When does the logical become illogical?

"When does the logical become illogical or vice versa?" was going to be
among my next questions. Logic, like crime, is relative. So is
*common sense* and a host of other concepts. As proven by differing
attitudes in Minnesota and Oklahoma, the logic of time and place also
defines when spanking becomes abuse. (Geographically, less than 700
miles separates St. Paul from Oklahoma City and the drive time is about
12 hours in moderate traffic.) The dividing line for all of the above
reside within a cultural context.

Even science is a product of its day. The so-called *scientific
method* of today is actually a byproduct of what, at the time, were
believed to be the more serious studies of alchemy and the occult. It
may also be the product of a bright mind poisoned by mercury.
Systematic methodology merely proved more useful for the emerging
notion of a mechanical universe than did the search for a universal
panacea.

Although science is a god these days, given enough time, our version of
science will become a subject of study for that discipline we know as
anthropology. *Modern science* will evoke the same curious wonderment
we now reserve for the outrageous notion of serious minds studying
alchemy. The concept of "Better living through chemistry" already
seems quaint. *Laws* of science will be regarded for what they really
a A desperate prayer by an elite clique that the universe contains a
logic that can be understood by mankind.

Whenever a relative small group within a society coalesces their
beliefs and values into a systematic ideology, especially if its belief
system is at odds mainstream thought, it becomes a subculture. These
subcultures become fascinating, although often involuntary, subjects
for study by sociologists and anthropologists once they lose status
within the society. Religious fundamentalists are a prime example
today. Whole volumes have been written on once ubiquitous Southern
Baptists as a subculture. Books written on spin-off from the
Enthusiasm Movement, from which Southern Baptists sprang, would fill a
library.

Even now, no-spanks make interesting subjects for study. Their often
knee-jerk reactions to the slightest difference of opinion and a
quasi-paranoid search for heretics are quite reminiscent of the
splintering effect that wracked the religious fundamentalist movement.
No-spanks' *spoiling for a fight* mentality is also evocative of the
fundamentalist idea that, if they can just keep a fight going with
somebody, they can win.

The doctrinaire air of superiority is also remarkably similar. Those
not subscribing to the tenets of the subculture's belief system are
perceived *sinners* in need of *salvation* from some perceived
damnation. For religious fundamentalists, it is the sinner's soul that
is at stake; for no-spanks, it is the alleged reprobate's children.
Both have a *broad is the road to hell* philosophy. Worse, they
actually need to feed off of each other in order to survive.

Because, like religious fundamentalists, no-spanks have closed minds
that are impervious to any logic outside that approved by the
subculture, they are not so much to be debated as to be understood
within the context of the society that gave birth to the movement.
Understanding is paramount since, if they ever achieve any degree of
power, these extremist subcultures have a remarkable capacity for
witch-hunts and inquisitions.