Building a Catholic Community

[Shapley]

Domino's Pizza Founder to Build Catholic Town

My Question is this:

If someone decides to clear land and build a town based on Catholic, or any other, principles, clearly stating that as the objective, what right has anyone to protest? The ACLU is troubled that Pharmacies inside the community will not sell contraceptives. So what? Presumably, everyone who moves there will know from the outset that the policy exists, so what does it matter?

A liberal Catholic group is opposed to the idea. Why? What harm is done when a group of people with a similar purpose get together and build a town based on the principles that bind them? Isn't the right of association one of our most fundamental of rights?

Just curious. Besides, the BB has been pretty quiet today.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Shapley:
... what right has anyone to protest? ...What harm is done when a group of people with a similar purpose get together and build a town based on the principles that bind them? Isn't the right of association one of our most fundamental of rights?

How about a Christian Scientist town where you don't get to go to a doctor? And there are no pharmacies at all?

A vegan town where it's illegal to eat meat or butter or cheese?

The inevitable whites-only community that some knothead would start.

See any problems with those associations?

[shostakovich]

It's a good idea to have a porn-free location to live. There are no doubt other moral (not exclusively Catholic) ideas that would be appealing. I wonder how legal it would be. Can a town charter specify a religion for a community, contrary to the Constitution? Would it be possible to prevent non-Catholics from living there? Would that be desirable? There are lots of other questions I could come up with, but it's not THAT slow a day on the BBB.
Shos

[OperaTenor]

What if Louis Farrakhan(sp?) wanted to build a black Muslim-only town?

I think this is a case of attempting to render unto God what is Ceasar's - big mistake.

Sounds to me like Monaghan's trying to buy himself his version of Heaven on Earth. Vain to the extreme, arrogant, presumptuous, judgemental and doomed to disappointment. Smacks of Jim Bakker and his fanatical fundamentalist theme park.

No wonder Jeb embraces it whole-heartedly...

<small>[ 02-27-2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[piqaboo]

None of those sound like a problem unless and until they start wanting county and state and federal services. Or start violating county, state or federal laws.

As a private business owner (small business, dont know the head-count cutoff), I can choose to hire only white girls between the ages of 18 & 19, with blue eyes, brown curly hair, freckles, second toes longer than their big toes, etc, as long as I dont take government contracts.

[dai bread]

I dislike exclusiveness to that degree on priniciple if nothing else. I don't disagree with the concept entirely; I can think of several people I wouldn't want as neighbours.

My present neighbourhood is quite mixed, racially, economically, and age-wise, and that's the way I like it.

[barfle]

We can only pray that it fails.

[Shapley]

Selma,

RE:The inevitable whites-only community that some knothead would start.

I think there have been, and probably still are, several of those out west. They don't grow very large because the appeal of living there is not that great. They're little more than skinhead versions of the hippie communes of the 60's and 70's (some of which might also still be around.

If a Christian Science town opened with no doctor, why would that be a problem? There are communities in our area that don't have doctors. The residents that want to see a doctor go to the doctor in neighboring communities. If the Christian Science residents are true to their religion, no doctor would want to live there, anyway, since he would starve.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is forced to live in such communities, except the offspring of the citizens, who are free to move once they come of age.

OT, RE:Vain to the extreme, arrogant, presumptuous, judgemental and doomed to disappointment.

How can this be described as vanity? I don't believe he's calling it Monaghanville, I believe he wants to call it Ave Maria. I would consider it the very opposite of vanity. I also don't see it as any of the other things, either, except perhaps doomed to disappoint. Catholics, like every other human, don't always live according to the principles they espouse.

Shos, I don't think the Consititution requires separation of church and community, although some have certainly interpreted it that way. I'm sure it will be challenged at some point, although you have to realize that, at least in the present generation, for anyone to be impacted by the restrictions, they will have to have moved there after being made specifically aware of those restrictions.

Piq, Are you arguing that the community should be denied access to governmental services on the basis of their religious beliefs? Isn't that discrimination? I think we tend to view discrimination as a one-way road, and that is wrong. The government will tax them on their properties and incomes, and they will pay into the government the same as anyone else, why should they be denied access to services they've paid for?

Barfle, Why would you care whether it fails or not. How will your life be affected either way?

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by piqaboo:
As a private business owner (small business, don't know the head-count cutoff), I can choose to hire only white girls between the ages of 18 & 19, with blue eyes, brown curly hair, freckles, second toes longer than their big toes, etc, as long as I don't take government contracts.

Oooh Piq, can I work at your company when you start one? Will these girls also be required to have bodacious . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . minds?

<small>[ 02-28-2006, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: BigJon@Work ]</small>

[Shapley]

You will require that the Department of Labour attempted to require Hooters to hire men.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'd like it if Hooters hired men. With impressive pecs.

[Shapley]

I suppose someone is welcome to open a restaurant featuring scantily clad men with 'impressive pecs', and call it Peccers if they want, but I don't think the government needs to set the hiring criteria at Hooters.

[OperaTenor]

Uh, *igJon, are you tryin' to tell us you're actually an 18-19 year old, brown-haired, blue-eyed, freckled white girl?!!

