Posted on 11/08/2007 8:40:10 AM PST by Lorianne
A man and his ex-wife are embroiled in a holy war over the issue of circumcising the couple's 12-year-old son.
The Oregon Supreme Court is now considering the case of James Boldt, a family-law attorney who converted to Judaism in 2004. He seeks to have the minor surgery performed against the wishes of the boy's mother, Lia Boldt, who is Russian Orthodox.
"It's the classic kind of decision a custodial parent would make," said James Boldt, according to the Oregonian newspaper.
Lia Boldt, 45, filed for divorce in 1998, and though she initially won custody, James Boldt, who now lives near Olympia, Wash., later gained it.
Mrs. Boldt's lawyer, Clayton Patrick, argued she should get a court hearing to try to prove circumcising a 12-year-old boy poses serious health risks. He also maintained the boy is afraid to tell his father he doesn't wish to go through with the surgery.
"We're not talking about an infant circumcision here," said Patrick. "She's entitled to a hearing."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Of course they’re people! They are also a priceless gift from God, which is merely “loaned” to their parents for a time, with the ethical stipulation that the parents do nothing which is not in the interest of the child.
What a despicable attitude in a parent: "I can do anything I want to with this kid, and you can't stop me, and he can't stop me." Mr. Boldt sounds like a real monster. Considering how rare conversions to Judaism are, I even suspect that's not the real reason here. As others have said, he may be using the boy as a pawn in a war with his ex-wife. Besides, there is no evidence the boy himself has converted.
invisible men who live in the sky should have no bearing on this.
that’s what you think not necessarily what is true. Need less to say I need more than someone’s invisible friend saying do X before I’d go amputating body parts.
When I was twelve, the only people I wanted touching my pecker we myself and the girl next door, but I didn’t have the nerve to ask her.
it has happened before.
However here is an interesting question. Since this is being done SPECIFICALLY because of religion, does the court have the right to impose a religious practice on the mother’s child?
Keep in mind, the parents most likely have joint parental responsibility and the mother has not had her parental rights terminated. Does a judge saying you MUST have your child converted to Jewish violate the first amendment? It would see so.
While not perfect on point:
from the dicta of that case:Zummo v. Zummo, 574 A.2d 1130, 394 Pa.Super. 30 (Pa. Super., 1990)
The United States Supreme Court has expressly recognized that, “[a] father, no less than a mother, has a constitutionally protected right to the companionship, care, custody and management of the children he has sired and raised, which undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 652, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 1235, 43 L.Ed.2d 514, 527 (1975). The Supreme Court has also specifically rejected the notion that gender based classifications in custody matters could be justified “by any universal difference between maternal and paternal relations at every phase of a child’s development.” Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 389, 99 S.Ct. 1760, 1766, 60 L.Ed.2d 297, 305 (1979) (rejecting a maternal preference justification when the children in question were four and six years-old).
also a bit later
Commonly, parents and religious leaders define a child’s religious identity under the rules of the religion they practice. Often
such rules impose a presumed religious identity upon a child without requiring the child’s consent or understanding, on the basis of a parent’s religion, circumcision and naming of the child, infant baptism, the child’s Sunday [394 Pa.Super. 67] school attendance or similar factors. Different groups follow different rules even within religions, and many expressly reject the rules of other groups. To accept one set of rules over another is clearly impermissible.
and just for fun
Thus, we conclude that while the desire to provide or maintain stability in the already tumultuous context of a divorce is generally a significant factor in custody determinations, courts constitutionally cannot have any interest in the stability of a child’s religious beliefs. The consideration of the childrens’ presumed interests in spiritual stability was constitutionally impermissible and an abuse of discretion.
Basically the courts do not get involved in religious upbringing because they do not want to establish a religious violation of the first amendment. However given the physical nature of the disenfranchisement the husband seeks to impose on the wife, it is quite shocking the judge would not have stepped into the physical aspect.
BTW I did find ALOT of malpractice cases on botched circumcisions! YIKES! just a footnote, but you would think reporters would look this stuf up. It only takes a few minutes.
Very well. You’re either lacking in experience or you’re an idiot. Christ reins. You don’t have to like it, but you still benefit from it.
Lose the argument start the insults.
Christ reins. You don’t have to like it, but you still benefit from it.
You can think that all you want it does not make it true. I ask what would you do differently if your religious beliefs were irrefutably proven untrue?
Hey, friend, f**k off. Good luck with your so called life. You’re so much smarter than the billions that have gone before you and the billions that are currently among you.
F**k off. Didn’t expect a Christian to say that? Too bad. F**k off.
tradition and convience. We could easily have started from the founding of Rome if we wanted or reset every time japan gets a new Emperor.
What makes murder wrong?
It is untidy , disruptive and unpleasant for the victim.
What makes stealing wrong?
it is disruptive to the economy and unpleasant for the victim.
What makes sex with animals wrong?
non consent by the animal.
Christ. Is that a statement or an epithet?
Hey, friend, f**k off. Good luck with your so called life. You’re so much smarter than the billions that have gone before you and the billions that are currently among you.
Thank you I will. Also thank you for confirmnimg what I already knew.
F**k off. Didn’t expect a Christian to say that? Too bad. F**k off.
I know more than a few who do so no your salty language is not unexpected. It does display a level of intelligence that I would have figured should be more elevated but to each his own.
Have a good night.
Good luck.
According to Jewish law, the 12-year-old is considered a gentile, and a minor. If he wants to convert to Judaism, he has to make that decision on his own, and legally he is not allowed to make such a decision until he is 13 (age of bar mitzvah).
LOL!
This is the part that would be most important to me.
A 12 year old child is old enough to understand what a circumcision is and what is required.
A 12 year old child is old enough to say whether or not they want to be a practicing Jew, Christian, Buddhist, whatever.
Were the child younger, below 10 years of age, this might be a question for the courts.
I say again, ask the child what THEY want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.