• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ga. Seniors Told They Can't Pray Before Meals

LiberalAvenger said:
CNS News is not a very reliable source.:roll:
Click to expand...

Soooo... video of Pelosi saying it makes it unreliable ????

Did they put a CGI Pelosi in the video, or maybe a ventriloquist???

Personally, I lean toward the ventriloquist and dummy Pelosi scenario. :roll:
 
Gill said:
Soooo... video of Pelosi saying it makes it unreliable ????

Did they put a CGI Pelosi in the video, or maybe a ventriloquist???

Personally, I lean toward the Pelosi ventriloquist/dummy scenario. :roll:
Click to expand...

I will only believe it when Hannity report on it.:roll:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Do you have a point, aside from the one under your hat?
Click to expand...

My point was that you dont know what your talking about. Praying outloud is not against Christ's teachings.


What is accomplished by having someone lead it, out loud, that would not be accomplished by praying silently on an individual basis?
Click to expand...

See comment above.

Prayer might not matter to you, and that is fine Cat. But who the hell are you to tell someone else they can't pray how they see fit? They said grace before a meal. Somehow that is offensive to you, even though your not even in attendance.

Believe it or not Cat, people do pray in private as well as in public in groups. Its not a new thing. You may not have use for it, but maybe you could show a little maturity and respect for those who do. :thumbs:
 
TheHat said:
My point was that you dont know what your talking about. Praying outloud is not against Christ's teachings.




See comment above.

Prayer might not matter to you, and that is fine Cat. But who the hell are you to tell someone else they can't pray how they see fit? They said grace before a meal. Somehow that is offensive to you, even though your not even in attendance.

Believe it or not Cat, people do pray in private as well as in public in groups. Its not a new thing. You may not have use for it, but maybe you could show a little maturity and respect for those who do. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Respect is a two way street.
 
Gardener said:
Are you sure you like it COLD and hard?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I wouldn't have it any other way.

FilmFestGuy said:
Then don't ask for government food.
Click to expand...

Ah, so, you liberals are happy to help the unfortunate, but only if they act how you want them to act.

Why is the OPTION for private prayer some form of imposition or unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Because the OPTION of group prayer was being DENIED to them.

However, the organization in question quickly realized that this denial was stupid and baseless. I wonder how long it will take you to figure that out.
 
1984 said:
Ah, so, you liberals are happy to help the unfortunate, but only if they act how you want them to act.

Because the OPTION of group prayer was being DENIED to them.

However, the organization in question quickly realized that this denial was stupid and baseless. I wonder how long it will take you to figure that out.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I think they should act however they want - if they want private support. If you'd read all my posts in this thread, I've already pointed out a privately funded charity that kicked out a Jew because he wouldn't pray to Jesus. I think that's terrible; but since it's completely privately funded, they can do what they want.

If you take government assistance, you take rules along with it.

Sorry, but that's the fact.

A silent prayer OPTION is a true OPTION. A group-led prayer is forced upon everyone who attends.

One takes nothing away from anyone. The other provides only the option of what the majority of the group thinks and damns everyone else.

Why is decency and privacy such an imposition? It's only an imposition to those who like to force their beliefs upon everyone around them.

If the government is going to support an organization, then said organization shouldn't focus a moment of prayer upon one groups interpretation of one religion. Do they do Buddhist prayers? Jewish prayers?

A moment of silence allows everyone to do as they wish - not limiting anyone's religious expression. A group prayer forces those not a part of the group to participate in a prayer they may or may not believe in.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I will only believe it when Hannity report on it.:roll:
Click to expand...


What? :shock: You must be kidding....:doh It's a clip of her, in her own words!:cool:

My God, have we come to a point where seeing someone say something, hearing it with our own ears, and capturing it on tape is no longer proof that someone said what they said? I guess as long as liberals control the spin....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
What? :shock: You must be kidding....:doh It's a clip of her, in her own words!:cool:

My God, have we come to a point where seeing someone say something, hearing it with our own ears, and capturing it on tape is no longer proof that someone said what they said? I guess as long as liberals control the spin....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was kidding.

Gotcha, big trucker.:2razz:
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Actually, no. I think they should act however they want - if they want private support. If you'd read all my posts in this thread, I've already pointed out a privately funded charity that kicked out a Jew because he wouldn't pray to Jesus. I think that's terrible; but since it's completely privately funded, they can do what they want.

If you take government assistance, you take rules along with it.

Sorry, but that's the fact.

A silent prayer OPTION is a true OPTION. A group-led prayer is forced upon everyone who attends.
Click to expand...

You are lying. No one is being forced to pray. The group-led prayer is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL.