Hi Shap,

I believe it's vain to presume to know the mind of God, and to strive to realize my manifestation of holier-than-__________ is presuming to know the mind of God. Additionally, pronouncing judgements that "X" activity is taboo and "Y" activity is acceptable to decide what is allowed in my manifestation of holier-than-___________ is yet another extension of that same presumptuousness.

Jesus, in the new dispensation brought about by His life, sought to include everyone. To me, buiilding a town where limits are placed on who can live there and what can be done there is an exercise in exclusivity, and runs diametrically opposed to what Christ taught.

JMO.

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Uh, *igJon, are you tryin' to tell us you're actually an 18-19 year old, brown-haired, blue-eyed, freckled white girl?!!

Nope, I was hoping to be the boss. :p

[Shapley]

OT,

I don't believe Monaghan is presuming to know the mind of God, all he is doing is building a town in which those who accept the Catholic Churches ideology are welcome to live. It really only takes the concept of a church and expands into a much larger scale. All are welcome, on the condition that they agree to live under those rules. I do not know if there is actually a restriction that only Catholics may live in the community, but I do understand that business activities, etc., will be restricted to offering those goods and/or services that are not in conflict with the Churches teaching.

The Catholic Church has a long history of exclusivity. The Church for years banned women from the Sacristy. Women are still prohibited from the Priesthood (as men are prohibited from the Convent). Monasteries are, after all, small towns reserved exclusively for the Catholic monks that dwell there. I suppose one could look at the town of Ave Maria as a monastic community for married Catholics and their families.

I don't think I want to live there, but I see nothing wrong with the concept. I think that it is consistent with the principles on which this nation was founded. The Quakers formed communities not unlike this in the early days of America's founding. Amish communities are quite common around here in the midwest. Naturist communities exist elsewhere. I don't see why this one becomes an issue.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Originally posted by Shapley:
Barfle, Why would you care whether it fails or not. How will your life be affected either way?

Did you miss the ?

[Shapley]

No, I saw it. I was just going down the line addressing everybody that posted (I hope I didn't miss anyone), and had to say something to you as well.

V/R
Shapley

[DavidS]

If someone sets up a community on private property (like a large farm or ranch) membership of which is conditional on commitment to some moral, ethical, or religious code - provided they do not breach the laws of the land, what objection can there be? How is this different from a family in the privacy of their own home adhering to a particular faith? Or requiring certain behavioural norms of a person visiting a place of worship? And is there any reason to deny them municipal or government services?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by DavidS:
... what objection can there be? ...And is there any reason to deny them municipal or government services?

Hmm. Start on the first part. It's not all that unusual to have oddball communities on private land - I know of two nudist communities in the county, and there's a Catholic retreat up by Temecula, and so forth. My quilt guild uses the Catholic facility for quilty weekend retreats; I suppose they'd draw the line at hosting an event for the nudists. Which is quite alright.

It's the restriction on legal business, particularly in the pharmacy, doctors offices, or other places where the "Catholic dogma" lease clause would interfere with the rights of the patient/customer to exercise all their legal options.

There are legal requirements for a doctor to inform a patient of all the possible options for a given problem; Catholic dogma forbids all the effective options to conception. A doctor obeying his lease clause would be breaking the law.

Pharmacies are required to dispense legal drugs for which a valid prescription has been written by a qualified physician. A pharmacist obeying his lease clause would be breaking the law.

There are also several forbidden bases for discrimination - "religon" is on the list. Favoring, or penalizing, any individual for religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is unconstitutional and a violation of their civil liberties.

You can see where this particular subject might be viewed by lots of us as being in a grey area. It's probably legal, I'm not sure it's right, and I can see clear potential for abuse. It raises caution flags in my mind.

Whatever, there is no reason whatsoever for withholding of any usual public service. They, like the nudist clubs, have a right to emergency medical services, law enforcement and fire services, and any other services usually supplied by civil authorities to any other private facility.

[piqaboo]

originally posted by shapley: Piq, Are you arguing that the community should be denied access to governmental services on the basis of their religious beliefs? Isn't that discrimination? I think we tend to view discrimination as a one-way road, and that is wrong. The government will tax them on their properties and incomes, and they will pay into the government the same as anyone else, why should they be denied access to services they've paid for?

As often, Selma summarized my views well.
However, the sticky issue is not denying the community things for which they pay (thru taxes), if everyone who wants to live there is allowed to live there. The issue arises when a community prevents people from moving in because they are not Catholic, skin-head, etc etc. Then it gets into the tricky parts of discrimination law when looking at gov't funded services. I dont pretend to know that law inside out and backward, but I'm thinking there will be many a lawsuit.

Who owns the road? We own our property (ok, the bank does), our neighbor owns hers (fer real), but who owns the road? That would be the city gov't, yes? Can the city enact laws that violate federal laws? Nope (well, yes, then hope to win the ensuing court cases and get Fed law overthrown). So the Catholic City would face requests for permits to hold Gay Pride parades and demonstrations.

BigJon, your second toe isnt long enough
(conclusion based on statistical analysis and usng 95% confidence intervals) so no, you wouldnt be eligible for hire. (side note - the new outfits are not as flattering as those from 10 years ago. The shorts hit at an unfortunate place on the female anatomy, causing a squish-bump in all but the scrawniest of the ladies. The higher waistband of yesteryear gave a smoother line.)