• 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

justabubba said:
now, they have a period of silence when each guest can say their prayers as they choose

before - the system you are whining about its having changed - is where the guests were led in prayer. even those guests who did not subscribe to the faith practices as the one saying the prayer. the guest should not be made to leave their group home setting in order to escape the proselytizations of the evangelists
Click to expand...

They could also just ignore them. I do.

I think the whole group led prayer thing is silly. After all, if there is a God I'm sure He can hear you without the need for a ring leader. But I also don't get too worked up over some old people (who are likely pretty close to meeting God anyway) praying before they eat some bland chicken. I don't think using tax payer money to help feed them is really the government promoting the establishment of any religion. They hand over some money, food gets made, the people get the food, and they say grace before eating. I just can't get too worked up over it. And trust me, I'm for a fortified, titanium and plutonium wall of separation between church and state.

If I were there I would just start eating as they prayed. No need to let my food get cold on account of your little fairy tale.
 
justabubba said:
now, they have a period of silence when each guest can say their prayers as they choose

before - the system you are whining about its having changed - is where the guests were led in prayer. even those guests who did not subscribe to the faith practices as the one saying the prayer. the guest should not be made to leave their group home setting in order to escape the proselytizations of the evangelists
Click to expand...

SO much for tolerance eh?
 
molten_dragon said:
On the one hand I think it goes little too far, but on the other I don't understand why they needs to be led in a prayer in the first place. If someone wants to pray before they eat they should just do it.
Click to expand...

A lot of older folks are accustomed to formal prayer before meals, where one person would pray aloud while others joined in silently. This was the custom at family dinners in many homes until relatively recently, and at most social gatherings as well.

That's what they are used to. Apparently no one who is there at the center is objecting to the custom; it is an outsider who is saying "Because you recieve federal funding for these meals, you must not have overt prayer during same."

This is nuts. Are they going to tell Food Stamp recipients they can't pray before a meal at home next? Food stamps are federally funded...
 
Goshin said:
That's what they are used to. Apparently no one who is there at the center is objecting to the custom; it is an outsider who is saying "Because you recieve federal funding for these meals, you must not have overt prayer during same."

This is nuts. Are they going to tell Food Stamp recipients they can't pray before a meal at home next? Food stamps are federally funded...
Click to expand...

Good point. The Government is not really doing anything in terms of religion here. They are funding a meal program and the recipients choose to pray before the meal. There is really no connection at all between the prayer and the government. The government gives checks or benefits to people who pray all the time. That doesn't mean they are promoting any faith or giving any faith special status. There is really nothing to see here.
 
j-mac said:
Offering a prayer before a meal is now a "state sponsored" activity? How so? The Government supplements the cost of the meal, not who prepares it or delivers it....

This is the problem with liberals that are against any form of religion in the square. You think that because there is a monetary supplement to the meals offered to seniors, that it entitles you to tell them HOW they must accept it.

WRONG!


j-mac
Click to expand...


Yes, we are against any form of religion in the square regardless of creed or denomination because it doesn't belong there.
People are free to sponsors their own individual worship ceremonies and I fully support the rights of churches to practice freely.

That said, our Constitution requires the government to remain religion neutral.

THAT is much better than what the vast majority of those seeking to bring religion into government...and that is...."in favor of any form of religion in the square, as long as it is not buddhist, muslim, jewish....or basically not "Christian".
 
disneydude said:
Yes, we are against any form of religion in the square regardless of creed or denomination because it doesn't belong there.
Click to expand...

I always find it curious that some people seem to need government affirmation of their faith. It must be a pretty weak faith if you need your local courthouse to affirm it for you.
 
stekim said:
I always find it curious that some people seem to need government affirmation of their faith. It must be a pretty weak faith if you need your local courthouse to affirm it for you.
Click to expand...

The most ironic thing about it is that they do not see themselves as the Pharisees that they are that Christ himself called out their hypocracy.:doh
 
disneydude said:
Yes, we are against any form of religion in the square regardless of creed or denomination because it doesn't belong there.
People are free to sponsors their own individual worship ceremonies and I fully support the rights of churches to practice freely.

That said, our Constitution requires the government to remain religion neutral.
Click to expand...

No it does not. The Constitution, the 1st Amendment, does not bar the government from having pray services of 1 type or another. The 1st Amendment, was written so that Congress can't create a National Church, like the one our founders left called the Church of England. That is what that meant. If it meant that you can't say a prayer at a government funded meeting, then how the hell does Congress say a prayer in the House and Senate every damn day?

Saying a prayer is not endorsing a national religion. So therefore its perfectly within the realm of these people at this meeting to say a 30 second prayer before eating.

