Ten points to the first reader who catches what I’m quoting in the title (Josh G you are disqualified since we already talked about it)!
Last night we watched a segment on 60 Minutes (see link for print version) regarding the trend in America towards building larger and larger homes. Josh and I couldn’t ascertain what the point of the segment was, other than to make fun of people who like to combine architectural styles and/or to suggest that there is something immoral about living in a big house. Either way, I found myself taking umbrage with the insinuation that homeowners shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they want with their resources. Frankly, if a person has the money to build a McMansion or Starter Castle, why shouldn’t they have a 4000, 8000, or 172000 square foot house? Some think it’s vulgar to have large houses, but what else should these people spend their money on, and who are we to dictate how they spend it after all as long as it was honestly gained? Such critics should leave aside their dreams of communism and deal with their own jealousy issues. Some think that people who aren’t masters of architectural styles, but who build houses that incorporate different things they like irrespective of architectural period should not be allowed to build big houses. Such critics should get off their high horses and understand that architectural taste is in the eye of the beholder (or homeowner).
Yes, Virginia, I realize that the high horse comment is me calling the kettle black. Point duly noted.
At any rate, I think it’s important to remember that although we have obligations to God about our stewardship of our resources, we emphatically do not have any such obligation to the government, professors of urban sociology, or condescending 60 Minutes staffers.