Naturally?
Friends and fellow officers of this great land,
Though I rarely partake in the opiate of the masses that is modern television, I will make two concessions on occasion for one of two programs: Animal Planet’s Meerkat Manor (something about those creatures just moves me to tears, but alas, I digress) and the Nightly News. I found myself frustrated at Animal Planet for replacing its regularly scheduled Meerkat Manor episode with a mockery of the natural world called “World’s Funniest Animals.” Instead, I switched to the Nightly News, expecting some doltish pundit giving unwarranted commentary on some obscure nation’s foreign policy, but instead I found breaking news in Texas as an enormous polygamist ranch was uncovered recently. This place, called Yearning for Zion Ranch, allegedly forced young girls to marry older men in addition to a laundry list of other atrocities.
This sect of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is facing criminal charges which may or may not be well-evidenced: we do not yet know at this point. However, I feel that I must sympathize with the members of this sect for the unfair prejudices society is holding against them due to the uncommon nature of their practices. In the United States, polygamy is illegal, but why? Because it is not natural? Tell me, great congress, great senate, what is natural? One heterosexual parent couple raising two healthy children? Imposing these values upon an entire nation of people is an injustice done unto even those who reject polygamy, for even if someone does not wish to exercise a form of liberty, a liberty lost is a crime against a human under any circumstances.
Of course, one might ask why I feel the need to sympathize with a religious group, a cause in which I have no interest, for certainly I have proven before (and will continue to prove) that God is merely our predecessor, if he even exists at all. However, it is the censorship of scientific liberty that is the glass ceiling of evolution, a glass ceiling that I aim to shatter with my research. While polygamy is not by definition scientific, it is still a choice, a personal choice such as choosing to explore the plasticity of the human form. Why must archaic morals hinder our progress?
Evolution by natural selection is dead. The weak and feeble are no longer filtered through natural means, and certainly we have committed ourselves to refraining from removing these lesser people from the gene pool. Because of this, we have been handed two alternatives: de-evolve, or embrace technology and nontraditional practices to move forward with humanity. I think that Henry will agree with me when I say that any sense of the word natural died with the industrial revolution.
-Dr. M.
revmendel said,
April 18, 2008 at 2:09 am
Doctor,
I think your post is quite interesting. I too enjoy Animal Planet, those cute fuzzy creatures are so intricate. However, I think it is odd that you do side with a religious group. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that you are not siding with the group, but rather siding with the need for more negative freedom. By negative freedom I mean a freedom in which the government is completely uninvolved with the individual life. You are certainly not siding with the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. One piece in your blog that heavily relates to my cause is the censorship of scientific liberty. Throughout my career as a scientist and theologian, I have not been censored, but ignored. While it may seem like a large difference, the denial of factual information is dangerous. In the same sense, I think that denying the factual information that these men supposedly following the word of God ritualistically raped young girls is dangerous as well. i think you should look at all the facts before just throwing up a blog.
GM
gooddoctormo said,
April 21, 2008 at 12:47 am
Gregor, your write:
“In the same sense, I think that denying the factual information that these men supposedly following the word of God ritualistically raped young girls is dangerous as well. i think you should look at all the facts before just throwing up a blog.”
Precisely my point: you should look at all the facts! My aim is to note that society is more inclined to use buzz words like “ritual rape” against people of a strange habit or culture when perhaps it is something entirely different but perceived that way due to a refusal to look closely at what we do not understand. Further, I feel that we must not allow morals to police our actions, but instead enlighten them.
Of course, I do not mean to grant these people a reprieve from investigation or even punishment: clearly there were not enough escape options granted to its inhabitants. However, what is socially acceptable has been a dynamic list of rules, changing constantly throughout history. It is this ambiguity of the certainty of our consciences which seems to make us uncomfortable, like Prendick watching a simple vivisection, and unfortunately, tend to fold to fear, rejection, and persecution.
-Doctor M.
callmestephanides said,
April 21, 2008 at 2:10 am
Doctor M.,
I think that you make some interesting points in this blog. One of the reasons that I love The Island of Dr. Mirones is precisely because of this blog, there is such diversity in our opinions. There is one thing that I noticed about this blog that gave me an excellent macro perspective on the world. You and I see society in completely different ways. It is largely due to the intense difference of our personal life experience. You seem to see the world as guided by a “dynamic set of rules” that is shifting over time. It might seem like you would accept someone like me, a hermaphodite. You’re clearly very open to a diversified human condition, yet I feel as if I would fall outside your set of rules. You stress a sense of diversity, yet it is a contained diversity. If I were to not adhere to some final goal of reproductive dominance, wouldn’t you cast me aside?
DON’T OBJECTIFY HUMAN LIFE.
Cal
zacr12 said,
April 21, 2008 at 3:28 am
I’m a little surprised Cal didn’t stand up for the young people in this religious sect. As a hermaphrodite, I assume Cal supports the new movement in the health care field where parents and physicians wait to determine the sex of a child. Then, the child can express some autonomy over their own situation.
Therefore, I fully expected Cal to be shocked by the controlling polygamist sects that force young girls into marriages. This act deprives them of a major choice, even if it comes at an early age. I cannot support an organization that gives their teenagers no chance to express who they are as individuals. This reminds me a little of the conversation with Ben about his adopted son…