The Religion Thread

[Mr.B]

Ten Commandments monument must go

Dear Mayor Eckstein,
Rather than bow to the hate groups who wish to have the Ten Commandments monument removed, I would suggest the city to sell the monument and the small area of ground that the monument sits on to a local Christian church for a few dollars. In that way the city would no longer own the monument and would be in compliance with any "separation of church and state" ruling. If you don't own it, it's not your responsibility to remove it, right?

Best wishes,
(Mr.B)

[Mr.B]

Diner Stops ‘Praying In Public’ Discount After Atheist Group Threatens Lawsuit
This is something I agree with...; the restaurant shouldn't have one price for those who pray, and a different price for those who don't pray.

The choice to pray is not a show to be rewarded.

OTOH, I see similarities in these so-called 'Rewards Cards' issued by supermarkets and drug chains. They advertise sale prices good only if you have one of their cards. For instance, I have an Ingles 'Reward Card' that I forgot to bring in with me when I made a short stop to pick up a few items. Although I could have given my phone number and they could have looked it up, why can't everyone take advantage of sale prices without a card? I was charged the non-sale price on items that were 'on sale'.....is this any different than the pray-or-not-pray scenario above? Why aren't consumer groups jumping all over this like the atheist groups that crawl all over the news seeking to destroy anything remotely connected to religion?

[JTA]

Diner Stops ‘Praying In Public’ Discount After Atheist Group Threatens Lawsuit
This is something I agree with...; the restaurant shouldn't have one price for those who pray, and a different price for those who don't pray.

The choice to pray is not a show to be rewarded.

OTOH, I see similarities in these so-called 'Rewards Cards' issued by supermarkets and drug chains. They advertise sale prices good only if you have one of their cards. For instance, I have an Ingles 'Reward Card' that I forgot to bring in with me when I made a short stop to pick up a few items. Although I could have given my phone number and they could have looked it up, why can't everyone take advantage of sale prices without a card? I was charged the non-sale price on items that were 'on sale'.....is this any different than the pray-or-not-pray scenario above? Why aren't consumer groups jumping all over this like the atheist groups that crawl all over the news seeking to destroy anything remotely connected to religion?

I think the difference is everyone is eligible for the stupid rewards cards. They make no discrimination. If all else fails and you forget yours and they refuse to look it up or can't find it in their system, worst case scenario you can just get a new one and toss if when you get home. Or ask the person behind you for theirs.

As for the Advantage cards, when I worked there they had a computer system created sometime around when Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue. We could only look up numbers on cards that were applied for at our store. Maybe they've entered the 21st century since I worked there, I don't know. It's been a long time.

Not sure if this still works, but if you want to beat the system just say your card number is 4780 ### ####. You can make up the last 7 digits. You just need 4780 in the beginning. They can type it into the system. If you want to be extra sly write it down on a piece of paper and say you left your card at home and called your wife for your card number or something like that.

As to why cashiers won't scan a generic card for you, when I worked there the bosses (particularly corporate) would periodically threaten the cashiers with being written up and fired on the third offence if they scanned their own card or a generic card for customers who forgot their advantage card. They were losing out on the buying habits of particular customers and wanted to make sure customers didn't forget their cards next time so they could data mine peoples buying habits (this last part wasn't said but what else would they be using the data for?).

I avoid Ingles at all costs. Publix + Trader Joes > Ingles. Cheaper too (even Publix) if you ask me. I've never found better customer service than at those stores, and I've never ever had a wait time over 5 minutes. And best of all - no customer ID cards.

[O Really]

OTOH, I see similarities in these so-called 'Rewards Cards' issued by supermarkets and drug chains. ...

Nope. Nothing close. Religion, and the practice or non-practice thereof, along with firearms, is entitled to different treatment under the Constitution than ones being willing to "earn" a discount by agreeing to allow Ingle's to collect and use purchase records. Problem is, a lot of religious people want the different treatment to apply only one way - they want their own practice protected while happily letting the practices of other citizens get trampled.

So how does that work with the restaurant? The restaurant could have offered a discount to anyone who came in and said "ooga chacka, ooga chaka..." They could have rewarded wearing blue shirts or a Panthers hat. They probably could have rewarded the correct answer to "what is inscribed under Washington's chin on a quarter?" But when they're open to the public, the special treatment of religion falls into the same category as if they gave special treatment to their caucasian customers. On the other hand, those who pray before meals should be happy that the restaurant also couldn't kick them out or charge them more for doing so.

