What if it’s Friday and I want pepperoni on my pizza?
by David Benzion · 03/02/2006 9:44 amIf 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.
[Hat-tip: Associated Press]
Nearly 2,000 years of sometimes "tense" Catholic-Jewish relations cry out to me to walk away from this one and save the good-natured ribbing to faithful yet well-humored Catholics such as Bramanti and Courreges… but I can’t stop myself from offering just this one:
In response to a recent outbreak of foul-mouthed hooliganism, Police Chief Sister Mary "The Penguin" O’Donahue promised to quickly restore law and order…
Jokes aside, I think this is a great idea.
The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and calls it "God’s will."
Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to sue.
The town of Ave Maria is being constructed around Ave Maria University, the first Catholic university to be built in the United States in about 40 years. Both are set to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples in southwestern Florida.
The town and the university, developed in partnership with the Barron Collier Co., an agricultural and real estate business, will be set on 5,000 acres with a European-inspired town center, a massive church and what planners call the largest crucifix in the nation, at nearly 65 feet tall. Monaghan envisions 11,000 homes and 20,000 residents.
11,000 homes and only 20,000 residents? What happened to the "no birth control" clause?
During a speech last year at a Catholic men’s gathering in Boston, Monaghan said that in his community, stores will not sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies will not carry condoms or birth control pills, and cable television will have no X-rated channels.
Homebuyers in Ave Maria will own their property outright. But Monaghan and Barron Collier will control all commercial real estate in the town, meaning they could insert provisions in leases to restrict the sale of certain items.
Naturally, the professional "civil libertarians" out there are having a fit:
"If they attempt to do what he apparently wants to do, the people of Naples and Collier County, Florida, are in for a whole series of legal and constitutional problems and a lot of litigation indefinitely into the future," warned Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
[snip]
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."
Hey dumbass, it’s called Freedom of Association.
No one is being forced to live in this town, according to its ground rules. Just how exactly are "citizens" having their "constitutional rights" "restricted" if they voluntarily choose to live in this community?
And for that matter, if left-wing feminists want to incorporate "Andrea Dworkinville" in rural Ohio and outlaw armpit shaving, heterosexual intercourse and a sense of humor, I say more power to thym.
Live and Let Live, baby.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
23 Responses to “What if it’s Friday and I want pepperoni on my pizza?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
David, I’ve got to research this, but I think there is a town/city in some northern state that is totally muslim. The town has speakers to announce prayers five times a day. All elected officials are muslims. The problem the lefties have with this is that it is Christianity. Any other religion and you wouldn’t hear a peep.
Ms. Kissling is obviously a very stupid person…As much as I disliked the song at my wedding, I do love the sound of it for a town name.
But, I am just one man.
I think it’s fine. I probably wouldn’t want to live there, but if they do, that’s great. I might even see a business opportunity setting up a drug store at the edge of town selling everything that is prohibited. There is sure to be a market for it. Not that that makes them hypocrites so much, it’s just human nature. At least they are trying to live their lives according to their ideals. I support them. Everyone has a right to live where they want.
Except muslims. Sorry, if muslims wanted a town that was pure Islam, I say tear it down. With tanks and armoured divisions if necessary. They are a violent religion who subjugate women and tend to attack their neighbors.
A Catholic town would live in peace. A muslim/islamic community would eventually decide to destroy their neighbors and convert them.
That is the difference.
This will be like the Garden of Eden for Matt:
Lots of Catholic chicks, Domino’s pizza, beer and wine, Our Lady of Notre Dame statues, etc.
The big question is can he deal with the no X-rated television?
Rightwingsparkle covered this story as well. She sure does draw some interesting commenters…
I’m more of a Papa John’s guy, myself. But yeah, other than that, the place sounds pretty sweet!@
A whole town and nary a USC fan in sight. Yeah, baby!
So under this “free association” right, how do you explain Vidor, Texas and segregation? If everybody in Vidor decides they only want whites in the town, who are we to tell them who they can and can’t associate with?
I say that in jest of course, but I think the comparison is at least somewhat valid. What I think sets this apart to at least a small degree is that they are not trying to impose these restrictions on an existing population. Still, I think these kinds of developments walk a thin line between “free association” and active discrimination…
I had a nun with a full auto knuckle assault ruler when I was a kid. This seems like it would be a nice place, but the hole concept will only last as long as the first court challenge. What these folks need to do is set this up as a private religious retirement community/club. That way they can have all the rules they want.
Bill, it’s not a valid comparison. First, we as a society have decided that religion and race simply aren’t the same thing, and aren’t treated the same. private organizations are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. That’s why you can have organizations like the Knights of Columbus or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
This town will be a private organization. A large one, sure, but that’s all it is.
