Our role is to provide information not to take sides. Our tweet is to explain the issue. We neither promote religion generally or any one religion. Our position is simply that understanding religious belief is important and it should be reported accurately
-
-
-
Do you consider your tweet about the supposed health benefits to be ‘accurate’. Why seek to downplay the pain and trauma cased to infants by circumcision?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We appreciate your engagement. The scientific evidence is complex and contradictory e.g. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30386-8/fulltext …. Our role is not to judge the science which neither we nor you are qualified to do, but to help journalists to understand the nature and range of this debate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
claims to be impartial; is it? I find it difficult to see from their website who they are, and who they are funded by.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Got Religion in their name, so I'll admit to a complete lack of surprise...
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.