One takes nothing away from anyone. The other provides only the option of what the majority of the group thinks and damns everyone else.

Why is decency and privacy such an imposition? It's only an imposition to those who like to force their beliefs upon everyone around them.

If the government is going to support an organization, then said organization shouldn't focus a moment of prayer upon one groups interpretation of one religion. Do they do Buddhist prayers? Jewish prayers?

A moment of silence allows everyone to do as they wish - not limiting anyone's religious expression. A group prayer forces those not a part of the group to participate in a prayer they may or may not believe in.
Click to expand...

Once again, this is just a massive distortion of what is actually occurring. The group prayer is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. Nobody has to pray, they all simply CHOOSE to.

You do know what those words mean, don't you!? Optional, voluntary, choose - would you like a dictionary?
 
1984 said:
You are lying. No one is being forced to pray. The group-led prayer is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL.
Click to expand...

So is eating government cheese. No one is being forced not to pray. They simply CHOOSE not to have a group prayer by eating free food.
 
Tucker Case said:
So is eating government cheese. No one is being forced not to pray. They simply CHOOSE not to have a group prayer by eating free food.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything? Is there some law which forbids recipients of Federal monies from engaging in religious activities?
 
1984 said:
What does this have to do with anything? Is there some law which forbids recipients of Federal monies from engaging in religious activities?
Click to expand...

They want a free meal on the taxpayer dime, they gotta deal with the rules. They don't like it, tough titty. They can buy their own dinners if they don't like it.

I think more rules of behavior should be enforces when one suckles at the federal teat. Arbitrary and uncomfortable ones at that.
 
Tucker Case said:
They want a free meal on the taxpayer dime, they gotta deal with the rules.
Click to expand...

What rules? Could you be more specific?

They don't like it, tough titty. They can buy their own dinners if they don't like it.

I think more rules of behavior should be enforces when one suckles at the federal teat. Arbitrary and uncomfortable ones at that.
Click to expand...

The Congress has the explicit authority to appropriate funds towards specifically enumerated ends. Although many disagree on what exactly those ends are, the idea that the Federal government can impose restrictions (religious or otherwise) on private contractors AFTER THE FACT is simply not supported by law.

For instance, the Congress has the explicit authority to appropriate monies towards post roads. Suppose the Congress contracted with a private company to build some of these post roads. Also suppose that the foreman and his employees said a group prayer prior to starting the project. What you're suggesting is that the Federal government would be able to impose terms that were never contractually agreed upon or specified, i.e., forbidding group prayer.

So, unless the contract between the Georgia state government and Senior Citizens Inc. states explicitly, "Senior Citizens Inc. may not engage in group prayer during purveyances funded, partially or wholly, by the Federal government." You have no legal standing for imposing such "rules".

Moreover, if such a term were inserted into the contract, it would most likely fail to pass Constitutional muster (re: First and Fourteenth Amendments).

You can maintain that this funding is not Constitutional, and I would probably agree with you, but that is not currently at issue. The issue is whether or not the presence of Federal monies automatically carries with it the burden of forbidding any and all religious activities (it does not). Since Senior Citizens Inc. has reversed their position, and since the legal analysis I have provided is sound, there is no reason for anyone in this thread to continue with such a line of reasoning.
 
1984 said:
What rules? Could you be more specific?
Click to expand...

Any and all rules imposed by those who give them the free meals.



The issue is whether or not the presence of Federal monies automatically carries with it the burden of forbidding any and all religious activities (it does not).
Click to expand...

"Any and all religious activities" have not been forbidden in this case, so how could that be the issue?
 
1984 said:
What does this have to do with anything? Is there some law which forbids recipients of Federal monies from engaging in religious activities?
Click to expand...

There is no law that forbids it, however the federal money is often withdrawn when they engage in these activities on the taypayers dime.

Stuff like that.
 
Tucker Case said:
Any and all rules imposed by those who give them the free meals.
Click to expand...

They can only impose rules and terms which have been contractually agreed upon and specified, unless, of course, you think the government can just break a contract anytime it wants to.

"Any and all religious activities" have not been forbidden in this case, so how could that be the issue?
Click to expand...

Good point. Allow me to clarify: The issue is whether or not the presence of Federal monies automatically carries with it the burden of forbidding overt displays of religiosity, such as a group prayer; obviously, this is not the case. Or do you disagree?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
There is no law that forbids it, however the federal money is often withdrawn when they engage in these activities on the taypayers dime.

Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

On what basis is the money being withdrawn? If the Congress appropriates funds via an enactment of legislation, some bureaucrat cannot simply ignore the terms and conditions of that appropriation; only by another enactment or vote may the Congress withdraw funding. As it stands, this funding is lawful, and the manner it which it is to be dispensed has been contractually specified; imposing rules after the fact is unlawful, and no government bureaucrat has the authority to withdraw funding that was approved by an act of Congress.
 
Last edited:
1984 said:
They can only impose rules and terms which have been contractually agreed upon and specified, unless, of course, you think the government can just break a contract anytime it wants to.
Click to expand...

Are the seniors signing a contract for their free lunch, or are they just showing up?



Good point. Allow me to clarify: The issue is whether or not the presence of Federal monies automatically carries with it the burden of forbidding overt displays of religiosity, such as a group prayer; obviously, this is not the case. Or do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't think it caries the burden of it, but if such things are decided, those who eat the free lunch can always choose to not accept the free lunch and continue to practice overt religious displays.

It's only unconstitutional if they are forced to not pray in any and all circumstances.

But in this case they can gather prior to the meal at a separate location and pray as a group if they wish, or they can find some other way to get a free meal that doesn't have said restrictions and pray as group before they eat.
 
Tucker Case said:
Are the seniors signing a contract for their free lunch, or are they just showing up?
Click to expand...

The contract is with Senior Citizens Inc. - a private charity. They are the purveyors of these meals and the ones who placed the restriction on group prayer, for fear of losing their Federal funding; my point is that the Georgia state government has no legal authority to withdraw this funding, as it was lawfully appropriated by an act of Congress, nor do they have the authority to impose terms and conditions that were never contractually agreed upon.

I don't think it caries the burden of it, but if such things are decided, those who eat the free lunch can always choose to not accept the free lunch and continue to practice overt religious displays.

It's only unconstitutional if they are forced to not pray in any and all circumstances.

But in this case they can gather prior to the meal at a separate location and pray as a group if they wish, or they can find some other way to get a free meal that doesn't have said restrictions and pray as group before they eat.
Click to expand...

On what basis would this decision be rendered? The funding was lawfully appropriated by an act of Congress, and the Georgia state government contracted with Senior Citizens Inc. to dispense of these funds. Unless the contract explicitly prohibits overt displays of religiosity during the purveyance of these meals, there would be no legal standing for imposing such a prohibition.
 
1984 said:
You are lying. No one is being forced to pray. The group-led prayer is ENTIRELY OPTIONAL.



Once again, this is just a massive distortion of what is actually occurring. The group prayer is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. Nobody has to pray, they all simply CHOOSE to.

You do know what those words mean, don't you!? Optional, voluntary, choose - would you like a dictionary?
Click to expand...

So this means that people who decide not to take part in the group prayer can talk to their friends during the group prayer?
 
1984 said:
The contract is with Senior Citizens Inc. - a private charity. They are the purveyors of these meals and the ones who placed the restriction on group prayer, for fear of losing their Federal funding; my point is that the Georgia state government has no legal authority to withdraw this funding, as it was lawfully appropriated by an act of Congress, nor do they have the authority to impose terms and conditions that were never contractually agreed upon.
Click to expand...

And the part in bold is their right.

The feds can't say that they have to unless they do so at the point the contract is renewed or created (they can choose not to renew said contract unless there is such a restriction)

On what basis would this decision be rendered? The funding was lawfully appropriated by an act of Congress, and the Georgia state government contracted with Senior Citizens Inc. to dispense of these funds. Unless the contract explicitly prohibits overt displays of religiosity during the purveyance of these meals, there would be no legal standing for imposing such a prohibition.
Click to expand...

Senior Citizens Inc could render such a decision without any justification if they so choose.
 
the federal government cannot provide funds to a third party within the USA where that third party does not have to abide by the Constitutional provisions
that publicly lead prayer represents control, leading the attendees in a prayer of a given denomination
for the federal government to subsidize such action would constitute a violation of the Bill of Rights, by exposing the guests to a prayer which they may not welcome
just as i am certain you would oppose having to sit thru a prayer inveighing against Christians, led by an extremist muslim, should that be the prayer leader for the day
 
Tucker Case said:
And the part in bold is their right.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't. Fact remains, they didn't want to and only did so out of fear for losing their funding. Once they found out that fear was unfounded, they quickly reversed their position.

The feds can't say that they have to unless they do so at the point the contract is renewed or created (they can choose not to renew said contract unless there is such a restriction).
Click to expand...

I agree, however, such a provision would most likely be subject to a Constitutional challenge under the First Amendment.

Senior Citizens Inc could render such a decision without any justification if they so choose.
Click to expand...

I agree, but they don't HAVE to, which is what I've been arguing since the very beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom