Parents clash over 12 year old son's circumcision

Remove all ads!

The only experience I had with this was a friend of mine who converted at ten -- I though all Jewish boys had to go through it at thirteen (my mistake). I honestly could not understand why he would allow such a thing.

 

But how would that be possible for most people? I mean, think about it. I don't know anyone who is well-versed in even all the world's major religions. I don't think what you are suggesting is practically possible. I was raised Christian. As a result, I know I could teach my child about the fundamentals of Christianity. I know both Jewish and Muslim people, so I do know something about the faiths of Judaism and Islam. However, I would never say I know enough to teach their ways to someone. And I don't know anyone who is Bhuddist or Hindi, so I certainly am not qualified to tell anyone about those religions.

To do as you propose, it would require a huge investment in personal time to read up on even the MAJOR religions of the world. Furthermore, you then would have to take the kid to religious services of all of these religions, which again is a major problem. (I don't know where the closest Hindi temple is around here, for example.)

Plus, even if you put forth a honest effort, what would you do regarding all the subgroups within religions? For example, would you just teach broad aspects of Christianity, or would you show the child the difference between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant faiths? In fact, of the religions I'm somewhat familiar with, all of them have subgroups, sometimes with very different beliefs. It's not like there's only one type of Judaism - there are many smaller subgroups. Same goes for Islam - that's the whole Sunni-Shia conflict. I just don't see your system as practical.

 

I don't think we have that in the US. I know I never was even offered a course in religious education at public schools. There are a lot of private schools where religious education is taught, but these private schools are usually funded by a particular church, and thus, only a particular religion is taught.

I took TBA's statement to mean that parents were responsible for teaching their children religion. (That is, afterall, what he said.) And I just don't think most parents have the time to learn about them all, and know them all equally well.

 

@Tal: That kind of class isn't taught until the upper high school or university level here. Even if it were, I don't think that many kids could grasp the material at a level sufficient to make a proper choice. For those that can, there's still the issue of basing the choice on a set of values that's likely to be undergoing rapid and wide vacillations.

 

Okay, now that's just plain wrong, however legal it may be. Forcing your kid to go to church is one thing, but forcing them to have unnecessary surgery just because you decided to switch religions? That's child abuse.

Something to take into consideration: if you have a circumcision late, it will positively destroy a month of your life. I had mine at around 10 due to medical reasons (an infection or something), and I ruined a friend's birthday party with my swearing. It doesn't matter how full you pack your underwear with soft toilet paper, it still chafes like mad, and that kind of pain is not something you can ignore. This guy essentially is deciding to put his kid through hell for a month because he decided to switch teams.

 

Tal? Sounds like the old Avalon Consolidated School District seriously considered such a curriculum, several decades ago. I studied exactly what you describe - 'Principles of Religion' and some historical background of each of the majors in Primary and Elementary schooling, expanding on the same with more detail going through Junior and Senior High.

Though I completed Anglican Confirmation, I could probably tell you as much about the life of Muhammad, David, Abraham or Gautama as Jesus. (Mind, that's STILL not that much... ) I even know who Zoroaster was, roughly...as much as my decaying memories of any of my schooling will keep any data intact.

Looking over the subsequently reorganized Eastern School District's site, I have been unable to find any details on curriculum - or ANY mention of 'religion' or 'religious studies' in even their links; I fear they backed down and phased these 'easy credit courses' out in light of 'political correctness'.

I ended up much like George Carlin, who has gone on record (the record in question being "FM & AM" ba-dum-BUM! ) of having a very progressive and open-minded education, to the extent that "by the time we graduated, most of us had lost the faith!"

 

Rally:

I don't think I can disagree with you enough. Can't even really decide where to *start* disagreeing with you, there's just so much to disagree with...

I guess your first sentence is a good place:

I disagree with your definition, or if that is indeed the definition then I think we need a new classification for young people who have the ability to make decisions of their own. And yes, 12 year olds have that ability. It may not be very well developed, but it's there well enough for a child to decide whether he wants life altering surgery because his father has decided that he has converted to a religion.

I find it absolutely absurd that you don't think someone at the age of 12 can't make these decisions. By 12 I know I had thought about the issue of religion and came up with my answer, despite being raised Christian. If my parents had suddenly decided 'Hey, you're a Jew now', then I could not have disagreed more emphatically.

I fail to see how your logic couldn't be used for other things as well. If the parents have total say over their child's body, why can't they decide that he's a prostitute? Or decide to cut off his little finger? The law wouldn't support this, but for whatever reason they'd support totally unnecessary surgery like circumcision, which is basically in the same boat in terms of violating his body.

About your support of religious indoctrination:
I really fail to see how bringing up a child to believe in one religion is going to help them make a decision later in life. I can see it limiting their worldview so that when they make an independent choice it's within a very limited range, but beyond that I can't see it helping anything.

I agree that there are too many kooks out there, but the solution to that is to teach critical thinking, not something else that is (IMO, of course), equally kooky.

 

Now, even though I do agree with Rally on most of this 'parental custody/minor's right to self-determination' issue, there IS one point that Aik seemed to miss that supports his side, somewhat:

Organized religion.

These churches acknowledge that people 'become adults' as early as the beginning of their teens.

To quote the wiki on "B'nai Mitzvah"

(emphasis is mine)

and I was Confirmed in the Anglican church at 14.

Checking that sacrament, the Catholic church sets the Age of Reason at seven (this forum doesn't permit parentheses in URLs, so I have to link to a disambiguation page - we want the last couple of links before "See also" )

Now one could argue that this merely applies to deciding one's own religion, and not other legal responsibility issues relating to age of majority, but it's still one of the big things in life...

Anyways, despite my stance on other aspects of this overall issue, I would say that the judge should kick BOTH of the feuding divorcés out of the court, and interview the boy, and find out what HE wants to do; whether he genuinely wishes to convert to Judaism, with the understanding that, if he does, he will HAVE to be circumcised.

 

@j_e: As I understand it, tha age of majority within a religion applies only to the requirements and practices of that religion, not to the expectations of the secular society beyond. It's always been a tenet of Jewish communities that all members are expected to obey the laws of the larger society, insofar as they cover areas not addressed by halacha.

@Aikanaro: Don't worry, I didn't expect you to agree with me; what I did expect, however, was some degree of intellectual flexibility on your part, in that you'd at least make an attempt to understand my position. The fact that you think I support "religious indoctrination" (to use your words, not mine) proves that I must remain disappointed. The thing is, I actually do understand where you're coming from. I too was once a teen, petulantly chafing under the restrictions of overprotective parents. I too once thought that I should be able to make my own decisions about the larger issues of life and that my parents shouldn't be "the boss of me."

Then I realized how much there was left to learn, and I got a clue, FAST. What it took to get that clue is neither relevant to this discussion nor any of your business, but it did show me that there were many, many decisions that I was glad to not have to make for myself up until that time. Here's wishing that you don't do yourself damage in finding that same clue.

Back on topic: I actually think the child is old enough to have a say in whether or not he converts to Judaism. While I still think that parents are responsible for a child's religious education - at least to give the child enough of an understanding about the traditions of his parents to know that he wants to follow a separate path - this is an unusual situation. Jewish education at age 12 is focused strongly on preparation for the b'nai mitzvah, and I doubt that this boy is ready to make that commitment. He should be given the opportunity to learn enough to decide for himself.

[ May 02, 2007, 04:31: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

To add to Rally's and Aldeth's comments my family was nominally Christian, Anglo-Catholic, Christian Scientist with Quakerism thrown in for leavening plus a pinch of Native American belief for spice. My grandmother was intellectually interested in hearing about religious beliefs so I did get exposed to a variety.

I have spent over 50 years studying religion both formally and informally. I have had theological classes in Anglo-Catholicism. In a secular college I took a course in comparitive religions which covered the major religions.

It is a parent's responsibility to guide and direct children. This should be done with love, understanding and example.

For those of you believing that a child, say under 13 should choose his/her own religion where would you draw the line. Should the child be allowed to steal or lie simply because (s)he wishes to? Parents teach their children ethics why not religion?

