Human Life is Sacred

Genesis 1:1 -- In the beginning God created thehaving opposition to certain life-saving medicine, as
heaven and the earth.There are many arguments bybeing unnatural to the body, we are all also aware
religious people today in defense of the idea of whatthat the churches were opposed to a new,
is sacred and what is not. Many of the people whopassionate music style, Jazz. But, the life-saving ability
profess to believe in god are convinced that theyof medicines was eventually valued more important
have a very close, personal relationship with theirthan the scripture that called it unholy. Today, most
creator; some are not as convinced of thisof our churches support medicinal use of chemicals to
proposition, and allow the idea of god or spirits totreat any ailment, mental or physical, while very few
enter their lives only when every other means hasstill oppose it. However, the churches still oppose the
failed. For those whose lives are focused aroundidea of recreational drug use as a beneficial and even
religion, their beliefs and ideas about society oruseful habit. We will always find the churches on the
government will have the influence of the doctrinesfringes of the conservative side. Their measurement
of their church, temple, or synagogue. Their supportof human life is always based on the prejudices and
or opposition to one social movement may primarilyfears of the ancestors who wrote their religious text.
be motivated by their religious ideals. For example,It is that mindset which will find the most handicaps.
there is the Temperance Movement, which sought toThe Amish are a great example. They have a strict
acquire prohibition. It was almost exclusively adiscipline system based on their religion, and because
religious movement. Once Women's Suffrage becameof their faith, they have moral qualms with the usage
a popular call of social justice, the churches adoptedof cars and other advanced technology.There are so
some ideas of equality for women. I already coveredmany religions. Just as they each present to us a
the topic of general religious influence on moral ordifferent face for spiritual beliefs, they each present
social ideas, in the essay The Religious Rule, whichus with a different admiration or suspicion in regards
proved to be a bit overly thorough. This essay is anto technology. Again, to them, it is the battle of the
examination of the same topic, but with differentnatural versus the unnatural, of good over evil. The
ideas and a different end. I know that I've talkedquestion at hand, then, is at what point do we
about it before, and I briefly answered theascribe the word natural, and at what point do we
arguments in many essays. The argument I am goingascribe the word unnatural? Using the Amish as an
to address here is the argument of nature. That is toexample again, we can see that they are in favor of
say, what is or is not natural. The need for me tocertain technologies. They wear clothes and shoes,
address this topic in my other writings is obvious.they work and live in houses, and they have
Many of my pieces are taken from the standpoint oftechniques for farming and the skills of artisans.
an anti-religious, anti-church position. Since manyHowever, they are against the use of cars,
churches support one thing or another, often on theelectricity, the steam engine, and many other
simple claim of "what is natural," I've always had tosophisticated aspects of our science. They have
address the issue. But, in this piece, I take a slightlymarked a point in technological development that is
more in depth study of the matter.Christianideal. They have idolized the era of European
Fundamentalists of our day are guilty of using thepeasants in the 1500's, where gunpowder technology
argument "it is natural" or "it is unnatural" in a numberwas being born and technology was little more than
of social issues. When it comes to abortion,simple tools. Everything that happened after this
homosexuality and alternative or non-monogamousperiod, all of the inventions that came after the year
sexualities, euthanasia, or stem cell research and1500, are considered by the Amish as heretical,
cloning, many Christians take the oppositional position.blasphemous, and indecent to god. And, all the
And, a good part of the time, we will always heartechnology that occurred before this year, they
that recurring echo of nature. What is natural isconsider to be primitive. Of course, this is a
always associated with good, sometimes substitutedsimplification. I'm not quite sure at what point along
for it, just the way what is unnatural is alwaysthe timeline of human innovations that they decide is
associated with the bad and harmful. Never are theseideal, but 1500 seems like a good guess.With this
associations justified. They are all just assumed. Thebeautiful example of the Amish, I think the question
conclusion to these assumed ideas, however, resultsstill begs. At what point in the history of technological
in some rather oppressive and socially unhealthyinnovation are we to call the ideal age? The Christians
policy, influenced by religious followers. It should alsoof today, the zealots and evangelists, those enemies
be noted, that on these issues, as far as what isof abortion, stem cell research, and cloning, they are
natural or unnatural, the religious followers callall advocates of the moral, legal, and technological
themselves the final judges. Many of them take forclimate that existed between 1920 and 1930. Perhaps
granted society's preconceived ideas about what isthe churches and religious institutions of fifty years in
natural or unnatural. When we think of the waythe future will adopt a less oppressive ideology about
nature operates, for instance, we are familiar with allhumanity, such as the one that is the current of
aspects of it: the sustaining of life and itstoday's society. So, the question then needs to be
reproduction. Since homosexuality does not sustainanswered: "At what point along the timeline of
the end of reproduction, many people will confessinnovation are we to stop and adopt as our current
that it must be unnatural. However, not all people gothoughts on politics, ethics, science, and technology?
