Gym Fresh's post on page 2 was very intelligent. Reread it.
As for the rest, if it were permissable, I would just like to clear up a few issues.
1) Circumcision is a feature of Judaism and Islam, but not Christianity.
2) The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the historical Christian tradition. That is to say it is not Scripture, and it is not considered authroritative to any Christian group today. All forms of Christianity which are extent today developed without this text as part of their tradition. It is a document that was discovered in 1945. It was produced by a group called the Gnostics,who practiced a religion that appears to be an extreme hellenisation of the Christianity we are familiar with. Gnosticism was a minority, and was branded heresy by the majority who would come to be called orthodox. It was a later developement than orthodox Christianity, and the texts assosiated with it are later productions as well. Additionally, it is not a "Gospel" in the sense of the four cannonical gospels, a biography or philosophical narrative, but rather a listing of sayings. So.....it's not reasonable to say that "Jesus is against circumcision - it says so right here in the Gospel of Thomas" -flaps bible like Jimmy Swaggart. We are not necesarily talking about the same Jesus, certainly not the same corpus of Jesus teachings, although they overlap to a certain degree, and in otherwords, comparing apples and oranges. We ultimately don't know what Jesus thought about circumcision from the cannoical narratives, but we do know he was circumcised himself according to Jewish ritual.
3) It is not any of the 4 Gospels you can find in the Bible that speak out against circumcision. It is the Pauline Epistles that do. Christianity began as a movement among Jews. As Gentile converts were embraced, it was considered unnecesary that they be circumcised and obey Jewish ceremonial law - in other words, convert to Judaism before being able to convert to Christianty. This was decided at what is called the Jerusalem conference, discussed in Bible itself. It was an early defining moment of the new religion. It made it possible to be Christian, but not Jewish, and set the course for the divergent path of the two religions developing in the same region of the world at the same time. Paul wrote against judaisers, who dissagreed with him on the procedure for gentile conversion. He speaks out because he does not believe gentiles should be made to observe jewish customs. He says in short, that if certain people need to make such a big deal about circumcision, why stop there, they may as well castrate themselves outright. (Here, perhaps he as a Jew is displaying a certain amount of cultural sensitivy towards gentiles, among whom circumcision was a stigma, and pointing toward the (perhaps by the infant circumcised Jewish Christians unperceived) pain and risk involved in adult circumcision in the first century) We have no idea what Paul thought of infant circumcision as a procedure, apart from the ideological issue. We have no grounds for saying he would be for or against circumcision today, where the circumstances are entirely different, and circumcision is practiced/and or recomended for entirely different reasons.
4) The reason "red-neck" families tend to be uncircumcised is because they were traditionally born at home. Circumcision became common practice in the USA in the 19th century as hospital births became more common. The practices grew up in some senses together. Even if the younger generations of these uncircumcising southern families were born in hospitals, it may have already been a family tradition, with the fathers exclaiming against having there sons circumcised in the modern facilities.
Got it?