This essay should provide some context for our usual evolution vs. creationism discussions. Those who have an irrational revulsion for science — especially the theory of evolution — are very often the same people who are obsessed with what we call the Carnality Issues. These issues are usually included within contemporary political terms such as family values and social conservatism.
This isn’t a complete list of the Carnality Issues, but it should give you a good idea of what we’re talking about: pornography, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, same-sex marriage, sex education, and abortion (the early-term type). We often think of anti-carnality activists as the in-your-underwear faction, because that describes the focus of their concerns. They’re obsessed with regulating the “proper” use of human genitalia.
The politics of creationists — the anti-evolution activists — are very often entwined with the politics of the anti-carnality, in-your-underwear activists. That is why, when opposing creationism, we often find ourselves being accused (wrongly) of having exotic sympathies regarding the Carnality Issues. To avoid being misunderstood in such a bizarre political environment, it’s necessary, at least this once, to discuss all these issues together — perhaps alienating everyone thereby, but we’re used to that.
Please bear in mind that the opponents of both creationism and the Carnality Issues, although seeming to be the sensible people, are often crazy in other ways. This may offend some of our faithful readers, but there’s a lot of indefensible dogma in some of their issues, such as socialism, welfare statism, fanatical environmentalism, income redistributionism, compulsory unionism, economic protectionism, confiscatory tax rates, military defeatism, isolationism, political tribalism, refusal to build nuclear power plants, etc. So don’t imagine that all the nut-cases are lumped together in the anti-evolution, in-your-underwear camp. There are abundant examples of lunacy on both sides. It’s no wonder that we’ve become a Curmudgeon.
So where do we fit in regarding the Carnality Issues? We are very conservative, stuffy, and judgmental. In fact, we’re hopelessly conventional and boring in such matters. Nevertheless, although the thought of what some people do in this arena makes us want to throw up, we believe that it’s wrong to legislate about voluntary adult behavior. Think of it as being cautiously — perhaps even reluctantly — libertarian in that area. We’re not done thinking about this, but it may be that we’re calling for separation of carnality and state.
We know — the in-your-underwear crowd will find this shocking. If we take those issues off the table, they feel that we’ve taken away their entire political platform. Maybe so, but if that’s all they care about, our opinion is that they don’t belong in politics.
As we explained here: Intro, and here: Our Politics, we don’t care what you think or do, or how peculiar you are. It’s none of our business, as long as you don’t injure others. Injuring yourself is your problem, not ours.
Regarding the Carnality Issues, we advocate only these rules, which should, like all laws, apply to everyone: Keep it private; keep it voluntary; don’t involve children; and pay your own expenses — including your medical bills.
That’s not so difficult, is it? You may lie awake at night, wondering what your neighbors are doing behind closed doors, but our advice is to stop worrying about it. And if you can’t stop, at least don’t go out campaigning for the establishment of a municipal sex patrol. Some day they may come for you.
Oh, we have one more rule: Don’t compel others to subsidize you, do business with you, hire you, rent to you, or have anything to do with you. Be free, but accept the consequences of your actions. That’s the price we demand for our tolerance. Don’t forget: It’s not just about you. We’re free too, and if we don’t want to associate with you, that’s our right.
Some of you are still wondering — Are we proposing this libertarian regime in order to gain some freedom for our own conduct? No, not at all. Our conduct is rather exemplary (he modestly said). We propose this because we can’t stand the politics of these issues. It makes hypocrites of half our politicians, and fools of all.
Okay, we’ve said what we had to say. Now where does that leave us? Our point is simply this — when we oppose creationism, it’s strictly because of the science involved. We have no interest as to what’s happening in your underwear, and we’d appreciate it if you’d stay out of ours.
Copyright © 2008. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.