Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Catholic Town? Y/N
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
believe
First off, a quick apology. I'm just going to say that real life has been busy and complicated lately. The mundane part of this being holiday aftermath and me getting sick repeatedly. The point being that there's been times when I've faded out for a bit and forgotten to post back. >_o Sorry about that and I shall try not to do this with this topic.

Anyway, I wanted to post this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11499702/

(here's one on the same topic from Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11434439/site/newsweek/ )

Its a debate between Tucker Carlson (american guy with a bow tie) and Howard Simon (the executive director of the Florida ACLU). The debate is on the Domino Pizza's founder attempting to make an essentially Catholic town. While I'm inclined to agree with Tucker on this, I'm also rather easygoing. So, I'm posting this just for general input/interest and opinion.
Moosh
My only concern about this would be the children growing up in the town, those who did not have a choice about living there. I'm not sure that teenagers should not have access to things like contreception just because of where they live when they have no control over where they live.

Other than that I have no problem with someone setting up a town that they want to run on their own principles, whatever they may be as long as they're legal.
believe
Hm. Does teenage access to birth control count as unalienable right? I'm not impressed with argument as far as it concerns adult as public health bits and other towns would provide it. Not necessarily convenient, but adults can choose to live and birth control isn't something necessary to keep you alive. Even then, some diseases and treatment require treatment from hospitals in other towns anyway.
Phyllis
QUOTE (CheeseMoose @ Feb 25 2006, 09:24 AM)
My only concern about this would be the children growing up in the town, those who did not have a choice about living there. I'm not sure that teenagers should not have access to things like contreception just because of where they live when they have no control over where they live.
*

My thoughts exactly. You don't need your parents' permission to get contraception after a certain age, and can do so without their knowledge and for free. I would be that town would have a LOT of teen pregnancies.

I don't have a problem if he wants to set up a little commune of like minded people. That's fine. But if the town receives government funding...then it turns iffy. The government is not supposed to endorse any one religion. It amounts to more than just "zoning," in my opinion.
Moosh
It may not be an unalienable right, but I don't think access to things like that should be based solely on location, when you have no choice over it. And yes I know it is in many parts of the world, but just beacuse something is happening doesn't make it right.

As to the public health things, I may have read the article wrong but where did it say he wouldn't be providing some health services?
believe
cand:
QUOTE
I don't have a problem if he wants to set up a little commune of like minded people. That's fine. But if the town receives government funding...then it turns iffy. The government is not supposed to endorse any one religion. It amounts to more than just "zoning," in my opinion.


What's your opinion on states like Utah or similiar places then? *is curious-like*

Cheesemoose: I just got up and haven't had cold medicine yet, I'd go with what you read. >.> I just figured there'd be some kind of public health thingy if it was a town? Even my town of 20,000 has health center.
Phyllis
QUOTE (believe @ Feb 25 2006, 09:52 AM)
What's your opinion on states like Utah or similiar places then? *is curious-like*
*

Well. There are loads of Mormon people, but you can still get condoms in their pharmacies. They don't have prayer in their public schools (or, they're not supposed to), and people who aren't Mormon do live there as well (about 40% according to Wikipedia).

One thing that does bother me about Utah is the fact that their elected officials frequently talk about their relationship with God and that prayer is commonplace in things like town council meetings. I don't think that is right either, personally. I also do not like how some young girls are brought up to think their only worth in life lies in getting married and having children...but that's just me. They also have a lot of restrictions on gambling and alcohol, which I don't see the point of....but that stuff is just for fun so it doesn't particularly bother me that the voters there have chosen that. But when it enters into things like contraception...that I have a problem with. Like CM said, it's not like the teenagers have a choice to live there or not. And well...kids are going to have sex. Better they be informed and prepared, in my opinion.

So...yes, I do have problems with the way Mormonism is so woven into society in Utah. Elected officials praying in public meetings...no. They can have a personal relationship with God and pray all they like. They can have their desk made out of a huge cross for all I care. I just don't think it should be constantly mentioned in their official role because they are supposed to represent people of all faiths (or lack thereof).

I really only have a problem with the idea of this Catholic town receiving any sort of government funding, and what will happen to the teenagers and kids who live there.
Astarael
I'm pretty much with cand on this one. It's fine to encourage people of one religion to cluster together and endorse a lifestyle in the town that's compatible with that religion, but trying to prevent the sale of contraceptives in the pharmacies isn't so good. The article said that nonbelievers were welcome, so shouldn't they be able to get the birth control they need if they choose to move in? The lifestyle sounds like it would attract parents who want to keep their kids away from things like Playboy and racy cable, not necessarily just Catholics. Some shelter might wind up being good for some families and kids, but an (admittedly attempted so far) town ban on contraceptives is stretching it.
craziness
hmmm.... i kind of think if we can have nudist colonies and amist people etc... then this is only fair too. HOWEVER, teenagers can leave if they want. it would be really tough and everything for them if they didnt fit in... but its the same for kids who are amish, etc. My only issue with it is that other people probably already live there and you cant just kick them out or something, especially not based on their beliefs.
PsychWardMike
Hrm... an all Catholic town, eh? Kind of sounds like... MARYLAND. Maryland was founded as a Catholic sanctuary and all.

I'm really just wondering how much good it would do. It seems to me that forcing a belief system onto a kid will be all well and good until they hit adolescence and decide to rebel against authority... including (and espescially) the church. The problem everyone is faced with is also how it will be treated - religion and fanatacism often go hand in hand with devestating results to chilldren ("Carrie" anyone?) and a sheltered life can give a real system shock once young'uns are let out into the real world.

Still, even though I don't think it's a particularly good idea, I can't really say that if a bunch of people want to get together and live in a place where their religion is foremost is particularly unconstitutional... just... unwise.
pgrmdave
He has every right to build such a town, to have only catholics live there, to enforce strict rules on what businesses can sell and whatnot (assuming, of course, that he owns the land). However, if he does so, the government should not be able to legally endorce such an excluding town, and so he should receive no money from the federal, state, or county governments.

It would be, in effect, a religious commune. They are perfectly legal, but my tax dollars should not, in any way, be able to fund them.
MistressAlti
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment... shouldn't people who are mature enough to be having sex also be old enough to obtain condoms outside of city limits? By that age shouldn't one be able to take a bus, or drive a car, or have friends that can do such a thing for them? Only around half of teenagers in the US use condoms every time they have sex anyway, so I have to wonder how many kids would *actually* be affected by anti-contraception laws.

Just so we're clear, I'm not at all really arguing that it's okay that they have to go outside their community just to be able to have safer sex. I think it sucks that religious bodies feel the need to impose their moral codes on everyone else; it's generally a pretty damaging thing to have a society where personal rights start slipping away.

But in an ideal world where only functionally mature people decide to have sex, I can't imagine it could hurt anyone at all. In fact, arguably this should encourage people to be smarter about their sexual habits, in that they would be forced to be prepared and plan ahead. Of course that's idealistic and really this would all just create a community where immature, uncontollably horny teenagers would procreate like rabbits because they weren't taught, or more likely weren't smart enough, to know better.
Righteous
Hi. My name is James. I go by Ri. I'm a devout nondenominationalist Christian. I am also violently against anything remotely resembling theocracy.

I'm firmly for the idea of separation of church and state. Religion and the state have no place together, ever, ever, ever. My reasons are much different from most people's, but here goes.

The Word of God has been interpreted differently by each person since the beginning of the Christian ministry. People of the same denomination (or even in the same church) can differ vastly, There is no way that a group of people in a ruling body can all have the same interpretations of the Bible or even have the same religious values. What of those who don't see certain things (like music or movies or whatever) to be something monitored by the Christian state?

On a similar note, the proprietor made mention of "zoning" (assumably in the interest of fundemental "moral" values). We have similar crap going on here in north Florida. I made a thread about a sex shop being protested and boycotted by churches and religious groups to the point where the county made a law so that no new sex shops could go up (also, they got rid of a strip club a few years before I moved here). These laws were put into place by a conservative, Christian government who is willing to take away the rights of others to relieve religious tensions. If Mr. Monaghan owns all the commercial property, he can, like the county government here, force his values on the businesses, which trickles down to the unsuspecting citizen (by the way, his PR department's grasping at straws when they say that it's welcome to non-believers; it's almost laughable).

Speaking of non-believers (and this is where I sound holy roller-ish), the primary reason I'm against all things theocratic is because it alienates non-believers, preventing people from joining the Christian faith. Even if it isn't your bag to begin with, living in a "Christian" town in Florida or Utah or wherever is still a major blow against you and your rights and Christians and Christianity.

If people want to commune over a common religion, fine, but it's a disaster waiting to happen, partcularly, as many have pointed out, the kids who had no choice moving there, who, as Missy pointed out, would probably end up having more kids than they would have had they been able to use protection (BTW, it's been my expreience that kids is psychotically religious households end up going against their parents religious teachings; I have multiple friends and exgirlfriends I can use as examples).

I may have missed a few points, as I'm not only foaming-at-the-mouth angry about this, but I'm really tired as well.
pgrmdave
QUOTE
We have similar crap going on here in north Florida. I made a thread about a sex shop being protested and boycotted by churches and religious groups to the point where the county made a law so that no new sex shops could go up (also, they got rid of a strip club a few years before I moved here). These laws were put into place by a conservative, Christian government who is willing to take away the rights of others to relieve religious tensions.


People have successfully boycotted racist private groups, is there something wrong with that? One group boycotts another because of moral reasons. Whether you agree with them or not, boycotting and protesting are allowable, and governments are of the people and by the people, which means when politicians hear their constituents protesting, not only will they notice, but they SHOULD notice. It is their JOB to do what the voters tell them to do.

