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."

Comments

Who the hell is "samzenpus"...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

...and how the hell did this make it past Taco?

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?

FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FFS

[Locke2005]

Until one of the participants objects, I don't see what the fucking problem is. Ask everybody if they consent to participating in the prayer. If everyone consents, then the government should stay out of it. If someone does object, then you need to find a procedure that doesn't make them feel like they are being coerced into joining in.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Forcing people to publicly either consent or not consent places people in just as awkward a position. Would you really want to be the person that raises their hand and says "yes I have a problem with the prayer"? I'm calling reactionary bullshit on this anyway, but even if it's true, people are more than welcome to pray on their own.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

If the majority of the people would like to have someone say a prayer, out loud, I see nothing wrong with that. The people who do not want to participate in the prayer can sit quietly for a few seconds out of respect for the people who do want to participate (by bowing their heads, closing their eyes, folding their hands, or whatever). It’s no more than I would do if I went to, say, a Mormon funeral, and they had a Mormon prayer. If the majority of the people want to have a prayer, the rest should be respectful of that.

If your religion (or lack of religion) will not permit you to even listen to me pray, nor will it allow you to respectfully avoid making a disruption that prevents me from praying or distracts people who want to listen to my prayer, then your beliefs are intolerant of mine, not vice versa.

In fact, that goes for any public setting... not just a prayer. If the majority of the people want a couple of troublemakers to shut up and be quiet so that they can hear the person who is talking, their right to hear the speaker should overrule those few people’s right to be noisy and disruptive.

Re:FFS

[Kral_Blbec]

Unfortunately, the non-Constitutional separation of Church and State is now interpreted to mean a Constitutional endorsement of atheism.

Re:FFS

[Locke2005]

If the majority of the people want a couple of troublemakers to shut up and be quiet so that they can hear the person who is talking, their right to hear the speaker should overrule those few people's right to be noisy and disruptive. Unless, of course, the interrupting asshat is a member of the House of Representatives, in which case he has a right to do whatever he wants.

Re:FFS

[Locke2005]

The ancient Greeks devised systems 3000 years ago whereby each citizen could voice their objections without their vote being known publicly. The term "blackball" still in use today is derived from one of those systems. And yet you can't conceive of any way for a person to object to a prayer without doing it in front of everyone else?!?

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

I’m willing to concede that it was rude and inappropriate of him to interrupt if you’re willing to concede that blindly swallowing anything Obama says is practically like a religion. :p

Re:FFS

[Kral_Blbec]

Separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. It is a catchphrase created to push an agenda rather than to describe what is actually written.

Re:FFS

[Nadaka]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

There is no stronger language in the constitution than SHALL MAKE NO LAW. Just because the specific words "separation of church and state" are not specifically spelled out does not mean that they are not expressed. It is entirely inappropriate for state organizations to forbid, coerce or lead a prayer in any capacity. It doesn't matter if it is to Jerry Fallwell, Christ, Allah, Yahweh, the reptilian space pope or the flying spaghetti monster.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

If your religion (or lack of religion) will not permit you to even listen to me pray, nor will it allow you to respectfully avoid making a disruption that prevents me from praying or distracts people who want to listen to my prayer, then your beliefs are intolerant of mine, not vice versa.

If your religion forces me to sit through several minutes of rambling to a fictional entity, or endure your regular disruption of everyday life that make everybody who doesn't want to participate uncomfortable or distracts people who don't want to listen to your prayers in their social lifes, then your beliefs are intolerant of everybody else, not vice versa.

Basically you want to force your religious habits onto others. You said it yourself: those who don't want participate should stop their lives till you are finished, out of "respect", probably "for the children", too. Also, we're talking about dinner. Not an elective visit to a religious celebration like a Mormon funeral. Red herring and all that.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

If your religion forces me to sit through several minutes of rambling to a fictional entity, or endure your regular disruption of everyday life that make everybody who doesn't want to participate uncomfortable or distracts people who don't want to listen to your prayers in their social lifes

Oh, cry me a river. You’ll live. I had to read your whining pathetic post and I’m not complaining.

Basically you want to force your religious habits onto others. You said it yourself: those who don't want participate should stop their lives till you are finished, out of "respect", probably "for the children", too. Also, we're talking about dinner. Not an elective visit to a religious celebration like a Mormon funeral. Red herring and all that.

No, YOU are forcing YOUR religious habits onto EVERYONE else. If everyone except you and a couple other people want to have a prayer, you are the one forcing the issue by making a fuss.

Re:FFS

[Kral_Blbec]

What about prohibiting the exercise thereof? The original intent behind the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" was to prevent the federal government from founding its own church (individual states already had theirs). Religion and government were not intended to be split as decisively as they are now. There were to be merely let loose to survive on their own as the people willed.
Its interesting that you state "entirely inappropriate for state organizations to forbid" when that is all they really do anymore. Here we have a group that has been doing voluntary prayers for a while. Now they are being forbidden because they might offend the minority. What about the minority offending them? The law has been interpreted to mean that there can be no semblance of a prayer on government property, even outlawing voluntary prayer meetings at the flagpole on schools. If the majority of the people in a group want to pray a particular way at any given time at any given place, its up to the minority to either leave or stay silent. That's democracy and that is what the Constitution intended.

Re:FFS

[bigredradio]

Blasphemy! I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster you insensitive clod. Please offer the same respect of capitalization as you do those who worship Jerry Fallwell.

Re:FFS

[Locke2005]

Blindly accepting everything that _anyone_ says is a mistake. The Dalai Lama says you shouldn't even believe what he says, unless it makes sense to you based on your own experience. Obama is a thoughtful and articulate man, but like every man he is still capable of making mistakes. Hopefully he has enough foresight to avoid epic fuckups on the scale of his predecessor!

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Well... he did utter some pretty good ones on the campaign trail, and his Vice President hardly disappoints when it comes to frequency and hilarity of gaffes.

I do, however, agree with your first statement: Blindly accepting everything that anyone says is a mistake.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

It’s not even like you’d be forced to sit through it if you don’t want to.

If you’re really so offended by listening to someone exercise their own religion, just come to the meal just before it starts and after the silly religious nonsense is over with.

Re:FFS

[Fnkmaster]

The Constitution features two Amendments within the Bill of Rights, known as Amendment 1 and Amendment 6, which respectively prohibit any laws respecting the establishment of religion or laws restricting the free exercise of religion, and prohibit tests of religion as qualification for public offices or roles.

Since an agreement to form the Bill of Rights was necessary and essential to gain ratification of the Constitution, and the Bill is generally included within the meaning of the Constitution, I'd say it's safe to say that there is a Constitutional separation of church and state.

I'm not sure what you think that phrase means, but it seems pretty clear that the Constitution doesn't want the government messing with religion, nor religion messing with the government.

If you want the phases from the Constitution expounded upon further, there are lots of other writings by the guys who wrote them that clarify their views.

But don't pretend that this is all some mythical liberal conspiracy by talking about people pushing an "agenda".

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

You've never heard about religious ostracism?...

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

It wouldn't work so easily in a small community.
It's not hard to have a small, "passionate" group that would start poitning fingers. Yes, they have some chance to be wrong in pinpointing the "guilty"...so what?

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

Oh, he should just stay away from publicly founded avenues?

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

I suppose he could, at least until it’s made illegal to pray in public.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

http://kyon.pl/img/11186.html
http://kyon.pl/img/2823.html
http://kyon.pl/img/1622.html

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

...and you thought nobody sees the subtle difference between "should" and "could"?... (the latter meaning the former too often anyway; ostracism is rampant throughout the world)

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

He “could” also do as I already suggested, so your little dilemma over “could” vs. “should” is quite unnecessary.

It’s not even like you’d be forced to sit through it if you don’t want to

just come to the meal just before it starts and after the silly religious nonsense is over with

Now, quit making me repeat myself.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

If your cartoons had any relevance to the actual situation, they might be more amusing. The vast majority of Christians don’t go around bashing people over the head with their beliefs.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

So are you at least equally supportive of the idea that any religious ones should do their business in private and then they can come to public space?

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

...or so they think.

Really, come on, you're talking here about a group of people who is convinced that they know the ultimate (of those which are really relevant to us) truth about the Universe, who think that have the absolute moral guidance. Wouldn't you be at all surpised if such people noticed readily any systematic errors in their ways?...

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

I’m not against the idea, no. Certainly if a majority of the people didn’t want to have a prayer, then the ones who did should pray silently to themselves or do it in their rooms or some other place before coming to the meal.

If the majority of the people do want to have the prayer, though, a few arrogant killjoys shouldn’t be allowed to prevent everyone else from having it.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

As opposed to any other religion, which is also convinced that it knows the ultimate truth about the Universe, and has the absolute moral guidance?

Or atheists, who are convinced of their own ultimate truths about the universe (typically chance and evolution) and their own moral guidance (typically self-imposed sense of ethics, civilly imposed sense of law, etc.)?

We’ve degenerated into the stupid situation where simply believing someone is wrong is considered to be the same as intolerantly bashing them over the head. If someone goes on a lengthy tirade about godless atheists who have no morals then yeah, you have a justified reason to call them intolerant. A polite prayer before a meal, however, is absolutely not any justifiable cause for offense.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

You know, a large part od being a modern democracy is also having a respect (heh, there it returns again ;p ) for minorities, especially since it appear to be along the lines of the law...

Otherwise, you just have a mob rule.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

You really think there's no difference or only pretend?... O_o

Religions are of the position that they represent the absolute truth (each of them separately, which btw tells something about it...). You can of course easily find atheists who are like that (though to many it's really more about post-theism). But not only that doesn't follow to "absolute moral guidance" in this case, those people...generally...just want to be left alone. Really, everything else (secularisation, etc.) will just follow from that, no need to do anything...

Religions OTOH generally exhibit the trait of securing their realm however it's feasible (those which don't do that - vanish). That includes permeating every aspect of life, if that's possible. Getting in your way, if that's possible.

BTW, preaching means there many such tirades exactly. No, it isn't limited to private spaces or to a way not relying on public funds; if it did...heck, I don't care much what you do in private.
Prayer before a meal stops being polite if it is intruding into the public space.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

After reading TFA (yes, surprise), it seems my original idea [take a vote, have somebody pray, keep most of the people happy] wasn’t really very relevant.

There is no unified prayer given by someone.

They are, in fact, telling the individual people that they are not permitted to pray audibly before they eat. It might offend someone.

Unless there is a total prohibition on TALKING while you eat, it shouldn’t matter whether you are talking to the guy sitting next to you, to an imaginary friend, or to your particular deity (which some people would call an imaginary friend anyway). Treat them equally. If they’re not being loud and disruptive, they can talk to whomever they want. If they are being abnormally loud and bothering other people, it shouldn’t make any difference what they were shouting about.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

I really wouldn’t have a problem with atheists who just wanted to be left alone. It’s just that leaving them alone too often means that I can’t do perfectly reasonable things in public places while they’re there to be offended by it.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

You just said "only my group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable". I agree, sums it up pretty good.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

What I said was, if your freedom from religion means I can’t talk to one of my friends (imaginary or not) in a public place, you are an intolerant bigot.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

I'm not sure what you think that phrase means, but it seems pretty clear that the Constitution doesn't want the government messing with religion, nor religion messing with the government.

I think it means that the government shouldn’t be telling people whether or not they can pray, nor where they are or aren’t allowed to do it.

Re:FFS

[liquidsin]

sure, sure. if me and thirty other people in the room wanna rape you and your mom, you're the one making a fuss by objecting.

Re:FFS

[liquidsin]

better idea: i'm gonna go in time for prayers and be a douchebag, all loud and on purpose. because if the christians don't have to be quiet for that minute, neither do i. *OR* we could *ALL* have a moment of silence to reflect on things in our own heads and THEN THERE WON'T BE A FUCKING PROBLEM. are you actually retarded, or do you really believe that tyranny of the majority oughtta be government sanctioned?

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

If your freedom for religion means I can't be left alone by your friends (imaginary or not) in a public place, you are an intolerant bigot.

So there...

But I guess "only your group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable"

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Freedom of speech, etc. People have the protected right, in the US, to be (to a certain extent) intolerant bigots if they are so inclined. See: Westboro Baptist Church, a la the Phelps. The Supreme Court has, in fact, ruled in favour of their right to stand in public places and be intolerant bigots.

You can’t just walk up to someone and tell them “your speech offends me, shut up”. Quite frankly everyone will know they’re intolerant bigots, but it is their right to continue to do so. If someone is an intolerant bigot, publicity is their own punishment, but you cannot just take away their rights in order to make them go away. All you can do, in most cases, is to simply permit them to make utter fools of themselves and show everyone how bigoted and intolerant they are.

Re:FFS

[Kral_Blbec]

The guys that wrote them were themselves very religious and as I pointed out, wanted to restrict *federal* government from establishing a religion. They never intended for any religion to be supported or oppressed by the federal government. It was to be left to the individual states, counties, and cities. Separation of Church and State implies that on all levels there is to be no mention of religion in government, and no mention of government in religion. That is not what the bill of rights says.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

Oh, but you (group, again) can just walk up to someone and tell them your speech offends me, shut up? Don't pretend it's not the case...what, you don't have censorship? Really? What with constant bitching, about pretty much most media, about nudity, "violence", "promoting innapriopriate cults", etc. by some vocal groups?
Yes, "I would never do that"; but you give them power to do that and be treated seriously

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Oh, but you (group, again) can just walk up to someone and tell them your speech offends me, shut up?

When exactly did I say that? Or are you making assumptions about me based on your perception of what all Christians are like?

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

So, was it that hard to notice...

a) "you (group, again)"

b) "but you give them power to do that and be treated seriously"//notice no "group"
?

