Right wing Catholic college has city close down place for the homeless

[kerry-is-my-prez]

Is that the Christian thing to do?

This was just reported on our local news. Apparently, this new University/City - Ave Maria was are bothered by the fact that this unseemly looking place with unseemly looking farmworkers is around their little city. When they applied to have this place built - they had claimed that they were going to build shelters, etc. for them. Now they are homeless and will be arrested if they try to go there to crash.


This is just an article about the catholic town - haven't seen an newspaper article about them having the shelter being closed yet.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002838279_catholic02.html

He's bankrolling Florida town where Catholicism would rule
By Brian Skoloff

The Associated Press

NAPLES, Fla. — If Domino's Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan has his way, a 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 magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and calls it "God's will."

Civil libertarians say the plan is unconstitutional and are threatening to sue.

The town of Ave Maria is being built around Ave Maria University, the first Catholic university to be built in the United States in about 40 years. Both are scheduled to open next year about 25 miles east of Naples in southwestern Florida.

[tuvor]

1. Add Dominos to the boycott list.

Hey, aren't they the ones who made us think of the mafia as a funny bunch of folks?

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. No point in boycotting Domino's;

Not for political reasons, anyway (Monaghan doesn't own the company anymore; he sold it almost a decade ago...but their pizza sucks, which is reason enough for anyone with functioning taste buds).

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. they've been on my list a long time - besides their pizza sucks

n/t

[spag68]

15. Dominos

Who in their right mind would eat dominos cardboard pizza anyhow?

[kenny blankenship]

2. Sure it's the Christian thing

Make the homeless and poor crawl before the Cross to receive aid. Nothing more Christian than Christian charity, saith the Apostle. Can't have the state interfering with the supply of misery! No supply of misery means no demand for Christian charity --and who'll they l(L)ord it over then?

yes, i realize that "real" Christians just want the needy to be helped, whoever does it, and whoever arranges that help in whatever way, but you are becoming something of a minority in your own church.

[ComerPerro]

16. Exactly. Aid is only for Christians, and those willing to convert

[Iris]

3. "Is that the Christian thing to do? "

Maybe for some denominations but it's decidedly UN-Catholic.

[SharonAnn]

6. They're basically (or actually) Opus Dei. They're for the wealthy and

powerful. They don't do any of that "Whatsoever you have done unto the least of these you have done unto Me."

They do wealthy and powerful. That's pretty much it.

And yes, I have a family member who's an Opus Dei numerary.

[Iris]

8. ah, yes! An alltogether different variety!

[liberalhistorian]

4. I fail to see why such a town would be

unconstitutional, unless people would be forced to live there against their will and principles. If people choose to live there, then they have the right to make that choice as long as they don't force it on the rest of us. No one is forcing them.

As for closing down homeless shelters-most Catholics I know would be absolutely appalled at that and the majority of Catholic churches I know of would be as well. It appears that some of the so-called "leaders" making these policies need to re-read the story of the Good Samaritan and to focus on Christian principles of love, care and charity instead of hellfire and brimstone.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

5. They were trying to get our local hospitals to ban their residents from

getting birth control and abortions. They almost succeeded until people here got into an uproar.

[liberalhistorian]

12. If they weren't Catholic hospitals, then

they had no business demanding that such policies be implemented. I'm glad there was an uproar.

[Gman]

7. If this city is incorporated in the state of Florida

it becomes a "creature of the state" meaning it is a subdivision of the state of Florida. That makes it subject to every single law not only of the state of Florida but, of course, the US including the constitution. That's the kind of city I would love to move to just to be able to file lawsuits to prove they can't live outside the boundaries of the constitution.

BTW, yes, most good Catholics would be appalled. Funny how some people try to take over and impose their own version of what they think a church is.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. PLease move here - we need more good Dems here. I'll help w/the lawsuits

n/t

[happyslug]

20. But you can do so by Deed Restrictions.

All the owner of the Town needs to do is buy up ALL OF THE LAND, and then resell the land to new owners, but with deed restrictions. My home town of Johnstown for example was made up of several different pre-existing towns when it merged after the 1889 flood. One of the towns was called Moxham. The Founder of Moxham hated alcohol so when he founded Moxham, he divided the town into lots and put a deed restriction on each lot that no alcohol could be sold from that lot. No Alcohol is sold in the old Borough of Moxham to this day (Through all the bars are right at the edge of the old Borough of Moxham).

As long as the restriction is legal and Constitutional, the deed restriction will be enforced. An example of an illegal deed restriction would be one that banned the property being sold to a non-white (Quite Common before the US Supreme Court ruled enforcements of such deed restrictions based on race was state action and thus unconstitutional). In that Decision the Supreme Court actually ruled that it was NOT illegal to put such deed restriction based on race in a deed, but the Courts could not ENFORCE such a restriction.

