• 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

So this means that people who decide not to take part in the group prayer can talk to their friends during the group prayer?

Of course they can, although I'm inclined to believe that everyone present WANTS to pray, seeing as how they are elderly southerners.
 
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

You show an astounding ignorance of the law.

1. The Constitution does not apply to individuals, only government.

2. Assuming it did apply to individuals, what specific "provision" of the Constitution would a voluntary group prayer violate?

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

An absurd distortion of what is actually occurring. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
 
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.

Their decision.



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

And since Seniors Inc as well as their patrons would be making a choice to accept those funds for their own benefit, but are not restricted from the free exercise of religion in any way, that challenge would hopefully fail.



I agree, but they don't HAVE to, which is what I've been arguing since the very beginning.

You were saying that the group led prayer is entirely optional.

I was accurately pointing out that so was accepting the government cheese. Optional for both the seniors and Seniors Inc.

In neither case are rights violated.
 
Their decision.

Agreed.

And since Seniors Inc as well as their patrons would be making a choice to accept those funds for their own benefit, but are not restricted from the free exercise of religion in any way, that challenge would hopefully fail.

It depends, I suppose. If the Congress appropriates funds and imposes such a precondition on the dispensation and usage of those funds, it could reasonably be viewed as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I'm not saying this is the correct view, just one that could be reasonably held.

You were saying that the group led prayer is entirely optional.

I was accurately pointing out that so was accepting the government cheese. Optional for both the seniors and Seniors Inc.

In neither case are rights violated.

Congress appropriates funds to the military, too. Do you think restricting the presence of Chaplains or religious services in the military would be supported by your premise?
 
You show an astounding ignorance of the law.

1. The Constitution does not apply to individuals, only government.


2. Assuming it did apply to individuals, what specific "provision" of the Constitution would a voluntary group prayer violate?



An absurd distortion of what is actually occurring. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

may i have permission to use the hi-lited segment of that post in my signature?
 
may i have permission to use the hi-lited segment of that post in my signature?

Go ahead. It will be an everlasting testament to your ignorance of basic Constitutional law.
 
Go ahead. It will be an everlasting testament to your ignorance of basic Constitutional law.

thank you
i will exhibit your words with all of the respect they deserve
 
thank you
i will exhibit your words with all of the respect they deserve

Have fun. Maybe someone else will inform you that the US Constitution is a restriction on government and not individuals.

And you still haven't told me which provision these individuals or third parties are supposedly bound by. Care to give it a shot?
 
Last edited:
It depends, I suppose. If the Congress appropriates funds and imposes such a precondition on the dispensation and usage of those funds, it could reasonably be viewed as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I'm not saying this is the correct view, just one that could be reasonably held.

The prohibition would be situation dependent so there is no prohibition of free exercise.



Congress appropriates funds to the military, too. Do you think restricting the presence of Chaplains or religious services in the military would be supported by your premise?

It's a volunteer army. If there was such a law passed, no rights would be violated.


But I think the presence of chaplains and religious services should exist with the military based on the fact that we are expecting men and women to risk their lives for their nation and as such, we should provide them spiritual guidance if requested.
 
The prohibition would be situation dependent so there is no prohibition of free exercise.





It's a volunteer army. If there was such a law passed, no rights would be violated.


But I think the presence of chaplains and religious services should exist with the military based on the fact that we are expecting men and women to risk their lives for their nation and as such, we should provide them spiritual guidance if requested.


Good talk.

: D
 
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.

Check the supreme court decisions on school prayer. One of them

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142
 
Last edited:

Has no relevance to the current discussion. Mandatory prayer in public schools is totally different from optional prayers in a private charity's dinner.

I hope you are able to see the distinction.

By the way, you do realize they've reversed their decision, correct? There is no legal standing to forbid these group prayers, otherwise it would have already been done.
 
Has no relevance to the current discussion. Mandatory prayer in public schools is totally different from optional prayers in a private charity's dinner.

I hope you are able to see the distinction.

By the way, you do realize they've reversed their decision, correct? There is no legal standing to forbid these group prayers, otherwise it would have already been done.

No I didn't realize that. Link?
 
I was asking for a supreme court decision link regarding this matter. Until then:2wave:

Yes, until you and the rest of the anti-religionists actually provide a sound legal rationale for prohibiting group prayer during these meals, they will continue to pray loudly and proudly while you impotently whine and cringe on the sidelines.

