To look upon the act of circumcision as a pure existential act, without recourse to an unknown God element. The act of inflicting a disfiguring wound upon an infant would normally be considered a criminal and insane act. The child is an individual with legal rights, and has obviously no capacity of assenting to such an injury upon his being. Without the possibility of consent, a biologically useless, potentially dangerous, and disfiguring wound is being imposed upon him. It seems clear that on legal grounds this is a criminal action.
A more interesting avenue though is to admit of the God element in the examining of the issue. As stated in THE EXILE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR JEWISH MONOTHEISM*, by Iakov Levi, "The Jews, before the First Exile, were no less polytheist than the Canaanites they came to supplant. As is richly described in the Books of Judges and Kings, the worship of Baal, Astarte and Asherah was the rule and not the exception."
So the Jewish God was an individual spiritual entity in a spiritual universe of many other deities, and the Jewish people were this particular figure's chosen people, who in turn have a chosen land which is presumably of special interest to this deity for some reason. However powerful such an entity may be, he is certainly a parochial figure who has a particular limited area of especial interest to himself.
Now to posit that the act of circumcision does actually create the bond between the individual and God- as in this particular God. Why is this so?
It cannot be construed as the act being a spiritual rites of passage, as the child is wholly uninvolved as an active conscious agent in the disfiguring ritual. If a bond is indeed forged, it must be simply on the basis of the blood ritual itself. We all know of the ancient and not so ancient human sacrifice rituals which were seen as offerings to particular deities. Again assuming in the actual existence of these deities as real spiritual entities, it would seem that they are nourished by propitiatory offerings of human blood. Perhaps it is natural to assume such deities' necessary sustenance to their life-force is precisely such offerings. The act of circumcision it would seem natural to view in similar light of a blood offering.
However, if a Jewish person is not circumscribed as an infant and has not had this ritual upon his body carried out before his adult death, then he is said to have lost his connection to the divine entity. So it is seen as more than a momentary nourishing: a channel has been opened up to this deity through the action of the ritual. Once again assuming this is all true, is it reasonable to wonder whether it is genuinely in one's interests to open up a spiritual pathway of intimate connection to an entity that is nourished by human blood through genital disfigurement of human infants?
Another apt question might be if these children are the perfect creation of an assumed perfect creator, why would he want them painfully physically altered almost immeditately upon entry into human life? Is a human armed with a sharp blade expected to work an improvement upon the art of the divine?