How is it Congress can have a chaplain....

[OldLady]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

I think I've already made it pretty clear that I have nothing against a Congressional chaplain, but it makes no sense to me that, at the same time, the separation of Church and State has been interpreted so severely that it sucks to be 4 at Christmastime around here. That's all. Something doesn't seem right. I see, though, after all the posters that have informed me, that this is more a court thing than a Constitution thing. Well, the court interpreted the Constitution that way and then a bunch of Paper Pushers went wild with it.
I can see where people might misinterpret my druthers, but really, I'd rather see the "separation" of Church and State be a little less strictly interpreted, in some instances, anyway.

 

[OldLady]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

Because they are Congress and their constituents expect them to cater to their religion

I don't know if I agree with that. Who knew they were praying at the start of every session or getting pastoral counseling until this whole thing came up? Not many of us, and surely that is not the reason they have a chaplain.

 

[regent]

Ben Franklin suggested they hire a Chaplain to open the Constitution Convention each day and it was voted down.

 

[sakinago]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

I think I've already made it pretty clear that I have nothing against a Congressional chaplain, but it makes no sense to me that, at the same time, the separation of Church and State has been interpreted so severely that it sucks to be 4 at Christmastime around here. That's all. Something doesn't seem right. I see, though, after all the posters that have informed me, that this is more a court thing than a Constitution thing. Well, the court interpreted the Constitution that way and then a bunch of Paper Pushers went wild with it.
I can see where people might misinterpret my druthers, but really, I'd rather see the "separation" of Church and State be a little less strictly interpreted, in some instances, anyway.

It really is a silly issue brought up by control freaks whose religion is pretty much just being anti-Christian, and want to force that religion on everyone else. There really is little difference between the radical left and the puritans, they may act out different beliefs, but enforce them in similar ways.

 

[Lysistrata]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

 

[bendog]

They probably need one to keep them from taking turns and Ellison getting a chance. (-:

 

[sakinago]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

Who gives a shit what they are praying, they have a right to pray whatever it is. There are plenty of sick things said in order to advance a political agenda, prayer or no prayer. Do they need a Chaplin? Most probably do not, who the hell knows? Maybe with all the traveling back and forth, committees, etc, they sometimes don’t have the time to get their spiritual fix. But the fact someone is griping about spending money on a Chaplin, vs the outrageous bloated spending going on just shows how religious the so-called anti-religious really are. In the 2016 fiscal year, the government mis-spent over 1 TRILLION dollars, and to clarify what mis-spent means, that’s not wasteful spending on stupid stuff, that’s things like double payments, or payments to the wrong source, etc. that is gone forever. 1 trillion is a over a 3rd of the yearly tax revenue, and 5% of the entire nations GDP....why is it we are complaining about a single Chaplin?

 

[Lysistrata]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

Who gives a shit what they are praying, they have a right to pray whatever it is. There are plenty of sick things said in order to advance a political agenda, prayer or no prayer. Do they need a Chaplin? Most probably do not, who the hell knows? Maybe with all the traveling back and forth, committees, etc, they sometimes don’t have the time to get their spiritual fix. But the fact someone is griping about spending money on a Chaplin, vs the outrageous bloated spending going on just shows how religious the so-called anti-religious really are. In the 2016 fiscal year, the government mis-spent over 1 TRILLION dollars, and to clarify what mis-spent means, that’s not wasteful spending on stupid stuff, that’s things like double payments, or payments to the wrong source, etc. that is gone forever. 1 trillion is a over a 3rd of the yearly tax revenue, and 5% of the entire nations GDP....why is it we are complaining about a single Chaplin?

So we are supposed to pay for political-agenda "prayers" said by people who want to showboat? Why can't these people pray on their own time and their own dime? The rest of us do, and we don't get paid half as much. Again: why does anyone have to talk to a Supreme Being on the House floor? These people have offices and bathrooms.

 

[Flopper]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

If you did away the House Chaplin due to constitutional violation of church and state, you would have to do away with Chaplin's in the armed forces and the VA. And that would be a bit much, to ask people to fight and die for their country without the availability spiritual guidance.

Keep in mind that on every piece of American currency, you will see "In God We Trust". If anything violates the separation of church and state this surely does.

Then it seems clear we need to allow secular Christmas in programs funded by federal dollars.

What is secular Christmas?

 

[Lysistrata]

Why does anyone need a formal sectarian prayer to begin a function of government? There is plenty of opportunity, time, and space for anyone who wishes to pray to whomever to do so, and then turn out on the House and/or Senate floor to conduct the business of the government of the United States. If one feels this overriding need to speak to whatever Supreme Being like someone who needs to go to the bathroom really, really badly, why not just go do it?

 

[Flopper]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

On every piece of US currency you'll find the words, "In God We Trust" and the all seeing eye and pyramid on bills. You will find crosses and the star of David on graves of fallen soldiers in all our national cemeteries. And what military band does not play "God Bless America" or the Battle Hymn of the Republic". 4 times in the Declaration of Independence God is mentioned. The appointment of a House Chaplin is a tradition that goes back 230 years. To remove God from every corner of government is to remove God from our history and culture. I really don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

 

[Lysistrata]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

On every piece of US currency you'll find the words, "In God We Trust" and the all seeing eye and pyramid on bills. You will find crosses and the star of David on graves of fallen soldiers in all our national cemeteries. And what military band does not play "God Bless America" or the Battle Hymn of the Republic". 4 times in the Declaration of Independence God is mentioned. The appointment of a House Chaplin is a tradition that goes back 230 years. To remove God from every corner of government is to remove God from our history and culture. I really don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

How can you rely on this? Whose Supreme Being? Whose version of "god"? It may be a Goddess instead, if one actually believes that a Supreme Being has a biological gender. The "in God we trust" thing only was established during the Eisenhower administration as some sort of anti-communist stuff.by some idiots in Congress. It has has no significant meaning for the nation as a whole. It was and is a political ploy.

 

[OldLady]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

If you did away the House Chaplin due to constitutional violation of church and state, you would have to do away with Chaplin's in the armed forces and the VA. And that would be a bit much, to ask people to fight and die for their country without the availability spiritual guidance.

Keep in mind that on every piece of American currency, you will see "In God We Trust". If anything violates the separation of church and state this surely does.

Then it seems clear we need to allow secular Christmas in programs funded by federal dollars.

What is secular Christmas?

Santa, "Let It Snow, Let It Snow,, Let It Snow" Christmas trees, stockings, The Nutcracker, etc.

 

[Flopper]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

On every piece of US currency you'll find the words, "In God We Trust" and the all seeing eye and pyramid on bills. You will find crosses and the star of David on graves of fallen soldiers in all our national cemeteries. And what military band does not play "God Bless America" or the Battle Hymn of the Republic". 4 times in the Declaration of Independence God is mentioned. The appointment of a House Chaplin is a tradition that goes back 230 years. To remove God from every corner of government is to remove God from our history and culture. I really don't think that's what the founders had in mind.

How can you rely on this? Whose Supreme Being? Whose version of "god"? It may be a Goddess instead, if one actually believes that a Supreme Being has a biological gender. The "in God we trust" thing only was established during the Eisenhower administration as some sort of anti-communist stuff.by some idiots in Congress. It has has no significant meaning for the nation as a whole. It was and is a political ploy.

"In God We Trust" first appeared on the two-cent piece in 1864. The interpretation doctrine of accommodation which allows government to endorse religious establishments as long as they are all treated equally has so far held up. Someday we will probably replace "God with "Nothing" then the Motto of the USA will be "In Nothing We Trust"

 

[Flopper]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

If you did away the House Chaplin due to constitutional violation of church and state, you would have to do away with Chaplin's in the armed forces and the VA. And that would be a bit much, to ask people to fight and die for their country without the availability spiritual guidance.

