Church Town
The founder of Domino's Pizza is building an all-Catholic town in Florida:
As much as I often rail against religion in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular, it'll probably surprise many people that I come down on the side of Mr. Monaghan. It's called private property rights, and no one is being forced to live there or buy property there--or even drive through it, for that matter.
And this comment is simply asinine:
First, and everybody pay very close attention as there appears to be mass confusion on this point:
THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Two of the most important principles upon which that republic was founded are personal property rights and freedom of belief. But somehow, over the last fifty years, people like Mr. Kissling have perverted those principles inside of their miniscule little intellects into a democratic communal property state with the right of freedom from religion.
Mr. Kissling, you are wrong. You are not being forced to live in this private community. No one is threatening to kill you if you don't convert to their beliefs and live in their city. Your childish association between the exercise of personal rights and the actions of a murderous hate cult merely serves to display your ignorance of Constitutional law.
I personally do not believe in Christianity and I do not agree with a great many of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. But that personal difference of opinion does not give me the right to roll up the Constitution of the United States of America, piss on it, and use it as a club to beat them over the head simply because I believe differently than they do. Nor does it give you--or any other American citizen--that right.
Finally, we all have exactly the same option as Mr. Monaghan. Instead of whining about the actions of those with whom you disagree and attempting to use the Constitution as your own philosophical toilet paper, how about you go start a company, get rich, and build your own private town where you can exercise your own beliefs. In the meantime, keep your mouth shut; it's attracting flies.
(Hat-tip to Banduar)
If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan has his way, a new town being built in Florida will be governed according to strict Roman Catholic principles, with no place to get an abortion, pornography or birth control.
As much as I often rail against religion in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular, it'll probably surprise many people that I come down on the side of Mr. Monaghan. It's called private property rights, and no one is being forced to live there or buy property there--or even drive through it, for that matter.
And this comment is simply asinine:
Frances Kissling, president of the liberal Washington-based Catholics for a Free Choice, likened Monaghan's concept to Islamic fundamentalism.
"This is un-American," Kissling said. "I don't think in a democratic society you can have a legally organized township that will seek to have any kind of public service whatsoever and try to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens."
First, and everybody pay very close attention as there appears to be mass confusion on this point:
THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Two of the most important principles upon which that republic was founded are personal property rights and freedom of belief. But somehow, over the last fifty years, people like Mr. Kissling have perverted those principles inside of their miniscule little intellects into a democratic communal property state with the right of freedom from religion.
Mr. Kissling, you are wrong. You are not being forced to live in this private community. No one is threatening to kill you if you don't convert to their beliefs and live in their city. Your childish association between the exercise of personal rights and the actions of a murderous hate cult merely serves to display your ignorance of Constitutional law.
I personally do not believe in Christianity and I do not agree with a great many of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. But that personal difference of opinion does not give me the right to roll up the Constitution of the United States of America, piss on it, and use it as a club to beat them over the head simply because I believe differently than they do. Nor does it give you--or any other American citizen--that right.
Finally, we all have exactly the same option as Mr. Monaghan. Instead of whining about the actions of those with whom you disagree and attempting to use the Constitution as your own philosophical toilet paper, how about you go start a company, get rich, and build your own private town where you can exercise your own beliefs. In the meantime, keep your mouth shut; it's attracting flies.
(Hat-tip to Banduar)
posted by Jar(egg)head at 16:16
7 Comments:
I agree that this nutter has a Constitutional right to do what he likes with his private property, and that he can practice whatever religion he wants to. However, just because it is legal does not make it right. I have several problems with this.
First, he is attempting to blend government and religion. This community will be "governed according to strict Roman Catholic principle". This goes against the principal of the separation of church and state. While the constitution may not strictly prohibit this arrangement, American culture generally rejects this as an attrociously bad idea.
These morons won't be happy with their own community of oppressive, socially debilitating, backwards laws. Once they have their quasi-religious community, they will try to branch out around them and attempt to force their practice of morale legisilation onto other communities.
This is where I have a SERIOUS problem with this project, as it is quite literally in my own backyard. I don't want these self-righteous, sexually repressed, disease spreading (they want to outlaw condoms) wackos running around my neighborhood trying to convert people to their particular brand of voodoo. This makes me glad I don't plan on having any kids for them to prey on.
As for assinine comments, how about this one:
"Gov. Jeb Bush ... lauded the development as a new kind of town where faith and freedom will merge to create a community of like-minded citizens."
Faith and freedom merge about as well as magnesium and water. Religion in general is nothing more than a mechanism of social control, and one with a history of using violence and oppressive measures to accomplish its goals at that. Freedom comes from the willingness to embrace the rights and opinions of others, not to force beliefs on others through legislation. Laws based on religious "principals" are typically not concerned with the welfare of the community in general, but with codifying traditional belief systems that would not survive otherwise.
This is where the comparison to the muzzies comes in. They cannot understand why their religion should not be the basis of the laws of every nation, and they believe it to the extent that they are willing to kidnap and kill to accomplish their goals.
