Recommended Posts

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!

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.

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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. ;)

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...

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 :)

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.

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).

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)!

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 :)

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.

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 :)

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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.

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?

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      502
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!