Keep in mind that on every piece of American currency, you will see "In God We Trust". If anything violates the separation of church and state this surely does.

Then it seems clear we need to allow secular Christmas in programs funded by federal dollars.

What is secular Christmas?

Santa, "Let It Snow, Let It Snow,, Let It Snow" Christmas trees, stockings, The Nutcracker, etc.

Then to keep Christ out of Christmas it will have to be renamed to Xmas.

 

[Wolfstrike]

after the country was founded one of the first acts of Congress was to have Bibles printed.

many, if not all, states required by law ,that people give 10% to their church.
these laws didn't last long, but two states had these laws well into the mid 1800's. Our leftwing historians use this as an example of states refusing to follow constitutional law, but the truth is they felt they were abiding by the law because they didn't tell people which church to give to.

when the country was new, each state was dominated by a Christian sect.
The founders thought is was unlawful for a state to tell a politician he was required to be a member of a Christian sect to run for office.
Their dedication to liberty is amazing, considering most of them would have been considered Christian radicals by our standards.

"Separation of church and state" is a description that Jefferson wrote and is not in the Constitution.

...but the big problem they had was the fact the king of England was also head of the church, so orders given by the king was considered the will of God.

Blasphemy.

 

[sakinago]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

Who gives a shit what they are praying, they have a right to pray whatever it is. There are plenty of sick things said in order to advance a political agenda, prayer or no prayer. Do they need a Chaplin? Most probably do not, who the hell knows? Maybe with all the traveling back and forth, committees, etc, they sometimes don’t have the time to get their spiritual fix. But the fact someone is griping about spending money on a Chaplin, vs the outrageous bloated spending going on just shows how religious the so-called anti-religious really are. In the 2016 fiscal year, the government mis-spent over 1 TRILLION dollars, and to clarify what mis-spent means, that’s not wasteful spending on stupid stuff, that’s things like double payments, or payments to the wrong source, etc. that is gone forever. 1 trillion is a over a 3rd of the yearly tax revenue, and 5% of the entire nations GDP....why is it we are complaining about a single Chaplin?

So we are supposed to pay for political-agenda "prayers" said by people who want to showboat? Why can't these people pray on their own time and their own dime? The rest of us do, and we don't get paid half as much. Again: why does anyone have to talk to a Supreme Being on the House floor? These people have offices and bathrooms.

Why is it they have to hide their religion? Why do they have to restrict it to the bathrooms? Plenty of them hold their beliefs sincerely and aren’t showboating at all. Again you are showing your anti-religious religion. This would be like someone religious saying, “I don’t care what gay dudes do behind closed doors, why do they have to showboat their gayness and kiss in public, I don’t like it, not the time or place.”

Also legislators are using millions of taxpayer money to pay hush money to interns they sexually harassed, and clown colleges in Argentina...and you care about a single Chaplin who MAYBE makes 80,000 a year. Grow up, we got bigger problems. The first amendment does not protect you from being exposed to religion, just like it doesn’t protect Christians from being exposed to a painting of Jesus being buttfucked by a rhino. Stop trying to control what other people do and believe, and get your own priorities in place. This has to be one of the silliest topics out there...that people seemed to be horrified that some congressmen pray. “OMG Mike Pence talks to Jesus, he is obviously crazy.”

 

[buckeye45_73]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

I agree. I don't mind the chaplain, but the do as I say not as I do shows why govt needs to stay out of almost everything

 

[Pogo]

I don't care if the House and Senate have a chaplain, or if they begin each session prostrating before Gozer the Destructor. What I want to know is how the House and Senate have been able to get away with praying and paying a man of the cloth since 17-something, when the Pre-K at one of our local elementary schools, which is funded entirely by Federal grants, could not decorate with so much as a Christmas tree or Santa or stocking, or participate in the Christmas parties that the rest of the school were involved in. All because the Pre-K was funded by a Federal Grant.