It's perfectly valid to judge also you by the dynamics of a group you identify with. A group which feeds its power from followers like you.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

I think I’ve made my position clearly enough distinct from the position of those that you accuse me of associating with. I can’t help it if they call themselves by the same name that I do, but what I can do is clarify my position.

Pigeonholing people based on the group that you associate them with, on the other hand, is easy and lazy because it doesn’t require you to address their positions, only to knock down a few straw men that apply to the misconception you had of the entire group.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

Again, it doesn't matter that you personally (and even if mostly sincerely) think you don't stand for such people. In such social dynamics individuals hardly matter. You, me...we don't matter much individually.

Oh, and describing this (using again previous example) clear censorship (in a place with supposedly "freedom of speech"...) as "misconception" - that would be a straw man. And very in line with the comments one might expect from people you supposedly don't support...
But you do. You believe in mostly the same things. You base that faith on the same things (and yes, their views can be deducted directly from your sacred texts; are actually strongly supported by those texts). But suddenly noticing such strong correlations, such overlying goals and wordviews...is wrong?

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Well, that’s convenient. You don’t have to argue with me, merely with the straw-man you’ve constructed that represents all Christians as a lump. Any time I deviate from that straw-man you just claim that I’m deviating from what Christianity is, which is in fact just what you think that it is.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

I'm looking at its actions, nothing more. Things is, there doesn't seem to be much of a positive reinforcement between the prevalence of Christianity and mature societal ethics, maybe a bit the contrary here and there...

Again, describing a quite valid IMHO approach, for which you have to yet present solid argumentation why it's wrong, in derogatory terms almost as principle (who would done that again?...) - that's a straw man, if anything here is.

And were you really, at any point, of the impression that I'm approaching specifically you with most of what was said? (talk about modesty...). That's pointless, useless and - not even very effective at anything. Even if I would somehow "turn you over"...so what? You and me would still be two isndignificant individuals.
You have to look at religions as a group and what that group collectivelly represents. Picking out specific individuals doesn't give you much; especially since there's often so clear discrepancy between what people claim, and what they do.
I much prefer morality based on actions, not intentions.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Your “valid” approach is paint everyone with a wide brush, and when someone yells “hey that doesn’t apply to me... not even to most of us!”, you retort “yes it does”.

Anyway, I’m really, really confused at this point what you’re even trying to argue. This discussion has diverged so far from the original topic that I’m not even sure it’s salvageable at this point.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

You being confused, as you just admitted, is exactly the point.

And hey, if you really want to argue that looking at individuality is the valid approach with religions, possibly the most entrenched, and far spanning, societal contructs...

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

My confusion is merely in how any of this is at all related to the topic at hand.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

Your convision means that you don't see how forcing oneself into individidual "topics at hand" doesn't really work with such vast societal constructs.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

This is an article. We are commenting on the article. Are we on-topic? Not really.

We started off somewhat on-topic but we’ve vastly diverged from there.

Returning to the topic of the article:

If I am in a public place, and if people in this public place are permitted to speak, then I am permitted to speak to God there if I wish. If that offends someone, it’s their problem, not mine.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

Don't misrepresent the situation (who would have done so...) "If I am participating in federally funded activity...", for starters.

Secondly, we already established that your group limits freedom of speach in public places. But as long as double standards work in your favour...

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Never mind, it appears that the issue has been resolved.

http://savannahnow.com/news/2010-05-11/prayer-re-instated-port-wentworth-senior-center

After initially telling members last week that they could no longer pray out loud before meals because the meals are partially funded by the federal government, Senior Citizens Inc. reversed course to the relief of the center's members.

Good news, people. You can pray before you eat, even if the government helped pay for the food.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

"The issue has been resolved ... Good news, people" is not quite correct. Naturally, the status quo of bending laws here and there (simply change them isntead of such show...) has been reestablished to your satisfaction; but that doesn't resolve the issue.

Oh well, it's the direction of the world anyway. I'm happy I can already see it, at leats locally.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

Keep telling yourself that. In reality, the laws are not being bent; they are being enforced correctly. Praying out loud is just as protected as any other form of speech is, and people like yourself can’t change that no matter how much you’d like to...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/12/hicks-interpreting-rules-of-religion-rights/

In Port Wentworth, Ga., patrons of the Ed Young Senior Center, owned by the city of Port Wentworth but operated contractually by Senior Centers Inc., were told they could observe a moment of silence, but not pray aloud before eating their federally subsidized food.

...

Mayor Glenn "Pig" Jones asked his senior constituents to be patient while he put his legal counsel on the question. Within a few days, the state's Office on Aging clarified that their guidelines do not prohibit citizens from joining together to pray aloud; they only prohibit city employees or employees of the service provider from leading the patrons in prayer.

"We now know that the rules were misinterpreted. There's no language to say people cannot bless their meals, only that city workers or those contracted by the city cannot ask everyone to bow their heads for a blessing," Mr. Jones says.

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

You still have to explain how those people can be such hypocrites...demanding unconditional free speach for them, while at the same time cheering censorship in areas that are perceived as a threat to their beliefs... (which tells us BTW how much they trully really believe in them)

Anyway, as I said, it's inevitably changing. Consider that if you would came in contact with typical community of faithful from even 200 (not to mention, say, just 500) years ago...you would consider them most likely to be batshit crazy. And they would return the favor, oh yes they would...

The issues we discussed are just a natural continuation of that, shifted widely.

Re:FFS

[clone53421]

You still have to explain how those people can be such hypocrites...

How about we ask them to defend their own hypocrisy, m’kay?

Re:FFS

[sznupi]

And who better to do it than other members of their group, hm? Especially those who supposedly don't support such double standards...or do they? (after all - why they haven't asked already?)

Sigh

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:Sigh

[Demena]

I guess the only problem with public prayer is that it is against Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachings. You give yourself away when you say "allowed" not to - as if you were granting a right.

Re:Sigh

[Locke2005]

Ok, "allowed not to" is a poor choice of words. "Not pressured or coerced in any way to participate, or made to feel embarrassed by having a different belief system" is more accurate, but a lot more awkward to say. It's just like the controversy over prayer before school football games -- it in no way diminishes me to STFU and let other people pray, even if I find their belief system to be ridiculous. You must love and respect others regardless of their beliefs -- but then, that's just my belief system.

Re:Sigh

[sznupi]

Thing is, "Not pressured or coerced in any way to participate, or made to feel embarrassed by having a different belief system" is mostly a fiction. It's rather easy to not see it if you do have some sort of faith, because although there are many different ones (virtually each "condemning" in one way or another the rest btw...), in modern world they try to act, with such stuff, on a quid pro quo basis. "OK, I don't really like that you display yours, but I have to bear it, somehow, to display mine..."

What about those who don't have any, don't display any, don't impose any show for surroundings? That was the case with controversy over footbal prayer, from the cases I've heard about.

Re:Sigh

[sznupi]

I take you live in a place without ostracism? Really?

Re:Sigh

[Locke2005]

A religious fanatic might have a rational fear that someone else who prays to the wrong God might go to hell. An Atheist doesn't believe it matters at all what deity someone prays to, so why should they care how other people waste their time? What make you think I'm not an Atheist? Can't I be an Atheist and still believe in religious tolerance?

Re:Sigh

[sznupi]

Certainly you can be. But I was looking more at how this ideal ends up (generally how it works) in practice...

Sure, who cares how people waste their time. But what when they start to waste your time?

Re:Sigh

[Demena]

Then accept this belief - I go to a football match to watch the game not have moments of my precious life wasted with bullshit propaganda.

That belief acceptable?

Diverting my purpose, wasting my time, that is imposing your religion on me.

bullshit

[jipn4]

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.

Re:bullshit

[clone53421]

It is very simple to solve this democratically.

Question 1: What sort of prayer you would prefer before meals (ex: Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, moment of silence, none; be as specific as you wish)?

____________________________

Question 2: Will you, or will you not, be able to respectfully and silently sit without disrupting the proceedings if the form of prayer that is given is not according to your own religious beliefs?

____________________________

Then choose a form of prayer (or no prayer) that, based on Question 1, will appeal to the most people, and anyone who answers question 2 in the negative is an asshat who can come to meals when the food is ready to be served; meanwhile everyone else can get there ten minutes earlier and have someone give the prayer.

Re:bullshit

[clone53421]

Not at all. You are free to say you disagree with the prayer, or with the faith of the person who gave it, so long as it is done in a respectful, non-disruptive manner that doesn’t infringe on the rights of the person who is trying to pray or the other people who are trying to participate in the prayer.

Re:bullshit

[jipn4]

It is very simple to solve this democratically.

Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian and voted to deprive non-Christians of their civil rights and later kill them; tyranny of the majority is not democracy.

The US Constitution has the non-establishment clause; you can vote as much as you want, it's not going away. You probably can't even eliminate it with a Constitutional amendment.

Re:bullshit

[Demena]

Wrong. You are not considering the plethora of religions. I live in a multicultural society. Listening to all the objections would take up more time than a prayer. Oh, and whose prayer goes ahead? Which one?

Re:bullshit

[clone53421]

Let someone who represent the largest group of people give a blessing before the meal. Let anyone who objects, or wishes to give their own blessing or prayer, do so privately or in a smaller group in the community room or somewhere else. It’s not like you have to start eating the instant you’ve finished the prayer.

Furthermore I never said that the majority (who wanted to have the prayer) have to give the objectors a pulpit from which to announce their objections. They can voice their objection to whomever cares to listen at their table as they eat.

Re:bullshit

[clone53421]

Ha! What a joke.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now show me the law, made by Congress, that would respect the establishment of a religion if the seniors were allowed to have their prayer before they eat, which really sounds to me like the freedom to exercise their religion that was just affirmed by that very amendment.

Re:bullshit

[Zironic]

No federally funded organisation would be allowed to say "Let's pray for a minute"

But neither are they allowed to say "You're not allowed to pray"

What they're meant to do is say "Here's the food" and then the seniors can do whatever the heck they'd like.

Re:bullshit

[clone53421]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Explain to me how you get, from that, the notion that no federally funded organization would be allowed to have someone pray.

No!

[Demena]

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Majority rules is not good enough in this case. If anyone objects then it does not happen or happens elsewhere.

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.

Re:No!

[my $anity 0]

In one breath you get all offensive because people accuse you of having a lack of something. A lack of something is not always bad. I for one, as far as I know, have a lack of cancer. Personally I've used the words "religion or lack thereof" in front of more atheists than I can count and I really don't think any took offense.

In the same breath you accuse all religion of being stupid.

Respect goes both ways.

I bet YOU don't even see the need to apologize to an entire class of people you called stupid.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

Bullshit. Your freedom of religion does not give you the right to prevent other people from exercising their own.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

I lack a lot of things. I lack a hole in the head, for one thing. Saying I lack something doesn’t necessarily imply that I want to have it, nor does it necessarily imply that I ought to have it.

Another thing I lack is a sense of insecurity or whatever else it would be that might cause me to go around taking offense at people for petty imagined slights when no offense was meant.

Re:No!

[Demena]

I have no problem with people exercising their own religion - on their own. They don't have a right to inflict their rituals on me (unless it is their own home and I am free to leave).

If say, my religion demands silence before god (rather than wearing a hat or not wearing a hat) then what they say and do affects my religion. If you are going to respect religions you cannot ask people to listen to apostasy can you?

Re:No!

[clone53421]

You are welcome to be silent before your God.

If your religion mandates that EVERYONE ELSE also be silent before God, then you are preventing them from exercising THEIR OWN freedom of religion.

Re:No!

[sznupi]

http://kyon.pl/img/1622.html
http://kyon.pl/img/11186.html

Re:No!

[sznupi]

You most likely don't realise how pervasive (not quite "all-encompassing", but...) those "petty" things are in daily life. Not only because you (possibly?) consider yourself part of that social construct (so large portion of its influence is just "life as usual"), but also...don't really know any better.

Me...well, let me put it this way. I'm originally mostly from Poland (officially arounf 95% Christians...); but this also means that right across the border (on which I basically live for now; border cities are tolerable...) I have Czech Republic (70% non-religious) and Germany...but most notably Berlin area, which is comparable to Czech Republic.

And oh boy...it's so much nicer there.

Now, the bets part - when your average "devout Polish Christian" goes, say, to Czech Republic (a lot of beatiful monasteries for example)...well, that person typically doesn't realize it was a trip to a very strongly atheist country. They just don't know. That doesn't work so well in the other direction.
We know how to "not get in your way"...but here is the place for mutualism...

Re:No!

[clone53421]

And oh boy...it's so much nicer there.

You’re really going to have to expound on that. I have no idea what you’re getting at. Please don’t tell me you’re distressed just by having to drive past churches.

Now, the bets part - when your average "devout Polish Christian" goes, say, to Czech Republic (a lot of beatiful monasteries for example)...well, that person typically doesn't realize it was a trip to a very strongly atheist country. They just don't know. That doesn't work so well in the other direction. We know how to "not get in your way"...but here is the place for mutualism...

Evolution is equally pervasive where I am. I believe that God first of all exists, secondly could create, thirdly happens to have created, and while I really don’t care if someone disagrees with that, just about anywhere I go is saturated with evolutionary theory: billions of years this, millions of years that. In completely unrelated subjects they’ll feel the need to point out the completely unnecessary fact that such-and-such a fish, according to them, is thought to have been unchanged for tens of millions of years. And should I happen to voice my own opinion, I’ll be heartily beaten over the head by the devoted believers in Science.

Frankly I’d prefer we could just pretend to be civil enough to mostly get along. I’ll tolerate hearing about their billions of years and atheists can tolerate hearing a few prayers.

Re:No!

