Which would you object to more? A Muslim or an Atheist leading the prayer before a session of Congress?

Question

Each day, the Senate and the House start their session with a prayer, usually led by a church member from a Senator or Representatives home state. Occassionally a visiting dignatary leads the prayer. Recently, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox did it in the House. Which would you find more objectionable, a Muslim leading a prayer, or and Atheist leading a moment of quite reflection? Yeah, I know about the Atheist leading a prayer thing in the question, but Y!A doesn't give a lot of room in that portion of the question form.

Answer 1

If you are using the senate as our point to reflect upon. I would not care which prayed or  gave a moment of reflection. For thus far as of late the division we can see in congress hasn't gotten any better, or what is displayed is not the will of the people but the product of people out to cause us to be subjected to an social agenda and the prayers presently offered has not helped, so a muslim, or atheist, as long as it does not, rule over that which is in my heart.

Answer 2

I would not have a problem with either of them - since I have my own "direct connection", so to speak, a gorilla could be on the podium for all I care.   :)   And unlike my cell phone, I get unlimited minutes!!

Answer 3

My thoughts: Why would either have to be objectionable? Apparently by this board as well as others, Christians can't agree among themselves who's really Christian and who's not regarding denominations, so wouldn't different denominations leading prayers essentially be just as objectionable? And really, what's wrong with including other members that don't ascribe to Christianity? Wouldn't allowing Muslims to make duaa (supplication), atheists a quiet moment of reflection, or any other believer doing similar be a step in the direction of humanity and inclusion? I would think so anyways.

~~~~~~~~~

Jazz, time to expand on your "knowledge" of the Quran, lol! If you don't care to, at least don't parrot misconceptions and fake verses.

Answer 4

I object all sessions of Congress

Answer 5

I couldn't care less, as long as people are free to exercise their religious practices.

Answer 6

I wouldn't object to either.  I would probably have some issues with an Atheist leading a "prayer," but not a moment of silence.  I wouldn't object though.  But, I would have to question that Atheists personal integrity if they led a prayer...does that make sense?

Answer 7

I would object to both, I cannot  condone any form of prayer or moment of silence. Both are forms of religion in some way (moment of silence is essentially the same), and should not have any bearing, importance, or traditional significance in the government. It just should not be there.

I am tolerant of everyone's religions and choices to not have or participate in a religion. All matters need to be fair and equal, and the government being a large, controlling body needs to respect its own laws regarding separation of church and state.

Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Pantheist, Athiest or other. It shouldn't matter. State+Religion=Biased views.

Answer 8

It really doesn't matter to me, as long as its nondenominational.

Answer 9

You're statement is illogical.  Atheists don't pray, and would never be caught dead leading a prayer.  It is not just a "thing in question".  I would pay money to see it, that is how rare i find it to be.

And I personally wouldn't feel comfortable with a muslim leading prayer.  Mostly because I know that religion is not one of peace, but of murder...

"Kill the infidel wherever ye may find him"... so to speak.

Answer 10

What I find objectionable is prayer in government sessions.

Answer 11

I would probably think to myself, "who in the ***** cares"