The split morality of democracy
Different gods govern the morals of different religions. Democracy allows these Gods to shape the values of democratic society and relies on the morals they collectively implement. Democracy doesn’t care about the right of religious self-determination. On the contrary, religious democracies[i] propagandise the locally prevailing religions. The current democratic legislation readily sacrifices the body integrity of young boys for the sake of pedocircumcising religions.
Democratic principles at least in theory do not discriminate between religions. They do not question rationality, adequacy, usefulness, rightfulness or sanity of religious dogmas. This undiscriminating approach is not surprising given that democracy coexisted for nearly two millennia with religion and has been made to govern religious people. Supporting different morals, however, is immoral.
The coexistence of alternative ethics in a society discards the existence of a universal moral and conscience. Different religions listen to different voices of conscience. Freedom of moral or religious conscience is antidemocratic in itself. Freedom of religion is a potential criminogenic factor. It is a congenital defect of democracy to which we may be accustomed but it is not incorrigible.
When judging terrorist acts democratic legislation refrains from judging the beliefs behind them that have materialized them. It condemns the effect while being oblivious to its cause.
Philip K. Dick
Democrats are victimized by their own idealism which is of a religious type. They are gorgonized by good intentions in general and do not question their sanity even when their intentions have brought hell on this earth. Exactly the same improvident attitude it shows to traditional religious pedocircumcision that allegedly aims at moral improvement. By allowing such coercive mental refinement democracy backs the anti-sex religious morals and enhances its crimogenic potential.
Religious overtolerance destabilizes the democratic system. Democracy tolerates infringement of human rights, violation of body integrity and mental interference for religious purposes. It narrows human rights in order for them to survive. It exchanges human rights for religious freedoms. It restricts civil libertiesat the expense of encouraging criminogenic beliefs. This is an ill compromise, we could say.
Any democratic system that grants religious rights is a kind of a multi-theocratic or a multi-totalitarian conglomerate. Purely secular democracy that is independent from religions currently does not exist because religion precedes democracy. The democratic system presents the modern battlefield for religions. And this is the main reason for religions to respect it.
Religion-concerned democracy is in a dead–end street. Its principles contain irrationality that must be removed. The eradication of such deep-rooted inconsistencies will be difficult and painful but hopefully not as much as their growth. The circumcision controversy exemplifies the paradoxical no-win situation that the ambiguous morality of democracy creates. It also shows how religions use democracy as an arena to gain superiority.[i]
Pro-Semitic and pro-Islamic Germany
The immunity of religions makes them unduly powerful. This increases interethnic tensions, creates a moral chaos and a reverse religious discrimination.
The split morality of democracy is most evident in religious matters. Any regulation concerning a religion invades civil rights and rights of other religious. A ban on pedocircumcision infringes upon the religious freedom of Jews and Muslims. Allowing religious circumcision, however, as is the case currently in Germany, limits the civil rights of nonbelievers and of circumcision-free religions. Religious freedoms create inequality and reap interethnic hostility and ethnoreligious conflicts.
Democracy is incoherent on religious matters because it shelters various and often conflicting religious morals. It is also reactionary because religious morals are in essence conservative and authoritarian. Democracy is also undemocratic in cases of official state religions and in cases of laws that selectively either prohibit or tolerate certain religious rituals. Currently, for instance, Jews and Muslims in Germany are privileged. They enjoy the freedom to circumcise their new-born sons which is denied to gentiles. Clearly, the right to practice religious pedocircumcision is a discrimination against atheists, Christians and all non-Jews and non-Muslims.
By definition democracy does not dare question or objectify religious issues or ethics. The reverse ethnic discrimination[ii] that took place 2013 in Germany shows that even in secular democracies religions are actually above the law. Democracy allows criminogenic beliefs to live on good terms with each other but does not help their agreement. It actually impedes the establishment of an objective universal morality.
Democracy is a natural product of polytheism. In Europe democracy has hardly survived the strangling grip of Abrahamics’ monotheism. During the last centuries it has painfully re-emerged in the lap of theocracies. It seems that it is not yet mature enough to make it on its own.