I see a lot more "health bro influencer"/Andrew Tate types warn against watching porn because they think it makes people weak minded, which I would agree with when it turns into an addiction and actually impacts your ability to form real life relationships.
The chief sponsor of the bill went to BYU.[1] The co-sponsor of the bill went to BYU [2]
[1] https://senate.utah.gov/sen/WEILET/
[2] https://house.utleg.gov/rep/PULSIS/
Edit: spacing
Utah was literally founded as a state to be a place for Mormons[2], because they were a persecuted religious minority in other states. I grew up in Missouri, and part of Missouri state history is that of the 1838 Mormon War[3]. At one point the Governor of Missouri signed an order that paid out for the scalps of Mormons[4]. The aftermath was a mass migration of Mormons from Missouri to what became Utah, literally founded as a place for Mormons, to this day Mormons consider Independence, Missouri as a holy site, but Utah is the headquarters of the LDS Church and the predominant residence of Mormons in the US.
It is for all intents and purposes a theocratic state within the US.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/23/b...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Utah#Settlement_by_...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Extermination_Order
AFAICT, within the state, Mormons are not a minority but a majority. Wikipedia says[1] 60.68% as of 2020.
---
Utah is 85% white and 60% Mormon, so...
The only reason that Utah isn't whiter and more Mormon is due to all the immigrant workers, just like the Middle East...
LGBT rights in Utah is also middle of the road among U.S. states. The LDS church also supported the recent Respect for Marriage Act unlike many other conservative Christian organizations. Your other points about climate and economy are extremely generic and not really a strong argument for why Utah more similar to the Middle East than the rest of the US.
>Utah is 85% white and 60% Mormon, so...
Maine is ~95% white and ~60% Christian, so what's your point?
>The only reason that Utah isn't whiter and more Mormon is due to all the immigrant workers
Replace "Utah" with "United States" and "Mormon" with "Christian", then it remains a true statement for the entirety of your country's existence. The United States is far more culturally homogenous than most Americans like you think it is. Consider travelling outside North America for once before making such egregious comparisons again.
I've extensively traveled the world, to more than 70 countries, and have spent years of my life living abroad. The United States is far more diverse and heterogeneous than most other countries in the world, contrary to your statements. Some subsets of the US are regionally /very/ homogeneous, however, which is part of my point.
It would help to start thinking of the US for what it is, a federation of 50 states, not a single entity with a single mind. There is a high level of diversity within the US, but in each state, there tends to be a balance point towards some particular dominant culture, which can include religion, and in the case of Utah was explicitly created to include religion (Utah was founded to give the Mormons a home).
> The LDS church has prohibited polygamy for well over a century now: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/polygamy-la...
Officially. Unofficially, polygamy is still widely practiced in Utah as part of the official doctrine of FDLS, which is the breakaway Fundamental sect of the LDS Church. The FDLS has recently gained more prominence, which lead to Utah making a surprising reversal recently by effectively decriminalizing polygamy, something that was for a long time a felony in Utah in order to follow LDS Church doctrine that banned polygamy as part of the split from FDLS. FDLS exists almost entirely within the state of Utah however, and the words of the Book of Mormon on this topic are literally plainly in black and white.
Technically speaking, the Quran heavily restricts polygamy in Al-Nisa', 4:3 and clarified in Al-Nisa', 4:129. In practice however, polygamy is widely practiced in the Middle East and is a core part of the way in which many people practice Islam and has had no significant actions taken against it. It's specifically a core tenet of the Wahabi sect of Islam, which is the dominant sect in the modern Middle East (although other sects generally reject polygamy).
My multiple full passports say otherwise.
> Shame on all those money you wasted travelling then because you clearly didn't make good use of it.
I'm happy with my experiences. I'm not sure what parts of the world you went to, but most of the world is /very/ homogeneous. There are parts of the world that are more diverse than the US, on some variable, for instance pretty much anywhere in Africa is more ethnically and linguistically diverse than anywhere in the rest of the world. But in the mix of things, the US is not the most diverse country, but is very much near the top. Canada is more diverse than the US, as an example, but the US is more diverse than essentially any country in Europe, any country in South America except perhaps Brazil, and most countries in Asia. It somewhat depends on what you mean by "diversity"? But the US has a mix of ethnic groups, religious groups, and cultural groups, as well as languages. You only don't see it because of assimilation over generations, but each of the groups leaves their mark on those regions in the US.
As for the Respect for Marriage Act, they were pretty open about supporting it because it carves out exceptions against employment discrimination for religions (and they're certainly not the only religion to support it because of this). They're still pretty dead-set against having to support an employee's paycheck when that employee does everything else required for the job but is LGBTQ+. But I'd agree that the situation is getting better. SLC has a thriving LGBTQ population and social scene.
[1]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
Al-Nisa 4:3 literally says:
> Each man may marry two or three or four but do not exceed this
I'm not sure if this counts as a heavy restriction.
> [...] or restrict yourself to what your right hands own of slavegirls since these do not have the same rights as wives
It also allows having an infinite number of slavegirls.
"If you fear you might fail to give orphan women their ˹due˺ rights ˹if you were to marry them˺, then marry other women of your choice—two, three, or four. But if you are afraid you will fail to maintain justice, then ˹content yourselves with˺ one1 or those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession.2 This way you are less likely to commit injustice."
The reason I said passage 4:129 gives context is that it says
"You will never be able to maintain ˹emotional˺ justice between your wives—no matter how keen you are. So do not totally incline towards one leaving the other in suspense.1 And if you do what is right and are mindful ˹of Allah˺, surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
The interpretation I've heard is that while the Quran does not forbid polygamy, it restricts it by stating that it is required that you maintain equality between your wives and do not raise one above another, but advises that this is often impossible, so it is best to only have a single wife, and further that it is advised only to marry more than one wife in the case that you are marrying orphan girls.
I am not Muslim, I am not a religious scholar, however I have read the major religious works of all of the major religions and some experts opinions of them, and this is my understanding. You may not consider this a "restriction", it's certainly rather loose, but it's been my interpretation that the Quran does not outright endorse unrestricted polygamy, it is allowed only in specific circumstances (orphanage), and advised against.
Why does all the rationality I come to expect on hacker news go out the window once my religion is being discussed? Or is it I only notice issues when I'm a subject matter expert?
Polygamists are 1% of Utah's population. The decriminalization of polygamy has nothing to do with fundamentalists gaining prominence, and everything to do with helping people escape.
> the words of the Book of Mormon on this topic are literally plainly in black and white.
Not sure what is meant by this. The Book of Mormon plainly states that monogamy is the norm and polygamy, while sometimes allowed, is not standard.
You should look up what the word theocracy means. Here. I'll do it for you: "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."
Utah's government is a constitutional Republic. People vote in leaders who make laws and administer the government on their behalf.
> Utah is about as similar to the rest of the United States as the rest of the United States is similar to the Middle East.
Your unequivocally false, deceitful, and extremely hyperbolic statements aren't helping anyone out.
It's a state that was literally created to be a place for Mormons because they were a persecuted religious minority ran out of every other state and it was a huge desert wasteland nobody else wanted. It's only due to huge influxes of immigration, especially from the South, that Utah is... checks notes only 85% white and 60% Mormon.
So it's like less of a 51% attack and more, business as usual and intended. If anything, the non-Mormons are going to soon be able to do a 51% attack and take Utah back, since Mormons are only 2% of the US population, and Californians are mass migrating to Utah now that people realized you can build in the desert with modern technology.
Yes if someone starts a cult that does illegal things they don't get to claim religious freedom or cry about persecution.
Take a moment to think about history of US statehood. The Mormons, chased off Eastern settlements for their polygamy, settled most of the mountain West, declared governance, then watched big mining operations all around them get cut off from their territory and turned into full-fledged states, while they were not admitted to the union for decades.
It was a time of shared culture that is unrecognizable from where we stand today, and they absolutely didn't want to give statehood to polygamists...
I'm seeing no mention of Mormons breaking laws, the only mentions of law breaking references other people breaking laws to persecute Mormons. The governor of Missouri's declares that they are to be expelled or exterminated (!!!), the mobs attacked them and killed them, no mention anywhere in your link of Mormons breaking any laws.
Note that I do not take the position that Mormons broke no laws, I'd just like to know what laws they broke, and particularly what federal laws they broke, since my reply is to the claim that they broke American laws and not of some specific state.
No, they can't, at least not by a general citizenship against a general pool of candidates. The Vatican's citizens don't get to elect the pope, and among those few who do vote, they can't choose a Bhuddist to be Pope.
> I fail to see how your definition of a theocracy automatically disqualifies Utah from being an "effective theocracy".
Well,I think you have to try really, really hard, not to see that.
> No, they can't
Why not? The vast majority of people in Utah are Mormon, and people in high positions within the LDS Church often go into state and local politics and elected, precisely because they will enact policies that align with the moral tenets of the Mormon religion...
Yep. That's called a democracy, or a Republic, depending on which word you prefer. It's literally nothing like a Theocracy, in practice or in theory.
You should probably study what an actual theocracy is: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/theocracy...
Here are some major practical differences between a theocracy and a constitutional republic.
1. If citizens change their mind, within one election cycle they can replace every leader with atheists, or ones with different religions, and change the laws entirely. This is not possible in any theocracy, either in theory or in practice.
2. A constitution, both state and federal, limits what the state government can do, even when the leaders are all of one religion. Such limits do not exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice, because, when you rule in the name of God, limits to your rule are sinful!
3. Utah has checks and balances via different branches of government. It has judicial procedures, for instance, where minorities can seek redresses. Our state and federal governments were explicitly designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. No such systems exist in any theocracies, in theory or in practice. For one, the majority doesn't rule in theocracies! When the majority rules, that makes it a democracy. I'm sure you've heard of that system of government?
> You can't get more theocratic while being inside the US.
You can't get past 0% theocratic in the US because theocracy is illegal in the U.S. You redefining the word to mean something else doesn't change this fact.
I’m genuinely asking because I personally don’t really have an answer. I have a personal intuition but that doesn’t count for much.
I was hoping for a genuine, curiosity driven discussion and instead it will end here with a personal accusation about what you think I believe in. That’s just unfortunate.
I wish you a good day.
Well that's quite the oxymoron.
If they're the majority in that region, any democratically elected government should reflect their interests. Barring infractions of Constitutional limits protecting individuals, like the Bill of Rights, of course.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, meets both.
Now, the assertion that Utah is effectively a theocracy rests on the claim that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asserts informal power loosely analogous to that held formally by, say, the Guardian Council in Iran. I’m nit saying that that’s true. But that it is formally a republic with democratic election of representatives isn’t even slightly incompatible with it being an informal theocracy, you can even be a formal theocracy with those features.
No religious head of state and no state religion. Non-theocracies can be highly religious.
It's Utah. Utah, for all the ways that actually matter, is effectively a theocracy operated by an ultra-conservative religious minority. Utah is about as similar to the rest of the United States as the rest of the United States is similar to the Middle East.