[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Utah as a Religious Police State

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

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

> (I received this message, with "[email protected]" as well as
> "[email protected]" (???) 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,
> [email protected]  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."