As for the rest - Nobody has said that only fundamentalists will be allowed, or only people who are "psychotically religious". And there have been religious communes for as far back as I can understand, this is simply a modern version. Nobody will be forced to shop only in that town, nobody will be forced to go to church. It cannot be an overtly christian government, that is illegal, he can only force a general morality upon the commerce, and that seems...reasonable to me. Do I agree with his idea of morality? No, not at all. I actually find it rather appalling. However, the idea of having a small town whose commercial section is generally family oriented, seems like a good idea to me.
Museum Girl
Teenagers can leave. Once they reach a certain age and have enough money to. Up until then they're stuck.

Only half the teenagers in the US use condoms but of the other half I'd say a lot use the pill or IUD's or some other form of contraception. Plus without contraception there are going to be a lot of kids using the "natural method". Which is like 70% successful if done right, which it probably won't be because it's time consuming and complex.

Also if there is no actual law against something, in this case buying contraceptives, it's just that the local shops don't sell it, then teenagers still have an inalienable right to it. Eispecially if they are over the age of consent, which I think is not the same age as legal adulthood (like over here the age of consent is 16 but technically you aren't an adult until 18 despite increasedfreedom.

Racist groups are harming people, sex shops are not. An important difference.
pgrmdave
QUOTE
Racist groups are harming people, sex shops are not. An important difference.


Ah, here is where we find the bias. People who protest sex shops believe that the shops DO hurt the community, and encourage behaviour which they find destructive. People who are part of bigoted organizations, for the most part, do not believe that they are harming people (I don't mean racist like the KKK, I mean racist like country clubs - not overt, simply exclusive). Who gets to decide which groups are 'really' bad and which groups aren't? In a democracy, it is the majority, and people not only have the right but the responsibility to stand up for what they feel is right, whether or not it is popular.
Museum Girl
QUOTE (pgrmdave @ Mar 27 2006, 09:26 PM)
QUOTE
Racist groups are harming people, sex shops are not. An important difference.


Ah, here is where we find the bias. People who protest sex shops believe that the shops DO hurt the community, and encourage behaviour which they find destructive. People who are part of bigoted organizations, for the most part, do not believe that they are harming people (I don't mean racist like the KKK, I mean racist like country clubs - not overt, simply exclusive). Who gets to decide which groups are 'really' bad and which groups aren't? In a democracy, it is the majority, and people not only have the right but the responsibility to stand up for what they feel is right, whether or not it is popular.
*



Yes people do have that responsibility and that right. However having a shop selling porn and vibrators is not going to harm anyone (just to clarify we are talking about shops selling sex toys and porn etc and not brothels?), and it can be argued that getting rid of sexual tension is good for the community; people do feel it erodes morals but no one is forcing anyone to buy anything from it and the people wanting to buy things from it are probably already wanting and thinking about the things in it even if it's not there and so are already "corrupted."

Even a racist country club is harming people because the people who want to join and can't because of their race are going to be upset by it (I doubt they tell them that's why but they can probably work it out), and it helps perpetuate the view that some people are lesser because of their ethnicity.
pgrmdave
Yes, sex toys and porn. And I understand that it can be argued, just like exclusive clubs give people of similar backgrounds a place to relax and feel more comfortable. Nothing is stopping people of any other race/creed/religion/sexual orientation from opening their own exclusive clubs.

As for the porn shops, lets remember that many people feel that porn is self destructive and harmful. Similar to drugs, but without the added crime. Having a sex shop is akin to having drugs sold in a community in the minds of the protesters, and while I disagree, I think that they are doing it for good reasons - to remove a potentially destructive element from their neighborhoods.
Museum Girl
QUOTE (pgrmdave @ Mar 27 2006, 09:59 PM)
Yes, sex toys and porn.  And I understand that it can be argued, just like exclusive clubs give people of similar backgrounds a place to relax and feel more comfortable.  Nothing is stopping people of any other race/creed/religion/sexual orientation from opening their own exclusive clubs. 

As for the porn shops, lets remember that many people feel that porn is self destructive and harmful.  Similar to drugs, but without the added crime.  Having a sex shop is akin to having drugs sold in a community in the minds of the protesters, and while I disagree, I think that they are doing it for good reasons - to remove a potentially destructive element from their neighborhoods.
*


I agree that their reasons are good, I just disagree with them.

While clubs for different sexualities exist I think it is actually against the law to have clubs just for one racial group (although you can get round this by making it a cultural rather than a racial thing).
pgrmdave
It is legal to have a club for just one racial group, you simply cannot receive any federal funding (i think) - many country clubs are this way. The KKK is legal, the National Socialist party is legal (Nazi). They are simply two of the more prevalent ones, but I'm sure that there are many more.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.