You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   255-279   280-304   305-329   330-354   355-379   380-404   405-429 
 430-454   455-479   480-504   505-526       
 
Author Message
25 new of 526 responses total.
tod
response 280 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:02 UTC 2006

Why not? It wouldn't be the first town to be religiously owned in Florida.

see http://scientology.fso.org/
richard
response 281 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:02 UTC 2006

and they should ban the 65-foot crucifix.  Way too tall.  Something that tall
is trying to rub their religion in the faces of non-believers.  There is a
reason for building codes.
richard
response 282 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:04 UTC 2006

re #280 because you can't violate the united states constitution and bill of
rights no matter where you live in this country, even if you own a whole town.
Monagahan does not get to not obey the bill of rights just by building a town.
Not when that town is in the United States.

Let him go build his town on an island somewhere
jep
response 283 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:10 UTC 2006

re resp:279: You're willing to let people do drugs and be prostitutes 
and any number of other things, but not to form their own town and live 
how they want to because their laws would be based on religion?  Why 
not?
tod
response 284 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:10 UTC 2006

re #281
 and they should ban the 65-foot crucifix
It wouldn't be the first.  Cell phone companies hire stealth technology
companies all the time to help them "hide" their cell towers with things like
big tall crucifixes and church bell towers.

re #282
 because you can't violate the united states constitution and bill of
 rights no matter where you live in this country, even if you own a whole
 town.
Then why is the 2nd Amendment banned in Washington, D.C.?
klg
response 285 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:11 UTC 2006

As a wise man once said, if you think health care is expensive now, 
just wait until it's free.
nharmon
response 286 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:12 UTC 2006

Are we talking about what basically ammounts to a supersized private 
property community that is based on religion? Its quite surprising that 
Richard is willing to use the government to deny these people their 
right to free exercise of their religion.

twenex
response 287 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:14 UTC 2006

Klg:

(a). Nationalized healthcare (or nationalized anything else) isn't "free",
since EVERYONE pays for it.

(b). You really expect anyone with half a braincell to believe you'd know a
wise man if one walked up to you and exploded?
tod
response 288 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:16 UTC 2006

Richard never heard of Wisconsin vs. Yoder, apparently.
twenex
response 289 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:17 UTC 2006

The establishment of religion forbidden is.
nharmon
response 290 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:20 UTC 2006

Not exactly Jeff. The state establishment is religion is forbidden. A 
private entity is free to establish religion, and has a right to 
exercise it.
kingjon
response 291 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:21 UTC 2006

"The establishment of religion" *by Congress* "forbidden is."

twenex
response 292 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006

(I know; i was just playing on the "Yoder", bit. Maybe you have to speak a
non-rhotic accent to get it.)
tod
response 293 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006

Thanks Yoda ;)
nharmon
response 294 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006

Oh, I get it now.
slynne
response 295 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:32 UTC 2006

When I first read about Monahans Catholic town, it reminded me of a 
former Mnetter Sean Hastings and his idea of "seascaping". I have this 
weird feeling that Monahan would probably love the idea of a community 
floating out in international waters where he would make up all the 
rules he wants. 
twenex
response 296 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:34 UTC 2006

IIRC, Pennsylvania was born as a colony for Puritans.
tod
response 297 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:44 UTC 2006

Well, I'll testify to the fact that PA is now full of horndogs.
richard
response 298 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:57 UTC 2006

re #283, jep, suppose there was a religion that had as one of its basic tenets
that it is okay to molest children.  And suppose that the mega-zillionaire
founder of that religion said, "I'm going to build my own town in Florida,
where all the residents of the town will be of my religion, and where will
molest our children as we please"  This would be just a people living in a
town where there laws are based on religion right?

Not in this country.  The Bill of Rights applies to every square foot of the
land in these United States, and if you live in this country, you must honor
the laws of the land.

kingjon
response 299 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:59 UTC 2006

Bad example -- that's something that's against the law, not just religious. I
can see no guideline for Constitutional interpretation that forbids the plan
for Ave Maria, FL, that does not also forbid churches, period.

tod
response 300 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 21:13 UTC 2006

re #298
, suppose there was a religion that had as one of its basic tenets
 that it is okay to molest children.
We call that Roman Catholicism.
nharmon
response 301 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 21:17 UTC 2006

Richard, the bill of rights applies to the government. It is a law 
saying what the government is not allowed to do. It is not a law that 
says what individual people are not allowed to do.
richard
response 302 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 21:18 UTC 2006

you don't make exceptions to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  You
don't get to build your own town in the United States and get to eliminate
the separation of church and state there.  That is against the law of our
land, just as child molesting is.
richard
response 303 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 21:19 UTC 2006

nharmon the Bill of Rights spells out INDIVIDUAL rights.  It says YOU have
the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion .etc  In order for you
to have those rights, the government of any state, town or community CANNOT
infringe upon those rights or place any restrictions on those rights.
nharmon
response 304 of 526: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 21:29 UTC 2006

Yes there are exceptions to the Bill of Rights, Richard. Lets name them 
shall we? Compelling state interest, and actions of individuals.

I think what this guy is talking about as a town is really a supersized 
private property community.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-224 
 225-249   250-274   255-279   280-304   305-329   330-354   355-379   380-404   405-429 
 430-454   455-479   480-504   505-526       
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss