TRADITIONS do not grow up overnight, and they rarely survive without a reason.

For decades, councils up and down the country, including in Reigate and Banstead, and Tandridge, have held prayers at the start of council meetings.

For some, this is a matter of religious conviction, a moment to connect to whatever God they believe in.

For some, a period for calm reflection, a time to collect one's thoughts ahead of the often protracted meeting ahead.

For others, it is at worst a mild inconvenience – a few seconds delay in the start of proceedings, a time to plan a shopping list or reflect on the previous night's television.

But for a few more, it is an annoyance and an affront to their sensibilities, religious or otherwise.

Some feel excluded – and absent themselves.

As far as the High Court is concerned, following a landmark judgement last week, councils which hold prayers as part of their formal meeting are breaking the law.

Here at the Surrey Mirror we have our fair share of atheists and agnostics.

Journalists are by their nature questioning, cynical types.

But even the most irreligious members of the news desk have found themselves wondering if those who would campaign so strenuously for prayers to be "outlawed" as part of official proceedings are asking the right question.

It is possible to maintain a healthy cynicism for religion without trying to exclude it entirely from public life for those to whom it brings comfort.

And for followers of other religions, one might hope there would be an understanding and acceptance that the beliefs and longstanding traditions should not, lightly, be discarded.

It is, of course, a perfectly legitimate question to ask "why should these prayers form any part of official business?"

But should we also ask an alternative question. "If it brings comfort to some, where is the harm?"