Food Fight: Loma Linda's Seventh-Day Adventists Outraged Over McDonald's

[Adsos Letter]

Source: ABC News

The health conscious residents of Loma Linda, a small California city with a large Seventh-day Adventist population, have banned together to fight against the opening of the town's first McDonald's.

Nestled in a beautiful stretch of land east of Los Angeles, the 23,000 people who live in Loma Linda enjoy one of the longest life spans in the world -- on average, residents live well into their 80s. Its people are borderline obsessed with fitness and clean living, and they have a healthy population of centenarians to prove it.

So when McDonald's decided to move in, the people of Loma Linda went into red alert. When the issue to approve its opening came up before the city council, the meeting room was packed with outraged residents and health professionals, as if a nuclear waste dump, and not a fast food chain, was coming to town.

Watch the full story on "Nightline" tonight at 11:35 p.m. ET

But the city isn't just full of fit families, it is also heavily Seventh-day Adventist, a religion that strongly encourages congregants to follow a vegetarian or vegan diet, as well as an alcohol, tobacco and caffeine-free lifestyle.
*****************************

3-page news article, plus video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/loma-lindas-seventh-day-adventists-outraged-mcdonalds/story?id=15224296#.TxHGJG9AbQg

Because the population of Loma Linda is approx. 50% non-Adventist, does the effort of the SDA's involved represent an attempt to impose their faith on others?

I have to leave until this evening. I'll check back then to see if anyone has thoughts on this.

[MarkCharles]

1. Unless the SDA's OWN the city of Loma Linda, I'm afraid...

they are out of luck. At least McD's is not putting the burger joint inside their church.

Last I checked, serving meat in a fast food restaurant was still legal in all 50 states.

[Adsos Letter]

10. Part of the reason I posted this is because the church is not opposing this as a denomination.

In fact, the membership is of two minds on the matter. I guess I'm trying to circle back to a discussion of the proper ways for Church and State to co-exist.

[cbayer]

2. Good for them. And good on communities that have kept other

big blood sucking corporations out of their town.

The town that I sometimes live in has only one national chain store - a Radio Shack.

Last summer we took a no chains road trip. It was great. We ate in local restaurants, stayed in local motels and bought what we needed from local merchants. The only ones we really couldn't avoid were gas stations.

[Adsos Letter]

4. As far as I can tell the SDA's who are opposing McDonalds aren't doing so because they

are opposed to blood-sucking corporations, as such, but because a McDonalds will make it more difficult to raise their own children according to the denomination's teaching on diet and health, something tied directly to their interpretation of 1Cor. 6: 19-20 (at least, according to a statement by the doctor in the filmed interview segment). It isn't the only reason; Loma Linda is one of the denomination's flagship health centers, and a McDonalds would work against their attempt to foster a healthy overall community.

I think this question is very relevant to others that have been raised here: what is the role of religion viz-a-viz society.

Let me be very transparent about something here. I have been close to Seventh-Day Adventism since childhood. I recognize that their emphasis upon health is at least twofold:

1. A real desire to honor God and make themselves as useful as possible in His work by maintaining a healthy lifestyle
and
2. An honest desire to help people live as healthy a lifestyle as possible to ensure the highest quality of life possible, both believers and non-believers.

My question is a sincere one. I have no ill will toward the denomination. The church membership down there seems to be split on this issue. The mayor, an SDA, is opposed to the effort. He maintains that he sides with personal liberty. He also has a vested interest: he represents all of Loma Linda's citizens, not just fellow believers, and he may want to be re-elected next time round; although, his own church may turn on him next election cycle. Other church members, such as the doctor, are pushing it. The Church, as an institution, has taken no formal position.

Does the fact that it is individual rather than institutional opposition put this in the category of a positive social utility of individual religious belief?

[cbayer]

5. Good points and I appreciate a the more in-depth analysis of the situation.

If a community agrees to accommodate the wishes of a particular religious (or any other) subset of the community, and there is a desirable impact for the community, does it matter if it is religiously driven.

If they could impose their will on an unwilling community, that would be problematic.

If the mayor and the church itself are not supporting the effort to keep McD's out, then does the religion of those that do have any bearing at all?

I'm not SDA, but I would be there as a member of the community to oppose this (as I was against Wal-Mart in NOLA). In the end, I am assuming that the elected officials that represent the whole community will make the decision.

[Iggo]

3. They've "banned together"?

[Adsos Letter]

9. Oy vey!

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. it already has a KFC, Del Taco, Weinerschnitzel, Baker's Burger, and a Carl's Jr

Seems to me they failed to keep the town free from unhealthy food and multinational corporations a long time ago. Maybe it's just snobbery?

[cbayer]

7. I wonder why this is different? Location in the town maybe?

[Adsos Letter]

8. Snobbery?

I don't follow your meaning.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. They may think a McDonald's will lower the tone of the town

and so are claiming it's worse than the existing burger, chicken etc. joints .

[Adsos Letter]

12. Ah, ok.

They unsuccessfully opposed the entrance of one of those burger joints, iirc.

Sounds like they're fighting a losing battle against the tide, at this point.

It just struck me as a case where individual religious opinion informed political action on both sides of the SDA divide on this issue (freedom of conscience and Church/State separation both being central tenets of SDA'ism, which they base on biblical interpretation).

I suppose I'm trying to restart the debate on the proper place of religious belief in society.

[tama]

13. I'll bite

I'd like to approach the matter of "religious belief in society" from more general point of view than US legislation, starting from the ethical axiom of golden/silver rule (treat others as you would like to be treated and don't treat others as you would not like to be treated).

A logical consequence of that ethical axiom is 'localism', live and let live on the level of communities, which works best with small self sufficient communities whose way of life is not dependent from oppressing and slaving others aka imperialism to satisfy the material needs of the community.

Empirically a shared belief system and rituals that help to keep the community integrated is generally a strength for a community. Empirical experience also supports variety instead of universalistic totalitarianism of putting all eggs in the same basket, and cooperation before competition. So a great variety of communities with various belief systems would be preferable, but there is no easy solution to the potential problem of imperialistic homogenizing belief systems.

[skepticscott]

14. Well, if no one or very few people

really want a McDonalds in the town, then they won't have to be concerned about it lasting very long, now will they, because they won't be getting much business. But if enough people will patronize a McDonalds (or any other restaurant, chain or otherwise) to make it viable, what right does any group have to deprive them of that choice, because their god (or their interpretation of god, to be more accurate) says no. if they tried to keep out all pharmacies that dispensed birth control pills or sold condoms, solely for religious reasons, would that be OK too?

[MarkCharles]

15. With the logic of the SDA's Catholic towns should make sure that no

condoms or birth control pills are sold in their town.

This religious objection to McDonalds in an American town is rather silly, I mean, what is more American than McDonalds?

I wonder if SDA's use condoms or birth control.

[skepticscott]

16. The idea has been contemplated

albeit by a raving nut ball.

http://www.dgibson.com/pdf/world.pdf

[Adsos Letter]

17. SDA's have no problem with birth control that I am aware of, at least at the doctrinal level.

Individual choices may vary, but that is within the spirit of freedom of conscience.

[Adsos Letter]

18. I suppose I raised the issue for a couple of reasons.

1. I'm familiar with SDA doctrine, and know a lot of SDA's personally. I know that they value freedom of conscience and religious liberty for all, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. SDA's have always preached individual choice and personal responsibility. So I was a bit surprised to see the religious motivation for the opposition to the McD's being voiced by some of the opposition leaders, and I wanted to hear the group's thoughts on it.

2. The idea of how individual religious belief functions within a nation of secular laws. While the underlying motivation for some in opposition (according to their own words) is religious they also claim a larger issue of public health, so I suppose I'm trying to work out how that shakes out. My gut sides with the mayor (an SDA who welcomes the McD's based on the principle of individual responsibility). I'm not aware that the the birth control issue is ever presented as anything other than a religious issue by those who oppose it.

[The Straight Story]

19. If they opened a mosque would they worry people would convert just because it was there?

Or is it, they don't feel they have the strength to resist the temptation?