I was flipping through the Herald Journal today and this letter to the editor caught my eye. It was written by someone in Hyrum named Kendal Bates. I agree with much of what Kendall is saying and I think it is something people around here (and all of Utah) need to hear. I'm interested to see what your thoughts are. Here's the letter with a bit of my commentary inserted in parenthesis.
"To the editor;
To my fellow LDS citizens,
(Ok, Warning! The first half of Bates' letter is heavy with LDS terms and doctrine which he uses to back up a few key principles. He obviously knows the demographic of the HJ. Regardless, the overall principles of liberty and freedom can be appealing to all people. So, to the non-believers: Don't let the church-jargon turn off. To the believers: You may find that these words challenge your political beliefs.)
In the beginning there was a philosophical “war” centered around two plans concerning agency. The first would allow people to come to Earth and exercise free thought with the liberty to choose. The second would allow people to come to Earth, but would ensure their safe return to heaven by taking away liberty and forcing obedience and righteousness. The choice boiled down to safety vs. liberty.
This philosophical conflict was observed and commented on by founding father Benjamin Franklin when he wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” After the war in heaven the many who chose safety over liberty were stripped of both and cast out. Apparently they deserved neither.
The conflict over the two plans didn’t end with the war in heaven, nor with our country’s successful revolt from England. The two plans vie for your affirmation today. Here are several recent examples in our own community.
This past week the UHP conducted a checkpoint wherein 800-plus people traveling through Sardine Canyon were stopped and inspected without probable cause, a blatant affront to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. (I felt like omitting this example, because it doesn't really apply. Driving a car isn't a right, and even if it was, when a person's actions impose on someone else' rights there's opportunity for amendment. So, I think Bates might be reaching a little far on this one.)
Recently the Cache County Council passed a daytime curfew which allows police officers to detain, question, and arrest any person who looks like they belong in school unless they can prove otherwise; again an affront on the 4th Amendment and an infringement on parental rights and responsibilities.
An alcohol license was denied a Logan property owner based on an ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcohol within a set distance from church or school properties.
The laundry list also includes daily micromanaged choices such as using seat belts, cell phone use, alcohol sales, who is or isn’t allowed to marry, etc.
All of these examples reference “safety” as a justification to deny liberty and choice. It’s an enticing call, this siren named “safety.” But can you really legislate safety and morality? The intentions are good, but isn’t the road to hell and bondage paved with such? Originally we all chose liberty knowing that the price would be occasionally steep. The choice for liberty means that some will be lost along the way. We need to remember what we knew then, that risk is inherent to liberty. To sell it for a little safety has never been the right choice and never will be.
Kendal Bates
Hyrum"
Ok, so he used regulations on car-drivers a little excessively. But, I really think anyone who values free will and liberty would be cautioned. Why do we attempt to have our government enforce morality when every individual has a different concept of what is right and moral?
