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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
Writing the crack could be justified under fair use. Distributing it was certainly illegal, because that overstepped the bounds of fair use.
If I cracked a game that I bought and wrote a no-CD crack for my own personal use, would the game company then be able to come along and claim that they owned all rights to the crack I had put my own hard work into producing for my own personal use?
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.
It would never work that perfectly in practice – at least not on the internet, definitely – because the latency on the internet is much too large. The time taken for a packet to travel from point A to point B is nowhere remotely close to the time it would take at the speed of light with no latency.
So it all stems from a guy named Daniel Defoe misappropriating the word near the turn of the 18th century? What a vivid imagination that guy had. Didn’t he also write “Robinson Crusoe”?
~ ~ Yes, I realise it didn’t start with him. Amusingly, though, it was originally used metaphorically.
Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.
...well, mentally traumatized by the memories and exposed to myriad possibilities of STDs, but yes, alive.
A CDs memory is read-only, which means that its memories cannot be violated so, and any viral infections they contain had to originate in the original factory.
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.
It was all a series of events set up by God and perfectly orchestrated to fulfill prophecy. All of it was foretold, and the purpose of the prophecy was to make it so unmistakable when Messiah finally came that people would be utterly without excuse for missing it... which they did.
Furthermore the notion that the magi showed up on the night of Jesus birth is incorrect. Yes, you’ll typically see the Nativity scene with the brightly-lit barn, a few oxen and donkeys, some sheep, shepherds, and the wee three kings. That’s relatively far from the truth.
The Bible does say that the star appeared when Jesus was born, not before. Obviously the Magi (also referred to as kings... basically, the educated ruling aristocracy of their culture) didn’t arrive until later because they had a lengthy journey to undergo to get there... and the Bible does not, in fact, say exactly when they arrived. In fact, it specifically says the Magi (it doesn’t tell how many) arrived after Jesus was born.
After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.” — Matthew 2:1-2
Herod then finds out from the Magi when the star had appeared (i.e., when Jesus had been born)... and used this information to try to kill Jesus, when the Magi didn’t come back to tell him where to find the baby:
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. — Matthew 2:16
Furthermore, the Magi followed the star to pay their honours to Jesus’ birth in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah:
Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. — Isa. 60:3
And Herod’s actions and the escape to Egypt of Jesus’ parents and the baby were in preparation to fulfill another prophecy as well:
out of Egypt I called my son — Hosea 11:1b
As far as your opinion that the idea of the Magi getting invited is suspect... well, why? Yes, sorcery and astrology were forbidden... but not because they were make-believe or stage magic; it was clearly indicated that they had real supernatural force. In fact, in 1 Samuel 28:3-20, we read about King Saul’s visit to a medium who successfully called forth the spirit of the prophet Samuel (who appeared none too happy at being disturbed... probably not least because it was done in flagrant violation to God’s commands, thus bringing even more of God’s judgment upon Saul and the nation of Israel).
The logos were in the form of ASCII artwork embedded in the executable. No code was involved in “displaying” the logos... someone just opened the binary file in Notepad++ and found them.
Why did you feel the need to bring up your belief in a god?
I was merely responding to a comment posted by someone else, theorizing about the meaning of the star over Bethlehem.
Why do you feel that people should refrain from mocking controversial positions if they don't agree with them? What makes your position so special that it should be exempt from criticism?
That’s a very nice straw man, but I didn’t say that. I merely asked why he had to bring a completely off-topic question to the argument so as to do it.
Also, your notion that biblical prophecy is most likely correct, while ludicrous and therefore amusing, is also highly tangential to the topic at hand. Glass houses, hmm?
I’m sorry, were you directing your comment at him? The guy who started theorizing about the meaning of the star in Christian “mythology” on a topic about North Korea?
Slashdot Mirror
Pfff, that can’t happen until after Revelation 8:7.
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.
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.
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/
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.
My confusion is merely in how any of this is at all related to the topic at hand.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
He never defined it. Are you referring to the example he gave? It’s not some sort of magic incantation.
Are you even the same Kilgore Trout who I remember from ages past? He was delightfully trollish and clever. You seem to merely crack dumb one-liners.
Writing the crack could be justified under fair use. Distributing it was certainly illegal, because that overstepped the bounds of fair use.
If I cracked a game that I bought and wrote a no-CD crack for my own personal use, would the game company then be able to come along and claim that they owned all rights to the crack I had put my own hard work into producing for my own personal use?
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.
Unexpected curvature would make the travel path longer, which would make it slower, which would be detected by the system as an insecure connection.
It would never work that perfectly in practice – at least not on the internet, definitely – because the latency on the internet is much too large. The time taken for a packet to travel from point A to point B is nowhere remotely close to the time it would take at the speed of light with no latency.
So it all stems from a guy named Daniel Defoe misappropriating the word near the turn of the 18th century? What a vivid imagination that guy had. Didn’t he also write “Robinson Crusoe”?
~ ~ Yes, I realise it didn’t start with him. Amusingly, though, it was originally used metaphorically.
For instance... (from 1603)
Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.
A terrible metaphor, but it seems to have stuck.
I rape a man's wife but leave her alive
...well, mentally traumatized by the memories and exposed to myriad possibilities of STDs, but yes, alive.
A CDs memory is read-only, which means that its memories cannot be violated so, and any viral infections they contain had to originate in the original factory.
But still, it does have a nice ring to it.
Software rapist.
I could handle being called that.
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.
It was all a series of events set up by God and perfectly orchestrated to fulfill prophecy. All of it was foretold, and the purpose of the prophecy was to make it so unmistakable when Messiah finally came that people would be utterly without excuse for missing it... which they did.
Furthermore the notion that the magi showed up on the night of Jesus birth is incorrect. Yes, you’ll typically see the Nativity scene with the brightly-lit barn, a few oxen and donkeys, some sheep, shepherds, and the wee three kings. That’s relatively far from the truth.
The Bible does say that the star appeared when Jesus was born, not before. Obviously the Magi (also referred to as kings... basically, the educated ruling aristocracy of their culture) didn’t arrive until later because they had a lengthy journey to undergo to get there... and the Bible does not, in fact, say exactly when they arrived. In fact, it specifically says the Magi (it doesn’t tell how many) arrived after Jesus was born.
Herod then finds out from the Magi when the star had appeared (i.e., when Jesus had been born)... and used this information to try to kill Jesus, when the Magi didn’t come back to tell him where to find the baby:
Furthermore, the Magi followed the star to pay their honours to Jesus’ birth in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah:
And Herod’s actions and the escape to Egypt of Jesus’ parents and the baby were in preparation to fulfill another prophecy as well:
As far as your opinion that the idea of the Magi getting invited is suspect... well, why? Yes, sorcery and astrology were forbidden... but not because they were make-believe or stage magic; it was clearly indicated that they had real supernatural force. In fact, in 1 Samuel 28:3-20, we read about King Saul’s visit to a medium who successfully called forth the spirit of the prophet Samuel (who appeared none too happy at being disturbed... probably not least because it was done in flagrant violation to God’s commands, thus bringing even more of God’s judgment upon Saul and the nation of Israel).
I have to say it...
WHOOOOOOOOSH.
That was all part of his analogy. Deliberately.
The logos were in the form of ASCII artwork embedded in the executable. No code was involved in “displaying” the logos... someone just opened the binary file in Notepad++ and found them.
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?
Why did you feel the need to bring up your belief in a god?
I was merely responding to a comment posted by someone else, theorizing about the meaning of the star over Bethlehem.
Why do you feel that people should refrain from mocking controversial positions if they don't agree with them? What makes your position so special that it should be exempt from criticism?
That’s a very nice straw man, but I didn’t say that. I merely asked why he had to bring a completely off-topic question to the argument so as to do it.
Also, your notion that biblical prophecy is most likely correct, while ludicrous and therefore amusing, is also highly tangential to the topic at hand. Glass houses, hmm?
I’m sorry, were you directing your comment at him? The guy who started theorizing about the meaning of the star in Christian “mythology” on a topic about North Korea?