A Catholic's Paradise: No, Not Heaven, Ave Maria, Florida!

Perhaps you have heard that the founder of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan, is developing a Catholic planned-community called Ave Maria in Naples, Florida to exist alongside the new Ave Maria University. The general idea is to provide a place for good Catholics to coexist with other good Catholics. But, this raises quite a few legal questions.

How exactly can one enforce "good Catholicism" in a community? Monaghan has suggested that commercial leases would not be given to anyone who would distribute contraceptives, pornography, or perform abortions, prompting a quick response from the ACLU. I imagine the community will try to find some sort of loophole to ban these things, but the ACLU will be watching them closely.

The town is planned to have two schools: one private parochial school and one public school. I imagine the ACLU will be keeping an eye on that public school, as well. After all, if parents are insane enough to actually drag their children into a planned Catholic community but for some reason can't send them to the parochial school, they will still want the same "character education" (read: prayer in classrooms) that the parochial school instills. I don't doubt that this public school will raise First Amendment concerns.

Beyond legal questions, this poses some sociological and philosophical questions. Is this kind of living appropriate? Is trying to make believe that the world is Catholic healthy? How will this kind of community affect children? Will this make issues of tolerance even worse in this country? I think the answers are no, no, badly, and yes. I see nothing wrong with wanting to be around similar people, but that is what clubs, organizations, and churches are for. If Catholics want to be around Catholics, go to Church. Don't drag your families to some sort of Catholic utopia. I don't compare people to Nazis very often because it is generally a dirty trick, but this seems rather Nazi-esque. Sure, there is no genocide, but the goal is the same: eliminating people who are different. It's not healthy. Not at all.

Evangelicals and republicans: strange bedfellows?

I was reading this very long (but very interesting) article about Ron Paul in the Times, and one passage really struck me:

“I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”

We hear the "this is un-Christian" argument all the time in American politics, but rarely is it directed at the evangelicals. Indeed, it is typically left to the evangelicals themselves to throw that argument around. But, it's refreshing to hear someone say it like it is, and it raises an important question. How much of the Republican party's platform really is Christian?

Now, I should note that I am no religion scholar. I was born and raised a true-blooded agnostic. The only times I have attended Church have been weddings and funerals. I have never read the Bible, but I still think I have a relatively decent grasp of the kind of vision Jesus Christ had for the world, and despite my religious leanings, I agree wholeheartedly with that vision, because here's the deal: it's a liberal vision.

Let's consider, say, taxes. While I cannot point to a specific passage, it seems that Jesus would have generally supported a Robin Hood style "take from the rich and give to the poor" type class system. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Christ would have been a hard-nosed free-market Capitalist. So, it seems to me that the "Christian" system of taxation would be a graduated tax, taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor, for the improvement of the whole community, not a flat tax.

By the way, I realize how silly it is to think about what sort of taxes Jesus would have supported, but I think it's a worthwhile endeavor anyway.

Along similar lines, I don't think Jesus would have supported the "Get a job!" mentality that so many Republicans have when it comes to the existence of the welfare state. The welfare state (while it may very well have flaws) seems to be a shining example of Christian charity.

Abortion. While Jesus may very well have been "pro-life," the definition of "pro-life" has to extend beyond the moment a baby is born, or for that matter, the moment someone sinks into a coma. It seems that the only time Republicans want to "protect life" is when a fetus is in the womb or someone is in a vegetative state. What about all the time in between? Is it pro-life to see to it that a baby is born, but then to kick the mother and newborn out of the hospital for wont of insurance? Is it pro-life to allow poverty to thrive? Is it pro-life to send young men and women off to a foreign country to die for no real reason?

I don't think so, but hey, I'm just a stupid agnostic, right?

Gay rights. I think it's funny that Christians (I'm generalizing, of course, so I apologize to all of you progressive/liberal/sane Christians out there) put so much emphasis on homosexuality being a sin. I'm not arguing that it isn't, but there are plenty of things that are sins that are not as despised as homosexuality. Adultery, for instance. Senator David Vitter has admitted to being an adulterer, but I have yet to hear of evangelicals clamoring for his resignation. But, can you imagine how they would've rallied if he had announced he was gay? The point is this: Jesus taught tolerance, not just for some people, for everyone.

Immigration. "Love thy neighbor."

Free speech. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was counter-culture. To think that he would support the silencing of a vocal minority for the "comfort" of the majority seems absolutely absurd.

This all shows why I am so fundamentally opposed to organized religion. This guy Jesus (or the authors of the Bible) had some marvelous ideas, but once they got mixed in with power and politics, they got corrupted. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Democrats are by any means above this kind of twisting. My point is this: religion and politics have to mix, because people's opinions are informed by their religion. However, people need to take a long hard look at what their religion truly stands for. I don't mean that they need to listen to their priest when he says that pro-choicers can't take communion. I mean that they need to seriously look into the core of their religion and see what the fundamental goals and values are. They need to trust themselves as interpreters of the Bible; not their priests or pastors, and certainly not politicians running for President. They might be surprised what they find.

A Conservative Darwinism?

The New York Times has an interesting article regarding a philosophic link between Darwinism and conservatism. While liberalism has a somewhat utopian vision of human nature (we're all equal, and so on), conservatism seems to recognize what I suppose some might call "social Darwinism," perhaps without realizing it. After all, many Americans are quick to note that Nazism was a byproduct of social Darwinism, but when we really think about it, so is a free market economy. So is support for traditional gender roles. So, oddly enough, conservatives, who tend to reject Darwin in a biological sense, are more Darwinian than their liberal counterparts.

So what?

That's where this article is lacking. It raises an interesting point, but it doesn't answer the most important question: so what? It attempts to. It states:

Policies that are in tune with human nature, for example, like a male military or traditional social and sex roles, he said, are more likely to succeed.

In other words, acceptance of a Darwinian understanding of human nature would strengthen conservative positions. Instead of saying "tradition is good because it's tradition," conservatives might say "tradition is good because it represents the truth of human nature."

But again, so what? I don't think anyone would be swayed by the latter. I can't see a liberal buying into the argument that men are "naturally superior" to women or that the poor are naturally weak and do not deserve government assistance.

But that's the thing: the Darwin debate isn't really about Darwinism. It's about religion. Acceptance of Darwinian biology by conservatives will not help them when it comes to social policies. It will simply harm them when it comes to support from their base. This isn't a debate about philosophy, or even biology for that matter. It's about religion. Plain and simple.