Slashdot Mirror
Seniors Told They Can't Pray Before Meals
Seniors at the Ed Young Senior Citizens Center near Savannah, GA, have been told they can't pray before meals anymore out of fear of losing federal money for meals. From the article: "But Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state. On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center was traded in for a moment of silence."
Or maybe the idea is that we are supposed to cheer this development?
Or maybe Temple Beth El was leading the prayers, and that's why we're supposed to be in mourning?
More useless tripe from people who have no understanding of anything.
Look, nobody is saying you can't pray. The only issue, if there really even is an issue, is that the organization can't lead the prayer. Individuals can do whatever the hell they want, and they can even organize and pray collectively. But the institution has to stay out of it.
There is a big difference between "being forced to pray" and "being allowed to pray". As long as no one is being coerced into joining in, there should be no problem with public prayer. I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state, but that principle was intended to prevent the state from favoring one religion over another, not to forbid all public displays of religious practice. Those that don't wish to participate in the prayer should be allowed not to, just like those that don't wish to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The seniors can pray all they want, wherever and whenever they want. But the organization providing the meals cannot ask them or encourage them to pray, and a lout group prayer is not acceptable either. The organization can hold a moment of silence during which everybody can pray or do whatever else they like.
Pray on your own time, not during federally funded events.
You don't even get into the possible conflicts, muslim prayer, christian, hindu... Which one or each one by one?
I do not have any 'lack' of religion. What I 'lack' is the stupidity of having a religion. Do you normally go around telling people they are lacking something?
Do you even realise that you made a bigoted statement? When you accuse me of a 'lack' because I do not share your beliefs you get damn close to the very definition of bigotry. I'll bet you don't even see the need to apologise to an entire class of people whom you called deficient.
Anyone who wants to pray can pray before they get there. Then they can pray as atheist, jew or jain. In actuality the teachings (not the practice) of all major religion in the USA discourage public prayer.
What you say doesn't follow from the words at all.
If a neighbourhood or group of people is 100% devout Christian, and a state-funded group activity leader who is hired from amongst them is also a Christian, would the Founding Fathers have intended that he be banned from speaking a word about prayers?
That seems to go beyond the words, and I cannot imagine that they would have held that view. Are there contemporary examples of this happening? If there are no contemporary examples to be found at all it would be strange if they felt this so strongly that they took it to be granted as implicit in the wording.
I am not against anyone praying anywhere they would like, but I would like to make a point instead of losing the point of the connection of the freedom of religion and not being allowed to have a time of prayer in a publicly funded function. Its not about the hate of religion or the denial of religion by our governmental policies, but simply due to the fact that we cannot read or speak aloud a prayer of all religions of all people in a room reliably or efficiently enough to do anything else but that.
This was from Georgia, right? A hundred to one odds that they weren't reading a verse from the Koran or the Hebrew Bible. Why does that matter? Christianity/Catholicism are so dominant in our society that the will of their followers can easily drown out the ideals and will (no matter how similar) of other smaller/less represented religions. If we cannot represent them all equally our judicial system has decided that it is best to not enshrine any religious practices in almost all governmental practices (common exceptions being swearing in testimony, offering death-row prisoner's religious council, etc.) not out of hate of or disagreement with any religion, but for the protection of all religions. You may say that its just a prayer; people can stand to hear a prayer or a song or see religious effigies scattered through their free and open societies. Plenty of people do just that, as religion permeates every layer of our society, but just one thing it stays out of the the one part of our society we expect to be impartial and fair; government. Our government's policies do not want to sponser you praying to Jesus for the same reason it won't sponser someone else praying to Allah, Bhudda, Muhammed, L Ron Hubbard, or the Devil. Government does not care who you pray for, just as long as they stay a comfortable distance from it.
There is still a moment of silence so people who want to pray before their meals still can, just not out loud or even implying the need for it. You still receive all the benefit of participating in your own religion as everyone else present. What do you miss out on? Feeling like you are not alone in your beliefs at that moment. If you need that connection, you can go to church as i do every 3 days. I believe in God and our Great Democratic Experiment, and the seperation between the two is what allows me and millions of others to hold each with equal reverence in their hearts without betraying the other. I hope we never take that for granted.
Matt B.
There was a classic (but perhaps apocryphal) story running around a few months ago about officials at a hospice for the dying who decided it was inappropriate for the visiting chaplains (of various denominations, Christian and non-Christian) to refer to God when privately counseling their patients.
If it's a government-run institution that feels they can't sanction grace before meals, somebody could help the interested people gather privately and informally a few minutes beforehand to have their prayer before going in for their meal. Nobody's harmed, nobody's offended, no laws are violated. Of course that would require common sense and the ability to behave graciously and with civility and consideration. I'm betting it will never happen.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
If the largest group is two out of thirty? No, simpler to dispense with it or do it elsewhere.
People do not have the right to burn each other at the stake for different beliefs. If you support that then I will have to oppose to the point of death. And that is a bigger sacrifice than you can possibly make because you believe there is a soul to continue while I do not. I will oppose your right to burn people over religious issues to the point of my extinction full well understanding that you would find that outcome desirable.
It is not that you think it wrong it is that you are not thinking at all. You are operating on faith, one faith, and you cannot see all the conflicts it causes because you have 'faith'. You deliberately choose not to see. There are none so blind...
That is what faith means. Choosing to be blind, choosing to be ignorant, wilful stupidity. I am not expressing opinion here I am showing you the definition. There is nothing for you 'argue' about, it is all fact. Fact not faith.
If the majority of the people want to have a prayer, the rest should be respectful of that.
So basically, non-religious people have to be subjected to intimidation and peer pressure by other people (and people who apparently have Moderation points).
If people don't mind me smoking during dinner, or groping up my girl/boy friend (at the dinner table) then maybe I could accept this. But people tend to be hypocrites; they only tolerate non-intrusive behavior of OTHER people and their habits and morals, but for religious people it is OK for them to be over-bearing.
If I was a Satanist, I would suspect that most of these people would object vehemently to my public and out-loud prayers. But that's what you get with Religion (of almost any kind): a public sophism of tolerance (towards atheists even) but actions which are rude and insensitive (and often much worse).
If other religions (or cultures) aren't allowed to smoke their sacraments or ingest their peyote or other psychedelic sacraments, then Christians shouldn't be given any special privileges above the law either. It amazes me that the article portrays Christians as victims. I wish somebody would have the balls to take the yellow out of journalism.
If you are a geek you can write some code and see it in real time action. Evolution is most certainly a fact.
Strawmen now?
Thank you for proving my point. You are quick to impose your unilateral rules on others, but when someone tries to do it to you, you get all huffy.
And no, it's not a strawman. If anything it's math. All I did was change "religion" to "speech" and continued to apply your interpretation. Both rights are equally protected by The Bill of Rights so if you can apply your loose interpretation on one, it should apply to the other.
Since I am not imposing rules or imposing anything on anyone merely commenting on what I thing, logical mistakes and failures in perspective what you have said does not accurately reflect anything. You can equate anything you like but that does not make the comparison accurate. Substituting lemons for oranges in a recipe can work well sometimes while on other occasions it is a tragedy.
In this particular case, no one is forcing anyone to pray. Anyone present is free to read, stare at the wall, eat or simply get up and leave. Just like when you talk, I don't have to listen. But telling people they are not allowed to pray because someone might get offended is no different than telling someone not to speak because someone might get offended. Since you are a non believer, a prayer is nothing more than words in your eyes anyway. If you were to be completely honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that prayer is nothing more than speech. You telling someone they can not pray in public is telling someone they can not speak in public simply because you do not like what they are saying or who they think they are saying it to.
I am not arguing for me alone. Perhaps there are several mormons or jews present. Whose prayers dominate? All I am seeing here is that you want "your way" while I am trying to consider the case for all. What if I venerate Lucifer Lightbringer? That makes your speech more than offensive. What if I venerate the Hindu gods? You want me to leave a public eating place because you want to have an excluding prayer?
No mate. If you follow the principle of infliction then you have to defer to the neutral.
Since what you say is false there is not much to argue about. What you present as fact is not fact. I guess your “faith” predicates that. It is pointless arguing with a closed mind. I’ll give up.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.