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

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

[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.

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.

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!

[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!

[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.