**running by to check in**

I read this:"There are movements to change the law to ALLOW public prayer, but NO serious attempt to require it as a matter of law. "...etc., and it demonstrates my point(s).
This is an example of equivocation. It plays with the very meaning of the words.
**IF** people manage to attain the legal right to indulge in public prayer in the places I mention, it by definition imposes on others. That is, we already have a situation where NO ONE is required to have a prayer session, but the point is not to 'stack the deck' in favor of a religious group who wishes to promote their theology, no matter who objects. I have personally watched Jews (and a couple of atheists) go to the trouble of being late to a meeting (of a non-religious group) so they would not be subjected to exhortations to Jesus by the VERY religious 'management'. Having a law 'allowing' unrestricted public prayer **IS** an imposition, whether the prayer is required or not! Why? Because those who wish to have prayers at every conceivable event WILL do so.