Implicit approval of a particular religious viewpoint is the problem. There is a difference for instance between someone in authority giving a prayer to a particular deity and someone not in authority.
The person in authority giving the prayer essentially says this is the official viewpoint. That directly contravenes the constitution, as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Kris Sisk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Judeo-Christian. There's a difference. > > Still not true. The majority of the men who signed the Constitution were > either Deists or Humanists. Neither of which is Judeo-Christian. > Acknowledging the existance of a higher power that every religion with the > exception of a couple founded in the last couple hundred years acknowledges > does not make a Judeo-Christian foundation. > > I agree that public prayer should be allowed. Show me how a government > official saying a prayer infringes on the rights of an athiest any more than > outlawing that prayer infringes on his own rights and I might change my mind. > But don't fool yourself into thinking our government evolved from any kind of > religious belief. The founding fathers knew that there were some good ideas > in the Bible and borrowed them, just like they borrowed some ideas from many > other sources. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317947 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
