Georgia Seniors told they Can’t pray before Meals
May 10th, 2010 by Tennessee Walker
Senior Citizens who get their meals at a local Senior Center have been informed that they no longer pray before those meals as the funding comes largely from federal sources.
Remember when we were told by liberals to get over our concern about banning prayers in schools?
Quite a few of us saw this slippery slope and predicted that the prayer banning was going to proceed until the Federal bureaucracy had insinuated itself in multiple areas of our life.
There is no Federal law preventing people from praying out loud. The news story describes a stupid decision by the senior center director acting alone. I couldn’t find any reference to the center being contacted by authorities about prayer – can you?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the director turns out to be a wingnut trying to cause a provocation.
What a dishonest post. I expect more form someone who claims to be a follower of Christ. Wait…you are a Republican follower of Christ. Nevermind.
Trust Fund speaking of “dishonesty” is like Stalin complaining about dictators.
Maybe an honest day’s work for once in his sorry life may change Trust Fund’s outlook. Maybe.
Anon, has the usual reasoning and reading comprehension deficit common to Liberals.
There is no federal law passed by Congress against prayer anon because these prohibitions came about by Supreme Court decisions. There are plenty of Rules and Regulations promulgated by bureaucrats that enforce these types of attempts to regulate individual behavior and that is what is happenning here.
This decision was not made by a senior center director It was made by a vice president of a firm that provides these types of food services for senior centers. The man’s name is Tim Rutherford and he is Vice President of Senior Citizens Inc.. This policy that his company is enforcing is based on Federal Regulations and the operational guidelines given to his company.
Here is what Mr. Rutherford had to say.
“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.”
The feigned outrage of trust fund baby is typical. Glad to see he could wake up before the crack of noon today.
This policy that his company is enforcing is based on Federal Regulations and the operational guidelines given to his company.
There is no such regulation.
There is no federal law passed by Congress against prayer anon because these prohibitions came about by Supreme Court decisions.
Typical conservative ignorance of the Constitution.
No prohibitions “come about” from the Supreme Court unless they are found to exist in underlying law.
I’m not an expert on food service and neither are you anon. This is what Rutherford said. ““We can’t scoff at their rules,” he said of federal authorities. “It’s a part of the operational guidelines.””
You got a problem take it up with him. But this is typical of how the Feds get this type of behavior regulation in thru the back door.
“Typical conservative ignorance of the Constitution.
No prohibitions “come about” from the Supreme Court unless they are found to exist in underlying law.”
Really!!!??? Show me the underlying Federal Law banning prayer in schools.
Show me the underlawing Federal law permitting abortions that permitted Roe v Wade.
Show me the underlying Federal Law banning prayer in schools.
More willful ignorance. You can pray all you want in school. It is a wingnut construction that you cannot pray in school.
Show me the underlawing Federal law permitting abortions that permitted Roe v Wade.
Still more willful ignorance. The Constitution does not grant rights, it only recognizes them. Roe v. Wade found a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment, a right that includes abortion as a private decision.
“Maybe an honest day’s work for once in his sorry life may change Trust Fund’s outlook.”
No more likely than your suckling off the public teat might make you hesitate to champion the private sector. You could go teach at a private school — but that wouldn’t pay you as well, would it?
Nobody has mentioned that if the seniors want to stand up for their religious rights, they can always pay the private sector for their lunches. Or is government-subsidized lunch now something you champions of government-hatred now approve?
“Still more willful ignorance. The Constitution does not grant rights, it only recognizes them. Roe v. Wade found a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment, a right that includes abortion as a private decision.”
So your statement that there has to be some underlying Federal law is blatantly false.
“Nobody has mentioned that if the seniors want to stand up for their religious rights, they can always pay the private sector for their lunches. Or is government-subsidized lunch now something you champions of government-hatred now approve?”
Now you have gotten to the nub of the issue. You see this is how the Feds and liberals get to control every aspect of your life. The Feds offer a supposed freebie and then they impose their behavior requirements after the fact . As you have so accurately pointed out anon, these seniors can pay the extra $5.45 per lunch if they wish to exercise their constitutional right to say grace before the meal. This is how the liberals in government choose to impose their will. They really don’t need a SWAT team.
Thanks for showing us that you think these folks should forego their Constitutional rights because they are receiving a Federal subsidy. Tell me should food stamp recepients also not be allowed to pray aloud???
Where’s my crayon – Oh here it is:
THE UNDERLYING LAW IS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
No more likely than your suckling off the public teat might make you hesitate to champion the private sector. You could go teach at a private school — but that wouldn’t pay you as well, would it?
As if the two were in anyway equivalent. But that’s what “progressives” are masterful at — moral relativism and equivalence.
Sitting on one’s ass while mommy and daddy pay the bills somehow is akin to teaching kids a foreign lingo! There’s that “renown” progressive logic on display daily at DL…
THE UNDERLYING LAW IS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Of course, as “progressives” are notorious for, anon first said the SCOTUS “found” the right “in” the underlying law (14th Amendment). But anyone who’s even remotely aware of what the 14th Amendment was originally FOR and ABOUT couldn’t with a serious face claim that it had a woman’s “right” to terminate a life as one of its premises.
“Where’s my crayon – Oh here it is:
THE UNDERLYING LAW IS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT”
Hey you’re the one who said Federal Law. If you meant the Constitution you should have just said it. If you made a misstatement. Then just say so. I don’t need your crayon. I gave crayons up in kindergarten.
Hey you’re the one who said Federal Law. If you meant the Constitution you should have just said it.
*facepalm*
The Supreme Court also found the right to corporate personhood in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I’ll trade you corporate personhood for Roe V. Wade.
The Constitution needs an explicit privacy amendment anyway. No doubt conservatives would line up against it.
The Supreme Court also found the right to corporate personhood in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I’ll trade you corporate personhood for Roe V. Wade.
Deal!
The Constitution needs an explicit privacy amendment anyway. No doubt conservatives would line up against it.
Agreed. But don’t kid yourself — “progressives” wouldn’t like it anymore than reactionaries.
“Roe v. Wade found a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment, a right that includes abortion as a private decision.”
I don’t need the 14th Amendment to tell me about rights. The Declaration of Independence is pretty clear. Further, the powers of our government (including the President, Congress and the Judiciary) is found in the body. Finally, the 10th Amendment tells me all powers not granted by the Constitution DIRECTLY are left to the states and to the people.
However, since you brought up the 14th Amendment and SINCE I happen to know something about it…let’s discuss:
Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “
I’d like to point out the part above that says nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law which if taken directly and constructed based on the language means you must give all viable human life a fair trial before you kill it. Abortion hearing anyone?
Section 2: I think we can just say Representation is not applicable to this argument and move on
Section 3: Disqualification of legislators from the Confederacy…
Section 4: Validity of debt incurred during the Civil War…Not Applicable
Section 5: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
I have no problem with Congress passing a law that anyone who engaged in insurrection against our government may not be elected to the Senate or House…nor that legal debts incurred for patment in supressing insurrection or rebellion should be paid without questions…with that said, I think the Constitution and Declaration of Independence do fine on their own to protect the sanctity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and the 14th amendment finally declares PROPERTY a right as originally intended).
At least we’re discussing these things in the right terms now…Progressives are now looking to change the Constitution through Amendments…look folks they CAN “progress”…lol
Evan: But the Declaration is NOT a legal document. The Constitution is, however. And, for the record, the SCOTUS considered using the 9th Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”) as a basis for abortion rights (lower courts did), but ultimately went with the 14th Amendment for its rationale.
I agree with you that our law is on tenuous ground, so to speak, about “life” and “personhood” when it doesn’t define an unborn human as either, but can define a corporation as such.
So back to the point, what law, regulation, or court ruling said the geezers couldn’t pray?
Back to the point anon check with Tim Rutherford the Vice President of Senior Citizens Inc. He is the one who is quoted in the article. He is the one who does this for a living and is depending on getting $5.45 per meal from the Feds to feed Seniors.
So back to the point, anon, Why should citizen’s give up their constitutional rights because they are receiving a federal subsidy?
Why should citizen’s give up their constitutional rights because they are receiving a federal subsidy?
They shouldn’t. As far as I know there is no reason they can’t pray out loud no matter who paid for lunch. Like you said, go ask Tim Rutherford where he got that wacky idea.
Haven’t you noticed, this story is very poorly sourced.
“Haven’t you noticed, this story is very poorly sourced.”
Here is the source.
“Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.”
Yeah I don’t trust these liberal whack jobs either.
The reporter flunked Journalism 101 by not asking Rutherford where he got the idea.
Maybe some local reporter will get the story. Or not; maybe the local Christian patriots are having too much fun getting their fake outrage on with this story.
As noted previously, you could always teach at a private school…y’know, get off the public dole…but you’d rather trash somebody in the private sector…typical conservacrite.
“Why should citizen’s give up their constitutional rights because they are receiving a federal subsidy?”
I never said they should. I pointed out they have a choice. Why do you want it both ways? If you hate government interference, why are you in favor of subsidized — gosh, darn near free — lunches?
“…maybe the local Christian patriots are having too much fun getting their fake outrage on with this story.”
Ya think?
“The reporter flunked Journalism 101 by not asking Rutherford where he got the idea.”
The reporter asked and this is what Rutherford said.
“We can’t scoff at their rules,” he said of federal authorities. “It’s a part of the operational guidelines.”
“As noted previously, you could always teach at a private school…y’know, get off the public dole…but you’d rather trash somebody in the private sector…typical conservacrite.”
Wow so now public school teachers are on the public dole. Talk about a hypocrite, liberals kiss the rears of the DSEA every day of the week.
“We can’t scoff at their rules,” he said of federal authorities. “It’s a part of the operational guidelines.”
Which rules, and whose operational guidelines?
Journalism FAIL; DP blogger gullibility.
Rutherford is one of the most successful public interest law firm in America. If the journalist can’t find them a useful source, no one is.
This will never stand scrutiny, but it may have sat around as a precedent without the public interest defender of the poor.
Anon think in terms that you can understand. Those seniors have human rights guaranteed them under the UN Convention on Human Rights and the Helsinki Accords. They have the rights under those accords that the terrorists who wish to take them away have to pray. You liberals will pay with tax money for prayer mats (which you absolutely should), but use the excuse of subsidized lunch to persecute a hungry senior who chooses to pray?
No wonder you try to avoid engaging the merits of the issue.
We have not even gotten to the Supreme Court Rulings under the free exercise clause.
“Talk about a hypocrite, liberals kiss the rears of the DSEA every day of the week.”
You have no idea about my political persuasion. You, on the other hand, still haven’t forsworn government reduced-price lunches. “Hypocrite” is therefore an accurate description of you, not me.
Hube, on the other hand, is both a colossal jerk and a hypocrite. If he really hated the government as much as he claims to, he wouldn’t work for it. Has no problem with it when it puts money in his pocket, though. And neither do you.
“You liberals will pay with tax money for prayer mats (which you absolutely should), but use the excuse of subsidized lunch to persecute a hungry senior who chooses to pray? ”
Typical conservative — anyone who disagrees must be a liberal.
They have a choice, David. As do you. Every day you make choices that show your anti-government rhetoric is just that. Somebody’s taxes are paying for those lunches. They shouldn’t be thanking God, unless they also intend to thank the agency he’s working through, in this case the government.
You don’t make your own way in the world — you’re on the government payroll, just like Hube. Y’all just loves you some private sector — until it comes time to work in it.
“You, on the other hand, still haven’t forsworn government reduced-price lunches. “Hypocrite” is therefore an accurate description of you, not me.”
Well I have personally foresworn reduced price lunches because I don’t get them. If I knew about this particular program I might be in favor of eliminating this particular subsidy. Usually, that is what I favor. Is this program means tested and assisting the truly needy. I don’t know.
I really don’t see that as the point.
You say that someone must give up their Constitutional right to pray because they are accepting a government subsidy. I say they shouldn’t have to. Can the government put restrictions on someone who accepts assitance in general. Well they currently do in a whole host of areas. I don’t have a problem with certain restrictions.
However, the ability to practice one’s religion is a Constitutional Right. Many consider saying grace an important part of religous practice. I don’t believe that one can be forced to give up a Constitutional right because they are being given a government service. If this goes to court (and I don’t think it will) the Geezers as anon calls them will win.
Anon it has been fun arguing with you today. Hope you stick around.
david a. scores a reading comprehension fail. the rutherford institute has NOTHING to do with this story. the rutherford mentioned in previous comments is the main source in the story. d’oh!
Hube, on the other hand, is both a colossal jerk and a hypocrite. If he really hated the government as much as he claims to, he wouldn’t work for it. Has no problem with it when it puts money in his pocket, though.
Except, of course, that I’ve never said I “hated” the government nor is there any post you could find where I’ve expressed such sentiments. What’s colossally funny is that you claim to “know” what I believe, yet then say this:
You have no idea about my political persuasion.
That’s rich.
Since you believe I am such a “hypocrite,” then why don’t I have a hassle with just about everything the NEA is against?
As for colossal jerks, anyone even remotely associated with DL who uses such terms has less than zero credibility. They invented the term, and wish to kill people who don’t share their beliefs. And it was founded by a guy who sits around collecting mommy and daddy’s cash.
You say that someone must give up their Constitutional right to pray because they are accepting a government subsidy.
No. Nobody said this except Tim Rutherford.
The joke of this whole story is that wingnuts are pretending the government ordered old people not to pray. But that’s not what happened.
What gets me is that some people are so weak that some staffer would make a comment and they would take their word like it is law. I would have told them, they have a right to do it and neither of us have any right to tell them what to do.
If you don’t like it, sue.
I say it’s even odds Tim Rutherford is a wingnut trying to engineer an issue for rightwing fundraising.
Georgia Public Broadcasting does the journalism:
Don’t let the truth interfere with your faux outrage though.
“I say it’s even odds Tim Rutherford is a wingnut trying to engineer an issue for rightwing fundraising.”
Typical dishonest smear job here. So let’s see we have another right winger trying to stir things up in Patty Lyons who offers the same explanation as Tim Rutherford. They both work for the same company and came to the same conclusions. Care to offer any proof anon that Rutherford is doing this for political reasons? Or are you just going to keep smearing away.
Merci anon. Final and absolute smack down provided @ comment 45. Case closed people. Nothing to see here. Just your everyday wingnut pout-rage over imagined slights to skydad. Move along now.
Case closed people. Nothing to see here. Just your everyday wingnut pout-rage over imagined slights to skydad. Move along now.
Sounds similar to 95% of the garbage that’s posted at DL now, doesn’t it?
So, Public Broadcasting (read: Government owned media) is a now a credible source in reporting how the Government isn’t doing anything wrong?
Not a SHRED of conflict of interest there…
Sorry Jason, the case is NOT closed, it gets better!
This thing is starting to look like a campaign stunt cooked up by local wingnuts.
It turns out Patti Lyons is a connected Republican, who donated $400 to this man, who just happened to show up at the senior center to grandstand:
Here’s what I know about you, Hube: You are obsessed with making personal attacks on Jason, often to the exclusion of any other point. It’s sad, really, when a person is so consumed by jealousy.
I’m still confused…we’re going to trust the government to tell us when it’s doing the wrong thing?
“I’m still confused…”
You got that right.
So…again, the government is going to tell us….
“Everyone calm down…false alarm..false alarm…I did nothing wrong..”
And we’re going to buy that?
No Evan. You are supposed to buy the bs story that there was a genuine affront to skydad. As an American conservative you are wired to obsequiously buy the most outlandish bs imaginable, even when the bs is debunked right in front of your face.
Here’s what I know about you, Hube: You are obsessed with making personal attacks on Jason, often to the exclusion of any other point. It’s sad, really, when a person is so consumed by jealousy.
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait… WAIT!
Are you freakin’ serious?? Did you type that with a straight face — I mean, for real? That’s all Jason does. Here and everywhere, on any site that is remotely conservative. (Is #53′s recent comment enough proof? Any comment is, really.) And his former blog subsists on it.
If you are serious, you obviously exist in some alternate dimension, and as such your comments should be given the weight they deserve: Zilch.
See, anon? There’s Trust Fund again at #55, polluting the comments as he’s done since the first day he discovered blogs. He must think his life of privilege entitles him to act like a consummate jerk at all times.
Psst…someone tell Hube that I am ignoring him. His cyber-stalking, while flattering, is creeping me out.
Psst…someone tell Hube that I am ignoring him. His cyber-stalking, while flattering, is creeping me out.
Now you know how I felt pre-DL days. You stalked me even at sites I never went to and assumed others were me. That’s creepy, Trust Fund.
Okay. Very good. You’ve gotten your revenge. Thanks for being honest about that point. Now grow up.
For everyone not named Hube. Make sure to check out the “C’mon Delaware with Jason & Donviti” podcast tomorrow at 3:00. This week featuring special guest Congressman Michael Castle.
http://www.delawareliberal.net
Now grow up.
Why? You certainly haven’t yet, as evidenced by your continued cesspool-like comments here and elsewhere. Until you do, here’s some advice: Get Lost.
Geez. How can I get lost when I’m the one being stalked?
1) Don’t flatter yourself.
2) The advice is of the keep your mouth shut variety. IOW, practice what you preach, Soft Hands.
So, so sad to see such an obsessed person. Perhaps a professional could help you, Hube.
So, so sad to see such an obsessed person. Perhaps a professional could help you, Hube.
Your concern is truly touching, anon. But send any shrink’s number to Trust Fund, ‘tho. He certainly needs one more than I …
Jason, completely lacking any perspective on the historical role of faith (in other words, uneducated), places his faith in ‘Earthdad’….B. Hussein Obama. MSNBC is his bible, Matthews, Maddow and Olberman his apostles.
Jason, try reading The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis- if you think you can comprehend it. You may just learn something, particularly about the destiny of those (including civilizations) that think they have all the answers.
As an aside, which sounds less plausible- a universe designed by an intelligent God, or a universe formed from the nucleus of a hydrogen atom?
Belief in either hypothesis requires faith. Yet, the secularist ridicules the sacerdotal. As G.K. Chesterton said; “..the atheist doesn’t believe in nothing; he believes in anything“…just like Jason.
Patti Lyons – the lady who called the prayer ban at the senior center and falsely blamed it on state government – is not a secularist, she is a practicing Catholic and a well-connected Republican.
This whole thing is a campaign stunt for Georgia teabagger Eric Johnson, capitalizing on the high visitor attendance at the senior center on Mothers Day.
Johnson of course clearly counting on the moron vote, continues playing up the lie about the Federal Government:
Tim Rutheford – the VP from the senior center who falsely blamed the prayer ban on federal authorities – hasn’t been heard from since.
Rick: You have no evidence at all for your charges. And agnosticism is not atheism. The mystery of our existence is not a dualistic one, and either-or choice. It’s possible to take nothing on faith, and to simply acknowledge that we have suspicions but no certainty.
Which you would know if you were as well-educated as you apparently think you are.
Folks, I have done multiple edits of comments for this post. We do have a set of standards for posting comments here. Obscenities are not permitted.
If anyone is confused about what is considered obscene, contact David. We have posted these rules before.
I will not point fingers and I will not accuse anyone of “starting” this. While I would prefer a dignified discussion of issues, I personally have no problem with personal insults and knock down arguments. Politics without emotion engages no one. We all read these posts because we care and we are all passionate about the issues .
I recognize that in the heat of battle that we can at times stray from the “better angels of our nature” Since all of us are adults and reasonably intelligent, Can we not find more creative ways to insult each other then to resort to obscenities?
I do agree with the policy of this site regarding obscenities. However, in this instance I am simply the cop issuing the ticket for speeding. Anyone who thinks I have overstepped is free to complain to David.
Rick: You have no evidence at all for your charges..
‘Charges?’ What ‘charges?’ I gave a response to Jason’s condescending references to ‘skydad’…merely ridiculing religion doesn’t prove anything.
Gee, I wonder who was ‘edited?’
For Jason and anon to ponder;
At the moment, then, of Man’s victory over Nature, we find the whole human race subjected to some individual men, and those individuals subjected to that in themselves which is purely `natural’—to their irrational impulses. Nature, untrammelled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man. Every victory we seemed to win has led us, step by step, to this conclusion. All Nature’s apparent reverses have been but tactical withdrawals. We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on. What looked to us like hands held up in surrender was really the opening of arms to enfold us for ever. If the fully planned and conditioned world (with its Tao a mere product of the planning) comes into existence, Nature will be troubled no more by the restive species that rose in revolt against her so many millions of years ago, will be vexed no longer by its chatter of truth and mercy and beauty and happiness. Ferum victorem cepit: and if the eugenics are efficient enough there will be no second revolt, but all snug beneath the Conditioners, and the Conditioners beneath her, till the moon falls or the sun grows cold.…C.S. Lewis, from The Abolition of Man
That C.S. Lewis passage makes me think that Republicans that say “Drill, Baby, Drill” are buffoons. Perhaps that was Lewis’ point.
That C.S. Lewis passage makes me think that Republicans that say “Drill, Baby, Drill” are buffoons. Perhaps that was Lewis’ point.
Why? Why does “drill, baby, drill” (to you) imply that adequate safety measures shouldn’t be utilized? Does one accident mean we should cease using a power source completely??
That C.S. Lewis passage makes me think that Republicans that say “Drill, Baby, Drill” are buffoons..
Uhhh…okay. Try a re-read. Even better, read the whole book.