Have a nice day!

: D
 
Yes, until you and the rest of the anti-religionists actually provide a sound legal rationale for prohibiting group prayer during these meals, they will continue to pray loudly and proudly while you impotently whine and cringe on the sidelines.

Have a nice day!

: D

Actually I am not anti-religion but I am anti-organized religion.
 
You show an astounding ignorance of the law.
back at you

1. The Constitution does not apply to individuals, only government.
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

2. Assuming it did apply to individuals, what specific "provision" of the Constitution would a voluntary group prayer violate?
first of all, this was NOT a voluntary group prayer. the guests gathered for a federally subsidized meal. a led prayer was imposed on them, like it or not. had this been a church gathering, where the purpose of the assembly was prayer, THEN that would have been voluntary - and the gathering would have been ineligible for any federal subsidy of their meal expense
the provision of the Constitution you were seeking to know, the one which is violated by the government funding of an activity where a led prayer is pronounced before a group who gathered for a purpose other than voluntary prayer with be found at the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1. here it is in truncated form:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
An absurd distortion of what is actually occurring. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
no distortion was presented which you have been able to identify. free exercise of religion was not present at that subsidized meal; a preference was provided to the religion of the party who spoke the religious invocation. that a moment of silence being available for those who chose to engage in a prayer of their choice, is unacceptable and that a led prayer is required is evidence of a religious agenda. one which the government has an obligation not to subsidize
 
back at you


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

Exactly. Limits on government, not individuals, which is what you said. It helps if you actually remember the context of your statements.

first of all, this was NOT a voluntary group prayer. the guests gathered for a federally subsidized meal. a led prayer was imposed on them, like it or not. had this been a church gathering, where the purpose of the assembly was prayer, THEN that would have been voluntary - and the gathering would have been ineligible for any federal subsidy of their meal expense
the provision of the Constitution you were seeking to know, the one which is violated by the government funding of an activity where a led prayer is pronounced before a group who gathered for a purpose other than voluntary prayer with be found at the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1. here it is in truncated form:

It WAS a voluntary group prayer. I defy you to provide evidence that anyone was FORCED to pray.

no distortion was presented which you have been able to identify. free exercise of religion was not present at that subsidized meal; a preference was provided to the religion of the party who spoke the religious invocation. that a moment of silence being available for those who chose to engage in a prayer of their choice, is unacceptable and that a led prayer is required is evidence of a religious agenda. one which the government has an obligation not to subsidize

The guests were free to pray or not to pray. Them's the facts, so deal with it.
 
Exactly. Limits on government, not individuals, which is what you said. It helps if you actually remember the context of your statements.
delighted not only to teach you something but it appears you now recognize how silly your statement is, which absurdity is now found in my signature

It WAS a voluntary group prayer. I defy you to provide evidence that anyone was FORCED to pray.
the fact is, they had NO choice. a led prayer, of a specific religious persuasion, was invoked at a federally subsidized meal

The guests were free to pray or not to pray. Them's the facts, so deal with it.
the guests were FORCED to sit thru a prayer not necessarily of their choosing, conferring a preference on one religion. the government cannot permit that when it is subsidizing that gathering which has now become a prayer meeting
that is the fact

if the federal subsidy is not desired, then the facility can conduct prayer in whatever manner it would choose
that is another fact
 
delighted not only to teach you something but it appears you now recognize how silly your statement is, which absurdity is now found in my signature

Good grief. Are you senile?

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.

Of course the Constitution "applies to individuals", 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.

the fact is, they had NO choice. a led prayer, of a specific religious persuasion, was invoked at a federally subsidized meal

the guests were FORCED to sit thru a prayer not necessarily of their choosing, conferring a preference on one religion. the government cannot permit that when it is subsidizing that gathering which has now become a prayer meeting
that is the fact

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?

if the federal subsidy is not desired, then the facility can conduct prayer in whatever manner it would choose
that is another fact

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.
 
Good grief. Are you senile?

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.

Of course the Constitution "applies to individuals", 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.



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?



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.

Asking someone if they are senile is not very christian.
 
Moderator's Warning:
And, asking someone if they are senile is against the rules. Cease the personal attacks.
 
Back
Top Bottom