In Europe today, dozens of authors put their name to a statement supporting secular values like freedom of speech and religion, and calling for "resistance to religious totalitarianism". Meanwhile, in Florida, that totalitarianism is being quietly established:
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.The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and calls it "God's will."
This being the US, they of course can't do this through the town's government - that would violate the Establishment Clause. So instead its being done by a roundabout method: Monaghan and his business partners, Barron Collier Co, will own all commercial property in the town, and use contracts to impose their religion on all business owners. Which incidentally shows how much of a cruel joke the Libertarian conception of "freedom" really is...
Stick to Hell Pizza I say - they're also much tastier and a very cool website.
ReplyDeleteOr Maccas and KFC - advertised during the "bleedin virgin" episode of South Park.
A good reason to never buy any Domino's products.
ReplyDeleteNo difference between this sort of medieval mindset and that of the Taliban.
If this is a new town that is being built, what is forcing people to move in? And what is the difference between building new enclaves of Roman Catholicism like this and Amish villages?
ReplyDeleteRich: it should be noted that Monaghan sold his interest in Dominos several years ago.
ReplyDeleteA far better reason to discriminate among pizza companies is labour standards. Who pays youth rates? Who has non-competititon clauses preventing workers from changing jobs? Who only pays the minimum wage?
Unfortunately, that information just isn't sufficiently available to the public. But I'd hope that the current labour disputes in the fast food sector, it will be...
although this sounds like a tautology, "Aaron has a point".
ReplyDeletestrictly speaking, as long as the members of the village are there voluntarily, you'll have trouble finding a liberal theorist who would disagree with it.
it's when they start forcing members to stay, or trying to extend their radical agenda out to the wider public you start to get issues.
I agree with che tibby, Aaron does have a point. If a bunch of consenting adult Catholics want to create their very own 'Popetown' and walk the talk, good luck to them, as long as basic human rights are respected (eg. by allowing dissenters to easily obtain 'banned' services in nearby towns without being harassed). Presumably anyone moving to Popetown would already have a Catholic mindset and is unlikely to object to the rules. My main concern is for children growing up in an environment where critical thought will be stigmatised and blind acceptance of dogma encouraged. I hope Popetown kids will have their rights to a secular education respected so that they can make up their own minds whether to adopt their parents' supernaturalist opinions.
ReplyDeleteYes, he has a point - as does my jibe about Libertarian "freedom". Yes, it makes very little difference when this sort of propertarian slavery is restricted to a small town in Florida - but the Libertarian model is that it should apply everywhere. Which means that there's nowhere to move to; the best you can do is hope to find a feudal overlord whose contractually-imposed beliefs don't conflict too much with your own (and who doesn't withdraw the right to use the roads, say, or buy food because he doesn't like you for some reason).
ReplyDeleteThis is a mockery of any reasonable definition of "freedom". Or rather, it is "freedom" for the rich - and only for the rich. For everyone else, it more resembles feudalism than "freedom".
And as for this specific case, it is extremely difficult to see how such an arrangement could be sustained without the active connivance of the local government (say, in denying zoning permits on transparently religious grounds). And that will put them in violation of the Establishment Clause.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should have tried this 80 years ago - when the phrase "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" was only a fetter on congressional action.
ReplyDeleteI always did wonder how the word "congress" could be interpretted so broadly to preclude actions by states, municipalities or private individuals.
You know something Idiot, I think it just pisses you off that people don't think the way you do. That they might actually translate their "bigoted" beliefs into actions irritates you even more.
ReplyDeleteYou're as bad as Bishop Tamaki.
Muerk: actually, it pisses me off that people insist on attempting to impose their beliefs on others by government or economic force. This is not something that a decent society allows - and the reason is plain to anyone who has read about the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
ReplyDeleteThe liberal compromise of toleration and a neutral state exists for very good reasons: it stops people from killing and brutalising one another. It keeps our lives bearable. This is something we forget at our peril...
i think muerk is over-reacting to idiot's hard-line libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteidiot, i'd agree with you if it were the case that there was no where for the members of popetown to go to. but, we have to assume that the US will maintain it's adherence to liberal democracy.
in a way popetown would have a similar relation to the 'outside world' that indigenous groups have to 'the mainstream'. the key to allowing the minority to be closed-minded, or bigots, is that they have to be warned that their rights to their unique societal culture are balanced with the mores and values of the encompassing majority.
the simple way to put that last paragraph is "when in rome".
we have a situation then where the minority is permitted to self-distinguish because of liberal freedoms, but required to remain part of the majority because their interaction with the same majority must be maintained to ensure their freedoms remain.
the majority gets to say, "sure, be medieval fools, but when you're in the outdoors, behave". once again, the trick is the negotiation that has to occur at the interface between the mores and values of the minority and that of the majority. it's important that the relation between the two is continuously negotiated to ensure that the minority isn't completely out of whack. which apparently limits their liberal freedoms.
nicely catch22.
