Elderly Widow Told Not to Pray in Public Housing Complex

Fox News Radio ^ | 10/19/12 | Todd Starnes

[justlittleoleme]

A widow who lives in a Minnesota apartment complex funded by the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development was told that she could not pray, read her Bible or have private discussions of a religious nature in the commons area of the complex.

The incident allegedly occurred at the Osborne Apartments in Spring Lake Park, Minn. — near Minneapolis.

Ruth Sweats was was having a casual conversation with another resident about the Bible when a social worker interrupted the conversation and told her that she could not talk about religion or the Bible in the commons area.

The social worker then told the widow that the apartment complex receives funding from the federal government and therefore she did not have First Amendment rights because HUD does not allow religious discussions in public areas of the complex.

[bert]

Do they know how to lynch social workers in Minnesota?

[SECURE AMERICA]

Tell the social worker that God forgives them and keep on praying. We still have a Constitution in America and even as Obama and his people work at destroying that, our ability to pray comes from God not from the Government

[GingisK]

How do they get away with a direct inversion of the First Amendment? That Amendment prevents the government from exercising religion so that individuals can exercise theirs.

[DJ MacWoW]

Religion and The Founding of the American Republic - Libray of Congress

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

[Charles Martel]

People used to cross oceans on wooden ships to get away from this stuff.

[jwalsh07]

The answer to this stuff is to laugh in their face and tell them the Soviet Union is thataway.

[count-your-change]

“The ADF said Osborne Apartments is free to allow the residents to engage in religious discussion and prayer.”

Therein lies the twisted thinking...that somehow reading the Bible and engaging in religious speech is something that may be granted, allowed rather than a right that may not be disallowed.

Simply tell the social worker ‘No, I will not stop’ and continue on.

[Myrddin]

The left always leaves out the part of the First Amendment that prohibits Congress from passing laws that interfere with practice of of religion. HUD gets its money by Congressional budgeting. HUDs employees are violating the First Amendment if acting in the official capacity to prohibit prayer or reading any religious material.

[SaraJohnson]

Well, if I read this correctly the biblical discusion took place on state provided property. Therefore, since the woman was living at the expense of the state she must accept “The Golden Rule,” i.e. “those who have the gold rule!” The state provides therefore the state will control those for whom it provides.

---

Thanks for sharing the liberatarian “logic” here. It has nothing to do with the constitution’s free speech protections, but then libertarism has nothing to do with constitutional freedom.

[daniel1212]

>, since the woman was living at the expense of the state she must accept “The Golden Rule,” ..The state provides therefore the state will control those for whom it provides.<

Which would certainly an powerful argument against socialism, but the idea that First Amendment is the basis for this is absurd. Jefferson himself regularly attended ecumenical religious services in the house of Representatives, and the antiseptic separation is not supported. that this rule is valid is absurd.

And you cannot prohibit talk about faith on public property, esp. in a consensual format, much less prayer, any more than you can prohibit talking about specific ideologies reading literature from such, or meditation. And to single out formal religion is bigotry.

[daniel1212]

Though absent from the Constitution, a phrase close to “separation of church and state”, but used for malevolent purposes and expanded to name education, does appear in Article 52 of the constitution of the Soviet Union (1977): “In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.” (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap06)

[joma89]

The more government takes over the economy, the more intrusions on basic freedoms will occur.

JoMa

[ravenwolf]

B.S, the first amendment just forbids the Government from interfering in religious affairs.

The stupid socialist worker was interfering.

It would seem that incidents such as this would get people to reading the Constitution and start voting to get the socialists out of our Government, but it has not happened and most likely will not happen.

People will keep on voting for free socialist hand outs until it is all gone.

[ravenwolf]

The citizens provide the state provides nothing.

We are guaranteed Freedom OF Religion not Freedom FROM religion.

---

Exactly right, some of these so called honorable judges are the most dishonorable critters in the world and even the better ones should not be called honorable as we can decide that for our selves.