[my $anity 0]

I do not have a double standard double standard. I do not like it when religious people badmouth atheists and can't accept any words against them. I do not like it when atheists in one breath accuse someone of insulting them with a rather innocent and factually correct word and also call all religious people stupid. I despise ALL double standards. I respect religious people and atheists who have respect for other people. Telling me that religious people often have double standards does not help your argument. I don't approve of that behavior and I don't approve of the behavior of atheists being hypocritical either. If everyone could have some goddamn respect and understanding...but this is /. *sigh*

Re:No!

[sznupi]

Oh, there are a lot of churches allright... (though admittedly some of them converted to buildings of public utility; at least there's some use)

It's just that hardly anybody verbally (or worse...) attacks my way of life. Nobody is of the arrogant position that I'm "poor" (that's a recent citation). Nobody forces on me performing their rituals (I'm not kidding, literally forcing oneself into my private space to perform a ritual on me). If this is about people who you come in contact with regularly...yeah, much nicer.
But on the more general level it means that laws are followed. See, I have hypothetically, in PL, freedom from religion. But why do I have to (limiting myself to obvious violations of the idea of modern society) follow one set of laws and certain people - another one? Heck, if I would do such ruckus during the night or early morning hours, blocking major streets or outright crimes...it wouldn't end up well for me. Somehow also this one group is immune from investigation of their collaboration with SB (security service of communist regime). Why the public money for churches? Why forcefull and delibarate invasion of the present "sacred" places of current version of pagan faith? (those ones are sensibly nice BTW, at least for now) Why they don't have to care about taxes? (no, I don't mean "tax breaks"...they don't have to document their income. Don't you wonder how large part of it comes from questionable sources?)

But I gues this discussion is pointless with you if you felt the need to throw evolution into it... (protip: endorsed by Catholic Church, for example; there's no conflict)

Generally, the whole thing is illustrated best by how you demanded from me the explanation of such concept as "nice"...and yet you didn't see a problem with bringing, in the same post, your beliefs without any kind of backing them... (BTW can you even find a factor more deciding than "I was born into this"?...) Didn't occur to you that it's better to be left alone, in context.
But double standars is fine as long as it serves you...

Re:No!

[clone53421]

Look, you just described your situation, and I agree that (if it’s as bad as you claim) then you have cause to be irritated.

You then proceed to belittle my belief in a God who created. I told you what I believe. There is a conflict; the Roman Catholic Church happens to be, in my humble opinion, wrong about that – and a lot of other things. I offered it as an example, not just to “throw evolution into it”, but as a way to show that atheism and humanism are just as prevalent in my society as the religious intolerance that seems to be in yours.

Re:No!

[sznupi]

Now realize that without some opposition (and safety checks in law, etc.; of which this /. story is about...even if the particular situation was handled poorly) - a large part of religions, when left to do what they want, reverts to such state (or worse). OK, you might be sincerely convinced that you would never support such things. But, by nonetheless identifying with them to some degree, you give them power. You agree almost fully with people who are just "a little" more towards the "extreme" side. And so on...

You miss that the point was...why did you even feel the need to share? What for? How does sharing what you specifically believe in contributes in any way towards harmonious resolution? Pointing out "conflicts" and "intolerances". Face it, you (now talking about groups) feed on this...
Did you see me sharing?

Heck, you even show again the issue I touched on at the end of my previous post. There was no "belittling" in there - just a very legitimate but extremelly uncomfortable question to vast majority of faithfull (I know, it's not the first time I asked...people either start to be passive-agressive or, sometimes, agree; and if you wonder already - no, I never touch on the subject first. Ever). But hey, that's disrespectfull now...

Re:No!

[ArcherB]

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Bullshit! Let's change one word twice and see if it still flies:

Freedom of speech includes freedom from speech

So, if freedom FROM religion means you can stop a group of people from praying, then freedom FROM speech means that I can make you STFU.

So, let's try it out. STFU!

If I see you post here again, that means that you agree with me that freedom of religion does NOT meant freedom FROM religion.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

I felt the need to share because people were being told that they couldn’t exercise their religion the way they wanted to, and I happen to think that is wrong.

Re:No!

[Demena]

Ah! You got the drift.

Religion is divisive and in conflict with itself. Better off getting rid of it.

Re:No!

[Demena]

lol... you like strawmen?

In most countries you do have some freedom from speech. Slander laws etc.

And, no, you cannot impose your unilateral rules on me. You are actually supporting my point.

Re:No!

[Demena]

Having respect for people means telling them when they are wrong.

You are being disingenuous. You are pretending that the word 'lack' means something other than what it does mean.

Re:No!

[Demena]

And another you lack is the ability to think clearly.

Why do you assume I am insulted? I'm not. I've been exposed to religious stupidities for sixty years. Of course no offence was meant. Bigots seldom realise that they are either stupid or insulting.

Because I point it out does not mean I am offended. I expect no better from the religious mind set. You have to realise that religious people have chosen to believe. It isn't based on intelligence or reason. They have chosen to be stupid, to have 'faith'. I choose otherwise. I don't bow down to darkness, I seek to illuminate it. If truth offends it is not my problem.

Oh, and from the reactions of the god bothers in this thread, it certainly is not me who is insecure.

Re:No!

[Demena]

So you are saying that fictions should be tolerated and given the same acceptance as facts? Duck Fat!

Re:No!

[Demena]

You think it is different in the USA? Or UK? Or NZ?

If you don't understand evolution, how/why are you on a tech blog?

The theory of evolution is as comprehensive or more as the theory of gravity.

There are no fairies in the bottom of the garden.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

So you are saying that fictions should be tolerated and given the same acceptance as facts?

Indeed they should not. Evolution should absolutely not be taught as fact.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

In the past 5 minutes, I’ve heard people compare the tragedy of having to hear another person praying with first rape, and now slander. Can somebody hurry up and godwin us already?

Re:No!

[sznupi]

Hence again illustrating, "only my group can decide what it means being left alone, what it means being reasonable". Not trying to come to some greater understanding, but just doing what "you feel is right"; working on the basis fait accompli, probing how far you can push it.
You can say that in a different, "nicer" way...but this won't change the essence of it.

OK, this is Slashdot...but this place is irrelevant anyway, we're really discussing rules of the society here. You said that you will just do something because you think you should. That's not how modern society works...

Re:No!

[clone53421]

No, illustrating that the law decides what “being left alone” means, and it happens to mean that I get the same rights in public that you do, which includes being able to speak to whomever I want. Just as you have that right.

Re:No!

[Demena]

Really good with the strawmen and misrepresentation are you not? Dishonesty won't get you into heaven.

Re:No!

[ArcherB]

lol... you like strawmen?

In most countries you do have some freedom from speech. Slander laws etc.

And, no, you cannot impose your unilateral rules on me. You are actually supporting my point.

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.

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.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

The Supreme Court has, in fact, ruled that religious speech in public is protected. It is nothing even remotely similar to slander.

Slander is ILLEGAL. I-l-l, e-g-a-l.

Religious speech is PROTECTED. P-r-o-t-e-c-t-ed.

You have freedom from being slandered. You do NOT have freedom from hearing me pray.

Can you tell the difference between ILLEGAL and PROTECTED? No, obviously not.

Re:No!

[sznupi]

Accidentally, I didn't mention what one more thing when describing the situation - I don't have such law. "Hurting of religious feelings" (I kid you not, it's worded like that) is an offense.

Which of course is a direct evidence meaning either that, or the part about "freedom from religion" in the constitution is a fiction...they are mutually exclusive.
In practice this "don't hurt feelings" law applies mostly to the dominant religion of course, also somehow by proxy to the close ones, and not at all to mostly unrelated worldviews.
This is the state about which religions dream about, yours too.

PS. Another "funny" ilustration of things is how the cross got its way into the main chamber of our parliament. Year 97, few days after the new constitution was in force...
Two members of the close equivalent of, say, a typical European "Christian Democracy" party went into the chamber in the middle of the night, with a ladder, and simply put the cross there without any regard for procedures of country of law. That's what happened in the parliament. One formal objection resulted, mostly because too many people realised that some other are uncompromising bigots who would freeze the works of legislature....
Oh, one of those people fell from the ladder and broke his arm. If that's not an omen... ;p

Re:No!

[Demena]

You do NOT have freedom from hearing me pray.

Yes I do, I can just shout you down. You don't have protection from me telling you that you are spouting rubbish either. Better to avoid the situation of having people try to out heckle each other.

Re:No!

[clone53421]

Nobody was shouting. They were politely (though audibly) giving thanks for their own food, and they were told to stop it because it might offend someone. They were allowed to say a silent prayer but saying one out loud was forbidden.

Or

[Demena]

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.

Re:Or

[clone53421]

Way to take the verse out of context. (Yes, I know exactly which verse you’re referring to, at least from the Christian Bible. If you care to show me where in Judaism it teaches against public prayer, feel free... nothing springs to mind from the Old Testament, but I know there are other written teachings and traditions besides the Pentateuch, or Torah.)

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

“This, then, is how you should pray:
“ ‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’ ”
— Mt. 6:5-15

It’s very specifically referring to the boastful prayers that hypocrites of that day would make on street-corners. Rather than really talking to God, they were merely going through litanies of their accomplishments and tributes to themselves, so that the bystanders would see how great they were – and God said that is all the reward they would get for this sort of “prayer”. If you have some greatness about you that you think God should reward you for, it’s a matter between you and God. Likewise if you have a request to make of God it need not be a public matter.

Giving thanks before a meal, on the other hand, is plentifully supported by Jesus’ habits; for instance:

And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. — Jn. 6:11

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; — Mt. 26:26-27

This is a public gratitude to God which focuses on Him, not the person praying, and is not the sort of prayer that Jesus said to do in secret. Additionally, requesting something from God to demonstrate his power and glory was also something commonly done in public:

Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of li

Re:Or

[clone53421]

I do not disagree that there is much hypocrisy in Christianity, but public prayer is (and has always been) perfectly appropriate and proper in many situations. Giving thanks before you eat is one of those.

If you want to tell God how wonderful you are and/or ask him to give you stuff that you think you need (maybe you do need it, like food for the table... but plenty of stuff you ask for is probably stuff that you don’t need)... then yes, that is a matter between you and God and shouldn’t be done in public.

Re:Or

[Demena]

I am not talking about hypocrisy in the churches I am talking about hypocrisy of the churches. If you think that public prayer is appropriate then you disagree with what christ taught. To me, it is then hypocritical (or heresy if you like) to call oneself christian. You are not a christian if you disagree with what he taught.

Re:Or

[clone53421]

If you think that public prayer is appropriate then you disagree with what christ taught.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” — Mt. 11:25-27, Jesus speaking in front of a crowd

And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. — Mt. 14:19, at which it is recorded 5,000 men were present

Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. — Mt. 15:36, at which 4,000 men were present

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.” — Mt. 26:26-27, with his disciples

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” — Mt. 27:46, Jesus on the cross

Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. — Mk. 6:41, parallel passage to the feeding of the 5,000 as also recorded in Matthew

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. — Mk. 8:6-7, parallel passage to the feeding of the 4,000 as also recorded in Matthew

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. — Mk. 14:22-23, parallel passage of the last supper as also recorded in Matthew

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” — Mk. 15:34, parallel passage of Jesus on the cross as also recorded in Matthew

Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke them. Then he gave them to the disciples to set before the people. — Lk. 9:16, parallel to Matthew and Mark’s gospels

After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” — Lk. 22:17-19, parallel to Matthew and Mark’s accounts

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. — Lk. 23:34, Jesus on the cross

Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his la

Re:Or

[Demena]

Thank you for supporting my case. There is a distinction made between prayer and giving thanks which I am sure you well know. Giving thanks is always appropriate. Prayer is not.

Re:Or

[clone53421]

I don’t know what rock you’ve been hiding for all your life, but when someone “gives thanks” for their food to some divine entity, most people call that prayer.

The first definition for prayer given by Google is:

“the act of communicating with a deity (especially as a petition or in adoration or contrition or thanksgiving)”

Every one of the verses I quoted from the New Testament portrays Jesus praying in a more-or-less public setting. Sometimes he was “giving thanks”, but I’d like to know what you call the first one I quoted (Mt. 11:25-27) if not “prayer”.

Sometimes he was just praying in front of his disciples, but other times he prayed in front of large crowds. He even said on one recorded instance that he was praying for the sake of the listeners – because obviously God would have heard him if he’d prayed silently, but he wanted it to be clear who was doing the miracle: God.

Re:Or

[Demena]

Your last para is correct. I prefer Jesus definitions not those of subsequent heretics. Thanks for the insults btw.

Re:Or

[clone53421]

How would you define “prayer”, then?

Re:Or

[Demena]

Same way Jesus is reported to have defined it. The way a christian should if they claim to follow him. If you know your bible (and you should do so better than I) then you already know exactly what that is.

Re:Or

[clone53421]

He never defined it. Are you referring to the example he gave? It’s not some sort of magic incantation.

Re:Or

[clone53421]

In any case I don’t understand your complaint. Whether we use “pray” or “give thanks” is irrelevant to the action that is actually being done. This story is about people being told they cannot talk to God to give thanks for their food before they eat. This is commonly referred to as “praying” but if you want to call it “giving thanks” that’s fine too.

They were forced to stop giving thanks for their food, as Jesus had done plenty of times and we aren’t calling it “prayer” anymore since you don’t want to call it that.

So regardless of what you call it, are you or are you not okay with them being prevented from following Jesus’ example in that way?

Re:Or

[Demena]

Ok, replace 'define' with 'explain'. No worries.

Officious People are So Stupid

[beadfulthings]

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.

Re:Officious People are So Stupid

[tbannist]

I think you have to right idea, but the wrong scapegoat. It appears to be the vice-president of the privately run company that provides the food that is afraid that their federal funding might be in peril because of the prayers.

