Georgia Seniors Told They Can't Pray Before Meals

[Newby]

The prayers were the voluntary activity of the people eating the meals:

Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. vice president, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay 55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said

....

"Like one lady said, 'You can stop me from speaking, but you can't stop me from praying what's in my heart,"' he said. "But the best answer right now is that we're trying to get the best information possible and legal council is looking at what would happen if we continued to pray."


The Center was not leading or sponsoring the prayers. The individuals involved wish to say their grace out loud.

I suppose if some of them started singing the "mmm mmm mmm Obama" song, that would be fine - but thanking God for their blessings is somehow wrong?

No wonder this country is falling apart.

Is this a government run center? And as Si Modo has pointed out several times, all the government did was provide food, that doesn't mean they get to dictate what people do before or after the meal. I can't believe the idiots on here who think that because the government provides the food they have the right to dictate what happens all around the meal. I guess people that receive welfare funds shouldn't have the right to attend church on Sunday's either since they accept government money? Talk about extremist bullshit.

 

[Againsheila]

the first amendment is NOT being followed, in my opinion....



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

They would be abridging the freedom of speech, in the case above....and they are prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE, THERE OF....in my opinion as well....admittingly, I am no constitutional lawyer....

I agree...this is ridiculous.

 

[boedicca]

The thread titile is a lie.

They can pray if they want and the people who dont want to pray are not forced to listen to someone else force religion on them.



Everyones rights are protected here

Does this mean I get to prevent someone else from exercising his1st Amendment Rights to free speech if he says something which I don't believe?

 

[masquerade]

The prayers were the voluntary activity of the people eating the meals:

Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. vice president, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay 55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said

....

"Like one lady said, 'You can stop me from speaking, but you can't stop me from praying what's in my heart,"' he said. "But the best answer right now is that we're trying to get the best information possible and legal council is looking at what would happen if we continued to pray."


The Center was not leading or sponsoring the prayers. The individuals involved wish to say their grace out loud.

I suppose if some of them started singing the "mmm mmm mmm Obama" song, that would be fine - but thanking God for their blessings is somehow wrong?

No wonder this country is falling apart.

Is this a government run center? And as Si Modo has pointed out several times, all the government did was provide food, that doesn't mean they get to dictate what people do before or after the meal. I can't believe the idiots on here who think that because the government provides the food they have the right to dictate what happens all around the meal. I guess people that receive welfare funds shouldn't have the right to attend church on Sunday's either since they accept government money? Talk about extremist bullshit.

Excellent point!

 

[boedicca]

the first amendment is NOT being followed, in my opinion....



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

They would be abridging the freedom of speech, in the case above....and they are prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE, THERE OF....in my opinion as well....admittingly, I am no constitutional lawyer....

I agree...this is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. Some little old men and ladies are being forbidden to say grace out loud before they eat a meal.

 

[Againsheila]

Georgia Seniors Told They Can't Pray Before Meals
"It's interpreted that we're telling people that they can't pray, but we aren't saying that," he said. "We're asking them to pray to themselves. Have that moment of silence."

I guess you didn't read your own article.

Why is it some people can't pray unless they do it out loud with other people? Even when some of those other people are offended by the sometimes obvious attempt to make those who don't participate feel like outcasts?

Isn't prayer supposed to be between God and the individual? Isn't using it as a tool to control people an offense to God?

The more people that pray together, the more powerful the prayer. Even an atheist should know that. Have you ever read up on the power of positive thinking? Even when in the form of prayer, it can be helpful.

 

[Truthmatters]

The thread titile is a lie.

They can pray if they want and the people who dont want to pray are not forced to listen to someone else force religion on them.



Everyones rights are protected here

Does this mean I get to prevent someone else from exercising his1st Amendment Rights to free speech if he says something which I don't believe?

No one stoped anyone from praying

 

[L.K.Eder]

Georgia Seniors Told They Can't Pray Before Meals
"It's interpreted that we're telling people that they can't pray, but we aren't saying that," he said. "We're asking them to pray to themselves. Have that moment of silence."

I guess you didn't read your own article.

Why is it some people can't pray unless they do it out loud with other people? Even when some of those other people are offended by the sometimes obvious attempt to make those who don't participate feel like outcasts?

Isn't prayer supposed to be between God and the individual? Isn't using it as a tool to control people an offense to God?

The more people that pray together, the more powerful the prayer. Even an atheist should know that. Have you ever read up on the power of positive thinking? Even when in the form of prayer, it can be helpful.

sounds quite pagan. or like what you do in a computer game.

 

[boedicca]

The thread titile is a lie.

They can pray if they want and the people who dont want to pray are not forced to listen to someone else force religion on them.



Everyones rights are protected here

Does this mean I get to prevent someone else from exercising his1st Amendment Rights to free speech if he says something which I don't believe?

No one stoped anyone from praying

Yes, they were prevented from saying Grace out loud.

Their First Amendment Rights were violated.

 

[Againsheila]

Halal Meals On Wheels

Program, believed to be first in nation, caters to homebound Muslims in Wayne County

ACCESS launched a program to feed seniors in a community setting a few years ago, but funding ran out. Talab worked to launch the program for shut-ins with the Senior Alliance, Area Agency on Aging 1C in Wayne, which runs a $3 million program that feeds seniors in 34 communities throughout western and southern Wayne County.

But unlike traditional Meals on Wheels, the halal meals are not delivered by volunteers. Food is provided by Midamar, a national halal food distributor based in Iowa. Meals are then assembled by Mom’s Meals, another Iowa company that mails meals to seniors in rural areas and other hard-to-reach places.

Mom’s Meals ships a two-week supply of halal meals in coolers to qualifying seniors via FedEx. The meals, which cost about $7 to prepare and ship, include entrees such as chicken biryani, lentil stew with ground lamb and Italian chicken.

The program is small but organizers expect it to grow.

The Area Agency on Aging has contracted with Mom’s Meals for three years, renewable at the end of each year based on performance, for $100,000 annually. The program was funded with federal dollars for programs for older Americans funneled through the state, said Bob Brown, executive director for the Senior Alliance.

I can't help but wonder if these Muslims were spoken to about their prayer.

of course not!

We exempt Muslims from the idiotic restrictions we place on Christians.

Reminder: I am an atheist and I don't care if some old lady says grace before her meal even if my tax dollars subsidize it and neither should anyone else. I don't care if it says "In God We Trust" on our money. I don't care if the fucking president says "God Bless America"

All I want is some fucking common sense but I would settle for some consistency instead of the utterly ridiculous hypocritical tripe that we seem to get constantly.

I am an atheist too and I also don't care if some old lady says grace before her meal. I've also patiently sat through many silly grace rituals and am not so much offended as I find them amusing. But I certainly do not want my tax dollars paying for any of these goofy group prayer sessions.

Your tax dollars aren't paying for any goofy group prayer sessions. They are helping to pay for the meals. The prayers are the decision of the people eating those meals and you have no right to tell them they can't say grace before they eat.

 

[Againsheila]

Just one of several:

Federal Court Strikes Down Louisiana School Prayer Law. - Free Online Library

More importantly, the federal government doesn't have to establish a state religion before the establishment clause comes into effect.

This wouldn't be an issue if individuals were praying. It was an issue because it was a group prayer.

Thanks for that. [Emphasis added] The People happened to pray. The only official act by the government was to establish funds for food.

The article is a little vague, but my impression was they were leading an official prayer before the meal.

But Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state.

On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center was traded in for a moment of silence.

The dilemma is being hashed out by the Port Wentworth city attorney, said Mayor Glenn "Pig" Jones.

Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc. vice president, said some of his staff recently visited the center and noticed people praying shortly before lunch was served. Rutherford said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and rice and salads at a cost of about $6 a plate. Seniors taking the meals pay 55 cents and federal money foots the rest of the bill, Rutherford said.

"We can't scoff at their rules," he said of federal authorities. "It's a part of the operational guidelines."

If this were individuals praying, it would be different. I don't think it's a terribly big deal either way, but it's a far cry of people being deprived of their liberties (as it is being construed here).

Or if it is, then it should be taken up in the courts.

Anyways, the guy sums it up in the article. If you take the money from the government, you have to play by their rules.

This wouldn't be an issue at a church that was providing meals to seniors out of funds from the congregation.

They noticed "several" people praying. Not all of them. How on earth is that against the rules? Those "several" people had the right to pray just as the ones not praying had the right not to pray.

 

[boedicca]

The government pays for sidewalks and parks - does this mean we now cannot pray out loud in public spaces?

 

[Truthmatters]

Does this mean I get to prevent someone else from exercising his1st Amendment Rights to free speech if he says something which I don't believe?

No one stoped anyone from praying

Yes, they were prevented from saying Grace out loud.

Their First Amendment Rights were violated.

You dont have to pray out loud.

They were not prevented from praying.

They were prevented from forcing a their prayers on the others who were not of the same religion.

Where is all your concern for the people who were not christian and their rights?

 

[boedicca]

It's not a matter of still being able to pray silently. Their choice to pray in the manner they choose has been violated. Their FREEDOM OF SPEECH has been violated.

Idiot.

 

[Againsheila]

No one stoped anyone from praying

Yes, they were prevented from saying Grace out loud.

Their First Amendment Rights were violated.

You dont have to pray out loud.

They were not prevented from praying.

They were prevented from forcing a their prayers on the others who were not of the same religion.

Where is all your concern for the people who were not christian and their rights?

We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, we have freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. You can say anything you want, I don't have to listen to it. I can say anything I want, including a prayer and you don't have to listen to it. To tell me that I can't say it aloud because it's a prayer is interfering in my rights as a US citizen.

 

[Eccgmike]

News Flash for idiot liberals: it reads "freedom OF religion",..... not "freedom FROM religion"! Our grandparent's would be rooli g over in their graves if they could get control of their gaffaw's and uncontrollable laughter at the political correctness (liberal stupidity)that is rampant in our country these days!! I'm sure it wasn't one of the seniors that lodged the complaint,... but a liberal observer who was "just looking out for the best interests" of said senior citizens. Unbelievable......

 

[geauxtohell]

Did you support Iraq?

Because if you are going to talk of values and bankruptcy out of one side of your mouth while supporting a war the deaths of thousands of innocents, the destruction of homes, and cost us a shit-ton of money that we borrowed from the Chinese out of the other, I am going to think you are F.O.S.

What a disingenuous comment.

You think that citing something you think is wrong is a justification for a further wrong?

Grow up.

The truth hurts doesn't it?

So since you did support a war of adventure that resulted in the death of thousands of innocents and has further bankrupted out country, you can spare me the lectures.

 

[geauxtohell]

They noticed "several" people praying. Not all of them. How on earth is that against the rules? Those "several" people had the right to pray just as the ones not praying had the right not to pray.

I think it was the fact that they had official time set aside for people to pray out loud. The article wasn't entirely clear. Whatever it was, it has now been replaced by a moment of silence where people can pray to themselves or not.

If this is a massive violation of people's constitutional right to practice their religion, then it should be taken up with the courts.

 

[GHook93]

The first amendment protects the free practice of religion, not the freedom from religion.

Absurd. The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Also, there is no way a person can legally stop someone from praying on their own. The issue is when it's a group prayer and other people feel compelled to join in on something they don't believe in.

So that is your argument huh! You do know SCOTUS also allowed for separate but equal. Sometimes they get it wrong!

 

[geauxtohell]

The first amendment protects the free practice of religion, not the freedom from religion.

Absurd. The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Also, there is no way a person can legally stop someone from praying on their own. The issue is when it's a group prayer and other people feel compelled to join in on something they don't believe in.

So that is your argument huh! You do know SCOTUS also allowed for separate but equal. Sometimes they get it wrong!

As the law of the land, the fact that "sometimes the SCOTUS gets it wrong" is not terribly germane and, save for a few rare cases where the court has reversed itself (i.e. the Dread Scott decision) usually simply means the court has made a decision person disagrees with and really says nothing about the merit of the decision.