Bible study group no longer welcome at McDonald's

[neufuse Veteran]

So, they ASSUME it was someone of Islamic faith who complained... Based upon?

Moreover, McD is a restaurant, not a meeting place. I have worked there, and not once was it used for group meetings - moreover if people were sat and not eating, they'd often be moved on.

yeah, could of been a Jewish person offended by non-jewish teachings!

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

yeah, could of been a Jewish person offended by non-jewish teachings!

It could have been ANYONE! It's discriminatory to assume it was anyone based upon faith!

[Calum Veteran]

I wouldn't become offended by such a group, but the Bible promotes many immoral values (e.g. it states that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, and it states bad things should happen to those who work on Sundays, among other terrible atrocities), so I'm not sure whether I believe they should have been banned or not, but I question the appropriateness of her group (considering what the Bible states), and I don't believe the Bible should be looked at as a source for what good morals are. Due to that, I'm just unsure about what would have been best in regard to this decision.

To those who support this lady's case, would you condemn McDonald's for banning someone from holding a group in which murder was promoted as good? Even if this lady does not promote murder as good, the book she's praising and using does.

I'm genuinely trying to come to a conclusion regarding this, which is why I'm kind of playing devil's advocate, asking these questions.

[Charisma Veteran]

I wouldn't become offended by such a group, but the Bible promotes many immoral values (e.g. it states that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, and it states bad things should happen to those who work on Sundays, among other terrible atrocities). I'm not sure whether I believe they should have been banned or not, but I question the appropriateness of her group (considering what the Bible states), and I don't believe the Bible should be looked at as a source for what good morals are.

Just pretend it was a gay pride group, then you'll get the idea of how these people felt. ;)

Not to further go off topic, but, what? Where in the Bible does it say to stone misbehaving children to death? IIRC that was reserved for adults who committed crimes, and even then that was Old Testament.

[winlonghorn]

Oh wait, so when an airline does it to an Atheist they're just exercising their right as a business to exclude people from using their services, but the moment it's done to a Christian it's discrimination. I love how people's opinions on things like this flip flop depending on what the group being targeted by the business believes.

No, it is actually discrimination in both cases.

[ANON86364]

There are public forums where rehabilitation groups can go and usually even churches themselves will accept them. If the restaurant owner/manager wants to allow it that's great, but to expect it is being unrealistic. Selfish even.

[winlonghorn]

I wouldn't become offended by such a group, but the Bible promotes many immoral values (e.g. it states that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, and it states bad things should happen to those who work on Sundays, among other terrible atrocities), so I'm not sure whether I believe they should have been banned or not, but I question the appropriateness of her group (considering what the Bible states), and I don't believe the Bible should be looked at as a source for what good morals are. Due to that, I'm just unsure about what would have been best in regard to this decision.

To those who support this lady's case, would you condemn McDonald's for banning someone from holding a group in which murder was promoted as good? Even if this lady does not promote murder as good, the book she's praising and using does.

I'm genuinely trying to come to a conclusion regarding this, which is why I'm kind of playing devil's advocate, asking these questions.

Anybody that gives you those interpretations of the bible is being outright ridiculous! The bible doesn't condone stoning children to death or punishing people that work on Sundays. ;)

[BajiRav]

Why hold a meeting like this in McDonald's anyway?

They wanted God to forgive then for eating at McDonald's?

[Charisma Veteran]

There are public forums where rehabilitation groups can go and usually even churches themselves with accept them. If the restaurant owner/manager wants to allow it that's great, but to expect it is being unrealistic.

What I find interesting is that the owner/manager did allow it, up until someone with a stick up their bum got their panties in a twist about it. Political correctness, whee...

[Calum Veteran]

Just pretend it was a gay pride group, then you'll get the idea of how these people felt. ;)

[. . .]

That's a great point. It's one reason why I'm not sure what to think about this yet. I feel that everyone should have a right to hold such groups, but as the Bible promotes such terrible values, the idea that they're holding the group makes me uncomfortable. I think I'll end up concluding that they shouldn't have been banned :)

[. . .]

Not to further go off topic, but, what? Where in the Bible does it say to stone misbehaving children to death? IIRC that was reserved for adults who committed crimes, and even then that was Old Testament.

