Religions have usurped some human rights. As a result in the modern democratic world the theft of the male erogenous tissue remains inaccessible to jurisdiction and is silently legalized. In western democracies professing faith is still more influential than owning the full set of erogenous receptors. Like in the Dark Biblical Ages the irrational moralization and concealed selective sexual suppression are still more effective methods for ruling than openness, sensibility and equality.
As we have been taught spirit is more sacred than the body. The proof is that otherworldliness is advantageous in this world. As to the next one, we will see later. Meanwhile, when mind is over matter, politics is over facts of life.
Taking beliefs too seriously is a thorny problem to globalization that is reflected in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[i] Legalization of beliefs irrationalizes legislation. Irrational legislation means poor discrimination between spiritual and physical, intention and facts, morality and extremism, human dignity and humiliation, or in general between cause and effect.
In practice, the great religious freedoms have narrowed not only the intellectual freedoms of expression and speech but also the freedom of rational scientific research. For instance, different authors and medical research on religious practices such as circumcision that are considered unethical are censured. Noticeably, Islam is the most tabooing and conservative religion and human rights are the most incompatible with it. It stands to reason that the uncompromisingness of Islam relates to the later age for Muslim circumcision. The circumcision of boys removes already developed erogenous sensitivity. It tends to produce more concrete deficit, to spark more passionate personal interest and to evoke more imperative and unyielding psychological compensations than circumcision of infants does.
Pro-religiousness of human rights prevents the notion of the physical in law to extend to the tip of male genitals. Currently, international law is incompatible with the laws of nature because it leaves male prepuce outside scope of its attention and protection. It makes the foreskin an escapee the consequences of which remain unnoticed. Like the moral categories of saints and sinners both inactions and actions of the skinny fugitive remain outside or above the scope of the concrete legislation. The pro-religious international law silently encourages religious paedocircumcision and tends to conceal its effect.
Generally, human rights tend to modernize God’s commandments of Abrahamic religions. They tend to keep those of them that are universal and rational and to dispense with the irrational and authoritarian ones. However, the latter task is only half-way done which is revealed in the legislations’ overtolerance to religious freedoms. The concept of human rights aims at establishing a universal moral but this moral is to a great degree irrational due to the undue reverence to religions. For this reason the international law remains a wide frame of recommendations that is liable to interpretation of local courts. As long as religion keeps its sacred status quo and the international law treats it with a sense of awe human rights are going to operate as a more or less formal declaration.
Circumcision is not simply a political marker or a sadistic test of faith. Nor is it a cosmetic procedure or a senseless fixation to the appearance of prophets’ penises. The scar and the pain are not the primal goals of circumcision although they are duly used for secondary purposes. According to the common sense and also to Jewish holy scripts paedocircumcision reduces erogenous sensitivity and renders pleasure less palpable. The ultimate goal of religious paedocircumcision is to refine the soul, to produce docility and to facilitate religiousness by subduing carnality and sex-lust. God seems to have particular interest in the removal of intimate parts because they compete with the faith. Modern democracies seem to share His profit.
These days with the enormous help of the religious circumcision there is unprecedented freedom of worship. There are numerous roads to God for one to choose from. Now, for instance, a man can serve God by enhancing pleasure of sex or by beautifying his penis. He can follow God by respecting the hygienic instructions of the WHO or by fearing AIDS. He can approach the almighty simply by imitating celebrities or by preparing his baby-sons to maturity well in advance. Yet, in many countries and states the connection to God requires nothing else but inertia.
In essence, humaneness is compassion. It is a function of the human sensitivity. But elimination is neither improvement nor correction. Amputation is not healing and desensitizing is not a way of natural evolution. The benefits of a spiritualization based on desensitization are suspicious. It and its side-effects must be subjected to a thorough interdisciplinary examination.
Today paedocircumcision is a test to democracy. It tests the honesty, open-mindedness, objectivity and levelheadedness of humanity.