From: Jim Huggins <huggins@eecs.umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 12:03:32 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Clipper and the "Christian Right"
Message-ID: <199311111959.AA04683@quip.eecs.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Owen Rowley <owen@autodesk.com) writes:
> > From: Clark Reynard <clark@metal.psu.edu>
> > I think it would be very important if we could attempt to
> > sway the Christian right into this; it is certain we
> > probably don't agree on many issues, and the "700 Club"
> > anti-Clipper piece was very effective, good video.
 
> meanwhile, don't forget for a second that the christian right
> *will* toss your anarchic ass on the pyre where they *will* roast
> pagan faggots like myself after they've squeezed you for your
> support.

> Religion has it's protection clearly enumerated in the constitution,
> and a clear agenda to keep everyone elses freedom from being similary
> enumerated.
> Caveat emptor, and carry a loaded flamethrower, because the first
> chance they get to cut you out of the deal you will need it.

Oh, come on now.  You give the "Christian Right" (and I still don't know
what that means) far more power than they have.    There is this popular
notion that the "Christian Right" has some master agenda that all 
conservative Christians buy into blindly.  That simply ain't so ...
just as there isn't a single master cypherpunks agenda agreed on in this list
(complaints by Mr. Detweiler notwithstanding).  

Clark Reynard has rightly pointed out that some in the Christian Right
agree with the cypherpunks on the need for legal cryptography and that they
might be able to help in the fight against things like Clipper.  
Why that should bring out deep-seeded hatred against the Christian Right
for unrelated offenses or differences of opinion is beyond me.  Isn't
it enough that we could agree on this one issue?

Let's try to make this issue non-partisan, OK?

--Jim Huggins