Letter: Cannot God hear a silent prayer as well?

By Cordy Lavery

11 Comments | Leave a Comment

Is silent prayer less sincere than spoken prayer? Is God unable to hear our silent plea? Why is there a need to pray aloud at a public meeting? A moment of silence before a public meeting gives everyone a chance to pray to their God in their own way if that is their desire.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.

Comments

Great Letter!

The moment of silence or reflection is a rational and thoughtful solution that makes space for everyone in the public space. The shear mass of christianity as a majority percentage of our population makes it incumbent upon christians themselves to accommodate all others. It is quite possible to be both a good christian and a bad citizen by using the majority belief to elbow others from their rightful place as equals. Equality is the nature of our secular government. Respectfully Submitted, Force 12

Sad...

I have little doubt that if Christ were walking the streets of America today; spreading the truth and love of the gospel - He would be rejected and condemned by the secularists... He would be labeled as hateful and intolerant. Hollywood would say He should be silenced! The NSA would be tracking his every step... Why? Because the cross is offensive - it directly confronts the evil of the world (Thank you Billy Graham for that piece!) . Unfortunately many professed Christians would reject Him as well... Here is a good litmus test... If the "secularist" reject it - it's probably good! Here is a prime example of Force 12's secularist movement in action... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/14/first-grader-told-to-stop-talking-about-bible/

Uh, DoMo, it's...

not a "movement." It's the Constitution. The United States is a secular nation that allows all beliefs and none at all. It's also not anti-Christian or anti any other belief. In fact the founders hoped that religion would flourish here and so it has, in many different forms. You seem to have confused "secular" with anti-christian, which it is not. Of course Fox entertainment is selling this tripe and you seem to have embraced it without a single original thought on the matter. Let me help you out just a bit - secularists don't hate anyone at all. Secularists accommodate everyone equally. See? Isn't that simple? Council's solution must be secular to fairly accommodate every faith and no faith at all or they will be the government promoting one faith above another. Seems to me that they could better spend their time managing the city than finding ways to invite unnecessary litigation and Rachel Maddow's next visit. I am hopeful that the city will craft a plan that will truly be inclusive, but I'm doubtful that it will work anywhere but on the paper on which it's written. The problem is the sheer mass of christianity in this community along with having what is it, two preachers on the council - that may be perceived as intimidating to anyone of a minority belief. Will Council advertise for guest preachers as businesses advertise their EEO commitment to hire minorities, disabled persons, etc? And just who will decide who qualifies to give the opening "prayer?" Will the mayor decide all by himself? And just what is the qualification for delivering the opening prayer? And what if the mayor or council member or heck someone in the gallery decides they don't like the prayer? Will Council pay outside buddhists/muslims/jews/lay persons/nonbelievers/satanists, etc., to come in periodically just to improve the diversity profile for the year since anyone that's not christian is very sparsely represented in this town? If council writes a requirement for a "non-denominational" prayer then what exactly is that anyway? It becomes meaningless drivel that satisfies no one, angers a few, and is less effective than the original moment of reflection. There are as many as 40,000 sects of Christianity, and then you can move on to the various sects of judaism, islam, and every other recognized religion, and then you can move on to every kind of cult, fringe belief, etc., etc., so how does Council plan to allow equal access to them all, with an equal shot at opening a meeting, because that is what is required here. Perhaps an annual lottery? Will they allow Force 12 to deliver the prayer? With so many faiths represented here both of our preacher/councilor's will have to achieve their own resurrections before they will get their own turns. Unless, of course, they promote their own faiths over every other so that they are heard first. These two should stay as far away from this as possible because their mere presence on the council is a trigger for litigation in this case. Oh, and I'm Christian and secular. Respectfully Submitted, Force 12

???????

You mean ChRINO. Christian in name only. We call that nominal Christian, i.e. Christian as opposed to Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, etc etc

By the way,

Council "authoring" any kind of prayer is likely the most severe violation of the Constitutional protection aginst government established religion. To have the government write and approve the only words of "faith" allowed to be uttered publicly is subjective, offensive and an absolute violation of my right to the FREE EXERCISE thereof. Government "approved" prayer for all, no thank you. I would be personally pleased to bring that legal challenge.

How about let's not promote the idea as a

community that we cannot possibly walk and chew gum at the same time? And by the way, I have given this subject more than a thought and watch multiple sources of news. So save your assumptive, patronizing charcterizations of my opinion and all of us some time. It is very simple. The Constitution provides for the free exercise of one's chosen religion. That is a specific protection that has absolutely nothing to do with a person's expression of views that are not religious. Those views are protected by the right to free speech. If you choose not to have a religion, you have no right afforded you to prohibit the free exercise of mine. If you have a different preferred religion than mine, you too are afforded the Constitutional protection of the free exercise thereof. So, fashioning a policy regarding the free exercise of faith before Council simply requires that that opportunity be afforded to all, equally. So like every government policy, they craft it and pass it and publish it. Anyone who wishes to express faith before Council meetings may do so with the following time, place and manner restrictions. Sign-up in an alternating fashion, be afforded an equal opprtunity to do so with the same time limits, etc. applied to all. They do this regarding public comments related to governing business and somehow the sky does not fall. If more, "Christians" take advantage than others, so be it. Again, the majority does not lose their rights because more people agree with that view than not. That isn't how we protect minorities of any kind under the Constitution, except for liberals distorted interpretation of it.

I cannot imagine anything more Un-American

or in violation of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights than demanding silence regarding our protected right to the free exercise of religion. Be suspicious anytime anyone claims demanding silence is the only, "fair" response. Equal opportunity for all to EXPRESS beliefs, not ponder them silently. Time, place & manner restrictions-sure. But discriminating based on content of speech-religious speech for example-is a blatant violation of the intent and wording of the US Constitution. Many governments have demanded silence, the fact we as Americans are protected from that demand is what distinguishes us. Speak, out loud, all who wish to, religious or otherwise. The fact a majority, a huge majority of Americans identify themselves as Christian and therefore likely a majority of expression on religion, is a fact. No one is supposed to be shielded from this, "offense" under our Constitution by mandating people be silent on the issue. The right protected is the FREE EXERCISE thereof.The only thing afforded to those who share alternative views is the same fair opportunity for their FREE EXERCISE. Not to silence those with whom they disagree. Demanding silence is in fact prohibition of the FREE EXERCISE thereof. FREE EXERCISE becomes hugely infringed upon when government starts, a. telling you where that may happen, b.what words are, "acceptable" c. demands public silence of your beliefs. Beware also those who will bully with their, "superior knowedge" of the US Constitution. It is readily available for anyone to read for themselves. The words are very clear as were the actions that followed it's passage by those who authored it.

hear hear!

thank you! Loved the read and fully concur!

What you are suggesting is totally inconsistent

with what the early founders of the country did at their official meetings. I rather think they set the example for us to follow and the historical record of what they did and said at their meetings is crystal clear.

With all due respect,this letter writer

would benefit greatly by taking a leadership course over at MACU, and I would also add a study of the life of George Washington.

Because

Leaders who are seeking wisdom-who-speak their words insire others in so doing.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Top Jobs