I would appreciate a serious answer to that. Every time I hear about the chaplain for Congress I think of those poor Pre-K kids with their window covered over so they wouldn't see all the other kids celebrating Christmas. True story.


In a reversal, Speaker Ryan says the House chaplain will remain in his post

It’s because people not only misinterpret what separation of church and state actually means...they also don’t know that there is no mention of church and state in the constitution. The closest mention of church and state is the first amendment which pretty much states that congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. All this means is that the state CANNOT make any law restricting, reshaping, or compelling your religious/non-religious actions/beliefs (I would argue that very few are actually non-religious since many people replace traditional religions with new age practices/beliefs that they treat just like a religion whether that be CrossFit, left/right ideology, etc.) If someone is trying to do this we all should have a problem with it, but there is a big difference between being influenced by ones religion vs compelling others to practice religion a certain way. Are you suggesting that just because someone holds a governmental position that they loose the right to freely practice that religion? Or they loose the right to let that religion influence them? That would defeat the point of the whole first amendment thing.

If we’re talking about someone trying to pass a bill forcing people to take off work Sundays or make students pray or something, that would be an issue. But if it’s a teacher wearing an ugly sweater with a Xmas tree or nativity scene on it, or say a congressman praying in front of the house, that’s a different story. Should congress not have a Chaplin? As long as they aren’t forcing people to see the Chaplin I don’t see why not. If another congressman wants a rabbi or priest of the spaghetti monster church to pray, what in all honesty is the problem there? People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.

The problem is that an expression of religion is necessarily sectarian. No chaplain is necessary in Congress, since all members of Congress have access to the help that they need/want in their own communities. I have lived in the DC area for many years, and it abounds with resources for just about every faith, Christian of every sort, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Wiccan, every form of belief. And don't forget that members have very nice offices to which they can meet with anyone they desire.

People just confuse being forced to participate in religious things with witnessing religious things, the two are not the same, and if you can’t freely practice your religion in front of others, that goes pretty far against the first amendment.​

Why would any member of Congress need to pray in front of the House anyway? Who knows what they are praying about. I've heard of some pretty sick prayers designed to advance an openly political agenda. Whatever Supreme Being(s) you believe in can hear you in the bathroom. Politicians can freely practice whatever faith they want to. What's stopping them?

Who gives a shit what they are praying, they have a right to pray whatever it is. There are plenty of sick things said in order to advance a political agenda, prayer or no prayer. Do they need a Chaplin? Most probably do not, who the hell knows? Maybe with all the traveling back and forth, committees, etc, they sometimes don’t have the time to get their spiritual fix. But the fact someone is griping about spending money on a Chaplin, vs the outrageous bloated spending going on just shows how religious the so-called anti-religious really are. In the 2016 fiscal year, the government mis-spent over 1 TRILLION dollars, and to clarify what mis-spent means, that’s not wasteful spending on stupid stuff, that’s things like double payments, or payments to the wrong source, etc. that is gone forever. 1 trillion is a over a 3rd of the yearly tax revenue, and 5% of the entire nations GDP....why is it we are complaining about a single Chaplin?

Two chaplains actually. The House has one, the Senate another. And not only are they both hired at six figures each --- out of your taxes --- but they also have staffs as well, who also get paid.

Got that? Six figures, plus a staff, times two. For showing up to mumble a few platitudes any of the Congresscritters could do.

and you care about a single Chaplin who MAYBE makes 80,000 a year.

More like twice that. I posted the actual figues upthread.

 

[Blackrook]

The difficulty in allowing discussion of God in school is that you have to decide which version of God you're talking about.

The Catholic Church had to build an entire system of parochial schools to prevent Catholic children from being indoctrinated in Protestantism in the public schools.

The State of Oregon went so far as to outlaw Catholic schools, but the Supreme Court held that law to be unconstitutional.