Dominos Pizza Owner Building His Own Little Theocracy

[Nbadan]

Is this a warning of what will happen if the religious right takes over? Thomas Monaghan, founder of Dominos Pizza, is building a city in southwest Florida which he intends to be governed by strict Roman Catholic principles. The town is being built around Ave Maria University, the first catholic university to be built in the United States in 40 years. Both the college, being built by Monaghan, as well as the city, are to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples, Florida. Monaghan says it is “God’s Will” that this be built.

Managhan says that stores won’t be allowed to sell pornographic magazines, pharmacies won’t be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills, and cable television won’t be allowed to carry X-rated channels. “I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don’t want to be on the sidelines,” said Monaghan in a recent interview.

The ACLU says these restrictions are uncons utional and plan lawsuits. They note that there are religiously genous communities across the country but none can “wield governmental power along the lines of religious principle.”

The Democratic Daily

Monohan should bann Dominos Pizza, that sucks.

:throwupsp

[smeagol]

People can decide if they want to live in Monohan's pornographic-less, profilactic-less city or not.

What's the big deal?

[Nbadan]

Can you say Branch Davidians?

[turambar85]

Because, Smeagol, if you allow one person to break the cons ution and set up his own little town-ship, then you can't stop the next. Sure we can choose not to live there, but history lasts a long time, and so do precedents. If you let this one happen, who is to say that in 200 years we dont have 80-100 seperare colonies. All of which pitting themselves against each other. Makes for a good sci-fi. movie, but not an American reality.

[smeagol]

Can you say Branch Davidians?

Catholicism = Branch Davidians

The Pope = David Koresh

You are funny!

[smeagol]

Because, Smeagol, if you allow one person to break the cons ution and set up his own little town-ship, then you can't stop the next. Sure we can choose not to live there, but history lasts a long time, and so do precedents. If you let this one happen, who is to say that in 200 years we dont have 80-100 seperare colonies. All of which pitting themselves against each other. Makes for a good sci-fi. movie, but not an American reality.

You are right and this idea probably will not fly.

I still think it's pretty harmless.

[Peter]

If his "city" does not enjoy the status of a municipality but rather, say, a Disney World who gives a ? That is, if those who come to his "city" and its restrictions do so on their own and he doesn't wield the power to restrict those who don't, I don't see the problem. Frankly, those who support less government interference shouldn't have a problem with this because otherwise the state can intrude upon any organization at any time.

[Mr. Peabody]

Didn't Del Webb build cities in Arizona and Florida for retired people? I was reading that those cities don't allow children to be residents and they have other laws that a geared towards seniors.

I don't see a problem with it, as long as they don't start asking for state or federal funds.

[xrayzebra]

Because, Smeagol, if you allow one person to break the cons ution and set up his own little town-ship, then you can't stop the next. Sure we can choose not to live there, but history lasts a long time, and so do precedents. If you let this one happen, who is to say that in 200 years we dont have 80-100 seperare colonies. All of which pitting themselves against each other. Makes for a good sci-fi. movie, but not an American reality.

Ever hear of HOA's? They got more rule than the law allows, but don't
see ACLU going after them. Like you don't go by the HOA (Home Owners
Associations) rules you can literally lose you house. Happened here in
San Antonio some years ago, about the color someone painted their house.
Yeah. But don't let anyone say religion's principles, cause that is wrong.

[101A]

Catholics generally aren't considered "mainstream" religious right.

Far less likely to be conservative than, say, Baptists, Methodists or Prebyterians.

[smeagol]

Catholics generally aren't considered "mainstream" religious right.

Far less likely to be conservative than, say, Baptists, Methodists or Prebyterians.

True.

[boutons_]

I think Catholics in USA were heavily weighted by Italian, Irish, Polish, south German, Greek immigrants (mostly poor and rural in Europe. If you are rich, you usually don't immigrate), who mostly settled in the NE and MW cities, where the close proximity and cosmopolitain (different nationalities, ethnic groups, races), urban population gave Catholics in America a more broad-minded, e enical perspective.

Much of the nastiest, close-minded, aggressive, outrigt racial conservative influence in American Protestantism is from the rural areas in the South and West where the Protestant and (white) rural rabble is constantly being rabble-roused by politicized, self-aggrandizing, money-grubbing "ministers" competing for membership (aka donations).

[gtownspur]

Tax cuts=racism

School Vouchers=slavery

Taking down Roe vs Wade = Genocide


And people wonder why Poutons is never taken seriously.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Tax cuts=racism

School Vouchers=slavery

Taking down Roe vs Wade = Genocide


And people wonder why Poutons is never taken seriously.

look who is talking about not being taken seriously! too funny

[SA210]

^^ I was thinking the same thing

[xrayzebra]

No one wants to address the HOA issue, just the questions about having
a site established to observe religious beliefs is wrong. Don't you just
love it.

[Nbadan]

If his "city" does not enjoy the status of a municipality but rather, say, a Disney World who gives a ?

Oh, so any group, polygamists in Utah, Aryans in Idaho, Wiccans in California, Branch Davidians in Texas should be allowed to set up their own city-state and cir vent freedoms guaranteed by the Cons ution to those who wish to surrender those freedoms?

I suppose you also support Al-Sadr in Iraq?

[Peter]

Oh, so any group, polygamists in Utah, Aryans in Idaho, Wiccans in California, Branch Davidians in Texas should be allowed to set up their own city-state and cir vent freedoms guaranteed by the Cons ution to those who wish to surrender those freedoms?

What's uncons utional about it?

Furthermore, if someone wants to live in a vegan commune who the cares? It seems as though the moment it's something that can be tied to a cause/individual with right of center ties it's sinister.

I suppose you also support Al-Sadr in Iraq?

Nope. I suppose you'd be happy with the government free to intrude upon any private association at any time.

As the thread turns...

[Nbadan]

What's uncons utional about it?

Yeah, I suppose that Manohan is just going to take every word for it that they aren't concelling porn, or they aren't drinking the heathen alcohol.

[Nbadan]

Nope. I suppose you'd be happy with the government free to intrude upon any private association at any time.

Only when they are undermining the foundations of our nation's Cons ution.

[Peter]

Yeah, I suppose that Manohan is just going to take every word for it that they aren't concelling porn, or they aren't drinking the heathen alcohol.

So then they get thrown out. Big deal. By your logic any social organization couldn't exclude a member who was engaged in an unwanted behavior. So what's the big deal if he wants to exclude porn in stores on private property? If that's not done through the imposition of law but rather some form of social agreement I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Peter]

Only when they are undermining the foundations of our nation's Cons ution.

How so?

Again, what is uncons utional about this proposition?

[Nbadan]

So then they get thrown out. Big deal. By your logic any social organization couldn't exclude a member who was engaged in an unwanted behavior. So what's the big deal if he wants to exclude porn in stores on private property? If that's not done through the imposition of law but rather some form of social agreement I'm not seeing the problem here.

Don't confuse porn with the real issue. Monohan's attempt to cir vent the first amendment by making everyone's private behavior a factor in which they can be excluded from their group. It would never survive a legal challenge.

[Peter]

Don't confuse porn with the real issue. Monohan's attempt to cir vent the first amendment by making everyone's private behavior a factor in which they can be excluded from their group. It would never survive a legal challenge.

Private organizations do that all the time. If Disney World wants to exclude porn from its stores is that uncons utional? How about Sun City?

[Nbadan]

Private organizations do that all the time. If Disney World wants to exclude porn from its stores is that uncons utional? How about Sun City?

Disney-world doesn't set laws that attempt to by-pass the Nation's cons ution. It's their right under laws supported by the cons ution not to sell porn.