Some assert that God didn’t reveal the true aim of circumcision in the past because humans were not grown up enough to comprehend His sanitary objectives. Those concealed evolutionists maintain that the recent discovery of microbes and hygiene finally enables us to penetrate God’s intentions and proves His providence. Logically, however, this view implies that circumcision is outdated because now we have hygiene. Irrespective of the causality of creation, hygiene invalidates the sanitary reasons for circumcision.
Why didn’t the circumcising gods reveal hygiene to mankind in ancient times in the first place? Obviously, they wanted people to discover hygiene by themselves. God’s sanitary wisdom argument introduces evolutionism in the religious doctrine and subverts faith. Were ancient people too unclean and foolish to comprehend hygiene or is the circumcising god an evolutionist? Was religion for unintelligent people or is its main principle fictitious? Any answer compromises religion. What if God reveals now that all has been a joke, an intelligence test? Of course, theology can always offer various escape answers. But one thing seems clear: hygiene and circumcision are manmade, while diseases are god-made.
God’s hygienic wisdom argument presents a dilemma to the believers. Should they prefer to adhere to worldly or godly rules? Believing in the power of hygiene is evolutionistic. It belittles the mightiness of the creator and questions the infallibility and universality of His commandments. Circumcising for sanitary reasons is ungodly. In the same time circumcision is pleasing to God. The mutually exclusive attitudes towards motivation for circumcision discredit both religious and hygienic creeds irrespective of their trustworthiness.
The modern God’s hygienic wisdom argument attempts to back ancient faith with modern knowledge. However, hygiene and religion have opposite causality and are logically incompatible. Outwardly, their combination pacifies them but actually it weakens both of them. The rational hygienic argument shakes the trust of the believers in the ancient faith.
Rational reasoning is logical, plain, often useful, and seems undisputable. It is the rationalism that undermines religiousness. Unnoticeably it has infiltrated the religious minds. Its presence threatens the religious attitude and closes the ranks of religions. They can only wait until the intruder takes concrete shape. By necessity religions tolerate the rational reasoning but only as long as it does not require revisiting of their dogmas.
“Thou shalt not question.”
The only way to preserve faith in the conditions of doubt introduced by God’s wisdom argument is to stop questioning and to cling to circumcision, to circumcise thoughtlessly. This equalizes faith, religious and ethnic identity with circumcision. The ethnocentric reaction of Jews to the will of some European countries to ban circumcision exemplifies this. They accept the disapproval of circumcision as anti-Semitism or attack against Judaism. They speak about end of religious freedom, of northern inquisition or holocaust emerging in Europe.[i]
But why God furnished men with unhealthy prepuces in the first place is something that is still beyond our comprehension. Or is it?
Obviously, the hygienic thesis implies that the circumcising Gods have led us along the difficult path. First of all, they equipped men with the problematic foreskin in order for him to suffer from it or to cut it off. The latter, however, allowed the prepuce to serve as a test of faith. It follows that to the circumcising Gods the loyalty of the believers has priority over their well-being. Thus, the hygienic reasons for circumcision describe the circumcising Gods as dictators. We can easily identify the so described gods with religious institutions struggling for political power.
But how could circumcision possibly empower churches? As the holy writs reveal and the Circumcision complex unanimously confirms this is simple – by the mental drift toward god-fearing, religiousness and obedience that circumcision produces. And this is not a conjecture because the Jewish God clearly stated his reasons for circumcision – to make people love and obey him.
If the hygienic arguments are new revelations they contradict the old ones hence revoke circumcision. If they are new justifications of the practice they simply compromise religion. In any case, since the medical benefits of circumcision are currently unproved this tells that the procedure is needless. The hygienic arguments for circumcision are medically unsubstantiated. The same considerations must apply to God’s Sanitary Wisdom. They must be religiously or politically motivated.
Modern medicine cannot prove that circumcision improves penile hygiene or reduces sexually transmitted infections. To insist that circumcision has been introduced due to hygienic reasons is to consider that ancient civilizations had better statistics and more advanced medicine.