• 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

1984 said:
Good grief. Are you senile?
Click to expand...
halfheimers

YOU CLAIMED that 'third parties' contracted by the Federal government were bound by the Constitution. I informed you that only the government is bound by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
the government makes loans and guarantees loans to third parties. when it does so, it stipulates that the borrower must comply with all federal laws, such as AA and EEO. note that the private borrower is not directly bound by the provisions of the Constitution/Bill of Rights but has agreed to be bound as provided by the government as a condition for the loan/guaranty
would the subsidy to the care facility not bear a similar obligation to be compliant with federal expectations?

Of course the Constitution "applies to individuals",
Click to expand...
do you want your words in my signature back then?

BUT only insofar as it restricts what the government may do to them, but that's NOT what you said; you said 'third parties' contracted by the government are bound by the Constitution; that is NOT true; the Constitution does not place restrictions on private parties, only government.
Click to expand...
the federal government is not able to bypass its Constitutional obligations by funding third party activities that violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights. that would be a transparent circumvention of the Constitutional provisions

They were FORCED to sit through a prayer, really!? You mean to say that Senior Citizens Inc. kidnapped these old people from their homes and chained them to a chair whilst a group prayer was said?
Click to expand...
nope. a prayer was invoked before the group simultaneous with the seating for the meal. that public prayer constituted a preference for a particular religion at that federally subsidized meal. such preference defies the provisions of the first amendment

That's funny, since no one materially involved with this subsidy actually agrees with your position.

Not Senior Citizens Inc., not the Port Wentworth municipal government, not the Georgia state government, and not the Federal government.

It's almost like you have some information that no one else in the United States of America is privy to; would you care to share this information with the rest of us? I'm dying to see what it is.
Click to expand...
i am responding to the original article
do you know that the care facility has not agreed to amend its invocation such that it is no longer out of federal compliance? when i managed a federal portfolio of clients who benefitted from federal funds, when they were found to be out of compliance we revised the manner in which they operated to assure compliance. and if they were unable or unwilling, then they were made to return the federal funds
tell me what your experience has been
 
What I see here is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Consitution.

Those who told people they were not allowed to pray need to be fired and thier employer needs to be paying out their corrupt ass for it.
 
Never put your parents in a senior's home. It's hell.
 
justabubba said:
thanks for the quote. it appears you fail to recognize that the Constitution establishes the limits of government intrusion on the freedoms/rights of the individual
Click to expand...

Erm, yeah... in other words, it applies to the government. Not individuals.
 
Dav said:
Erm, yeah... in other words, it applies to the government. Not individuals.
Click to expand...

the Bill of Rights speaks only to the powers of the government and not to the freedoms of the citizen? are you certain you have a copy of the Constitution of the USA?
 
justabubba said:
the Bill of Rights speaks only to the powers of the government and not to the freedoms of the citizen? are you certain you have a copy of the Constitution of the USA?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm certain. It does not apply to individuals. It applies to the government, and what they can't do to individuals. The rules are set out for the government. Not individuals. I suggest you remove that quote from your sig now before it makes you look silly.
 
Dav said:
Yes, I'm certain. It does not apply to individuals. It applies to the government, and what they can't do to individuals. The rules are set out for the government. Not individuals. I suggest you remove that quote from your sig now before it makes you look silly.
Click to expand...

here you go. it's obvious you need a decent cite: U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
now let's examine the first 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights to recognize to what extent the rights of the individual were addressed ... wonder where they came up with the title Bill of Rights. extra points if you can figure it out:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
look at all that red, illustrating the many instances in which the individual citizen is accorded rights, which are not to be gieven over to the government
i think i shall retain the embarrassing, quoted post, as i was granted authority to use it in my signature line
from your post, quoted above, you are the one now made to also look quite foolish
 
You just sank your own argument....Here:


justabubba said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
Click to expand...


I highlighted the relevant portion in red to make it easier for you to follow along.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
You just sank your own argument....Here:





I highlighted the relevant portion in red to make it easier for you to follow along.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah but you ignored the part that you did not agree with.
 
j-mac said:
Not at all. What religion is the government establishing in allowing those old people to pray before eating?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I would say the Christian religion. I doubt if there were any other types of organized religion prayer, since they were praying out loud.

I am just assuming because I have never heard the prayer that they were reciting.
 
This seems an appropriate thread for this...

I don't care if seniors pray before meals. I don't care if you religious types say a prayer in school. I'm even accepting of you pasting your little deity's name on my money. Basically, i'm all about free speech. Now, how about you religious folks spreading the word about not shushing us atheists during your little public prayers? It saves us both time - you guys can concentrate on your ceremonies, and I don't have to tell the guy who told me to 'be quiet and show some respect' what he and his theology can suck.

Seriously, do you guys wanna know why your religion is under attack in public places? It's because of this kinda stuff. Pray all you want to. I'm not going to, so STOP telling me to be quiet during your public prayers. I realize that most folks at NASCAR events are religious, but i'm not. I could see if I was yelling, but it's always when i'm having a one-on-one conversation with someone next to me. Say your prayer, and i'll do my own thing. Mind your own business, basically.

So yeah...can you religious types spread the word for me? Thanks! :2wave:

Last night was like the umpteenth time this has happened. So please, forgive the rant! <3
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
I would say the Christian religion. I doubt if there were any other types of organized religion prayer, since they were praying out loud.

I am just assuming because I have never heard the prayer that they were reciting.
Click to expand...


Really? So what's that called? Church of America? Christianity of America? Show me the mandate from the government in that case where a decree that those people must pray before receiving their meal...would they be fined if they didn't pray? not get a meal? what?