so far as to say, that since it is unnatural, it must beWhat argument is there to say that we ought to use
prohibited and suppressed. But, then again, there arethe cultural lifestyle of 1300 or the scientific wisdom
many followers of the unseen who neither believeof 1990 or the religious ideas of 600?" The question
that homosexuality is unnatural or that it should beis loaded. If someone tries to answer to defend one
banned.However, as I stated above, your standardtime era over another, they are obviously guilty of
advocate of Christian policy in government, eitherpoor reasoning. There is no evidence to say what era
through school prayer or banning abortion, alwaysis "natural" or what era is "unnatural." There was once
reserves themselves as the final judge of what isa time in the history of human civilization where
natural or unnatural. Those insatiable lynch mobs thatclothing was considered an amazingly useful
are known to murdering blacks, atheists,technology. At that time, was humanity living naturally
homosexuals, and "the impure" never sought toor unnaturally? What about the moment in history
understand what is natural or unnatural, or why it iswhere mankind started to farm and lived in cities? Or,
deserving of such a title. Today's Fundamentalists ofwhat about the moment where the first homo
Christian ideology have not taken on this quest,sapiens appeared on the planet, evolved from a
either. In their speeches, they will make a thousandcommon relative of apes, chimpanzees, and other
references to what is or is not natural -- not once,primates? At what point, in our history, are we going
do I recall, ever hearing a satisfactory definition ofto stop, and say that the people then were living
the term. I have heard attempts from somenaturally, or unnaturally? There is no answer.Of
believers, but they only proved to be better withcourse, we will always hear attempts at this answer.
blindly following than with debate and argument. But,There are conservatives today who favor a
that is my question. What is natural? And what iscombination of modern technology with the political
unnatural? I already stated what society hasand ethical ideals of the 1500's -- even if that meant
concluded on these questions: there's just a vagueracism, slavery, and feudalism. And, again, there are
association of the natural with sustaining life and itsliberals today who favor the modern ideologies of
reproduction, and little more that is definitive.Are thethe people, their ideas on civil liberties, their ideas on
tools which humans craft natural? Are buildings,freedom and peace, who would prefer the
technology, science, and all the other marvels oftechnology of 800 B.C. -- living a simple existence, as
innovation unnatural? If one were to classifya means of happiness and enlightenment. We will
homosexuality as unnatural, simply because it doesn'talways find admirers of certain generations, lovers of
appear to serve any end in nature, then why isn't thetimes gone and past. There are those who fantasize
bulk of what we do considered unnatural? And howabout the 1800's and the birth of romantic literature,
come these enemies of a new vision of sexuality arejust as there are those who would have loved to
not opposed to every technological advancement?contribute to the development of the Enlightenment,
After all, these creations of our mind and hands areor to contribute to intellectual awakening of the
not a part of any ecosystem on this planet. TheyRenaissance. These arguments are most likely to
appear nowhere on this world, except in our owntake the form of secret murmurings of the heart
secluded society of humanity. I imagine mostand mind, as it is impossible to live in the past.
responses would sound something like this: "WhileHowever, the arguments that stem from a person's
these things that we create and maintain are notchoice of which time in history is most desirable are
occurring anywhere in nature, they still are natural. Allall based on the premise of happiness. That is to say,
other organisms seek an end that satisfies theirif we were to pick a moment in the past to live in,
interests. Predators hunt, prey avoid those whowe would choose the one that made us most happy.
would eat them, and all organisms enter the world ofWe can simply the ideas we've been dealing with,
the living with the desire or plan to reproduce.then. The question is not what time era we should
Humans, in like fashion, seek to obtain their ends, likechoose to live in; the question is what kind of living
any other species. However, we simply go about itconditions and society would be most likely to create
at a more advanced pace than any other organismprosperity and justice for all people? What society
on this planet." And, such an argument wouldshould we build that will most satisfy this longing of
definitely have some merit to it. After all, it ishappiness?This question, and the new train of
common to find some primates using tools, such asthought that it develops, is the end of the debate.
