I think the real question is whether the freedom of religion should or should not include allowing you to cut off part of your son’s genitals. The FGM laws in USA specifically state that culture and religion are not valid excuses to do any amount of cutting on a girl under 18, why not extend the same protection to boys? For the boy in question, the wait is only 5 and a half years. Nobody is trying to stop the father from converting to Judaism. The detractors, like myself, are simply interested in the right the boy should have – being able to make it to adulthood without getting his penis cut to make his own informed decision for himself, be it medical or religious.

Surely the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion should apply to the next generation of American citizens too?
Circumcision is the permanent removal of the part of the penis with the greatest variety and density of nerve endings. Surely he has a right to at try out his penis and then make an informed decision on surgery. If he does so and then opts for sacrifice, arguably this is a greater gift to God …why would a just God want stolen gifts??

Parents do not own their children. Our laws should not allow parents to undergo medically unnecessary removal of body parts, male or female, or be denied medical care based on a spiritual philosophy (in regard to Christian Science or Jehovah’s Witnesses). Let the child reach the age of majority and make his own choice.
In this case, the rights and protection of the child should take precidence over the religion or culture of the parents.

One of Judaism’s great commendable features has been its elasticity and ability to reform and reshape itself through the millennia. It has discarded so much harshness in its practices, allowing it to be more civilized in tandem with other parts of humanity — sometimes ahead and sometimes behind. Circumcision has been problematic for the religion for centuries, with some segments conflicted about it for obvious reasons. Humanistic Judaism rejects it, and many enlightened Jews disavow it. It truly needs to be discarded as inhumane and one more old practice whose value and importance as a God dictate is highly questionable.

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.