And please let's not go off on some agruement we have covered in other threads. We are discussing children not teen-agers or young adults.

 

Rally:
It's rather entertaining to watch you make assumptions about me on the same grounds that I make assumptions about you. I'm not 'petulantly chafing' to any great degree - I have a great deal of freedom. My parents are for the vast majority of the time not overbearing, and I have intellectual freedom that from what I've heard, many minors do not have.

My constant harping on minors rights to self-determination doesn't stem from me being restricted. It stems from my belief that they are able to determine most things within the scope of their lives for themselves.

What you've said on the topic of religion and children leads me to feel that you are fine with parents indoctrinating their children into their religion of choice. Why do you oppose me calling it what it is?

 

Well other than this discussion is already off topic!

I honestly can't see a problem with parents teaching their children about their own religion, in fact I think it would be rather remiss of them if they didn't as they are unlikey to be taught about it otherwise - particularly if it's a more uncommon religion in your given part of the world. Religion is as much about heritage as it is about indoctrination into a belief system and the world would be poorer without it. My issue has always been that Religion should not be allowed to dictate how people with other beliefs are allowed to live their own lives.

I do believe that Religious Education should be a compulsory subject at school. When I went through the UK system it was compulsory from ages 11 to 15 (though I admit I thought it a waste of time at the time). It was taught pretty much as a secular subject - not teaching religious observance but explaining the different belief systems without condemnation or favouritism. School is to make you think, not make you believe.

 

Wow, a little touchy there, guys. Rally, I hate to say this, but I largely disagree with you, too. Not entirely, though, and for different reasons. Parents have the right to make decisions about what is best for their children so long as the average person cannot agree that said decision is actually bad for the child, thus parents can't make their children work, can't chop off fingers, etc. The thing I find interesting here (in the legal discussion) is that religion is totally irrelevant. Legally speaking, the father is trying to force the child to have unneccesary surgory (I assume the kid doesn't want it, but we can't be sure) and the mom is trying to block it.

On top of that, I don't think the parent has the right to force life-changing surgory on a child if it isn't neccessary. What if the father decided that he wanted a daughter, not a son, so he had doctors perform a sex-change opperation on his 12-year-old? Sick, twisted, not really the same thing, but legally equivalent.

In terms of the religious issue: one, that is not a legal contract, so the age of the child is less of an issue (though it still may be one). Two, it is my firm belief that parents do not have the right to force religious conversion onto their kids. Religious teaching, sure, maybe even indoctrination if you look at it like that, but not forced conversion.

Now, in religious terms, let's actually look at circumcision, please. When God first spoke to Abraham, He made a covenant (a contract) with Abraham, with terms and conditions and expectations for both parties. Circumcision was a way of marking those included in the covenant. If you were circumcised, you were in and were held accountable to that contract, whether you were a Jew by birth or not. Likewise, if you weren't circumcised, you weren't included. In terms of religious significance, it is your membership into Judiaism. Fathers are expected to get that for their children at birth because the child is expected to be raised as a Jew, in a Jewish household, and become a Jew. When a grown man with grown children (13 by Jewish standards) converted, his grown children were expected to decide for themselves.

Either way, though, the circumcision is a mark of conversion into the Abrahamic faith, and I do not believe parents should force conversion onto their children.

 

@NOG: Where exactly do we disagree? Your post echoes my sentiments.

 

@Montresor: Children in modern, Western societies do not have the ability to provide for themselves. Sure, they can and do come up with their own set of desires - as well they should! - but there's little they can do to go about realizing those desires on more than a superficial level. As children mature they are able to take on more and more decision-making responsibility, until they are able to fend for themselves. And until that magical time is reached, someone has to make the choices that are beyond a child's grasp - those are parents.

What you and Aik seem to be advocating strikes me as being akin to a first-grader getting through his math lessons on money and arithmetic, and then expecting to be put in charge of the accounting department of a corporation.

I'm tired of having to correct your collective mis-interpretations of my position, so I'm dropping out of this discussion now. Maybe I'll come back in 30 years and see where y'all stand then.