Beach council rules Buddhists' cannot hold services in home | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
The City of Virginia Beach has decided that the Buddhist monks cannot continue to hold services in their house. But it has nothing to do with violating the free practice of religion. Nothing to see here, move along.
Beach council rules Buddhists' cannot hold services in home | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
Oh, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion to forbid worship practices on private property and there is just not a shred of intolerance in far-right Virginia Beach. The city is always concerned about careful and well-thought out land use. Just look at the sprawling wasteland of endless chainstore surburban sprawl and decaying and underutitlized apartment complexes. No land use issues here! That was careful planning to secure the human element here in Christian America.
It's hard to imagine the Beach similarly restricting Christianity in anyway (including the city logo, which prominently features a cross as a "landmark of our nation's beginning" along with those other American landmarks, a lighthouse and...the sun?).
Imagine the uproar if there was an attempt to shut down a Christian service--Pat Robertson himself might have to call down the wrath of god to cleanse such an act.
Which brings me to most amusing quote in the article, from an alarmed neighbor:
Yes, indeed, what if?
What if this tiny service of a decidedly non-mainstream religious practice in a home was suddenly to magically catapult to the multi-million dollar status of a charismatic mega-church with a multi-million dollar broadcasting arm which has foisted its particularistic doctrine on the public sphere and effectively pursued exclusionary and downright crazy politics while abusing the public airwaves to raise money for its continuous operation?
Beach council rules Buddhists' cannot hold services in home | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
"The City Council's decision had nothing to do with religion, Wood said. "In my opinion, it was a land-use issue, not a religious issue," he said.
City Councilwoman Barbara Henley agreed. "I have no belief that the city is intolerant and that the people in the city are intolerant," she said."
Oh, of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion to forbid worship practices on private property and there is just not a shred of intolerance in far-right Virginia Beach. The city is always concerned about careful and well-thought out land use. Just look at the sprawling wasteland of endless chainstore surburban sprawl and decaying and underutitlized apartment complexes. No land use issues here! That was careful planning to secure the human element here in Christian America.
It's hard to imagine the Beach similarly restricting Christianity in anyway (including the city logo, which prominently features a cross as a "landmark of our nation's beginning" along with those other American landmarks, a lighthouse and...the sun?).
Imagine the uproar if there was an attempt to shut down a Christian service--Pat Robertson himself might have to call down the wrath of god to cleanse such an act.
Which brings me to most amusing quote in the article, from an alarmed neighbor:
"The religious institution doesn't fit into their neighborhood of farms and homes, said Louis Cullipher, a neighbor.
Other residents complained that the temple drew too much traffic and large crowds for the Sunday services.
If the monks were allowed to continue using their home as a temple, more and more people would come there to worship, said Daniel Franken, another neighbor.
Franken said he feared the temple could grow to the size of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.
"Where is it going to end?" Franken asked. "What will happen to this neighborhood when this place outgrows itself?""
Yes, indeed, what if?
What if this tiny service of a decidedly non-mainstream religious practice in a home was suddenly to magically catapult to the multi-million dollar status of a charismatic mega-church with a multi-million dollar broadcasting arm which has foisted its particularistic doctrine on the public sphere and effectively pursued exclusionary and downright crazy politics while abusing the public airwaves to raise money for its continuous operation?
Comments