I say go ahead and pray, what's the worst that can happen SCOTUS hears the case, and tells the city to pull it's head out of it's ass?

Might get a bit more sympathy if Christians weren't pushing their agendas on the American public on a consistent basis.

Where and when, Thin-Skinned-Zinn.

I'll tell you exactly how this happened. This Tim Rutherford bozo is paying the price for a government contract in the Age of Obama. There's no rule about this in his contract.

Maybe his contract is up for renewal or he's trying to expand his business. So some pissant bureaucrat from the Obama Administration thinks he's going to make a name for himself. He calls up this company and says that letting the old folks pray before they eat is a violation that will cost him the business. So what if there's no stipulation, you do what I say or your competitor gets the contract. Go to the press? A liberal reporter will be happy to talk to you. Think some Republican lawyer is going to burn a year pro bono to take this to court? Fat chance. You're gonna tell gramma to sit down and shut up or her next meal might not be there tomorrow.

It's wrong to say liberals are hostile to xtians. We don't care at all about xtians except hen they try to get us or our kid to abide by their backwards, juvenile beliefs.

Liberals might get a bit more sympathy if they weren't using fascist communist tactics to ram their agenda's on the American public on a constant basis.
I know, don't ya hate being told to stop acting like a freak unfit to be a productive member of society just because you want to destroy America?

Hey pizza man, pray all you want. And while you're at it squeeze some goat testicles and see what that does for you.

People like you often say that telling the truth is wrong Peter/zimmy/Jack_Schite.

You may want to read the 'free expression' part of the First Amendmant again.

I forgot you live under a rock. Gay marriage, National Prayer Day, etc. You really ought to get out more.

I don't really have a great deal of trouble with this. In the source AP article (which was poorly written to start with), the quote from Rutherford continues with:

Rutherford said the moment of silence was introduced to protect that funding. He said although the change may have been misinterpreted, perhaps his company could have done a better job selling it.

“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.”

And that's the way I think it should be – they leave a time into which individuals can fit their prayers regardless of their religious persuasion, or if they choose not to pray, they have that option. I have no problem with that. That, to me, is the essence of the religious freedom which our founding fathers wished to have in their new country. It isn't the obligation of government, or those acting as de facto agents of government to impose religious doctrine of any sort onto people. Just as it is not the role of government to suppress any religion.

Calm yourself, princess. I just wanted to see what idiocy you'd come up with. And you did not disappoint.

Gay Marriage has many aspects. Even if you take religion completely out of it, the conflict remains. I do not want an insignificant minority of the population redefining a societal construct.

National Day of Prayer? You are so threatened by A DAY? How weak and pathetic you are, Zinn.

And I'm sure you think that your “etc.” is ment to silence me into thinking “Oooo, he's got MORE EXAMPLES!” hahahahahahaha

Obama is a Republican, Zinn? Because he supports National Prayer Day and is against gay marriage.

Hoist. Petard.

Like what agenda? Show me, troll.

You mean keeping a tried and true institution over some new-fangled unproven idea, or promoting a day which has an event in which you don't have to participate?

I swear, liberal idiots like you always lack of comfortability with oppression.

As opposed to what… trusting in only yourself? Right, because you've never made a mistake in life. You're perfect. You're your own god and whatever you say or do is right because you believe it.

As opposed to the current batch of Conservatives/Republicans, I dont need to agree with everything Obama says or does. :)

Instead of protecting religious liberties, the First Amendment has been used to oppress the freedom of religion.

Except no one is being prevented from exercising their religion. John. There is a moment of silence, with which you can say a prayer if you want to. That is not even close to religious oppression.

I attend meetings and events all the time where somebody leads everyone in attendance in a Christian prayer, and I always bow my head out of respect and I don't really take any offense even though I don't consider myself ot be Christian. I used to work for a company where all employees were required to recite the Lord's Prayer as a group every Monday morning. I've even been called on in such situations to lead prayers a few times and I feel perfectly comfortable publicly giving thanks to God in a way that both myself and my Christian friends can agree with. So public prayer at non-Church events does not bother me, even if those events are funded by federal dollars.

But with that said, if given the option, I'd actually prefer a moment of silence where everybody can pay respect to God as they understand him at their own level, or not. So, i don't see anything really wrong with what's going on in this story, but neither did I see anything really wrong before. Either way, nobody is being prevented from praying, nor are they being forced to pray.

watch who you call a troll – from my perspective nobody has ever tried to convert me to 'THE GAY'… but on the other hand, Christians have……. maybe they think I'm a leper due to the warts all over my face (of course maybe that's why nobody's forcing their 'GAY' agenda on me like they clearly do to elsebodies…(NOT!))

Well, the Second Amendment has also been turned on its head, so now we live in a balanced world. Yin and yang as those who own the USA might say.

Still, nothing reported states that people can not pray before they have their meal. And, one would think, they can pray to whichever interpretation of God they wish. As they can do anywhere in the USA. This is a non-story about a non-issue.

And an a by-the-way concerning Faith. No one can destroy your faith. You have it, or you don't. That's what Faith is – beyond knowledge and intellect. Beyond the grubby hands of organized religion or government. Faith and Belief bask in the glow of God, and are not removed by the deeds of men.

This didn't stop anyone from praying. John Hawkin's is being conspiratorial. In fact, now each member can pray with the words from their own heart, rather than someone speaking for them all.

Well it's done more for me than belief in MAN has ever done you, obviously.

Stupid much?

A lead prayer is no different than a personal prayer, except that everyone in the room has to listen to it. Oh those poor people who might have to listen to words they don't like, don't agree with, or just don't understand, they suffer so because they obviously don't know how to THINK for themselves and IGNORE what they want.

With a face like yours we have to assume you are…

Hateful trolling flagged.

TR

More hateful trolling…
Flagged.
TR

So hindu's, muslim's, and buddhist's don't pray or cannot observe the National Day of Prayer?? This is news to me!

And since when are you obligated to follow them just because they try to convert you? And what business is that of the goverments?

Oposition to homosexual marriage is hardly a part of the “Christian Agenda”, troll. I'm not a Christian, yet I'm very opposed to homosexual marriage. There are solid secular reasons to oppose it.

You just have this juvenile resentment of people of faith.

TR

It takes more faith to be an atheist than does it be religious.

And it's CHRISTian, toad. if you cannot respect us that much, don't post at all.

Suppressing a lead prayer is preventing freedom to express. A moment of silence is a cop out. No where in COTUS does it say that one can supress people from leading a prayer, if you are not a beliver, tune it out and do your own thing with the time. It's violation of both Free Speech and Freedom of Expression.

“Well, the Second Amendment has also been turned on its head, so now we live in a balanced world. Yin and yang as those who own the USA might say.”

Hopw so?

Where is the conspiracy?
They are stopped from doing something they did freely before.
That is not a conspiracy, that is reality.
Something that you obviously spend way too much time avoiding.

Right, you just have to agree with the which ones supports communist policies.

Honestly i figured you got the warts on your face from giving oral pleasure to someone with STD's.

wow a very unoriginal pair of insults from a known idiot.

Assume what you what you're the only making an ass of yourself on any of those assumptions.

Typical.
You want to force your gay views on marriage, and change it from what was. Then cry about how we are forcing our views on you?
Hypocrite.
There is a day in the year where people of any belief can pray… but since that offends you, you want all those people to be forced to conform to your beliefs.
Hypocrite.

Seems you got thread jacked there zipper, lefty_troll is the one with warts on his face.

Right:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you = juvenile
Respect your parents= backwards
Honor your wife as you would yourself= totally juvenile, democratic presidents don't have to honor their wives right?

We can go on but where is the need when the stance you support are truly juvenile and at home in a frat house.

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

Open prayer not allowed.
…….How is that not an infringement on not just religious rights but freedom of speech?
Tell you what, don't answer and keep your thoughts to yourself as a way to demonstrate to me you can do with silence, what you can do with your slobbering rant.

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

Open prayer not allowed.
…….How is that not an infringement on not just religious rights but freedom of speech?
Tell you what, don't answer and keep your thoughts to yourself as a way to demonstrate to me you can do with silence, what you can do with your slobbering rant.

Again, no is prevented from praying, Mr. EMT. You can do with the moment of silence whatever you wish. What's the issue?

Maybe the problem is that we have differing opinions of what prayer is. I was under the impression that a prayer was communication between a person and their God. If so, why would need someone else to lead you in that endeavor, or even say it out loud? Or is the point of prayer for you just so that other people see and hear you doing it? (which seems kind of unseemly in my opinion) Please tell me how silently communicating with your God does not count as prayer.

Why should they have to listen to it? If it is the same as a personal prayer as you say, then have the personal prayer and be done with it. Why should everyone be forced to listen?

FREEDOM OF SPEECH and Freedom of Expression that's why, another set of right codified in the First Amendment, The person leading the prayer has every right to pray out loud, and suppressing the right is a clear violation of Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom OF Religion.

You have the right to call me an asshole, I have the right to choose to not listen. You do not have the right to suppress speech of anykind just because it offends you.

And an a by-the-way concerning Faith. No one can destroy your faith. You have it, or you don't. That's what Faith is – beyond knowledge and intellect. Beyond the grubby hands of organized religion or government. Faith and Belief bask in the glow of God, and are not removed by the deeds of men.

Yet isn't it fascinating that it is the Left that is constantly trying to stop Christians from openly practicing their religion. It is as if the sight of a Nativity scene or the sound of a prayer offends them so much.

How impotent and pathetic your 'faith' must be if you have to stop an person from praying out loud over their meal.

Ah, now its a Freedom of Speech issue, spare us, a silent prayer is no different than a spoken one. After all the object of prayer is a conversation with God.

If a silent prayer is no different than a spoken one, then why do you and your ilk have so much of a probelm with spoken prayers that you have to ban them?

A lead prayer is fellowship in worship: like minded people, expressing their beliefs through a group leader. It's just as valid as individual prayer, both are protected via the expression clause and free speech clauses.

Sure. Tell a Muslim that they should “think about” facing Mecca and see how fast the lawsuits roll in.

Great, than you are free to attend the church of your choosing if this fellowship in worship is what your crave. This is a federally funded dinner at a senior center.

So now you're dictating where people can and cannot pray. Lovely.

I am? No, the SCOTUS is.

Spare US your stupidity.

Suppression of one's right to say a prayer out loud is a clear violtion of Freedom of Speech. What part that clause is difficult to understand?

Why is it so important that it be a spoken prayer Stan?

Why would they just have “think about” facing Mecca and not actually do it? Does a Muslim facing in a certain direction when they pray infringe on anyone else's ability to pray?

You just said they were the same, crthns. So why are YOU so upset with a spoken prayer that you want to see it banned?

IF you agree that they are the same, why is it so important for it to be spoken Stan?

Are you incapable of answering a question, crthns? You said they were the same, yet you want to ban the spoken one.

WHY?

And like Jim Crow laws they are WRONG. The seperation clause is not even in COTUS and it was not Jefferson's argument in his letter to Danbury Baptist Association.

Thomas Jefferson, a vigilant though skeptical Anglican, made clear this prohibition in his obscure but maliciously misconstrued 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Far from calling for the coercive stripping of all religious influences from public life, Jefferson merely assured his Baptist constituents in Connecticut that their denominational practices were safe because our Constitution provided a “wall of separation” between church and state, which would prohibit the national government from recognizing Anglicanism as the national religion. (Notably, two days after writing that letter, Jefferson attended religious services in the House of Representatives.)

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/05/06/endo…

Yet isn't it fascinating that it is the Left that is constantly trying to stop Christians from openly practicing their religion.

It would be fascinating social phenomena if it were true. But it isn't true. So – nothing to worry about.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Bask in your ignorance, RP!

BECAUSE it creates fellowship among the worshipers, bringing people closer together as they worship together. It's another tenet of Christianity, to gather together in fellowship in the Lord through prayer.

1 John 1:7 (Whole Chapter)
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Does saying a prayer out loud infringe on you?

So that's NOT what this article is about? What pray tell is it about then?

Are you incapable of answering a question Stan, if they are the same why does it need to be spoken?

And if not all of those present want to be part of this fellowship too bad for them? A silent prayer is done out of respect for those that may not be relegious or christian, but as you have show, you really dont care about them do you?

Sorry, is that a loony lib busy trying to force his morals on someone else?

Yup, it's a hypocrite.

If so, why would need someone else to lead you in that endeavor, or even say it out loud?
MY belief. MY religion.
Keep your uneducated opinion to yourself and do not dare try to justify infringing on rights you admit you do not understand.

For the record. It is tradition for the head of the table to say grace over the food prepaired. To give thanks and show respect to God who has provided for us.

Denying that right is insufferable and should NEVER be tolerated.

They are not required to listen, the First Amendment gaurantees the right to speak, it does NOT gaurantee you won't be offended by such speech.

Leftist march in the street and call Tea Partiers racist, and it's their right. Do they have to show me respect and shut-up because their being offensive.

ALL SPEECH is protected WU, unless it is defamation of character or is a danger to the public(yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

Sorry socialism has no place in America.
Taking federal money does not allow the government to dictate how you are allowed to live in return.
Advocating such is not only against the constitution, but treason.

SCOTUS is sworn to uphold the constitution, as are all sworn law makers.
I do not recognize their authority when they break their oath, nor do i recognize what totalitarian “laws” they pass after the fact.

Tim pinko commie's opinions infringe on me. Why can't he keep his opinions to himself in silence since he cries people should pray in silence?

What an absolutely pathetic attempt at distracting from your hypocrisy, crthns.

I asked you for so you answer first. If they are the same, why do you want the spoken version banned.

Everyone pushes their agenda no matter if it is religious or environmental or some other verson of morality on others. I am sure you do it to. For some reason, Christians are the only group that gets called out and ridiculed for it.

I see, thanks for admitting that you dont care about others and that you want to have a lead prayer regardless, that is the arrogance that turns people off my friend.

DUMBASS it's Free Speech, if you are offended DON'T listen. And know when it comes to Free Speech I DON'T care what someone elses opinion is, anymore than have to care about mine.

I don't care to be called a racist or a teabagger, but that's MY problem, not yours or the person saying it.

Basically you only want to protect speech that you like and all others be damned, and that's arrogance that makes you a hypocrite.

“Either way, nobody is being prevented from praying, nor are they being forced to pray.”

And this is the crux of it. This is always what is at root of those who support the separation of church and state. The outrage generally tends to come from those who interpret one's inability to have the government enforce the right of someone to shove his faith down the throat of someone else as a tragic defiling of the constitution. I have never known a single American citizen who has been unable to pray or who has been persecuted for his faith. Those who claim persecution because they can't get the state to sanction their faith miss the whole meaning of the 1st Amendment.

P_F – While I admire your self-confidence such that you are not uncomfortable by being asked to lead a prayer, don't you think the course of action more consistent with freedom is simply not to have to subject anyone, regardless of their levels of self-confidence or comfort, to the discomfort of having to pray or participate in prayer at or in a state/government setting? What is the harm to one's faith, really, in not permitting a nativity scene on the grounds of city hall? What is the harm to one's faith, really, in having a moment of silence at certain moments in certain environments?

“don't you think the course of action more consistent with freedom is simply not to have to subject anyone, regardless of their levels of confidence or comfort, to the discomfort of having to pray or participate in prayer at or in a state/government setting?”

Well, yes, but the key verbiage there is “to subject”. Nobody is subjected to “having to pray” or participate in prayer against their will. In order for that condition to exist, they would have to be detained against their will and threatened with harm unless they pray.

What does often happen in these scenarios is that people (such as myself) experience social pressure that compels them to conform to a religious norm, or something close enough to pass as one. Do I think people have a right to be protected from experiencing discomfort due to social pressure? Not at all. Sure, I'd prefer for it to work a different way, and if given a vote in such a scenario I am happy to voice my opinion about it… but at the end of the day if I want to take advantage of free food being offered to me by the government, as long as nobody is forcing me to pray before I eat the food, is it really that important?
Wouldn't be to me.

As to the motives of the people who want to exert their right to pray out loud in public non-religious settings while putting social pressure on others to join in, all I can say is that their behavior has always made their religion look less authentic and endearing to me personally, but otherwise doesn't really effect me.

No one was prohibited from praying, They could have prayed as Jesus said to do: alone.

Well accept that's not the only way he told people to pray, he also said to pray in fellowship with other believers. But then a Christian would know that.

Too bad you're completely wrong about what the First means and what believers(Muslims, Jews, and Christians) want.

Excuse me yes, they are being suppressed, if everyone in that room wants to pray (say a blessing over their meal) and they are being prevented to do so by a rule, then their Freedom of Religion is being suppressed. This is what the first amendment was about.
If one person complains big deal. He needs to grow up and tolerate what the majority wants – he should respect that.

Believers could blow every atheistic argument against public prayer out of the water by simply pointing out that atheism is a religious belief system just as much as any other, and as such atheists' beliefs cannot supercede those of other people.

Why don't they?

Seems to be one more reason not to depend on the government's dollar.

If one person complains big deal. He needs to grow up and tolerate what the majority wants – he should respect that.

Actually, you've just displayed shocking ignorance of one of the key principles of democracy: minority rights.

Minorities have rights.
However the do not get to infringe upon rights.
Im glad to see commies like you pinko coming out and displaying all your hypcrosy where it educates people what kind of a bullying small minded fascist you liberals are.

The minorities don't get to infringe upon rights? Or the government doesn't? Take a few minutes to collect your thoughts before posting next time.

I'm not familiar with that passage. Where is it from?