Atheists: Why is the answer simply to call for a cease in prayer?

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

Best answer:

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.

Be Sociable, Share!

8 Responses to “Atheists: Why is the answer simply to call for a cease in prayer?”

  • Grazie says:

    Up to you poppet. Prayer doesn’t work so it has nothing to do with us atheists.

  • AdoreHim says:

    It does not surprise me in the least that atheists want prayer taken out of the council meetings- you idea would still not go over, because there would be 3 meetings with prayer- with everything going on in the world- why take prayer out at all? Satan will do anything to keep people from praying – however greater is He that in in Me, than He that is in the world

  • IslandLady says:

    Edit: Oh wait, you’re talking about some council meeting?
    Do you use public money? Well that’s why. Taxpayers don’t want public money used for religious activities.

    Edit: I like the part where he says “I, for one, am sick and tired of the vocal minority,” This Constitutional republic was founded on the principle that minority rights are to be respected and not abused by the “tyranny of the majority.” He needs to move to any fascist theocracy of his choice. The U.S. is not for him.

  • Christian the Atheist says:

    Un-con-sti-tu-tion-al.

    If it were those same people praying over a meal or before a poker tournament, there would be no problem at all. But it’s a government body, and we are protected from government establishment of religion.

  • Citizen CoR WBH says:

    Notice that one councilman who said “This country was founded on Christian principles”? How much do you want to bet that the vast majority of “rotating prayers” are rotated among Christian denominations?

    This isn’t about appeasing “the religious.” This is about preserving any vestige of Christian Supremacism that they can find.

    No sale. Get rid of it.

    edit: “It’s not a religious activity: it’s a prayer” Are you serious? Anyway, if that silly idea were true, then getting rid of it would definitely not be impinging on any one’s free exercise of religion, would it?

  • Mr. Stiggo says:

    The answer is quite simple. It isn’t about the government providing equal access to all religious and non-religious perspectives, it is about the government not being allowed to endorse any religious perspective at all. That is a fairly simple concept.

  • Eight says:

    i didn’t read everyone’s response, but here is my take on it. yeah, i’m an atheist and the only thing about religion that i object to is when people try to inject their religious beliefs into schools, politics, and the general ethos. the seperation of church and state is pretty clear cut in the constitution, so prayer at state functions is a no no by my standards, as is a moment of silence. i don’t object to prayer. holy is the man who hides himself away in the closet to pray. public displays of “look how religious i am” is just pandering to the trailer park crowd who votes for theses jokers.

  • Loose Change™¢ says:

    It is kind of funny we have to do these social gymnastics to get along. I take no sides here, and it is a bit much for atheists to want to infringe on others’ right to hold an invocation, even though atheists feel left out and shunned at this morning ceremony because of their disbelief. On the other hand, this quote

    “”I, for one, am sick and tired of the vocal minority,” said Councilman Doug Thomason, who said he is a Methodist. “I’m no religious fanatic, but this country was founded on Christian principles, and we’ve gone so far away from that that it’s mind-boggling.”

    What is mind-boggling to me is that Doug Thomason’s mind boggles when non-religious people scoff at prayer, which has never been proven to have any effect whatsoever. What is mind-boggling to me is that most of the U.S. still believes in superstition. Yes, superstition. If you look up the word, the definition fits.

Leave a Reply


Search MikeAdkins.com:
Article Categories
Most Popular Articles
    .