[Mr.B]

"It's not "hate" to disagree with government sponsorship of a particular religion. Don't whine so. The same opposition would arise if it was the Koran or Torah, plus hypocritical Christians would join in."
Uhhhh....who's whining? I think I'm smart enough to realize those implications, but the monument in this case is not dedicated to your aforementioned religions; pay attention.


"It would be government sponsorship of a particular religion to only offer the land for sale to just one group, and the courts would see it for the sleazy and dishonest dodge of the Constitution that it is."
Again, pay attention. The Ten Commandments are not recognized by most other 'religions', so why would they be interested in purchasing the monument to begin with?

"It would also violate fiscal practices law. I suppose the city could offer sale of the ground that the monument sits on to the highest bidder but that highest bidder could then do anything s/he/they wanted to the monument, anything at all. Is that really what you want?"
Inasmuch as the highest bidder would, in all probability, be a Christian group/church, do you really think they would do anything harmful to the monument? Notice that I also mentioned the land the monument sits on....did you notice that? Pay attention.

"It's amazing that after all the discussions we've had and all the court rulings you are still so confused as to think that government can and should gives special favors to your religion."
And it's amazing that you are still so confused to think no one else has the right to post their opinions. I said nothing about "special favors"; that's your hate-rhetoric. There have been no "discussions"; all we've had have been the usual one-sided, acidic, baiting remarks from you that you desire to give everyone the impression that you are all-knowledgeable.

You can't be civil in your speech; I wonder what you're like in face-to-face everyday dealings with others.

[O Really]

Again, pay attention. The Ten Commandments are not recognized by most other 'religions', so why would they be interested in purchasing the monument to begin with?

Well, only in the name "Ten Commandments." Many other religions have much the same concepts. For example, the first Pillar of Islam is Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger. Sound familiar? And if I'm not mistaken, did not the Christians take what was originally written for the Jews as their own? Isn't that plagiarism, and is plagiarism a real religion?

[Mr.B]

Show me where I used the word "only".

I said "I would suggest the city to sell the monument and the small area of ground that the monument sits on to a local Christian church....."

I knew you couldn't comprehend; all you're good for is to bicker and bitch; you have no 'people skills'; Own it, O'Miserable One.

Must suck to be you.

[O Really]

Oh, puh-leeze. Specifying a buyer implies an "only." If I say the city of Asheville should sell a segment of Pack Place to Mr.B, that implies nobody else should be able to purchase. Suggesting the plot should be sold to "a local Christian church" excludes selling it to "a local Buddhist church." Surely you know that. It isn't necessary to specifically use the word "only" for "only" to be implied.

[bannination]

Irrefutable proof evolution is false! Finally!

… There’s a development within species, but we do not have a single example anywhere, in all of history, of species change. Not one!… You can mix a donkey and a horse and get a mule, but mules cannot reproduce. They can only reproduce after their own kind. We have no species change.

Oh wait... nevermind....

[bannination]

The shortest religious debate.

[Mr.B]

"It's hilarious when Mr.B is so ashamed of his own words that he denies their clear meaning. What a wuss!"

You're whining again....

You mean your clear meaning; in your world, no one but you has clear meanings. What a you are.

I'm not ashamed of anything.....other than conversing with you. Time to go take a shower now so I'll get over it.

[Mr.B]

"OTOH, I see similarities in these so-called 'Rewards Cards' issued by supermarkets and drug chains...."

"Nope. Nothing close."

They are similar in the fact that you have one price for those who pray, and one price for those with 'reward cards'; whereas non-praying customers and those not having 'reward cards' would be charged a higher price. (I have been charged higher prices for not having 'reward cards'; generally the differences were so whimsical, I didn't bother to complain about it.)

If I understood the story correctly, the wait staff did not go from table to table to see who was praying. I have been asked if I had a 'rewards card', and if I said no, I could apply for one; and I have not been asked my phone number if I had a card, but didn't have it with me.

Those are the similarities in which I stated that in a business, you couldn't have two sets of pricings.

[O Really]

"OTOH, I see similarities in these so-called 'Rewards Cards' issued by supermarkets and drug chains...."

"Nope. Nothing close."

They are similar in the fact that you have one price for those who pray, and one price for those with 'reward cards'; whereas non-praying customers and those not having 'reward cards' would be charged a higher price. (I have been charged higher prices for not having 'reward cards'; generally the differences were so whimsical, I didn't bother to complain about it.)