bludgeons and clubs. Many birds also build structures,We cannot choose any time era, because no
many of them sharing a fair comparison to humanmoment in humanity's history has any innate reason
construction. What initially sounded alien and foreignfor it to be the place that we live. And when we see
to nature, our technology, actually appears regularly insuggestions on which time we should choose, they're
our animal counterparts. It must be admitted, thatbased on the question of making us happy -- which is
the progress of political ideas and organizationalthe new debate. Did I make any logical fallacies in the
structure of human society is a type of technology.arguments I presented? Well, I think I can justly
And, it must similarly be confessed, that animalscompare political and social ideas to other types of
oftentimes organize themselves in to groups, in orderinnovation; as such ideas are always altering to fit the
to accomplish a task that wouldn't be possiblenew emotions, thoughts, and prejudices of the
without cooperation.However, upon discovering thisworld's next generation. The only reason I brought up
redefinition of terms, one might feasibly have athis point of view, as far as ideas go, is because it
better chance to defend things like abortion andrelates to the original question I had: why should we
homosexuality. We understand, for example, thatview one thing as natural and another as unnatural?
when a primate uses a club as a weapon, he isPeople generally consider the antiquated things in the
advanced beyond the technology of those otherworld as natural, and the recent things in the world
species that are below him; yet, of course, weas unnatural. It's an inaccurate assumption used by
consider the primate still primitive compared to ourmany Christians. The fact remains, though: there is no
science. Just as an ape might use some technologyreason to say that one thing is unnatural or natural.
with a club, so do humans use technology that is notThe existence of the human species was an
ordinary to the other species. Therefore, one mightinnovation of evolution itself. Those who say it is
say that homosexuality, abortion, and other activitiesnatural, also call the car unnatural, even though the
are therefore just an advanced form of technology,car was simply the end result of evolution's natural
which the other species of the planet are ignorant of.processes: a species that rises to the top of the
Just as the primate is ignorant of computer systemstechnology chain above all other creatures.Is human
and electronics, just as the zebra is ignorant of thelife sacred? That might be the last question. Since
bludgeon, all other animals are ignorant of ourthere is no argument of what is natural, unnatural, or
advanced sexual relationships and our ability to(hopefully) supernatural, then there should also be no
control all aspects of the human body. All of this lineuse of the term sacred, simply that implies a type of
of thought, of course, is based on the premise thatnatural connotation. When it comes to abortion,
our chief end in all technological advances is tohomosexuality, or the other social issues, we find the
improve the happiness of all people. Some religions willcrusaders of the natural order in constant conflict.
say that all moral guidance is based solely on whatThis is, of course, in despite of the seemingly
god insists; of course, if those religions want toawkward contradiction that many of them are
sound logical in the face of a people more educatedpro-nuclear armament, pro-Neo-Imperialism, pro-war,
and humane than those of two thousand years ago,and anti-animal rights. It would seem, in fact, that the
the will of god will generally be somewhat pleasing toreligious leaders are more concerned in abolishing the
human desires. Since the chief end of our science isunnatural heretics, the homosexuals, the Atheists, the
to improve our condition on this planet, one mightnon-believers, the drug advocates, and every leftist
argue that abortion is moral, because it removes afringe group. The existence of billions of miserable
life that would otherwise have been in pain, andlives has never been the source of their crusades.
creates the potential for a life that would have aMany churches and religious associations are content
good upbringing and life potential. It is also inarguableto congregate for communal worship and study.
that homosexuality and open relationships are anThey are peaceable, and their right of association
advancement like any other type of technology.should always be respected. But, there are always
Given the freedom of choice, many people feel thatthose churches and religious groups that are affiliated
homosexuality or other non-traditional sexualfor the sole sake of mobilizing their pew holders to
relationships are what satisfy them most; in oneviolence and coercion. In any of these conflicts, of
word, it is an advancement, not unlike any other.Let'swhat is natural, or unnatural, or sacred, or
assume, for the sake of the argument, that evenblasphemous, we must step back, and ask some final
with this reasoning, someone is still opposed toquestions: who suffers and how much pain are they
everything their religious leaders call unnatural. It is notin? And, is there any reasonable argument for not
uncommon for people to have an opposition toadopting a social system that would eliminate their
technology. In fact, it almost seems like the idea ofpain? The argument, that is to say, the case for
deserting society and living a peaceful hermit lifestyleAnarchist Communism, has been made in other
is found in the underground of every culture, frompieces. Life,
the Buddhist monks to our admirers of Thoreau.PunkerslutPunkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been
Sensibly, these hermit subcultures tend to have anwriting essays and poetry on social issues which have
anti-technology trend, which is similar to thecaught his attention for several years. His website
anti-unnatural trend we find in many major religions.provides a complete list of all of these writings. His
There is the Jehovah Witnesses, for example, wholife experience includes homelessness, squating in
do not accept blood transfusions, on a religiousNew Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school,
principle that it is against god's will, or, what some ofgetting expelled from college for "subversive
them have called "unnatural." Many of the orthodoxactivities," and a myriad of other revolutionary
religions responded to the introduction of modernactions.
medical technology with fear and contempt. Besides