Agnostic.com

0 5

LINK Owosso City Council member threatened after challenging invocation prayers

Emily Olson, the newest city council member in Owosso, Michigan, is already making waves—and getting threatened—for trying to end the tradition of Christian prayers at meetings and refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Owosso City Council member threatened after challenging invocation prayers | Emily Olson doesn't believe Christianity should be the default religion for the local government
Emily Olson doesn't believe Christianity should be the default religion for the local government (screenshot via YouTube)
Reading Time: 6 minutes

Emily Olson, the newest city council member in Owosso, Michigan, is already making waves—and getting threatened—for trying to end the tradition of Christian prayers at meetings and refusing to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance.
Emily Olson remains seated during the Pledge of Allegiance at a meeting of the Owosso City Council

Olson was just elected to one of seven seats on the Owosso City Council. She moved to the city last year, opened up a local store, began a group for progressive women (“The Fair Mavens&ldquo😉, and ran a successful campaign for one of the city’s four open council seats. She’s perhaps the best sort of local champion: someone who chose to live there, runs a small business, and wants to make the city more welcoming to others.

But when she sat in on a city council meeting before her election, she was surprised to see how much religion was baked into it. The meeting began with a Christian prayer and included a formal recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. While saying the Pledge isn’t all that unusual, the default Christian invocation was a legal liability.

So after she got elected, during her first meeting on November 21, Olson proposed eliminating the prayers from the Owosso City Council agenda (21:56) and remained seated during the Pledge (0:45 mark).

… I can tell that everybody fervently applauded at the idea of keeping the prayer, and I just question: What is it that’s lost by making the room more inclusive? Where’s the harm…? No one’s—I’m certainly—I respect everybody’s religion. I just don’t know that it belongs at the outset of a government meeting. So I do wonder, in your decision, where do you find the harm in removing it?

snytiger6 9 Dec 10
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:699607