It is in the Old Testament. It's in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. That passage states the following:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

Even if that was reserved for adults (something the passage makes clear isn't the case), it's still a terrible value to promote. Stoning is awful torture.

By the way, I added to my post just before you replied, if you care to answer the question I've now posed, please :)

[ANON86364]

What I find interesting is that the owner/manager did allow it, up until someone with a stick up their bum got their panties in a twist about it. Political correctness, whee...

For two years it was going on. Someone complained, and I agree that there is an amount of pressure on management to please everyone (the customer is always right). There really isn't any room for an uproar in the decision though since it is their right.

[thommcg]

Martinez, who could not be reached for comment, believes someone of Islamic faith was at the restaurant and may have been offended enough to make a complaint. Martinez said the religion had been a brief topic of discussion last week.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/two-year-old-bible-study-for-homeless-at-mcdonalds-no-longer-welcomed-78245/

"But usually when there are Muslims there they will take it upon themselves to ask me questions or to give me their viewpoint, but this is the first time that I know that someone has made a complaint," she said. "I believe that's the only explanation that makes sense to me right now. It could have been the praying, but I've been there two years and I've never changed anything. I really don't know any other reason."

Well, gee, I believe it could be more likely that homeless addicts were the reason for complaint as opposed to, ya know, a phantom Muslim who may have complained (And for whom there appears to be no evidence whatsoever of having done so).

[winlonghorn]

That's a great point. It's one reason why I'm not sure what to think about this yet. I feel that everyone should have a right to hold such groups, but as the Bible promotes such terrible values, the idea that they're holding the group makes me uncomfortable. I think I'll end up concluding that they shouldn't have been banned :)

It is in the Old Testament. It's in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. That passage states the following:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

Even if that was reserved for adults, it's still a terrible value to promote. Stoning is awful torture.

By the way, I added to my post before you replied, if you care to answer the question I've now posed, please :)

First of all, when Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, the old testament rules no longer applied from that point on. That is why we have the new testament! Second of all, that is not to be taken literally. It is basically saying that the parents should seek outside help for the child (not literally have him stoned to death)!

[Calum Veteran]

Anybody that gives you those interpretations of the bible is being outright ridiculous! The bible doesn't condone stoning children to death or punishing people that work on Sundays. ;)

I've just quoted a passage of the Bible to Charisma that clearly states misbehaving children should be stoned :) I don't see how that could be interpreted in any other way. When I post against the Bible, you can be assured that I'm not going off others' interpretations, I'm going off what I have read. I'm currently in the process of reading the entire Bible :)

[WelshBluebird]

It is basically saying that the parents should seek outside help for the child (not literally have him stoned to death)!

Keep telling yourself that.

The bible says something I do not like, so I will decide it actually means something else.

How clever.

[Calum Veteran]

First of all, when Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, the old testament rules no longer applied from that point on. That is why we have the new testament! Second of all, that is not to be taken literally. It is basically saying that the parents should seek outside help for the child (not literally have him stoned to death)!

But the Old Testament still exists in the Bible, which was my point. I'm not referring to what Christians believe; I'm referring to what's in the book she's promoting as good.

Some people will take that literally, and nothing states it shouldn't be taken literally. You could well be wrong by suggesting it shouldn't be taken literally.

As I mention, I will probably conclude that this group shouldn't have been banned. But it's important we discuss the appropriateness of the tools she's using in the group, considering people might have different views regarding a group that specifically promotes murder as good :)

[xendrome]

I don't know, I consider McDonald's a "public place", don't you? If someone got offended, it means they were basically eavesdropping on what another table was talking about. Can I get people kicked out of a restaurant because I overheard them saying I'm ugly and was offended by it? Honestly, this is no different. People need to mind their own damn business.

Well they are still privately owned and they can tell whoever they want to leave.

[Hum]

They'd find plenty of room at our local McDonald's -- seldom busy in the evenings. :laugh:

[Charisma Veteran]

But the Old Testament still exists in the Bible, which was my point. I'm not referring to what Christians believe; I'm referring to what's in the book she's promoting as good.

Some people will take that literally, and nothing states it shouldn't be taken literally. You could well be wrong by suggesting it shouldn't be taken literally.

As I mention, I will probably conclude that this group shouldn't have been banned. But it's important we discuss the appropriateness of the tools she's using in the group, considering people might have different views regarding a group that specifically promotes murder as good :)

1) I never "promoted it as good", be careful what you imply ;) I simply said I never remembered that being part of the text.

2) I thought maybe that was the passage you were thinking of. The English translation is unclear, but the original meaning was not of a small child, we're talking a rebellious teen/older kid, in a time period when you were meant to be working and acting as an adult at a much younger age than we do these days. Still doesn't necessarily make it right, but taken in the context of the society at the time, not nearly so bad as you were making it sound.

People forget that the Bible was written two thousand years ago, when society and culture was quite different. It's meant to be taken and the principles and concepts adapted and applied to our culture these days. Exact methods of punishment have changed, just like the "sins" people can commit have changed.

Just like learning moral values from your parents--they can't possibly instill in you every possible response to every possible scenario, you have to learn the underlying basics and apply it to life.

[Jason_Coffey]

If this was an atheist group told to leave all these people on neowin would has **** running down their legs over this.

[Charisma Veteran]

To those who support this lady's case, would you condemn McDonald's for banning someone from holding a group in which murder was promoted as good? Even if this lady does not promote murder as good, the book she's praising and using does.

Since you asked so nicely.. ;)

Honestly, if no actual murders had been committed? Probably would have an issue, yeah. I've heard people talking about a LOT of things I don't agree with when I'm out and about. That doesn't mean I think their right to talk about it or meet up with like-minded people to talk about it should be taken away. If they're sitting in a restaurant, they have bought food/drinks/whatever and would have a right to be there if they *weren't* having a particular discussion, at their own table, between themselves, then it boils down to you trying to take away their freedom of speech. This is way less intrusive than the folks on the street yelling at passers-by and shoving tracts in people's faces, for example.

[Calum Veteran]

1) I never "promoted it as good", be careful what you imply ;) I simply said I never remembered that being part of the text.

I was referring to the lady in the group, not you :) I thought that was obvious, as it was a reply to another poster that didn't mention you or didn't mention any of your posts. I apologise if that wasn't clear.

I meant that the lady is holding the group because she believes what the Bible teaches is good. That is an assumption, so I probably should have suggested that's why she's doing it (rather than assumed), but I'm confident she wouldn't be holding it because she believes what the Bible teaches is bad, and the fact she includes former drug addicts in her group indicated to me that is how she feels about the Bible.

2) I thought maybe that was the passage you were thinking of. The English translation is unclear, but the original meaning was not of a small child, we're talking a rebellious teen/older kid, in a time period when you were meant to be working and acting as an adult at a much younger age than we do these days. Still doesn't necessarily make it right, but taken in the context of the society at the time, not nearly so bad as you were making it sound.

I disagree. Stoning is awful torture; it is a terrible punishment no matter the context, and I deem it pretty much just as bad whether it's a child, a rebellious teenager, or an adult. It's still torturing a living organism.

People forget that the Bible was written two thousand years ago, when society and culture was quite different. It's meant to be taken and the principles and concepts adapted and applied to our culture these days. Exact methods of punishment have changed, just like the "sins" people can commit have changed.

Just like learning moral values from your parents--they can't possibly instill in you every possible response to every possible scenario, you have to learn the underlying basics and apply it to life.

I don't forget that it was written then, I just don't deem a book that contains such content moral. I'm aware that such punishments may have been deemed acceptable by society in those days, but it is up to the individual to go against the consensus if an issue is wrong, and the authors of the Bible didn't do that. I form my view against the consensus when an issue is wrong, so there's no excuse for people not doing that in those days. If they thought stoning was fine, why look to such a book for morals?

[thommcg]

If this was an atheist group told to leave all these people on neowin would has **** running down their legs over this.

If this atheist group also consisted of homeless drug addicts... probably... not...

[shakey]

Private business. Just as an airport can deny a passenger the ability to fly because of their shirt, this business can deny people who are "loitering" from staying in their business.

It isn't any type of oppression. It is called business.

Plus, Atheist don't have groups, that would require an actually belief of something, in which Atheist don't have.

Christians are putting waay to much empahsis on this. Doesn't matter if they were allowed to before, they can't now. It is the business that gets to decide. Have the meetings at home, at Church, or some other area that is actually public. My business is open to the public, but not to non paying customers, or customers who give us a bad image. We get rid of them quickly.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I consider McDonald's a "public place"

The law doesn't. Neither does McD's management.