Mostly it seems to be one old fool who's thrown a spanner in the works. The Senior Citizens Inc. company should stick to delivering the food, what's said before or after should be no concern of theirs as long as they are not the people saying it. They don't even own the venue where the prayers were being said. So, even if the prayers were seen to be an issue, the fault and liability should lie the with the Ed Young Senior's Center and not with Senior Citizen's Inc.

The problem here isn't religion or atheism, it's stupidity and knee-jerk reactions. You could possibly also blame the generally lousy state of American law.

And

[Demena]

If the largest group is two out of thirty? No, simpler to dispense with it or do it elsewhere.

Re:And

[clone53421]

You don’t really think that the most people they’d get to agree on this would be 2 people. You are just being intentionally difficult.

If the largest group who could agree to anything were in fact two out of thirty, then YES, it would be simpler to dispense with it or do it elsewhere.

Re:And

[Demena]

Ok, "So, madame we know you are a whore, now we are merely discussing price".

You just demonstrated your argument is fvvked. You are arguing for the tyranny of the majority. You are a dangerous person if listened to.

Re:And

[clone53421]

Your argument has been fucked all along.

If the two guys over there are allowed to politely converse between themselves before, or during, their meal, then I am allowed to have a polite conversation with my friend, even if you think he is imaginary.

The alternative is making everyone eat their meal in perfect silence. Either they may talk, or they may not. So which is it?

Wrong

[Demena]

and yet right.

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.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

People do not have the right to silence someone else for different beliefs, either. That is exactly what happened at the senior center in TFA.

That is what religious intolerance means. I am not expressing opinion here; I am showing you the definition. There is nothing for you to “argue” about. it is fact.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Seeing that you believe in the bible (selectively) and don't believe in evolution I question that you now fact from fancy.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

Who is it who can’t distinguish fact from fancy?

The Supreme Court has ruled that religious speech is protected, under the first amendment, just as much as any other speech.

In fact, the University of Missouri - Kansas City attempted, in the late 1970s, to prevent the use of rooms (which were available to all student groups to reserve) by groups which intended to use the rooms for a religious purpose. The Supreme Court ruled:

Here UMKC has discriminated against student groups and speakers based on their desire to use a generally open forum to engage in religious worship and discussion. These are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. In order to justify discriminatory exclusion from a public forum based on the religious content of a group's intended speech, the University must therefore satisfy the standard of review appropriate to content-based exclusions. It must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end....

If you let groups reserve the room, you cannot discriminate against religious groups who want to reserve the room. They play by the same rules as any other student group.

If you let some people talk during their meal, you cannot prohibit people from talking to God. Same exact situation. If this went to the courts there is more than enough prior precedent that the continuation of this discriminatory practice would never be allowed. In fact I doubt that the Supreme Court would even hear the case seeing as it duplicates prior cases. It would be ruled on by lower courts.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Nothing but straw men there. I happen to agree with that ruling. It was the correct thing to do. But that is reserving a room for a purpose which any religious or non-religious group could do.

That is not what we have been talking about is it? The room for the meal is not reserved and can contain people of any religious purview or none. Separate matter. So, reserve you room, have your prayers there and rejoin the rest. Don't inflict, force your viewpoints on them without giving them equal time - while the food get cold.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

Ok. So, nobody is allowed to talk while they eat?

If they want to talk, they have to reserve a room, and come back when they’re done to eat their meal in silence.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Bzzt. Straw man. Changing subject. Moving the goal posts. FAIL.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

That was not a “straw man”, it was a proposal of the WAY IT (perhaps) SHOULD BE DONE. Did you concur, or did you think it was silly?

You thought it was silly and absurd?

Oh, so just the CHRISTIANS are not allowed to talk while the eat IF THEY ARE TALKING TO GOD?

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Lose the straw.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

Quit avoiding my questions.

Are people allowed to talk while they eat?

Are Christians allowed to talk to God while they eat?

Answer both questions please.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Did I ever say they were not? Hence straw man.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

This ENTIRE STORY is about people who were told they could not. Hence no, it is NOT a straw man.

Or perhaps you agree with me... both questions ought to be answered with a resounding “yes!”... in which case, why are we still arguing?

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Bullshit. Talking and prayer are not the same. Since you seem incapable of honesty I will leave your "god" to judge you.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

Prayer: Talking to God.

If I lived next door to you I think I’d make a point of praying on the sidewalk in front of your house just to piss you off. Guess what? IT’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH. Fuck you if you think otherwise, because you’re wrong and that’s all there is to it.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Okay, which speech is protected Muslim or Christian? Trouble is y'see, I'm not wrong. You are just being silly. What makes you think praying on my sidewalk would piss me off? You are attacking your own straw men. Badly at that.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

Okay, which speech is protected Muslim or Christian?

Both, moron.

Oh, did you think that straw man you built represented me? I’m sorry.

Trouble is y'see, I'm not wrong.

If you think that people cannot pray, out loud, before eating a meal that was paid for partly by government assistance... yes, you are wrong.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

So it is he who prays loudest? Go ahead. It will amuse me to warch fools shout each other down. Tehn you will ush and shove, then you will fight and hopefully that will be the end of all of it. Lok you lost the argument over and over again. Not interested in your hypocrisy. Bye.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

Pretty sure it was you who lost the argument, seeing as you are the one who thought that Christians are not allowed to pray in public when the food was paid for with government assistance.

Oh, and constantly trying to pigeon-hole me with your assumptions of what Christians are like? Yeah, that didn’t work so well either.

LOL.

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

Of course you are sure. You have faith. A belief in unreason. And who tried to pigeon hole who? Are you a republican by any chance? You consistently accuse me of your own offences.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

And you have faith. A belief in reason. Except that your so-called “reason” is not, and you’re too blinded by your faith to see that.

And who tried to pigeon hole who?

I was thinking of sznupi – it seems I’ve gotten the two of you confused. I apologise.

However you did say: “Seeing that you believe in the bible (selectively) and don't believe in evolution I question that you now fact from fancy.”

Because I have a religious faith (which you accuse me of being inconsistent in, with no evidence), and because I don’t share your religious belief in the power of Natural Selection... you conclude that my opinions on everything are suspect? We have a name for that sort of argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Are you a republican by any chance?

Wait... now you are trying to pigeonhole me? Is this your way of retaliating for when you imagined that I tried to pigeonhole you?

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

That’s why I’m asking, and quit ducking the question.

The foodservice staff brought the food in, noticed people praying for the food, and said hey stop that, this food was purchased partly by the government and you can’t pray because it would violate separation of church and state, which might cause us to lose our federal funding.

So... do you agree with that decision?

Re:Wrong

[Demena]

I never did and you know that. As I said you are only arguing against your own straw men. You have not addressed and argument I made, just the twists and spins you put on it.

You are not honest, you are not principled, and I am quite sure that if a god worth worshiping did exist it would be rather pissed at you.