If I understood the story correctly, the wait staff did not go from table to table to see who was praying. I have been asked if I had a 'rewards card', and if I said no, I could apply for one; and I have not been asked my phone number if I had a card, but didn't have it with me.

Those are the similarities in which I stated that in a business, you couldn't have two sets of pricings.

You didn't actually read the entire post, did you? The difference is that all things religious are entitled to special treatment and thus are not comparable to non-religious things. Certainly there can be two or more sets of pricings. Those with coupons, those without. Those over 60; those under. Those with AAA cards, those without. Yada. But because of the protections related to religion, it can't be those who are or are willing to do something religious and those who aren't. It's a legal issue, not necessarily a logical one.

[Mr.B]

"You didn't actually read the entire post, did you?"
The first time that I read it, I only pretended to read it; but the second time I read it, I actually did read it..... actually.

"The difference is that all things religious are entitled to special treatment and thus are not comparable to non-religious things."
Understood. The fact that the story was in any way remotely dealing with religion makes it a thorn in the side of the haters, and has priority on the "Oh Boy! Another religion item to put on the 'let's sue' platform...."

[O Really]

"You didn't actually read the entire post, did you?"
The first time that I read it, I only pretended to read it; but the second time I read it, I actually did read it..... actually.

"The difference is that all things religious are entitled to special treatment and thus are not comparable to non-religious things."
Understood. The fact that the story was in any way remotely dealing with religion makes it a thorn in the side of the haters, and has priority on the "Oh Boy! Another religion item to put on the 'let's sue' platform...."

<sarcasm noted> But yes, I do believe you only pretended to read it. And despite it's overuse - including by me - "actually" does have a place in grammer as an adverb emphasizer.

Nevertheless, it's a stretch to say "in any way remotely dealing with religion" about an article that was clearly and exclusively about prayer and a specific earthly reward for doing it in a public restaurant. The same laws that say the restaurant owner can't prevent a customer from praying over his/her meal also prevent the restaurant owner from rewarding those who do pray over those who don't. That can't be that hard to understand, can it?

[Mr.B]

"Dang, that's a stupid thing to post."

Merely responding in like kind.

[Mr.B]

"The same laws that say the restaurant owner can't prevent a customer from praying over his/her meal also prevent the restaurant owner from rewarding those who do pray over those who don't. That can't be that hard to understand, can it?"

Uhhhh....ain't that pretty much what I said to begin with? Did you <actually> read my post?
The "law" aside, what part of "This is something I agree with...; the restaurant shouldn't have one price for those who pray, and a different price for those who don't pray" are you having a hard time understanding?

Are you taking Vrede lessons; or is it his obtuseness is rubbing off on you; your posts are beginning to sound similar.

Personally, I thought you were better than that.

[JTA]

O Really, are you sure about the outcome of the lawsuit if the cafe hadn't relented? I'm not.

I'm not positive that the atheist group is correct that it's a Civil Rights Act violation. I doubt the cafe was monitoring which God was being prayed to or if it was really even prayer rather than a nonreligious moment of silence/appreciation for the food and company. However, it may be wise, less costly in legal fees and less negative publicity for the cafe to err on the side of our nonsectarian law and American principles.

For 15% off I would have gone in and prayed to FSM that all religious bigots immediately turn electric pink.

Seems like another this would open up another opportunity for the church of satan to strike again. First the statue in Oklahoma, now openly praying to satan in a restaurant in an attempt to get 15% off.

[Mr.B]

"LOL, Mr.B is so obsessed with whining about me that he even attacks me when I'm the one suggesting that the cafe might not have been breaking the law. Poor thing."

LOL, Poor ol' Vrede is so obsessed with whining about me that he even thinks that when I'm being snide with someone else, I'm attacking him. Poor thing.

The only thing I didn't say was that the restaurant might be breaking the law.....I agreed with the <ugh> FFR.
Did you <actually> read my first post?

[O Really]

IMNVHO, I think such a case would likely never make it to trial. It's too expensive and too iffy to be worth it, and would likely settle at some point. Of course, that doesn't say whether what they did would be considered a real violation. The issue would be whether by rewarding those who pray over their food (not necessarily exclusively but predominately Christians), he's discriminating against those of other (or no) faiths. I think it's pretty lame in that all one would have to do to earn the discount is bow ones head for a few seconds.