“Jewish increased amount of chop”? Are you trying to refer to the apparent (though not definitively proven) introduction of periah or foreskin removal into Jewish circumcision rites during the Hellenistic period, as we’ve been discussing earlier in the thread?
If so, here’s what the differences look like to me:
Jewish case: Scripturally mandated religious requirement of circumcision, at least to the degree of foreskin trimming, starting in biblical times. Widely neglected due to anti-circumcision pressure from Greek and Roman cultures, and re-emphasized by religious leaders as a necessary part of religious identity, apparently accompanied by a more extreme version of the procedure (entire foreskin removal) that would make circumcision status unambiguous.
Fundamentally a religious requirement although sometimes, especially in modern times, with additional justification from its medical benefits. Rejected by a small (though slightly increasing) proportion of Jews as not mandatory for Jewish religious identity, but this is generally seen as a heterodox position.
Muslim case: Originally a cultural practice among pre-Islamic Arabs, subsequently identified with Islam because of hadith associating it with other practices for hygiene and refinement. Circumcision is officially considered obligatory or strongly recommended for Muslim religious identity in most although not all Muslim denominations, and the practice of circumcision tends to spread culturally/geographically with Islam. Circumcision rates vary within different Muslim communities but usually approach 100%. Typical age at circumcision and type of circumcision (amount of foreskin removed) also vary among Muslim communities.
Christian case: Originally practiced by early Christians identifying as a subset of Jews, but resisted by converts from other cultures and officially declared in the early Common Era to be unnecessary for Christian identity. Remained customary in a few Christian sects but was not practiced by the vast majority of Christians worldwide up to the 19th century. Except in the few sects mentioned above, circumcision in Christian doctrine was portrayed, like Jewish dietary laws, as a commendable demonstration of submission to God among Old Testament Jews but superseded by New Testament teachings in the case of Christians.
None of these religious traditions are the cause of the medicalized pro-circumcision movement occurring primarily in the English-speaking world starting in the 19th century, and substantially reversed by the early 21st. This movement was a cultural and policy phenomenon focused on public health, based on the supposed efficacy of circumcision in preventing STDs and other diseases as well as masturbation, not on circumcision as a religious-identity requirement.
Of course, nobody’s denying that anti-masturbation attitudes themselves had a lot to do with traditional sex-negativity in Christian doctrine. But that is not the same as making circumcision an integral part of Christian religious identity, which didn’t happen even when the majority of English-speaking Christian men were routinely circumcised as infants.