Meet Tammy Brantley of Dublin, Ga. She’s a wife, a mom and an avid power walker. She’s also a person of deep faith in God.
Tammy is the co-founder of “Dublin Girls Run,” a group of local ladies that combines Southern fellowship with physical fitness.
More
12 comments:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
No law broken, no punishment allowed.
Period.
"Congress shall make no law" 6:48. The problem is Congress didn't make a law. The mall has this rule. I personally think it is a stupid rule but not sure anything can be done about it short of a mall boycott.
Completely understood, 701, but with no law being broken by the prayers, the Mall becomes the lawbreaker by bringing harm to those who wish to pray. You cannot harm a person who is exercising their rights, I don't care who you are!
The problem is that they're Christian. Now were they muslim (notice no capital 'm', it's my way of flipping them the bird) it'd be an entirely different story.
I net Muslims would be allowed.
7:42-Malls are considered private property. No rights were violated as the owners of private property are free to make any rules they want about how people are to conduct themselves on their property. When you start inferring with the rights of property owners to make and enforce their own rules on conduct, then that's where the property owners rights are violated.
I too think it's a stupid policy unless the ladies were disrupting (and I don't mean disrupting as merely offending someone) the usage of the mall for others but that does not appear to be the case.
7:42 -- the Constitution doesn't apply to the mall. The Constitution limits what government can do, not what private property owners can do.
Also, there is no law saying that private property owners must let anyone pray on their property. The mall broke no law, and it certainly didn't violate the Constitution.
It would be good if you knew anything about the Constitution before you post about it.
The mall has the right to do this. Their property, their rules. I think it is extreme, and think it is a bad idea, but if they allow this then they also have to allow Muslims to come in with prayer rugs and hold prayer too... then where does it stop? The point of the mall is for commerce, not religious meetings.. nor do they want religious confrontation.
If they let this slide, then some other group wants to come in and "pray", and are not as considerate as this group... then the inconsiderate group can claim discrimination... that others are allowed to and they are not and perpetuate a persecution myth.
I understand why the mall has this rule, but they could have just turned a blind eye.
Let me explain it this way. You are not allowed to drink beer on the beach, but most everyone does. If you do it without acting like a you-know-what, be discreet, use a coozy, don't act like a drunk, then the powers that be "don't see" anything even when they look right at you. Act responsibly and don't interfere with anyone else, it's all good. This is what this prayer group was doing, and they could have been overlooked. The rule is there to protect the Mall from people who act like idiots, much like the no alcohol on the beach rule is... so when it needs enforcing it can be.
I'm an Atheist, and I've got no problem if someone wants to pray in public. Where I draw the line is if you want to force me to participate in compulsory prayer.
I think this group has a right to feel slighted, but even though the Mall could have acted more tactfully.. it was well within their right.
anonymous 9:24, I can agree with that statement.
Get a permit.
"compulsory prayer" 9:24? I'm not sure this is ever even an issue in this country. No one is ever forced to "participate" in a prayer. Even in a government meeting setting when a prayer is offered is anyone forced to participate. Simply listening to something doesn't meet all the elements required to meet the actual definition of participation.
This is where forward thinking people need to draw the line. We have allowed too many words to be redefined in order for a regressive agenda to be the norm.
@2:11
We will have to disagree 2:11. If I must sit through a prayer to participate in any sort of meeting, then I am being forced to participate in the activity. Therefore, it is compulsory participation. I am there for a meeting, not a religious event.
One can't simply "turn themselves off" and not listen. The mental gymnastics it takes to justify your position should expose it's self evident fraud. If you force someone to sit through something to get to the crux of meeting, it is then compulsory participation. If others "participating" are "participating" by being present, silent, and listening... then by default anyone else that is being silent, present, and listening are participating. By force, mind you... we have no choice in the matter. Ipso Facto... compulsory participation.
Let me explain it this way... when you go to the movies, did you go to "participate" in the previews? Don't listen or watch the previews if you don't want to "participate" in the previews. Just because you HAVE to sit through the previews doesn't mean you participated in them. Don't like the previews? Don't watch or listen, but don't talk or use your phone or bother anyone else watching the previews. See how ridiculous that sounds?! No one would argue that if you go to a movie, you can sit through the previews but not watch or listen to them, there fore you didn't participate in the previews... even though you HAVE TO and there is no choice to do so if you want to see the movie. Compulsory. If you want the movie, you get the previews too.
Same with forcing a prayer before the meeting. Compulsory.
Post a Comment