I am a human being; like you. Just as you, I was born in an environment that I did not choose. I was drawn in with lines I could not see when a small child. By the time I realized there was a definite boundary that I could not cross I resented it. I was the typical rebellious young boy. I choose not to obey in most scenarios. I had a strong will. The world was full of fun that was always for the next age bracket. Was that similar to you? Perhaps, but maybe one difference. I was born in a closely knit group that sprung as The Children of God in the Hippie era and morphed into The Family of Love in the ‘80’s. It was the only life I knew. I lived in a small commune in Hong Kong.

Some people question their childhood. I never questioned mine much; until last week when I read some articles written of us by the University of Alberta’s professor of sociology, Stephen Kent.

He implied that our upbringings in The Family served us wrongly. I can’t argue that from where he is standing he must certainly see it that way, and perhaps he is concerned. He enlightened me to question my past. Was my upbringing wrong? It seemed so hard to answer that question without unbiased help.

I was taught to shun secularism. I had no choice but to study a religious viewpoint from a young age. Many of my peers have left this group, pursue secularism, and though most live at peace with their past, others blame their childhood for their present.

Sociologists tell us we should abhor an environment that restricts our freedom of choice. Encarta Encyclopedia says this of Herbert Spencer, one of the first sociologists who laid the ground work for the practice.

“In A System of Synthetic Philosophy (1860) Spencer outlined a plan for a comprehensive system of philosophy, based on evolution, that would embrace and integrate all existing fields of knowledge. Spencer embraced Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Spencer was an influential proponent of social Darwinism, an application of Darwin’s theory to human societies. The theory of natural selection holds that only the most well-adapted individuals in a population will survive and reproduce.…Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” to describe the competition among human individuals and groups. He argued that human progress resulted from the triumph of more advanced individuals and cultures over their inferior competitors. Wealth and power were seen as signs of inherent “fitness,” while poverty was taken as evidence of natural inferiority. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, social Darwinism was used to argue for unrestrained economic competition and against aid to the “unfit” poor. The theory was also used to justify racist and imperialist policies in Europe and the United States.”

Question: In all fair freedom of choice, can I let a modern sociologist tell me I cannot choose to embrace this life style while he embraces his predecessor’s writings which taught the horrific oppression of the poor by the “fittest” rich was just fine because it is all a part of “natural selection”? The Family may be a peculiar group, and you don’t have to like it. But examine the African, Asian, Australian and other communal dwellers and note their immense lax in so called “norms” of society. We slaughtered “threats to global peace” in Iraq and scowled at their intolerance toward their own kinsmen who preferred beliefs considered out of the “norm” in Saddam’s society.

Yes, it may be unpleasant to have someone in our society who does not conform, yet consider the results of those who cleansed their society of the “abnormal” individuals. I think you’ll find it much more unpleasant.

David Smith is in his twenties, and a father of two children, in this “abnormal” group, The Family.

David Smith is a second-generation member of the Family International.