I'm with Che on the last points. To me it represents the fine line between ideals and idealogy. For every moral ideal you can find a situational exception, where invocation of the ideal would be a travesty.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that holds true for secular values as well.. they're no more a universal panacea for global peace and harmony than the wise-guy in the sky. Great as ideals - yes. Great as an idealogy - no.
I'd just point out that I doubt there is any NZ law that would prevent a similar town being built here.
ReplyDeleteThe Human Rights Act is silent on the right to operate a legal business. It forbids discrimination on grounds of religion - but section 55 exempts "any establishment (such as a hospital, club, school, university, religious institution, or retirement village ... where accommodation is provided only for persons of the same ... religious or ethical belief".
What a non-event to whinge about... As regards to "imposing views on others by government or economic force", Christians whine about that all the time with regards to teaching evolution,'liberal values' et al in schools. Should a federal or state government be allowed to push a certain view of the 'normality' of homosexuality or the role of women in society on all children at school? And if so, how's that different to your problems with one small town in Florida? One gets the feeling you'd set up your own tolerance camp if you could, Idiot. No wonder you don't like South Park...
ReplyDeleteSounds broadly similar to Orania, in South Africa - and I'd agree that people have a right to do that too, however unpleasant some of the potential consequences might be.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Adrian.
ReplyDeleteMany religious views get trounced and the ideology of the state (materialism), whilst not a religion, is imposed on all citizens. Here is a person creating a living space where Catholic morality is practiced as a normative belief system within said town and you object to that as totalitarianism!
Come on. That's absurd. No one is going to be required to settle there, work there, even visit there. Or indeed to stay there if they do move, or as children become adults to leave and pursue their own beliefs.
You can't force me to only live my beliefs privately. You might want to reread your history and have a look at the Jacobins and Robespierre...
I'd happily send the remaining wingnuts here in Princeton off to Florida and then agitate for secession from the 'red states', but I fear that living exclusively with liberals would make things less tolerant. If someone wants to set up their own private Idaho in Florida, bug deal. The Mormons do it in Utah, as do the Aamish, as do various other sects and cults. That's freedom. If they're breaking the law that's one thing if not, then what's your problem, Commissar Idiot? Does your blood pressure rise if you can't slag off America for a day or so?
ReplyDeleteYes, but you can decide whether to go there or not!
ReplyDeleteSounds like a dumb idea to me - only nutjobs would want to live there.
America pretty much exists to let people do this kind of thing, which is great. Personally, I'd want to live a Catholic town about as much as a fascist one, but maybe that's just me. I do have to wonder though, what kind of fuckwit would move into a town that was owned outright by an extremely rich nut job? The only potential customers are people whose ideology way overrides their common sense.
ReplyDeleteI understand why people would not want to live in a place like that, but why would you want to stop people who would?
ReplyDeleteWhat Monagahan is talking about is not a town per se, with an official charter and what not, but a compound. Not entirely different from a gated community. There is nothing in the Establishment clause to stop something like that, nor should there be.
This seems like the essence of freedom, if you want to live in a community with only like-minded people...knock yourself out. You should not be allowed to force your views on others, on the flip side of the coin you should not be forced to submit to what you deem immoral.
"What Monagahan is talking about is not a town per se, with an official charter and what not, but a compound. Not entirely different from a gated community. There is nothing in the Establishment clause to stop something like that, nor should there be."
ReplyDeleteSeems so, I don't know whether anyone remembers a few years ago a number of stories in the media where people who joined gated community-type places were complaining about things like how they could erect a flag-pole to be able to salute the star-spangled banner every morning etc.
I'd reiterate, however, that until around the '40s, there was nothing in the US Federal Constitution to prevent a state from adopting an official religion...
So they want to set up a Catholic-only town? Their land, their property, their call.
ReplyDeleteI don't see what the big deal is - and I particularly don't see why you're raising this as an example of boundary-condition failure of Libertarianism.
In fact, it's a perfect example: the mad bible-thumpers go elsewhere to set up their own community, which no-one is forced to join, and others elsewhere are free to do their own thing.
In fact, if you have to triumphantly raise this in an attempt to critique Libertarianism, I hate to think how futile your less favoured arguments are :-)