Atheists: Why is the answer simply to call for a cease in prayer?
I find this article very interesting: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/163…
After reading the article, consider this:
Since the prayers are given on a rotating basis, would it be so harmful to add in an opportunity for atheists? My point being, say there are four meetings in a month and those meetings are alternately begun with a prayer, why not just take away one of those weeks and start one meeting with out a prayer? That way the religious are apeased and so are the atheists. Why does it have to be so final, like praying at all is evil?
Why don’t people just try to get along rather than abolish something indefinitely? There is a compromised that could be reached, I just wonder why people do not seek this avenue.
Jean: Thank you for bringing that to my attention! Here is the new link: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16363353/detail.html
Island: It’s not a religious activity! They are simply starting a council meeting with a prayer, I don’t see how being a taxpayer changes that. The heart of my question is wondering why atheists go right for baning prayer alltogether. Why is there never a middle ground sought from the beginning?
Christian: I am not saying this to be mean, but please read the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. Here is a link: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Answer by jeanvaljean1970
I think you need to repost the link.
Thanks. Religion and state should not mix. The last thing that I want to hear from an elected representative is that he/she is seeking counsel from an imaginary friend.
Add your own answer below.