uberreiniger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
uberreiniger) wrote2006-03-02 12:21 am
uberreiniger) wrote2006-03-02 12:21 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
He calls it "God's will." What about the lousy, inedible pizza his company makes? Is that also "God's will?"
Call me a liberal Christian and a Universalist if you will, but I choose to believe in a God who wants me to have good pizza.
Moving on to the article, I hate to say it, but while his model society is puritanical, it's not unconstitutional. Nowhere in the United States Constitution are you guaranteed the right to birth control, pornography, or even an abortion. Now if he attempts to create legal statutes against such things in this town, then yes, he will be in trouble and can look forward to a long future of court rulings (assuming this town has a court,) being overturned by higher courts. Based purely on what the article says, however, it looks like this is a town where such goods and services will simply be unavailable, not outlawed.
How is it different from, say, pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions for birth control pills on religious grounds? (a practice I do not agree with) Because those individuals are attempting to force their values on the larger society. This looks like a place where people of a particular conviction can retreat from society to practice their belief. And that's nothing new in this country. Amish and Mennonite communities are noteworthy for their lack of birth control, pornography, and abortion clinics, and everybody loves them. I guess there's a double standard for the mean ol' Catholics, however.
This isn't a town I would want to live in, but if people make a choice to live there, (and in doing so, are aware they are giving up other choices willingly,) then they should be allowed to do so.
Call me a liberal Christian and a Universalist if you will, but I choose to believe in a God who wants me to have good pizza.
Moving on to the article, I hate to say it, but while his model society is puritanical, it's not unconstitutional. Nowhere in the United States Constitution are you guaranteed the right to birth control, pornography, or even an abortion. Now if he attempts to create legal statutes against such things in this town, then yes, he will be in trouble and can look forward to a long future of court rulings (assuming this town has a court,) being overturned by higher courts. Based purely on what the article says, however, it looks like this is a town where such goods and services will simply be unavailable, not outlawed.
How is it different from, say, pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions for birth control pills on religious grounds? (a practice I do not agree with) Because those individuals are attempting to force their values on the larger society. This looks like a place where people of a particular conviction can retreat from society to practice their belief. And that's nothing new in this country. Amish and Mennonite communities are noteworthy for their lack of birth control, pornography, and abortion clinics, and everybody loves them. I guess there's a double standard for the mean ol' Catholics, however.
This isn't a town I would want to live in, but if people make a choice to live there, (and in doing so, are aware they are giving up other choices willingly,) then they should be allowed to do so.
no subject
no subject