Re: Utah as a Religious Police State

[Moroni <moroni@scranton.com>]

      I never cease to be surprised by the interest that gentiles show  in
working mormon communities while totally neglecting their own failing
areas.

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> 
> (I received this message, with "cypherpunks@sybase.com" as well as
> "tcmay@sybase.com" (???) cc:ed, so I assume this message was intended for
> the Cypherpunks list, with some sybase domain name weirdness, or reflector,
> going on.)
> 
> At 12:30 PM -0400 9/29/96, Ryan Russell/SYBASE wrote:
> >I guess that depends on your definition of liberty.  The Mormons
> >originally moved there to have a place to practice their religion,
> >and have freedom from persecution.  I suppose one could extend that
> >to wanting a place to have the freedom to have a set of rules consistant
> >with their beliefs.  Should that include freedom from interferance from
> >folks such as yourself who want to change their rules, even though
> >you're not presently effected?
> 
> Well, if Utah can rig a way to _secede_ from the Union, your arguments
> would make more sense. But so long as they are part of these United States,
> their religious beliefs about when children should be at home cannot
> supersede basic liberties.
> 
> (There are some thorny issues about whether _minors_ have full civil
> rights. But I certainly know that _my_ civil rights are being affected when
> my children are not allowed on the streets after some hour. If my child is
> out, this is my problem. I neither want cops to stop-and-detain my
> children, nor do I want my tax monies to be used to control the behavior of
> other people's children. Providing no crimes are being committed, curfews
> for the sake of controlling the behavior of children are no more just than
> would be a bunch of related behavior control laws, e.g., a ban on comic
> books, a mandate that all children join after-school youth leagues, etc.)
> 
> As for "changing their rules," you're missing the point. There are
> presumably many in Utah who believe as I do (maybe even some Mormons).
> Those who are living in Utah, as renters, owners, whatever, should not be
> bound by unconstitutional rules, no matter how many Mormon Elders favor
> them. Unless the Mormons own _all_ of the property (and maybe not even
> then, as renters have civil rights), they cannot impose their own notions
> of morality on the rest of the population, except in compelling cases
> (e.g., involving the well-known actual _crimes_).
> 
> I don't mean to pick on Mormons, as other communities have also attempted
> to impose curfews and other restricitions on the children of others. My ire
> was raised by Attila's enthusiastic support for laws which no
> freedom-loving person should be enthusiastic about. Again, I have no
> problem with Attila restricting his own children's movements, or joining
> with other parents to control the behavior of their _own_ children, via
> religious camps, religious schools, youth leagues, etc. He can even make
> his own kids wear funny uniforms, funny religious hats, whatever.
> 
> But, for example, tellling _me_ when _my_ children may be out on public
> streets (doing nothing illegal, neither robbing nor spray-painting nor
> committing any other real crimes) is unacceptable.
> 
> I urge Attila (and others) to rethink enthusiastic support for curfews.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 
> 
> We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 
>