It has nothing to do with being weak minded. It has nothing to do with sticking a thumb in governments eye. Its none of that crap alot of people on this thread have said it is.

Ever heard of FCA in public schools? Fellowship of Christian Athletes? How come they are allowed in public schools? Isn't that endorsing religion? You got to understand what the 1st Amendment means, history wise, before you just start throwing around a phrase that was written 30 years after the Constitution was put in place and that phrase is "Seperation of Church and State".

That phrase, has no bearing on the 1st Amendment as it is nowhere to be found within it. It was a private letter written to some Bishops in what 1812 or something like that?
 
j-mac said:
Isn't this going just a bit too far?


j-mac
Click to expand...

I am all for the separation of church and state, but there are reasonable places of co-mingling where the lines need to be drawn. Being worried about prayer, however, is just wrong. Prayer and mediation are personal expressions of faith, not corporate expressions (even when someone is leading the prayer).

I fail to see how the occurrence of prayer, be it in school, opening of the legislature, grace before a meal, etc., threatens to break the church/state boundary.

In my view, people that are threatened by prayer should spend more time in prayer.
 
TheHat said:
No it does not. The Constitution, the 1st Amendment, does not bar the government from having pray services of 1 type or another. The 1st Amendment, was written so that Congress can't create a National Church, like the one our founders left called the Church of England. That is what that meant. If it meant that you can't say a prayer at a government funded meeting, then how the hell does Congress say a prayer in the House and Senate every damn day?

Saying a prayer is not endorsing a national religion. So therefore its perfectly within the realm of these people at this meeting to say a 30 second prayer before eating.

It has nothing to do with being weak minded. It has nothing to do with sticking a thumb in governments eye. Its none of that crap alot of people on this thread have said it is.

Ever heard of FCA in public schools? Fellowship of Christian Athletes? How come they are allowed in public schools? Isn't that endorsing religion? You got to understand what the 1st Amendment means, history wise, before you just start throwing around a phrase that was written 30 years after the Constitution was put in place and that phrase is "Seperation of Church and State".

That phrase, has no bearing on the 1st Amendment as it is nowhere to be found within it. It was a private letter written to some Bishops in what 1812 or something like that?
Click to expand...

TheHat USED HISTORICAL ACCURACY!!

IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!!!
 
30 seconds would be a sermon. 5 seconds is plenty of time to say grace.
 
TheHat said:
Ever heard of FCA in public schools? Fellowship of Christian Athletes? How come they are allowed in public schools? Isn't that endorsing religion? [/I]".
Click to expand...

Why don't they have prayer over the PA system?
 
molten_dragon said:
On the one hand I think it goes little too far, but on the other I don't understand why they needs to be led in a prayer in the first place. If someone wants to pray before they eat they should just do it.
Click to expand...

Since none of them really have a choice but to be there, I think it's preposterous they were ever "led in prayer" in the first place.
Plenty of seniors are atheist, agnostic, or of other than christian faith.
The whole 'leading in prayer before meals" thing is rude, disrespectful, and alienating; not that I'd expect a bunch of Christians to recognize that. They're pretty oblivious. Even if they did recognize it, they no doubt wouldn't care, since in their version of reality, they are the only ones whose feelings count.
I'm glad they've been stopped.
Sorry prayer isn't as much fun when you don't get to harass, intimidate, annoy, and badger your neighbors with it, Gramps.
I'm sure everybody else at the senior center will now have much more pleasant and peaceful mealtimes, however.
 
j-mac said:
Isn't this going just a bit too far?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Just wait until the Messiah Care really kicks in and the realization that those people are worth more to the government dead than alive.

They'll be praying for the meals, not over them.
 
TheHat said:
No it does not. The Constitution, the 1st Amendment, does not bar the government from having pray services of 1 type or another. The 1st Amendment, was written so that Congress can't create a National Church, like the one our founders left called the Church of England. That is what that meant. If it meant that you can't say a prayer at a government funded meeting, then how the hell does Congress say a prayer in the House and Senate every damn day?

Saying a prayer is not endorsing a national religion. So therefore its perfectly within the realm of these people at this meeting to say a 30 second prayer before eating.

It has nothing to do with being weak minded. It has nothing to do with sticking a thumb in governments eye. Its none of that crap alot of people on this thread have said it is.

Ever heard of FCA in public schools? Fellowship of Christian Athletes? How come they are allowed in public schools? Isn't that endorsing religion? You got to understand what the 1st Amendment means, history wise, before you just start throwing around a phrase that was written 30 years after the Constitution was put in place and that phrase is "Seperation of Church and State".

That phrase, has no bearing on the 1st Amendment as it is nowhere to be found within it. It was a private letter written to some Bishops in what 1812 or something like that?
Click to expand...

Separation of Church and State is as much about the 14th Amendment as the 1st.

It was a private letter written to some Bishops in what 1812 or something like that?
Click to expand...

Famously used in that way. However, the term and the concept are older.
 
Last edited:
If I was there I would pray for an Uma Thurman wet dream in the back seat of a 57 Chevy.:)
 
This whole "separation of church and state" thing has been thoroughly misinterpreted and misapplied by the anti-religionists (and I say this as an agnostic).

1. It's not actually codified in the US Constitution. It's just a personal sentiment held by Thomas Jefferson.

2. The "separation of church and state" was never meant to be an outright ban on religious activities occurring within Federal purview; it's simply a ban on the state-endorsement of religion. A group-prayer held during a Federally-funded dinner is NOT a state-endorsement of religion.

This is absurd. The old folks should be able to have a group prayer if they like. No one is forcing anyone to participate in the prayer, and the fact that said prayer is occurring under the auspices of Federal funding does not mean it's a state-endorsement of religion, which is what the First Amendment forbids.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
There is a difference between sharing the gospel and forcing other people to sit through your public prayer. Are Christians so insecure in their beliefs that they can only persevere when they have the weight of the government behind them?
Click to expand...

Are you so insecure that you can't withstand a minute of public prayer?
 
aps said:
No one is prohibiting them from praying.
Click to expand...

They're prohibiting them from praying aloud and in unison, hence, it is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.

It's a moment of silence and people can do whatever they want with that moment.
Click to expand...

Why should they HAVE to remain silent? Why can the Federal government forbid them from praying aloud and in unison before their meal?
 
1984 said:
Are you so insecure that you can't withstand a minute of public prayer?
Click to expand...

take the public welfare away from that care facility and its management can authorize any form of prayer it chooses
keep the federal subsidy and remain subject to first amendment provisions:
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.
Click to expand...
the government should not be placed in the position of subsidizing this public prayer
 
justabubba said:
take the public welfare away from that care facility and its management can authorize any form of prayer it chooses
keep the federal subsidy and remain subject to first amendment provisions:

the government should not be placed in the position of subsidizing this public prayer
Click to expand...

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to properly read and interpret the law.

The relevant portion of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Since that's NOT what happened here, your reference to the First Amendment is without merit.
 
1984 said:
Are you so insecure that you can't withstand a minute of public prayer?
Click to expand...


Are you so unaware of Jesus' actual teachings that you think a public spectacle is necessary in order to pray?
 
1984 said:
Once again, you demonstrate your inability to properly read and interpret the law.

The relevant portion of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Since that's NOT what happened here, your reference to the First Amendment is without merit.
Click to expand...

and you would have us believe that a lead prayer, said before a publicly subsidized meal, conveys no particular religious view
you oppose allowing each guest to instead pray for themselves ... as is now the protocol, recognizing the public prayer violated the Bill of Rights
appears you are the one without an understanding of the law
 
1984 said:
They're prohibiting them from praying aloud and in unison, hence, it is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion.



Why should they HAVE to remain silent? Why can the Federal government forbid them from praying aloud and in unison before their meal?
Click to expand...

So it's illegal for one of them to standup, say "hey everyone that want's to pray come over here to this table and pray with us" at which point they can pray aloud and in unison?
 
Gardener said:
Are you so unaware of Jesus' actual teachings that you think a public spectacle is necessary in order to pray?
Click to expand...

I could care less about Jesus' view on prayer. I'm just not bothered by a group of old people praying aloud for twenty seconds.

justabubba said:
and you would have us believe that a lead prayer, said before a publicly subsidized meal, conveys no particular religious view
Click to expand...

Whatever religious view is being conveyed, it is not being conveyed by the Federal government, and, more specifically, the Congress, which is what the First Amendment says. Let's read it again, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Since that's NOT what happened here, I guess we can safely ignore your references to the First Amendment.

you oppose allowing each guest to instead pray for themselves...
Click to expand...

Nope. Each person can do what they want, as far as I'm concerned.

...as is now the protocol, recognizing the public prayer violated the Bill of Rights
appears you are the one without an understanding of the law
Click to expand...

It doesn't violate the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That didn't happen, so stop saying that it did.

roughdraft274 said:
So it's illegal for one of them to standup, say "hey everyone that want's to pray come over here to this table and pray with us" at which point they can pray aloud and in unison?
Click to expand...

Huh!? That's the opposite of what I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom