Generally speaking, yes. There are limits to that. You can't just march into a public office building and take it over for a prayer meeting, but employees could certainly meet at lunch in an empty meeting room to pray.
|
Generally speaking, yes. There are limits to that. You can't just march into a public office building and take it over for a prayer meeting, but employees could certainly meet at lunch in an empty meeting room to pray.
But not in the worker-occupied areas. But then, why not? Fellow employees might become intrigued as they see the prayer group's actions and decide to join in.
That depends. If a person intends to eat lunch at his desk and says a prayer of blessing, then fine. If a group want to pray during everyone's common lunch time, then fine. If someone wants to stand and pray at 3:30 in a way that would interrupt everyone else, then not fine. The exercise of some common sense would help a lot. A coach praying after the game on the field, a very common practice with many college teams, is certainly not infringing on anyone's right to not have a religion imposed upon them. If some of his players want to join in, then that is fine as well for the same reason. With all of the problems we have in this country, it is beyond amazing that anyone would think a group of people praying after a football game would be something to be concerned about.
...or praying in an office. Something else to be concerned about: Evangelical Christians walk up and down streets and sidewalks and around in public parks, sometimes with amplification, shouting out Bible verses, mini-sermons, and threats of hellfire.Quote:
it is beyond amazing that anyone would think a group of people praying after a football game would be something to be concerned about.
It’s called freedom of speech.
Very annoying, even off-putting.. There are much better ways to reach people and preach the Gospel.
I would agree with that, just like I think destroying public and private properties is a bad idea for BLM.
And for Oath Keepers and other Trump followers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Very true in all cases. That would include the use of loudspeakers by pro-abortion protestors. It would also include the destruction of pregnancy help centers.
I agree.
This is TWO agreements in just one week. It's getting a little eerie.
Good night. Hope the hubster is doing well.
Good night! Husband is doing well. Thanks for asking.
There is no constitutional right to not be annoyed . My method is to tell them to have a nice day and walk away without otherwise engaging .Quote:
Very annoying, even off-putting.
Wifey and I went to an "art" exhibit a few days ago in our state art museum. One of the works on display involved four large murals, each one depicting a particular right. The first two involved freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The final two portrayed freedom from want and freedom from fear, both of which were simply cooked up from thin air. Any level of thought at all would have helped the artist see that the last one concerning fear was unworkable. Suppose I complained that her art exhibit made me fearful. Could I then insist that it be taken down since, after all, I have a right to be free from fear?
The general retreat from the concept of the rule of law should concern everyone.
those are progressive inventions .How can the government guarantee freedom from want or fear ?
What FDR suggested for Freedom from want is an "economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. " .
Freedom from fear to FDR was a 'world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world'.
FDR, "The Four Freedoms," Speech Text - Voices of Democracy (umd.edu)
Those may be laudable utopian goals .But how are they achieved without the heavy hand of government imposition that weakens individual rights ? It invents freedoms that suppresses others . Effectively they replace existing freedoms with new invented ones.
Worse ;the freedoms replace freedoms that are protection from the state to dependency on the state.
A clear example of this is his pretending to honor freedom of speech. If he really believed speech should be protected then why did he say in the same speech
A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups... The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and, if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government.
3 years later he completely jumped the shark by proposing a 2nd bill of rights ..... all positive rights (things the gvt must do for you ....aka freebees ) ;as opposed to "negative " rights .......what the government cannot do to you ;which was the premise behind the 1st bill of rights .
“True individual freedom can’t exist without economic security.” ...“the right to a useful and remunerative job,” a “decent home,” “good health,” and “good education.”...“the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.” ....the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition.”
www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 AM. |