Moses: "Carve two tables of stone similar to the preceding ones and I will carve on those tables the words that were on the first tables, that you broke." (34: 1)

But the following of the text rewrites only the Second Commandment, as if precisely its first version was a problem: "‌he prosecutes the mischiefs of the fathers upon children, upon grand-children, up to the third and fourth offspring." (34: 7)


We are in the presence of a very obviously apocryphal rewriting that resolutely decides in favour of the Orthodox interpretation of Exodus 20: 5-6. Whereas the original text engraved in stone did not mention the grandchildren and spoke of "generations" and not "offspring", that addition and that substitution forbid considering any longer that the Second Commandment bans circumcision. They denature the holy text in order to make it suit the agenda of the rectifiers of the human body. That multiplication of rewritings of the Second Commandment - contradictorily by default in Deuteronomy 5: 9 and by excess in Exodus 34 – testifies to the harshness of the opposition between the first lay writers of the Bible and the religious supporters of circumcision who carried out the final version. It shows that the first version strongly embarrassed them and gives evidence of the resistance that their re-enactment of the circumcision raised. Besides, it seems that some families went on respecting Moses' ban on circumcision, as indicated by Saint Peters' declaration: "... some former Pharisees, became believers, stepped in to say that pagans had to be circumcised and ordered to observe Moses's law... Peter stood up and said: "Why do you try to put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts XV: 5-10)

But let us come back to the verses 20: 4-6 of the Book of the Exodus. They condemn the maiming obsession of the fanatics who refuse the intact burial in cemeteries or profane their corpses through circumcising them in order to bury them "within the Covenant". Indeed, by means of an unlikely double-meaning, the Rabbis read that Commandment as if it condemned common criminality, as if it said: "who prosecute children for the crime of the father or for the crimes of the fathers". But the text does say: "the crime of the fathers upon children" and numerous implausibilities, inaccuracies or neglects of the orthodox interpretation suggest that it is inexact and that that periphrasis (Moses uses a periphrasis because, like Mohammed, the term "circumcision" repels him) designates sexual mutilation, which is thus re-abolished: - if the sentence had that meaning, it would also have that wording, - grammatically, the phrase: "the crime of the fathers upon children" necessarily designates a particular crime, well-known and committed by all the fathers upon their children; in Egypt, it could only be sexual mutilation, - since the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill.") already condemns ordinary crime, the Rabbinic interpretation is necessarily wrong, - a crime cannot be prosecuted upon someone; someone can be prosecuted for a crime. So, "children" is the indirect complement of "crime" and not of "prosecute"; therefore, children are not prosecuted, the fathers are,


- the Second Commandment comes in second place because a mass pedosexual crime is particularly reprehensible. Stigmatizing sexual mutilation as a crime against creation (humanity), it punishes it in an imprescriptible way, looking for the culprits in all living generations. The third and fourth generation are very plainly the grandfathers and greatgrandfathers. It would be unclear why a God furious with common criminality to the point of punishing criminals' children would stop precisely at the fourth descending generation. But the other way round, it is obviously impossible to go beyond great-grandfathers, - God can only be jealous of his own creation that man may not alter without usurping his place ("Thou shalt have no other God than I." implies "Thou shalt not set thyself up as a God in order to modify my creation."), - giving the word "jealous" the immoderate meaning of "suspicious" to the point of injustice, the Orthodox interpretation punishes innocent children in an aberrant way. It would be absurd that a divine commandment would set up a collective familial responsibility. Only paranoid conservatives may have such an idea, challenged by Ezekiel: "... the son will not bear the fault of the father, nor the father the fault of the son..." (Ezekiel 18: 20)

- God does not discriminate the sexes; it is impossible that he would have excluded girls through imposing a sign of Covenant with boys only, - ruling out everything that it does not include, the Book of Deuteronomy bans circumcision: "Observe everything I lay down for you, without adding anything to it..." (13: 1)

- the forbidding to the "uncircumcised" to share Easter with the Hebrews (Exodus 12: 4348) came from the pharaoh, not from Moses who became pharaoh only later on, - Moses particularly hated circumcision because of its psycho-sociological outcomes: "The duration of our journey‌ had been of 38 years. At that time, the whole warlike generation had disappeared‌" (Deuteronomy, 4: 14)

it was the generation of the polytheist and circumcised worshippers of the golden calf and the good father did not realize that his own son was an exception to his affirmation, - Abraham also circumcised Ishmael and circumcision does not give the Jews more right on Canaan than the Arabs,


- finally, through reaffirming the abolition of sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the death knell for the inhuman exclusion of opponents from the people; an identity founded on a particular sign imposed by an alleged divine order had instituted discrimination and segregation with the "elected". The abolition of that kind of racism is linked to the "circumcision of the heart". That beam of corroborating unlikelihoods, negligences, and lies hides the right interpretation in order to conceal the condemnation of sexual mutilation by the Second Commandment. The latter should have been: "Thou shalt not circumcise", its intellectual falsification would have been impossible. The circumlocution: "the crime of the fathers upon children" allowed the supporters – and blind victims – of circumcision to distort it by a sacrilegious interpretation. In order to restore the circumcision, its fanatics pulled the text into an incredible misinterpretation. They introduced an unlikely double meaning in order to hide that "the crime of the fathers upon children" was sexual mutilation. But when dictating his Commandments, the Eternal does not play with double meanings. Especially as here on the Sinai, the historical context is the abandonment of sexual mutilation. But if the circumcisers dared to falsify the meaning of the Second Commandment for boys, they gave up the monstrous and often-deadly excision of girls. Therefore, "God" has changed his mind between the Covenant with Abraham and the Covenant with Moses. The latter abolished the law imposed on Abraham because the law may not speak against life (first, the foreskin is the property of the human person and the child is a human person, second, it is a highly erogenous sexual organ and a protective lip). Against the Covenant through submission (Gen, 17), the great liberator contracted the Covenant between equals of the great, authentic and universal Judaism, which abolished sexual mutilation (Deut 5: 4). The Decalogue is the first historic declaration of human duties and rights. The Second and Sixth Commandments decree the first of those rights, inalienable and sacred: the right to the body.


Chapter VI Like the Koran, the Book of Deuteronomy excludes everything that is not in it and does not mention circumcision

A number of the Books of the Bible do not mention circumcision. The terms: "circumcised", " circumcise ", " circumcision" do not appear in the Books of Numbers, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Solomon, and in the great majority of the Books of the prophets: Kings, Malachi, Lamentations, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah. The most remarkable one is the Book of Deuteronomy. Modern exegesis15 considers that, unlike the other Books of the Torah, it was written under the direction of Moses with a great unity of style. In spite of the fact that, written to the attention of the priests, it makes a thorough inventory of the religious rules to respect, the only circumcision it speaks about is that of the heart. But above all, it condemns all sexual mutilation in the Second Commandment (5: 7-10). Moreover, contrary to some other books of the Pentateuch, it does not speak of excluding the "non-circumcised" from the temple and the meal of Passover but insists upon the fact that the only condition for the Covenant in the Sinai is the respect of the Commandments and rules that it edicts. Introducing the latter, it takes care to affirm: "Observe everything I lay down for you, without adding anything to it... " (13: 1)

We are in the presence of a preliminary commandment. Forbidding everything that is not included in the following ones, and thus sexual mutilation, it reduplicates the Second. The Book of Deuteronomy then speaks on thirteen occasions (4: 5, 4: 8, 4: 14, 4: 45, 5: 7, 5: 31, 6: 1, 6: 20, 7: 11, 7: 12, 8: 11, 11: 1) of "the laws and rules…" (4: 1) it advocates. But circumcision does not figure there any more than in the Ten Commandments. Neither does it appear in the regulations of verses 12: 1 to 27: 26. On the other hand, distinctive physical signs are excluded; the consecration of the Jewish people to the deity does not allow it to be singled out through gross exterior signs: "You are the children of the Eternal, your God: do not cut your body, do not shave between your eyes, in honour of a dead man. Because you are a people holy to the Eternal, your God, and the Eternal chose you to be for him a special people between all peoples on the earth." (14: 1) 15 cf. the article “Bible” of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.


For Moses, the election of the Jewish people is spiritual in nature; a material sign cannot represent it. On the other hand, taking the opposite of excluding the intact, he distrusts the last survivors (circumcised) of the old warlike generation: "The one who has crushed or mutilated genitals will not be admitted in the assembly of the Lord." (23: 2)

In order to notify the abolition of the Commandment imposed on Abraham, he points out the peculiarity of the Third Covenant: "The Eternal did not conclude this covenant with our fathers but with ourselves, who are here today, all alive." (5: 3)

He does not ignore the ancient Covenant: "... he will not forget the covenant of your fathers..." (5: 3) ,

but seems to refer to the version of chapter 15 of the Book of Genesis, which does not mention circumcision, rather than to that of chapter 17. Then, he explains the great difference of nature between the New Covenant and Abraham's Covenant, a difference that condemns the Covenant through submission: "The Eternal talked with you face to face…" (5: 4)

Both Covenants are discrepant; whereas Abraham had kept his face on the ground, the New Covenant is an alliance between equals, in which Moses obtained the abolition of sexual mutilation from the pharaoh: "And now, Israel, the Eternal, your God, only expects from you that you should revere the Lord, your God, follow his ways in everything, love him and serve him with all your heart and all your soul, observing the precepts and laws of the Lord that I impose on you today, so that you would be happy." (10: 12-13)

On the other hand, through prescribing "circumcision of the heart", Moses takes an ethical stand against that of the flesh: "Thus circumcise your heart, stop stiffening your neck." (10: 16) (*)

Inviting the Hebrews to relax, he underlines an obsessive symptom, undoubtedly a sign of pride but also of emotional distress. God grants that "circumcision" as a grace: "And the Eternal, your God, will circumcise your heart and your descendants’ heart so that you love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and make your living." (30: 6) (*)(*)

Verses 10: 16 and 30: 6 are the only acceptations of the term “circumcision” in the Book of Deuteronomy.


A reference to Abraham’s Covenant, mention of the descendants is significant of the replacement of circumcision of the body by that of the heart. The Book of Deuteronomy bans circumcision. So, Professor RÜmer wrote us euphemistically that the phrase "circumcision of the heart" might contain a polemic stand against circumcision. Actually, backed by "Secrets of the Exodus", the foregoing analysis shows that Moses and the early Hebrews were opposed to circumcision.


Chapter VII Genesis at the risk of psychoanalysis

Psychoanalytical interpretation enables to decode the three great ontological myths of the Book of Genesis as fables cleverly invented in order to accredit the idea of the appropriateness of circumcision. In the first myth, God (the father) first creates man (the child) with mud (2: 7). That myth implies that for the father, lord and master, children have no more value than mud. The myth of creation of woman by pulling out Adam’s rib (2: 21-24) overall is a myth of precedence of the creation of man over that of woman, intended for giving man supremacy and property of earth. It is next a metaphor of circumcision. The rib, through a metonymic reversal (mode of symbolization of the unconscious) of a content in place of a container, represents the foreskin, the female sexual part of man. Women, reduced to their vagina, are "created" through circumcision. That bringing down of women to the status of substitute of the foreskin (mere object, slave) is both the preliminary and essential complement of polygamy. Circumcision terrorizes future young men so as to remove every idea of incest with the young spouses of the father out of them. The third myth, that of the Garden of Eden and of the original sin (2: 9-25, and 3) is similarly an insidious image veiled in order to inspire the idea of the necessity of circumcision into fresh consciences. It reflects the situation of the child in the arms of his mother, consuming the fruit that the father will soon forbid. Circumcision is the original punishment that chases the child out of that paradise. It makes the little boy pay a painful price both for the sucking of the breast (the apple) set up in original sin, and for autosexuality. In a very male chauvinist way, the laceration of his most intimate flesh identifies him to his glans through stripping it. A dreadful abuse of jealous patriarchs, that torture symbolically punishes the child who has "sinned" through enjoying the mother’s body: the tree of good and evil. And to crown it all, the myth points at woman, who played with the "snake" during the baby’s toilet, as the agent provocateur of sin. The sexuality of the infant with his mother, based upon orality, is heavily condemned. The most hideous, the most scandalously and perversely contrary to life – and love that is its condition – is the symbol of the snake, an animal with mortal venom, in order to designate the masculine sex. That symbolism is a technique for making one guilty for sexual life. How being amazed that, with such a degrading imagery, the sexual moral of the three religions should be so unhealthy and generating violence towards women?


The Catholic Church reinforces that symbolism by that of a woman stepping over the snake. Beyond its rudeness, the image of a woman stamping a symbol of the masculine sex is the most odiously deadly that can be imagined to imprint on the consciousness or the unconscious of the child. Trusting the adult, the latter will be deeply impressed by a representation that is genuine calling for castration (castrated singers have been used for religious offices). Both lewd and criminal, that symbolism intoxicates Catholic consciences. That makes what gives life a symbol of poisoning and death. It sets the faithful of a religion against those of another by giving the ones an ideal of hostility towards sexuality whereas the others are supposed to let themselves be tempted by it. That is appeal for hatred. The point of departure of the trauma, of the malaise in civilization, is not an alleged original sin but an effective original punishment. After having tasted the fruit of the tree of good and evil (the maternal breast) in free enjoyment for eight days of Eden, Adam and Eve find themselves "naked"; he, stripped of his foreskin as a punishment for autosexuality and threat against future incestuous envies (trust cannot exist in a polygamous society); she, compelled with him to get dressed so that her young body would not excite the concupiscence of an incestuous father. For that father, all women are to conquer and we guess him being fairly paedophile, unable to face the nakedness of his own daughters. The archaic fault is the devilish invention of fathers mad with jealousy, decreeing themselves Gods of their children and making them feel guilty by a pedophobic crime. The unique God of Moses, an enemy of barbarity and prohibiting other Gods, will replace that deification of unworthy fathers by a good and imaginary God. But, as well in the African and Islamic worlds as in the Christian one, the Covenant by word has not yet succeeded to dethrone the Covenant by blood of the Judaic myth: the pulling out of the "rib" (foreskin) in punishment for the "bite into the apple". As a matter of fact, today, the Catholic Church does not oppose circumcision in Africa, USA, Germany, etc. The Book of Genesis has been written for gullible children. It is deliberate manipulation of the unconscious and the infantile imaginary by several converging myths, reinforcing each other in order to prepare the wording of Abraham’s "law". The psychoanalytic interpretation dismantles the perverse malevolence of those myths carefully devised by shrewd connoisseurs of the mechanisms of the unconscious. They manipulate the masses by a discursive technique worthy of the cleverest totalitarian propaganda. Their deep aim is to separate boys from their mothers, and men from women, excluded from society, from men’s clan. Rendered accomplices of the crime, mothers are deprived of the intimate tenderness, attachment and deep biological trust and love of their boys. The latter, terrorized, will easily be dominated, enlisted and indoctrinated by the warriors and the religious elite who wrote the Bible. Through the devilish invention of the original sin, those elite settled the pseudo-moral foundations of the African-Judaic-Christian-Islamic civilization, a puritan, predating, despoiling civilization. Deciphered by psychoanalytic interpretation, the Book of Genesis appears like a tool of the moral order of barbarian, sexist, domineering and self-assured fathers,


exploiters of women and children. Similarly, the Christian myth of the Holy trinity relegates woman to a secondary position; Mary remains a mere mortal. Supporting the pillar of patriarchy: the domination over women and children, those misleading and neuroticizing (at best) myths make humanity live within the lie and piracy of physical or moral sexual mutilation. The teaching of sexism to the child is intolerable. The authorities of the three religions must expurgate catechisms from myths which make women, children, and men, feel inferior and guilty.


Conclusion "Abram and Moses tried and failed to abolish the crime of circumcision that was imposed on the Jews by the phallus-worshipping and polytheistic Egyptians." Amy James' beautiful Facebook comment after reading this book

Through mere exegesis, demonstrating that Abraham and Moses fought circumcision, this work overthrows three millennia of Judaic orthodoxy. Our interpretations of the main passages of the Bible concerning that mutilation converge to suggest that the Holy Book has been falsified. Two disclosures must be made: firstly, the apparent contradiction between Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 shows that not God but a pharaoh (a thesis underlying the "Secrets of the Exodus") imposed a Covenant the condition for which is the circumcision that Abraham had abolished when young. Secondly and above all, the Second Commandment bans circumcision, which is confirmed by the non-mentioning of circumcision in the Book of Deuteronomy. Merely military, the condition of Covenant with Abraham was imposed upon the Hebrews by the Egyptian feudal lords. It had nothing religious and, since Moses was opposed to circumcision (to the point of considering it as a crime against humanity, creation in his language), it could be implemented only at his death, which allowed the invasion of Palestine thanks to the Egyptian army. Therefore, the Jews escaped only the Egyptian excision and polytheism. The explanation of the scene of the circumcision of Moses' son, unlikely and controversial with the exegetes, is the icing on our cake. Our findings join that of Messod and Roger Sabbah who, basing themselves upon archaeology and intercultural comparisons between Egypt and Judaism, concluded that the Hebrews were not natives of Palestine but Egyptian colonists, and that the Jewish religion finds its origin in that of Akhenaten. We bring a few new and similar arguments to their thesis and the powerful exegetic argument of Deuteronomy, 29: 1-5 (cf. page 10). If monotheism was the essential element of the Judaic heresy within the Egyptian empire, we shall refrain from affirming that it was a progress in the history of humanity; it was and remains a tool of traditionalism, feudalism, and royalty. Through condensing the temporal and spiritual powers on their person, Abram and Moses well designed it like that. Maimonides even tried to settle a connection of discriminatory superiority between monotheism and circumcision: "It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign imprinted on them all, so that, being foreign, the one who is not part of them cannot pretend to belong to them." 16

16 Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.


Making a link between the unique God and the phallus, he seems to fully agree with the patriarchy fanatic about circumcision, and that speech appears delusional but, on the part of the free-thinking philosopher, it could be a hoax for the attention of the most enlightened ones to whom, in the same pages, he recalls the erotic benefit of being intact. On the contrary, the abolition of sexual mutilation, second pillar of that heresy, was a great but short-lived alleviation and we can say that the original, authentic Judaism was born in reaction to sexual mutilation. Abolished by the young Abram, re-imposed on him in his old age, re-abolished by Moses, the barbarous and discriminatory customs were resettled (except excision with the Jews) after his death. The tightening control that followed occurred in reaction against the hedonist religion of Abram. Admitting circumcision and blows, the educational conceptions of Judaism are of great violence; circumcision and blows are their main tools: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beat him with the rod, he shall not die." Proverbs 23: 13

Many primitive societies have the repression of infantile and premarital sexuality, and more generally of sexual pleasure, in their project. Making that repression a divine obligation, the Judaism of Genesis 17, diametrically opposed to that of Genesis 15, is the only religion that has formalized in writing an ideology that submits the individual by a mutilating torture at an age where they are unable to defend themselves. Therefore, we strongly relativize circumcision as a basis of Judaism. But only Jewish women sustainably benefited from a movement too quickly smothered in blood from haemorrhages, pain from infections, and deaths. Nevertheless, in a culture monstrously repressive of sexuality, that sexual liberation was popular. Early defenders of physical integrity in history, Abram and Moses had the support of the people and especially of midwives. They foresaw the intactivist movement launched three thousand years later in the United States by the nurse Marilyn Milos, widely supported – a repetition of history – by American midwives. That movement has already made the rate of circumcision strongly decrease in North America. It extended to Anglo-Saxon countries and gradually spreads into Europe. If the Decalogue is the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man, the Second and Sixth Commandments are a statement of the right of the human person to the very first, inalienable and sacred, of their rights: the rights to the body and pleasure. We ask for their addition to the first article of the Universal declaration of human rights: "All human beings are born free and equal in rights, first and foremost the rights to the body and pleasure, in their three dimensions of integrity, dignity and autonomy."

Circumcision, the Bible falsified