The founder of Domino's Pizza would like to build a Roman Catholic town in Florida where such things are abortion, birth control and pornography (among other things) would be banned.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/02/catholic.town.ap/index.html



Is this type of town unconstitutional? Moreover, does this town have a place in America or not, given our emphasis on freedom of thought, expression and the ability to practice religion without undue restriction?

As long as the town receives no money from the federal government.. I really don't see why this would be a problem. Although I am sure some people would have a problem with signs on the highways that said "God's Will 39 Miles".

It's unconstitutional of course. Who would think otherwise? But that doesn't make it wrong of course. But in today's USA, why would anyone make the argument that the US stands for liberty and religious freedom? In this day and age, post 911, who could really believe the US is religiously tolerant? It sickens me bigtime how the term "Islamofacist" is on the airwaves without thought or concern to its ultimate meaning i.e. the US isn't religiously tolerant.

Yes, I think the town has a place in the United States, in much the same way that the Oneida Community of Shakers existed.

I saw Tom Monaghan and his architect(?) being interviewed by Katie Couric this morning on TODAY. They said that the community would not be exclusively Catholic, and they answered Couric in the affirmative when she asked if homosexuals would be welcome there.

The fact is that they could not deny any citizen there the rights that citizens elsewhere in the United States are accustomed to.

What they are talking about is a predominantly Catholic community where traditional Catholic values are encouraged. It would be much the same as a Chinatown is in major cities. It does not mean that they would be able to exclude others of different faiths, but that they would encourage those of their faith.

Under those conditions, I cannot see that it would be unconstitutional. It is largely the way various settlements were established when our country was younger, only with modern conveniences and an oft-interpreted set of local, state and national laws.

Is this type of town unconstitutional? Moreover, does this town have a place in America or not, given our emphasis on freedom of thought, expression and the ability to practice religion without undue restriction?
Given the town's potential relationship to the greater state of Florida, yes it would likely be unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. Without some more detail it would be hard to say. The restrictions on face do not have to be government subsidized to matter.

For example, if there were a WalMart in said town and someone attempted to fill a BC prescription there, is the pharmacist required by law to fill it? Some recent court cases would indicate there may be just such a conflict.

Is this type of town unconstitutional? Moreover, does this town have a place in America or not, given our emphasis on freedom of thought, expression and the ability to practice religion without undue restriction?

It seems that there are those among us who are hell bent, no pun intended, on living in a theocracy. I’m not sure whether it would be possible to completely divorce a town such as the one proposed from all state functions. Phone lines would still go in and out, as would highways and mail. I think the town would be unconstitutional, but I'm not sure how it would play out in the courts, especially if it got to the Bush version of the U. S. Supreme Court.



Despite the proposed banning of the mentioned items, I would guess they would still go on, that is, unless the residents were kept locked up for their “own good,” of course. By and large, I don’t think Catholics are morally inferior or superior to other identifiable groups.

I have a question, though. If someone were caught, for example, sneaking a Playboy into the town, would they be placed in the “holy” jail or tarred-and-feathered and run out of town?

Whether or not such a set up would be legal, I don’t think it is a good idea.



Apparently, that doesn’t stop Florida’s Governor Jeb Bush. He thinks this is a good idea. Just think, the family was reportedly grooming him to be president.




http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/01/State/Wi...c_town_in.shtml

Hey Jeb,

Brush up on history. This country was and is built on diversity, not "like-mindedness."

Oh, would somebody remind me to boycott Dominoes Pizza?

Edited to add:

There's the old saying, "monkey see; monkey do." James Dobson and/or Pat Robertson will probably be the next clowns to want to set up their own towns.

Believe me, the fact that Jeb Bush likes the idea does not make me like it.

And as far as Domino's Pizza being boycotted, it has been boycotted for years by the Pro-Choicers, of whom I was one many years ago.

The fact is that the experiment they are setting up will fail on its own. Perhaps people need to see that the idea won't work. But they have the right to try.

Sometimes I would like to live in a community where the sleaze factor isn't present--but I haven't moved away from our city yet. Instead, I believe that it is possible to live according to my convictions in spite of some societal factors, but they don't necessarily make it easy.

Methinks he mostly divested himself around 1998 to the tune of $1B, so you might miss the target.

As far as the town goes, I remember how cute the liberals thought it was when the cum-by-yas and others were setting up their own towns in the 60s, wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to not let everyone else do it?