Since selling alcohol is NOT a constitutionally protected activity, deed restrictions as to selling alcohol are enforceable. Thus the questions will be are the deed restrictions on these property Constitutional? Do their VIOLATE the US and State Constitutions? Do they violate the Civil Rights Acts? Do there violate any other Federal or State law?

In the article what seems to be the plan is to permit private ownership of homes, but all commercial property will be retained by the owner who would just lease the property to businesses. The lease would contain a clause forbidding the business owner from permitting any abortions to be performed on the property and to prohibit the sale of pornography and birth control items. Not as good as a Deed Restriction, but if the lease says you can not do something, unless the restrictions restricts a Constitutional Permitted activity or an Activity REQUIRED to be performed under the Constitution or Statute, the Courts will up hold the lease (And since commercial leases are only five years in length, if the business does violate the lease the landlord has the right to evict him for the violation during the length off the lease AND not to renew the lease at the end of the term of the lease).

I am sorry, but restrictions as to abortion, pornography and birth control are more like restrictions as to selling alcohol than restrictions prohibiting owning of a piece of property to Whites only. They are NO Federal or State of Florida Statute that REQUIRES the providing of abortion or the sale of pornography or birth control items. The 14th Amendment says all people, no matter they race, must be treated as if they were white. Pornography comes under the First Amendment, which just permits Freedom of the Press. Abortion and Birth Controls items comes under the Concept of Privacy tied in with the Fourth and Third Amendments. The plan does NOT forbid the possession of Pornography nor bans the possession of Birth Control Items or prohibits someone in the town from getting an abortion elsewhere, just like bans on Selling Alcohol does not prohibit someone from taking alcohol to a house with, or consuming alcohol in, a house with a deed restriction banning the sale of Alcohol.

From a Practical angle, would a business want to challenge the lease provision given that after Five years the business can be kicked out anyway? Remember a lease does NOT have to be renewed, and if not renewed the burden in on the tenant to show illegal discrimination.

My point here if the Civil Liberty groups are going to have a had time to challenge this series of Deed Restrictions and Lease restrictions, first at the issue of standing (You can not sue in the US unless you have some sort of Standing, and that means you have to have someone DIRECTLY hurt by the lease provisions, such as a business person who wants to rent a place as a news stand and sell pornography. Once you have your person harmed you then have to prevail on the legal issue does the lease provisions (or the deed Restrictions) violate the Civil Rights Acts or the US and State Constitution? Difficult issue and difficult to present to a court.

[Gman]

21. Very good analysis

The key here, according to your analysis, is that the developer will retain ownership of all commercial property. I agree then that, he would have complete control over the type of business that is run and be 100% within his rights to do so. That's much different than my understanding of how the city would be run. This is not the first I've read about Ave Maria. I have understood that the city government would enact strict laws based on the Catholic Church then attempt to enforce those laws. In a perfect world, what I would like to do then is to buy commercial property, put up an abortion clinic and challenge the city to shut it down because abortion is outlawed by city regulations. That would be clearly unconstitutional. But in the case of the developer retaining ownership of all commercial property, it could be put into the lease agreement and be enforceable because it is his property and he does have the right to say how his property will be used.

[mmonk]

9. That's a shame.

Catholic Charities do so much for the poor. Too bad Monaghan never learned the good that came out of Catholic social work.

[liberalhistorian]

13. Yes, especially as he was the

beneficiary of it, having spent some of his youth in the care of Catholic orphanages, and at a time when few gave a damn about such children. Looks like there's a lot he forgot.

[RB TexLa]

18. As well as Catholic Relief Services

Want to know what's really being done to people in the world, ask someone that has volunteered with CRS.

http://www.crs.org/about_us/who_we_are/index.cfm

[etherealtruth]

23. Exactly ...

I know the Catholic church in my neighborhood "caught hell" from neighbors because it insisted running warming centers and feeding the homeless.

Specifically to your post: I've done a lot of work with indigent people (in our country)and I can tell you that Catholic Services provide invaluable services to "all comers."

It really is a shame these people choose to ignore their church's view on the less fortunate :(

[Swede]

17. I always thought Domino's was named after the game.

I never thought of the latin meaning "the Lord" before. Hmmm...

[nini]

19. wow.. the parish I go to helps the homeless.

feeds them right there on the property!! We must be heathens!!!
























what assholes.

[meganmonkey]

22. I'm just glad this fuckwad left Michigan

to build his town. He's been contaminating Ann Arbor for too long. Sorry, Florida, your turn now.

:shrug:

[etherealtruth]

24. I hear you!