Why "Uncut" .... and Foreskins ...

I have a blog dealing with a campaign I was organizing and then moved onto a blog with my local newspaper.
As I have always, generally, tried to maintain an air of respectability, I thought it was time to do one that could be a bit more risque at times.
So whilst you can have programmes with the smut, swearing and sexual content removed, the UNCUT version is where anything (almost) is shown.
If you thought by calling it uncut, it was a blog all about my foreskin, you are now disappointed and have moved to something a bit smuttier.
For the record, I am uncut. I was born with it and cannot understand why any religion should require its removal (I can understand it if there is a medical need) because if God didn't mean us to have one, he'd have created us without one. Doesn't the Bible say, in any case, that he made man in his own image, therefore we must assume God has a foreskin.
So do we therefore say that those who have their boy's foreskin removed are contravening God's laws?