The problems in Vidor included blacks being excluded from HUD housing projects. I haven’t read anything that suggests Monaghan wants to use governmental authority to enforce the rules. He’s going to do it through private means (leases, etc.)
Hello Domino’s? I would like one fish pizza. Yummmmm…
I wonder where Mr. Monaghna’s town will stand on the issue of child abuse in the church and the associated reforms? And what will they decide is the proper way to handle such issues?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060301abuseletter,1,1300492.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I’m sorry. We only serve fish pizza on Fridays.
Mike, I’m pretty sure he’s against child abuse and for reform, kinda how I’m against using an entirely unrelated issue to slam the Church.
Hey! I’m a Roman Catholic, and it is a little annoying with the goats being sacrificed and dumped along the road.
As long as the Deed Restrictions do not prohibit Bingo, with a name like “Ave Maria” who would object?
Walmart $1.39 a pound
#13 - It is just my view, but I don’t find it unrelated at all. It is quite disturbing how often it appears in the news, and how poorly the situations seem to be addressed.
I did not see the comment as anymore unrelated than the earlier post relating violence to Islam.
You know, I used to think fish tacos would just be too bad — all fishy and stuff. Then I had one and it was delicious. Maybe I should give the fish pizza a chance. California Pizza Kitchen comes up with some interesting combos.
Mike S
#16
It was totally off point and and not germaine to the discussion. Matt let you off lightly, hoping you would see his point.
#18 - I respect your opinion, but please explain why it is more offpoint than #3, or even anymore than David’s lead link to the timeline of the two faiths (try 1555-1559 for instance)?
When discussing a city completely adherent to one specific religous belief system, and where everyone in that community is by law required to adhere to those same ideals, questioning that system’s record on issues I think is completely valid and important in evaluating it’s potential benefits or pitfalls.
Sorry Mike.
The city will be a private organization in which everyone agrees to the rules of that organization. Catholicism will not be enforced “by law” as you claim.
Besides, if you’re against the Catholic hierarchy you should be applauding Monaghan’s decision, because he is a layman. The laity has been at the forefront of many reforms in the church dealing with the sexual abuse problems of the past.
#20 - Indeed Matt I was incorrect regarding “by law”. I should have said “forbidden by rule” (as people living under the Taliban used to say), though I do understand anyone living there would do so by choice.
But I think my comment is still valid, and I do not see where it is anymore unrelated than the comment on Islam/violence or link to Catholic/Jewish history. But I am happy to consider your reasoning.
I disagree however that the problems are “of the past”. Just looking this week in the news there are a large (in my view too large) number of stories relating to cases all around the nation.
I assume this town will by design follow all doctrines of the Vatican (perhaps I am wrong). I would not want to live in a town where the school board moved teachers that committed such acts against children around, and put protecting the system above the children. So until the credibility is restored, I would not want to live in a town like Monaghan is planning.
From the article I originally linked, I don’t see that credibility as restored yet.
Wrong again.
I hate to break it to you, Mike, but the Catholic Church isn’t quite the Taliban.
And you’ve completely failed to address the fact than Monaghan is a layman. He is not a priest, bishop, cardinal or other official in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Therefore, he’s not a member of the “system” (the hierarchy’s insiders) that you’re talking about.
And just out of curiosity, short of putting a For Sale sign in the window of St. Peter’s Basilica, what could “the system” do to restore its credibility in your eyes?
#22 - Yes, Matt, the Catholic church is not quite the Taliban. That is why I never said it was quite the Taliban.
I disagree that the laity was the primary force in bringing about reform on this issue. Prosecutors and large liability lawsuits were. I don’t want to diminish the importance of groups like “Voice of the Faithful” as accountability is in my view the only thing that will help keep turning things around. But the fact is that the church acted against the best interests of the laity in far too many situations. Will the churches in Monaghan’s community look to the Vatican as leader? If so then they are a part of that “system”.
I think there is a large area between what is being done to address the issue by the church, and putting any sales signs out. More than anything, there should never be another story appear that indicates any kind of behavior similar to these problems. And there should be absolutely no question as to any recent improper reaction by the church leadership. They are not there yet, especially given the issues in context of association with the most personal religous beliefs.
No one has yet addressed where my question was anymore unrelated than the comments on Islam/violence or the items in David’s history link. And I would like to know how you feel about the current issues, such as the original story from Chicago. Given their purpose and inspiration, do you think the church is doing all it could and morally should in these situations, especially given that it is an institution that is of - and should be of - a standard of morality beyond incredibly demanding?