You don't have the logical high ground, you don't have the moral ground, you just stand there screaming "me, me, me"....

I'm done, you lost every encounter by bad logic, ad hominem and straw men. See you at the pearly gates.

Re:Wrong

[clone53421]

If you can’t (or won’t) answer a simple question then get off your high horse and quit accusing me of things that you yourself are guilty of.

Are people allowed to pray for their food, which was bought with federal assistance, in public? Or do you have some precious right to “freedom from religion” which precludes this? That is your original claim; that is the argument which I have roundly disproven half a dozen times; that is not a straw man, because it is exactly what you said. Your so-called “freedom from religion” does not exist.

You, however, are too stupid or too brainwashed to even realise that your opinion is wrong and your argument is faulty; I have no hope of changing your mind, merely making sure that it would be apparent to any rational person who reads this discourse which opinion was correct, based on both this case (which was reversed, correctly: they are allowed to pray), and in the other case I cited where UMKC was forced to permit religious groups to have the same use of publicly-funded property that non-religious groups had.

Re:TFA portrays Christians as Victoms

[clone53421]

You assume a lot of things that may or may not be true.

Smoking, perhaps, I would mind, though not probably. It’s harmful to my health in a very legitimate way, not that I haven’t been with people who smoked before or mind it terribly (some people do, so I’m just saying it’s reasonable for them).

As far as giving a prayer to your deity, whether you be a satanist or whatever else? If you’re no more disruptive than the Christians are being, then I really don’t have a problem with it.

Re:TFA portrays Christians as Victoms

[clone53421]

I'll put it another way, if Southern Baptist Christians in the audience decided to say a prayer to save the Jews (one of their doctrines is to convert Jews, amongst others), or to save homosexuals, or to save America from the evil of "Liberals" and "communism" then some people (even if they aren't Jews, homosexuals, or communists) might be offended.

Well, that’s just tough. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that whatever freedom someone else has to speak, a Christian has to pray.

Lol...

[Demena]

If you are a geek you can write some code and see it in real time action. Evolution is most certainly a fact.

Re:Lol...

[clone53421]

I could just as easily write some code that would prove it does not work. Evolutionists put far too much faith in the nigh-magical power of natural selection. Sure, the Mona Lisa can be made with random polygons. You just have to have an algorithm to kill the bad mutations and keep the good ones alive. There is absolutely no hard connection between that algorithm that you write and the effects that natural selection is actually able to cause in real life.

Hell, we’ve just barely sequenced the genome, we have no idea what most of it means, we faintly understand a few types of mutations, and you’re telling me that we can accurately simulate the sort of changes that random mutations of the genome will cause over billions and billions of years? That is ludicrous.

Re:Lol...

[Demena]

Ok, write that damn code. You can fake it maybe but if you do it honestly you will fail. You are just plain wrong and have been proven so thousands of times but you are not gong to accept that. Cast out the beam.

Re:Lol...

[clone53421]

Why bother? You’ve already said my algorithm would be fake. And I agree. And so are the so-called “evolutionary” algorithms that converge to a pattern. They use carefully-crafted tests to artificially guide the so-called randomness.

In fact, I’m going to go the other direction. I’ll invent an experiment to prove evolution is true just like you have done. I’ll take a million monkeys on a million typewriters... perfectly random! I’ll have every one of the monkeys bang on one key. If the resulting page is starting to resemble Hamlet, I’ll duplicate it a million times; if not, it goes in the shredder. Each monkey gets the updated page and bangs another key on its typewriter. Repeat! Lo and behold! You have Hamlet in entirety! Evolution worked!

Re:Lol...

[Demena]

You realise you just don't know what you are talking about? You own words show it; "converge to a pattern"? "Carefully-crafted tests"? What is this shise? Ok, I take it back. You are incabable of writing such code.

If you are incapable of logic and reason why bother to try? You live in a faith based universe and I live in a reason based universe. I am trying to persuade you but you have 'faith' (unreason) as a barrier. I try to observe what reality is you have decided what reality is and anything that doesn't fit that idea is wrong. I believe in science, you believe in irrationality. Your lack of understanding amazes me.

Re:Lol...

[clone53421]

LOL, of course it’s ridiculous. It was intentionally so, but no more ridiculous than any other simulation when you’re simulating things you have little understanding of!

All of the so-called evolutionary, or hill-climbing, algorithms require two parts: a randomizer, which introduces the random changes; secondly, a fit checker, which determines whether or not the result is more “fit” and either kills its result tree or promotes it. This fit-check is very unnatural but is considered to be analogous to natural selection, though absolutely no justification for this sort of analogy exists. Natural selection is evolution’s magic pill.

Re:Lol...

[Demena]

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.

Re:Lol...

[clone53421]

Natural selection is just Maxwell’s demon: a natural mechanism to magically beat entropy and create order from chaos.

Simulating Maxwell’s demon is easy, but that doesn’t make it real.

Oh?

[Demena]

Strawmen now?

Re:Oh?

[clone53421]

Not strawmen.

Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. vice president, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay 55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said.

"We can't scoff at their rules," he said of federal authorities. "It's a part of the operational guidelines."

Rutherford said the moment of silence was introduced to protect that funding. He said although the change may have been misinterpreted, perhaps his company could have done a better job selling it.

"It's interpreted that we're telling people that they can't pray, but we aren't saying that," he said. "We're asking them to pray to themselves. Have that moment of silence."

People were praying. ZOMG might offend someone. Be quiet! Have a moment of silence. You can pray. But not out loud! Pray silently.

Not a strawman. Try harder.

Re:TFA portrays Christians as Victoms

[clone53421]

No Christians in this case are hunting down people. No Christians in this case are forcing their views on people. They are simply trying to pray, out loud, in a public place where speech is supposedly free.

and that is, it is probably better for the world for religion to be outlawed completely

Thanks for clarifying your position, then. Thankfully our nation’s founding fathers thought differently and in fact guaranteed freedom of religion so that idiots such as yourself should never be able to enforce your bigoted opinions on the rest of us.

Largely false and definitely straw

[Demena]

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.

Re:TFA portrays Christians as Victoms

[clone53421]

I’m sorry, I misread your comment. You said HURTING people, not HUNTING them. Me praying in a public place is not hurting anyone.

Anyway, the matter appears to be settled, and correctly at that:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/12/hicks-interpreting-rules-of-religion-rights/

But instead, Mayor Glenn "Pig" Jones asked his senior constituents to be patient while he put his legal counsel on the question. Within a few days, the state's Office on Aging clarified that their guidelines do not prohibit citizens from joining together to pray aloud; they only prohibit city employees or employees of the service provider from leading the patrons in prayer.

"We now know that the rules were misinterpreted. There's no language to say people cannot bless their meals, only that city workers or those contracted by the city cannot ask everyone to bow their heads for a blessing," Mr. Jones says.

ZOMG someone on the internet is WRONG! Tell him!

[clone53421]

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.