Just when I thought the talk about circumcision might die down around here, along comes a lawsuit in Seattle: A convert to Judaism wants to circumcize his 12-year-old son, but the man's estranged wife (the boy's mother) is objecting.
A legal battle between divorced parents in Oregon about the circumcision of their 12-year-old son is fast becoming a flash point between critics of the procedure and those who endorse it on medical and religious grounds.Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan, who insists on calling this practice MGM, Male Genital Mutilation.James Boldt, a recent convert to Judaism, wants his son, who is also said to be converting, circumcised. Mr. Boldt's ex-wife, Lia, has objected. Lower courts sided with Mr. Boldt, who has full custody of his son. However, the Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in November.
Four Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Orthodox Union, have joined together in an amicus curiae brief supporting the father's right to proceed over the mother's objections.
"It is of particular importance to amici that American Jews be free to practice circumcision because circumcision is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish religion," the groups wrote. "Enabling the circumcision of a child, whether as part of a religious conversion or for medical reasons, cannot as a matter of law indicate any infirmity in a parent's ability to function as a parent. Moreover, any decision to single out circumcision as a basis for questioning the fitness of the custodial parent would violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion."
Ms. Boldt is being backed by a Seattle-based group, Doctors Against Circumcision, which contends that the procedure is unnecessary and amounts to abuse.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
I hope that the former Ms. Boldt prevails in this case. The idea that a parent can force medically unnecessary surgery on a child is chilling; what kind of precedent will be set if the courts rule in Mr. Boldt's favor? Are they going to strap the boy down like an animal if he doesn't want the surgery? What if FGM is a sacred part of another divorcing parent's "religion"? Shouldn't males have the same protection? Circumcision should be a choice that an adult male is allowed to make.
Bruce-
At the risk of riling your constituants, let me chime in with the pro- briss viewpoint.
I am a Jewish father with three sons. In affirmation of the covenant with Abraham that my fathers and I all entered, each of my sons was circumcised at 8 days old. My father, father in law, and brother each had the honor of holding one of my sons for the procedure. My family and friends stood witness as God's promise was reaffirmed for another generation.
It is impossible to convey fully the spiritual impact of these events. They were, as some of your writers allude, bloody and difficult to watch. My wife left the room each time, unable to view the actual moment of circumcision. My wife and I had the difficult task of changing bloody diapers for several days. I would not wish this upon anyone simply for a whim, and I have always wondered at the prevalence of this practice among gentiles.
On the other hand, my sons have received a powerful birthright, a link with their ancestors, a bond with the suffering, sacrifices, and triumphs of 5767 years of faith and honor.
My oldest son is 12 years old and preparing for his Bar-Mitzvah. Ask him and he will tell you that his link with his family is more precious to him that a few minutes of pain and days of discomfort long since forgotten.
Arguments about "trying it out before making a decision" and "humanistic Judaism" are all good and well for those who wish to make this choice for themselves or their children. Those who seek a rational, humanistic logic to a leap of faith are sure to be disappointed. But beware attempting to impose your lack of faith upon others simply because you disagree.
On a final note for the case in question, I would state that under Jewish law, this 12 year old boy is less than one year from the age of adulthood. At 13, a Jewish male is free to make his own choices. He chooses to accept the call to the Torah at his Bar Mitzvah. He is, under Jewish law, free to decline, and is thereafter free to deterimine his own path in his faith. While US and Jewish law would likely both rule that the father has the right to make this choice for a 12 year old child, I would, as a moyel or rabbi, insist that the boy make his own choice following his 13th birthday.
Chag Sama'ach
Jerry
Jerry, I was under the impression the Judaism doesn't allowed forced conversions. The mother in this case, who is not a jew, says the child doesn't want this procedure. There's a question as to the sincerity of the son's desire to convert at all. If the mother isn't Jewish, that's all she wrote. I'm sorry. Nobody is imposing their "lack of faith." The child is free to convert and be circumcised at age 18 and none of us have a say so. I'm scared to death that the supreme court of Oregon will allow this. What other mutilation will parents demand to be allowed to perpetrate on their children in the name of their religion? This child is not an animal. He's not his father's property. He needs to be heard, and he doesn't need to have his genitals cut to affirm someone else's faith.
This child was raised Christian. He wasn't born a Jew. He shouldn't be forced.
I believe that Judaism should not be ruled in the decision if whether the boy should be circumcised or not. Also, the estranged mother should not have the right to speak about what the decision to be made about the circumcision, because she is not the primary guardian over the child so she really doe not have a say so. The father should have the choice to circumcise the child because the child is under aged and he cannot make his own decisins yet. The Supreme Court should not get invovled because it puts a limit on what Jews believe and what the decision is. If it has to go to the Supreme COurt, then I think that the case should be judged by his peers and not people of different beliefs.
The Boldt case has now concluded with a decision in favor of the mother and son, who turned 14 in March 2009. Throughout the case, which the father appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and threatened to take to the United States Supreme Court, there has been an issue of coercion and intimidation by the father. The son admits to being afraid of him, as do his last 3 wives. And it remains to be seen whether the father will now follow through on his intent to become Jewish, seems the scheme was first and foremost designed to antagonize the boy's mother and show her who's boss. He knew that she would be upset at the idea of her son forcibly circumcised, since she is Russian Orthodox and circumcision is not part of her religion.
Ultimately no important legal precedent was set with regard to religion, though there was an important affirmation of family law -- namely, that both parents need to agree to elective surgery in the case of a minor child, and a child's own thoughts and concerns have legal standing and value.
I respect the opinions of poster Jerry, above. However, they differ markedly from my own views on the same issue. My family is Jewish also, and I had always assumed that I would have any son circumcised in accordance with Abrahamic law. Over many years, my understanding has changed significantly and now I would not have any son circumcised.
After two decades of studying historical and theological works, I have become satisfied that the story of a 4000-year connection of Jews to circumcision is apocryphal -- and even a bit insulting. Many prominent theologians now agree that circumcision was introduced into Hebrew society much later, in the Babylonian era, by the soon-discredited priests as a way to foster tribalism. They clumsily wove the story of circumcision back through various stories of Pentateuch and falsely claimed they were there all along. Moreover, circumcision itself changed markedly even just from the Babylonian era to the Roman era, eventually taking about 300% more penile tissue. Circumcision was never consistent through the centuries, and even today remains far less than universal among Jews in France (70%), Germany (80%), the Netherlands (60%), Argentina (60%), Sweden (50%) and New Zealand (40%), as examples. In the former Soviet Union, circumcision among Jews ceased nearly 100 years ago, despite it always having remained legal. There are movements among Jews in Israel, the US, the UK and other countries to re-examine the relevance and usefulness of infant circumcision. While not all agree, many like myself have come to the awareness that male infant circumcision is simply not something that G-d ever commanded, but rather an imperfect social construct imposed by a group of men under threat of losing power and influence. There is no way I want my sons to have any part of that history.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.