Look, just because the Constitution states that Government can't form a "Church of America" and that you are free to practice your own religion or no religion at all, doesn't mean that you are free from religion either. This is ridiculous, a clause meant to keep liberty and choice within the individual is taken to extreme by those who wish to force their disdain for same on that individual. What a farce.


j-mac
 
Singularity said:
This seems an appropriate thread for this...

I don't care if seniors pray before meals. I don't care if you religious types say a prayer in school. I'm even accepting of you pasting your little deity's name on my money. Basically, i'm all about free speech. Now, how about you religious folks spreading the word about not shushing us atheists during your little public prayers? It saves us both time - you guys can concentrate on your ceremonies, and I don't have to tell the guy who told me to 'be quiet and show some respect' what he and his theology can suck.

Seriously, do you guys wanna know why your religion is under attack in public places? It's because of this kinda stuff. Pray all you want to. I'm not going to, so STOP telling me to be quiet during your public prayers. I realize that most folks at NASCAR events are religious, but i'm not. I could see if I was yelling, but it's always when i'm having a one-on-one conversation with someone next to me. Say your prayer, and i'll do my own thing. Mind your own business, basically.

So yeah...can you religious types spread the word for me? Thanks! :2wave:

Last night was like the umpteenth time this has happened. So please, forgive the rant! <3
Click to expand...


Oh I see, so you'd like to interrupt a prayer, something that doesn't hurt you in any way, but gives comfort to many including those saying it, but you'd like those same people to show you respect and not tell you to observe a moment of silence for them....You really don't see the self absorbed nature of your rant?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Really? So what's that called? Church of America? Christianity of America? Show me the mandate from the government in that case where a decree that those people must pray before receiving their meal...would they be fined if they didn't pray? not get a meal? what?

Look, just because the Constitution states that Government can't form a "Church of America" and that you are free to practice your own religion or no religion at all, doesn't mean that you are free from religion either. This is ridiculous, a clause meant to keep liberty and choice within the individual is taken to extreme by those who wish to force their disdain for same on that individual. What a farce.


j-mac
Click to expand...

There is a supreme court decision that people can not come up to you on the street and get in your face trying to foist their religious beliefs upon you.
 
j-mac said:
Oh I see, so you'd like to interrupt a prayer, something that doesn't hurt you in any way, but gives comfort to many including those saying it, but you'd like those same people to show you respect and not tell you to observe a moment of silence for them....You really don't see the self absorbed nature of your rant?


j-mac
Click to expand...

What gives me comfort is when someone gives me money.:roll:
 
LiberalAvenger said:
There is a supreme court decision that people can not come up to you on the street and get in your face trying to foist their religious beliefs upon you.
Click to expand...


So where'd you get that from the article?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh I see, so you'd like to interrupt a prayer, something that doesn't hurt you in any way, but gives comfort to many including those saying it, but you'd like those same people to show you respect and not tell you to observe a moment of silence for them....You really don't see the self absorbed nature of your rant?


j-mac
Click to expand...

In other words, it isn't about respecting me and my right as an individual to not engage in your public religious spectacle. As long as you religious types think that me or anyone else should be forced into silence during a public prayer, you can expect to keep losing these kind of battles.

Respect is a two way street. Pray in public all you want. The day you try to force us to participate or stop what I am doing to observe the custom is the day you should lose the privilege, imho. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening in situations like the original article.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
maybe your trying to be funny here, who knows? However your mockery only shows your lack of tolerance.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I'm not mocking anyone. It is part of my beliefs, so please have some tolerance for them.
 
Singularity said:
In other words, it isn't about respecting me and my right as an individual to not engage in your public religious spectacle. As long as you religious types think that me or anyone else should be forced into silence during a public prayer, you can expect to keep losing these kind of battles.

Respect is a two way street. Pray in public all you want. The day you try to force us to participate or stop what I am doing to observe the custom is the day you should lose the privilege, imho. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening in situations like the original article.
Click to expand...


We all lose when things like what you are saying here are taken for intelligent discourse. Sorry, but that is just how I feel about it. Oh, and one other thing here, you and others seem to have assumed and labeled me, or others as some kind of hyper religious types. Clearly, you must feel some guilt in what you say, fore there would be little reason for you to cast such an imagined dispersion toward people that disagree with you whether you know them to actually be religious or not. It is IMHO, a small, and closed minded approach to this question, and one that should be as equally dismissed as the argument you and others are attempting to make.

No one that I know of by reading the article is forcing anything on anyone, other than the weasel from the food service company that felt their subsidy threatened through an over zealous reading of the regulations.

As for your hypothetical, you can most certainly carry on a conversation during a prayer in public, however, what you can not expect is that if you chose to do so without considering others around you and what they wish to participate in or not, is a POV from a deeply narcissistic stand, and one that is void of others wishes. So why should they respect yours?


j-mac
 
It occurred to me that perhaps the seniors are saying a heartfelt prayer of thanks for their subsidized meal.

How ironic that the same entity which graciously provides the food subsidy also forbids a gracious prayer of thanks for it.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I'm not mocking anyone. It is part of my beliefs, so please have some tolerance for them.
Click to expand...


Sure you are. So what belief is that? Tell us, is it an organized one? I have all the tolerance in the world for those not wishing to participate in group prayers, what I don't respect are those that feel that because they don't want to participate that everyone else should cease because of them.

Here is a case similiar to what I was saying

Cox v. New Hampshire - Religious Freedom Page
Click to expand...

You have me at a loss here....What are you saying? That the seniors should have to obtain a permit to pray?



j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom