God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..............God has a foreskin, good enough for him good enough for me.
I personally suspect that it's the other way around, and that we made God (or gods) in our image.
I also personally believe that from a naturist point of view, it doesn't make a shred of difference whether a person is circumcised or not. Almost always, it's not a choice that a man makes for himself. If a person lost a finger or a toe or a hand due to an accident, or a breast due to cancer, we wouldn't exclude them from our company, we'd just say that life has happened to that person and then move on.
My wife (a surgeon) has begrudgingly done many of them. The most common justification - other than for faiths that still believe it's necessary - is that "his dad has one and we don't want them to look different" or something similar. So often she's been tempted to say "Do you plan to compare often?" and "If your husband was missing a finger or an ear for some reason, would that make a difference? We can function just fine with 9 fingers or one ear..."
Yes, it's a medical procedure but there's little evidence that in MOST cases it's a NECESSARY one. (My brother had it done at age 10 for purely medical reasons - he had some scarring that caused problems. And before anyone says "See? Wouldn't have been a problem." he also had appendicitis but I don't hear anyone talking of removing an appendix prematurely.
Im a little disappointed with the high percentage of circumcised answers. I think I was a little self conscious in high school as most boys were circumcised in the 60s to 80s and I was really the only one I was aware of who was uncut. My wife prefers it and both my boys didnt get touched by a scalpel. Nor did the doctors push it. There really is no problem with hygiene as some like to point out. Im glad to see uncut as becoming more mainstream in the US.