> On the issue of Muslim immigrants, my mom cited her own dad's
> uncertainty about women going to college -- eventually he saw her
> byline in a paper and was proud -- and said the state should
> straighten out some immigrants' "funny" notions.
>
> There's no reason to restrict this to immigrants.
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>

>> re: philosophy angle: sometimes Big Brotherism is morally justified

>

>> Ought the State intervene into peoples' personal lives with standards
>> for domestic relationships over-riding to peoples' religious beliefs.?

>

>> Yes, says the Supreme Court.

>

>> Thus Reynolds v U.S. outlawed polygamy in the 19th century: does ...

>> On the issue of Muslim immigrants, my mom cited her own dad's
>> uncertainty about women going to college -- eventually he saw her
>> byline in a paper and was proud -- and said the state should
>> straighten out some immigrants' "funny" notions.

>

>> There's no reason to restrict this to immigrants.

>

>> Bret Cahill

>

>>> re: philosophy angle: sometimes Big Brotherism is morally justified

>

>>> Ought the State intervene into peoples' personal lives with standards
>>> for domestic relationships over-riding to peoples' religious beliefs.?

>

>>> Yes, says the Supreme Court.

>

>>> Thus Reynolds v U.S. outlawed polygamy in the 19th century: does
>>> anybody reading this dissent and why so?

>

>>> Meanwhile, I doubt if DNA is going to straighten out the apparent ...

> On Apr 22, 11:35 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On the issue of Muslim immigrants, my mom cited her own dad's
>> uncertainty about women going to college -- eventually he saw her
>> byline in a paper and was proud -- and said the state should
>> straighten out some immigrants' "funny" notions.

>

>> There's no reason to restrict this to immigrants.

>

>> Bret Cahill

>

>>> re: philosophy angle: sometimes Big Brotherism is morally justified

>

>>> Ought the State intervene into peoples' personal lives with standards
>>> for domestic relationships over-riding to peoples' religious beliefs.? ...

> When somebody declares �(s)he's "libertarian," I perceive (s)he's
> foolishly dismissing the complexity of human culture

> For some reason there doesn't seem to be any arena where gummint is
> more stupid and barbaric than when it gets involved with children in a
> "dysfunctional situation."  Nothing can match the horror stories
> pouring out of state "child protection" agencies about uncaring,
> incompetent hamstrung bureaucrats ruining young lives generating
> arguments for future death row appeals.  Even the euphemisms popular
> with "case workers" indicate few really want to think about others'
> families' problems.
>

>> When somebody declares �(s)he's "libertarian," I perceive (s)he's
>> foolishly dismissing the complexity of human culture

>
> The Establishment Clause is libertarian on non economic matters, but
> if a parent is starving his child, then it becomes a substantial
> economic matter, certainly to the kid.  If the state has to pay to
> deal with victims and their actions, hospitalization, law enforcement
> or other services, then obviously it's a state interest.
>
> The reason there are many groups like Branch Davidians and fundy ...

> My favorite Southern writer, possibly my favorite American writer,
> possibly my favorite writer period, Carson McCullers, started _Loney
> Hunter_ in GA.
>
> It's curious that my two favorite writers, Steinbeck and McCullers,
> are the two ugliest people ever to be photographed.
>
> If I ever saw either one on the street I'd take off running.
>
> Bret Cahill