Trouble in Oregon

Post Reply New Topic

So up in Oregon there is a huge battle between two parents on having their son circumcised. The mother a Russian Orthodox as is her son M while the father recently converted to Judaism. After several custody battles M's father was awarded custody and now insists that his son convert to Judaism which means he must be circumcised however M's mother says that her son confided in her and told her that he does not wish to convert nor does he wish to have his foreskin removed.

Does the father have a right under the first amendment to circumcise his son??? From my understanding of the First amendment is that it protects each and everyone of us from having another's religion forced upon us so the act of forcing circumcision on another for religious grounds is that not illegal???? If it is illegal for M's father to have him circumcise then wouldn't in affect mean that all Brit milah are illegal????

So what do you think??? Is M's father in the right or is he stepping over the line?? Also does the first amendment protect M from having the circumcision if custody is awarded to his father??

I think that M's father is (Potty Mouth) (Potty Mouth) from hell who is knowingly stepping all over and trapping his son's rights. I think he is disgusting I think that he should be locked away for attempted child abuse for the rest of this life.

http://oregondivorceblog.wordpress.com/ ... ification/

Circumcision of babies is wrong at the best of times, forced circumcision of a boy that can argue against it must be regarded as physical abuse. f**k I hate religous dogma. If the courts decide in favour of the father due to the 1st you guys need to have a bloody good look at it, it seems to me that a great many wrongs happen under the guise of that ammendment

I would say that under the first amendment, a father can legitimately circumcize his son. We can argue that at a certain age, this right goes away, but I do not agree with your interpretation of the 1st amendment as that refers to the ability of the government to make laws in regards to this, not the ability of parents to act towards their children to push a religion. I certainly cannot accept the argument that all ritual circumcisions are prohibited by the first, and certainly consider them protected, as the text says in relation to this:

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Matters of parental rights fall into the 2nd category as they are the free exercise thereof for religion.

The father is certainly not entirely in the wrong. The first amendment does not protect the child, however, other laws can protect that child, as noted from the fact that this has gone to the supreme court. This whole matter can hurt the father's ability to take care of the child, and part of the supreme court's actions is to see if the claim is legitimate so that way the mother can have the medical rights over the child. Not so much because the child has rights though.

circumcision is male mutilation and is an ancient practice of butchery.

just because they have a better PR firm than the female circumcision crowd doesn't make it any more acceptable...just more accepted because people, in general, are a bunch of morons who'll do anything the invisible man in the sky tells them.

The person (child) should choose for themselves when they reach an age when they are responsible enough to do so. Before that time any circumcision is an abuse of power by the parent.

People should have the right to mutilate others if their religion and culture allows it?

Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure and children should not be circumcised until they can make a judgment on the matter.

Do parents have the right to mutilate their children if the government and their culture does not forbid it?

Should female circumcision be allowed also?

Arguing that culture and government are always morally right is a very poor argument. If you argue for this, then the actions of the Nazi could not be criticised.

Weird, I live in Oregon and I haven't heard about this.

I'd have to say I side with the boy, though.

I dont know much about the first ammendment but if it allows for the father to forcibly remove his sons foreskin the law is obviously flawed.

AFAIK parents have complete rights over their children in America (until they reach 18). It's complete slavery if you ask me...

The one legal recourse the child has is to call for a child abuse case.

It's a ****ed up system, but it is what the system says...