Another problem that I have is that I do not want my taxes being sent to these idiots. As a church, they will be exempt from taxes. As a town, they will be a recipient of state and county funds. This is where I think the Constitutionality becomes questionable, as they are essentially creating a state-sponsored religious organization. I do not want my taxes to go towards furthing the cause of these congenital idiots.
Lastly, government based on religious principals is hypocritical from a religious standpoint. Personal religion should serve as an internal moral compass. By making religious beliefs into laws, the choice to follow these laws becomes a legal issue instead of a personal, moral decision. The influence of religion is actually decreased by this practice.
In my opinion, religion should be kept as far away from government as possible. However, in reality, this is nearly impossible. Even our enlightened leaders are still forced to demonstrate their "religiosity", lest the ignorant masses rise up against them. Even worse, our current leaders frequently use the pretext of religion to further their own goals and ambitions. Case in point: the focus on gay marriage prior to the last election, which prompted the oppressive religious nutters to turn out in force in opposition of this "sinful lifestyle." And we all know who those wackos voted for, don't we?
The problem you'll run into like a legal brick wall if you try to stop this is precedent. Many towns still have blue laws, which are simply the legal enforcement of the Christian "day of rest." Many Mormon towns are governed by religious covenant enforced by legal code. Salt Lake City is quite literally built around the Temple, and the streets are numbered outward from it.
I'm not saying I agree with the Catholic township concept, or even that I think it's a good idea. And I most certainly wouldn't live there. But for the ACLU and that other asshat to try and block them on a Constitutional basis is dangerously delusional. We don't want any more precedents coming out of the SCOTUS that further abridge private property rights. That path leads to destruction of the republic, and we're crumbling fast enough without any further encouragment.
So let them build their enclave. If they turn evangelical on you, just do what I do when Mormons come to the door--tell them the Master will become very angry if the goat you're sacrificing to him isn't prepared properly. =o)
An Enclave of sex starved Catholic College chicks that have no choice but drive to Naples/Ft Myers Beach to party. I like my chances.
Would somebody push Kenny's "Play" button, please? His hormones seem to have put his brain into a feedback loop. =oP
Speaking from the point of view of a person who is religious, I have a few issues here--especially with this comment: "These morons won't be happy with their own community of oppressive, socially debilitating, backwards laws. Once they have their quasi-religious community, they will try to branch out around them and attempt to force their practice of morale legisilation onto other communities." First of all, I am by no means a moron, and I would never accuse you of being one. Secondly, you are ascribing your fears to a group of people who you clearly do not understand. Just because we might want our own communities (and I am not a Catholic), does not mean that we want everyone to have to live there. I certainly have beliefs that I would never force down anyone's throut. I do believe that those people who move into the community will have a choice. So truly, if you have issues, don't move there. After all, we do have a constitution that guarantees a separation of church and state--not freedom from all religion. You are constitutionally able to hold your own beliefs--but so am--I regardless of how you construe my Biblical understanding.
I should clarify that I have no objection to the personal practice of religion. We all have a need to find deeper meaning in our lives, and religion is one path that leads in that direction. People are free to find their own path, and I do not believe that there is a single "right" way. What works for me doesn't work for everyone, and I acknowledge that and respect those who show similar respect for my beliefs.
I do not object to the practice of religion, or even religious gatherings or communities. What I do object to is the attitude that many religious groups develop that they must separate themselves from the rest of society. By establishing their own enclave with their own laws, they are essentially rejecting everyone else’s way of life. They are setting themselves apart from society, and that is harmful to themselves and society as a whole. Groups seeking to isolate themselves create division and conflict instead of promoting understanding and cooperation.
I am quite familiar with Christian culture in general, having been exposed to copious amounts of religious ideology while growing up. I'm not as familiar with Catholic practices specifically, but that that is not the issue here. While I personally disagree with some of their specific beliefs, I've heard very similar opinions expressed by individual Catholics, so I do not even assume that all Catholics would agree with this proposal. The problem that I have is that this group wants to use legislation to enforce their beliefs on others, including other members of their religious organization. Moral legislation destroys open debate and the freedom of choice. This behavior reeks of all the worst forms of religious oppression.
The comments I made were directed at this group specifically, not to all practitioners of religion. I have seen this mentality at work in the past, as has any student of history, and I know what it leads to. Certainly, I do not have to live in their isolated, fascist little world, but I will have to live right next to them. While they might see themselves as better than the rest of us, I see them as arrogant, closed-minded, judgmental and manipulative. Instead of thumbing their nose at the society around them, they should seek to find ways to integrate themselves into the world in which they live.
I'll finish by asking this question, how does this proposal seek to promote the interests of society in general?
Ave Maria sold out anyway. No Enclave, and condoms & porn will be sold a plenty. Their going to be just another Catholic college town.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/mar/03/planners_ave_maria_will_be_open_all/
Post a Comment
<< Home