Law Blinded by Religion
Modernlegislation has developed in conditions of overmoralizing due to inertia of the monotheistic ethics. By necessity legal criterions are overgeneralized and are ambiguous. Law still uses religious rhetoric and pathos that often outshout logic. No wonder it encounters difficulties to adjudge the case of pedocircumcision. Basically, legislature poorly differentiates the actual from the metaphorical, facts from fiction, physical from spiritual.
Legislation mixes up physical with ethical notions just as religion does. Lawmaking cannot take side of pedocircumcision because their terminology does not clearly distinguish between the symbolic and the factual aspects of the practice. And psychiatry cannot help them because it suffers from the same semantic confusion. As a result the issue of pedocircumcision creates an emotional mess and lawmakers are unable to make a stand against it.
In the case of pedocircumcision legislation fails to differentiate the right to exist and the right to imagine which betrays the nearly religious ambiguity and all-inclusiveness of its criterions. Law needlessly moralizes physical issues and is blindfolded to the aggressiveness of spiritual demands.
Quite irrationally, legislation poorly differentiates between individual and communal, specific and indefinable, bodily and divine, useful and holy, rational and irrational. Paradoxically, the modern democratic law conveys the message that the body of the individual belongs to the community.