As far as selling B/C pills, I don't think that will last long anyway. In the pharmacists' mind it's probably akin to those CRNAs or whatever they were refusing to juice up the murderer in California...

1.) As long as federal aid is not rendered, accepted or offered: no, it is not. It would be a town like an unlike all others in this nation. In that, I mean that it would have a population there by choice. It would not be like some towns or areas where you are not able to leave: it would be a voluntary-inhabited area which makes all the difference in this issue. It would be unlike the traditional little American town because it would have a specific purpose and a population all like-minded in their personal morals or opinions.

2.) Sure it does. I have previously stated many times that American's are able to choose good from bad for themselves. If they feel that they should not move to this town: then they don't have to! It's as simple as that. Anyone offended by this town would get a rude wakeup call when some people told them they were offended by their town because atheists lived there.

It's all personal, whether or not you believe something has always been a staple in this nation and to deny the right to build a town would be unconstitutional because an American citizen with both the conviction and means is willing to do so and face any consequences or adversity. Again, I shall stress the fact that no one will be forced to live there. The idea of a town being based around a religion might be better for this country because it would place diversity or "religious practice without undue restriction" in one area free from outside influence or others to force and/or share their beliefs with. If their faith leaves their community: that is a different matter entirely.

Is this type of town unconstitutional?
Well, I would think it is. But lets say a catholic couple moves to this town, but down the road decides to buy some pornography to spice up their sex-life. Their purchase, in another town perhaps, are vitnessed by some of their fellow "Gods Will" inhabitants. What can the town do to sanction this "immoral" behavior? not a goddamn thing. You can't throw people out of their house, and you can't deny them public utilities on moral grounds (I certainly hope you can't). So its all about principles, but this supposed town has no legal way to enforce these principles, and as long as they keep it like that, I would say it's perfectly legal.

Moreover, does this town have a place in America or not, given our emphasis on freedom of thought, expression and the ability to practice religion without undue restriction?
I actually have this totally unrealistic utopian idea, that the world should be divided up into a number of countries, based on shared "morals" and cultural values. Sure, I don't like seeing people get stoned to death in the country with people who likes sharia law, but as long as they choose to live in such a way freely, why should I care? In this ideal world people would of course be free to settle in the society that best reflect their values and morals (that woulld also be a requirement), so I suppose there wouldn't be that many women left in the muslim homeland. It may sound kind of boring with people being divided like this, I agree, but I have this silly notion, that most people I care to know, including religious people of different faiths, would choose to live in a secularist western style democracy based on the rule of impartial law with freedom for all and minimal government interference. If I want to socialize with fundamentalist or even just partially fundamentalist christians, muslims, catholics or whatever, then I'll go on holiday to their hopefully small parts of the planet (although these parts of the world would probably be larger than I care to think about).

So yes, towns like this have a place, especially if the people that move there will stop trying to impose their moral values on me. Then all the more power to them.

Oh! Most of the “Bill of Rights,” including Amendment I, have been incorporated to include states through Amendment XIV. That would mean the town, because of the establishment clause, would not be eligible for state aid either.

Whether it is federal income tax or a state sales tax, I do not wish to pay for the support of any religiously affiliated institution.



Nice smokescreen! The communities you are talking about from the 60s, as well as the Branch Dividian Compound in Waco and smiliar entities were not towns, but communes.

Is this type of town unconstitutional?

As far as I can see it is. "Governing according to Catholic principles" is not the same as establishing Roman Catholicism as the official religion. He wants to keep abortion, birth control, and pornography away from the town. Not such a long time ago, that was the norm throughout most of America. To call it unconstituional therefore is a bit of a stretch.

Moreover, does this town have a place in America or not, given our emphasis on freedom of thought, expression and the ability to practice religion without undue restriction?

Two words: Celebrate Diversity!


The term refers to a specific, highly intolerant faction within Islam. Are we supposed to tolerate violent intolerance?

[quote=vsrenard,Mar 3 2006, 02:47 PM]
[/color][/quote]

Is this type of town unconstitutional? Moreover, does this town have a place in America or not, given our emphasis on freedom of thought, expression and the ability to practice religion without undue restriction?

[/quote]


It is unconstitutional if the town forbade non-catholics from living in it...but I don't believe that is his vision. Aren't there many town in the state of Utah that abide by Morman teachings? Also, colleges across this nation have restrictions based on religioun, why shouldn't a town?