Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Concerned Catholic Paul Ryan Wants Priests to Shut Up About the Poor
The congressional chaplain gets the sack.

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness, the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor."

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:Jesus really cleaned up nice for that meme!

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:

Apparently being a Republican is more nuanced than you are prepared to contemplate...
I'm not mad... I'm just disappointed kalm




Also:
The beloved and sacred Joel Osteen tells us Jesus actually taught the prosperity gospel
I'll sum it up for you:
"Fuck the poor they're lazy and stupid, now put your money in the coffer you dumb bitch, I need another jet"

kalm wrote:I believe it's JSO who likes to use congressional chaplains in defense of church and state.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:I believe it's JSO who likes to use congressional chaplains in defense of church and state.

Yes it's part of the historical context that makes it clear that the First Amendment was not intended to require "Separation of Church and State" as such is defined by the Supreme Court. Shortly after it was ratified the Congress appropriated funds to hire a chaplain and also began holding Christian church services in the House chamber. Thomas Jefferson attended the services and had no problem with them. There is just no way they'd have been doing that if they looked at the First Amendment establishes a "Separation of Church and State" as that terminology is generally understood today.

BlueHen86 wrote:A government appointed Chaplain was fired for exercising his first amendment rights?

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Yes it's part of the historical context that makes it clear that the First Amendment was not intended to require "Separation of Church and State" as such is defined by the Supreme Court. Shortly after it was ratified the Congress appropriated funds to hire a chaplain and also began holding Christian church services in the House chamber. Thomas Jefferson attended the services and had no problem with them. There is just no way they'd have been doing that if they looked at the First Amendment establishes a "Separation of Church and State" as that terminology is generally understood today.

Unless you’re the “father of the constitution” evidently.

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Yes it's part of the historical context that makes it clear that the First Amendment was not intended to require "Separation of Church and State" as such is defined by the Supreme Court. Shortly after it was ratified the Congress appropriated funds to hire a chaplain and also began holding Christian church services in the House chamber. Thomas Jefferson attended the services and had no problem with them. There is just no way they'd have been doing that if they looked at the First Amendment establishes a "Separation of Church and State" as that terminology is generally understood today.

Unless you’re the “father of the constitution” evidently.

css75 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Unless you’re the “father of the constitution” evidently.

The separation clause was intended to prevent one religion from dominating the government and preventing others from their free exercise of religion. It was never intended to separate faith from government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

css75 wrote:
The separation clause was intended to prevent one religion from dominating the government and preventing others from their free exercise of religion. It was never intended to separate faith from government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's not even a "separation" clause. There's an "establishment" clause and a "free practice" clause. There is no "separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution.

css75 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Unless you’re the “father of the constitution” evidently.

The separation clause was intended to prevent one religion from dominating the government and preventing others from their free exercise of religion. It was never intended to separate faith from government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:I like how critical klam is when it comes to Christianity and yet so triggered by criticisms of Islam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It's not even a "separation" clause. There's an "establishment" clause and a "free practice" clause. There is no "separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution.

"...the United States are in no sense a Christian nation..." Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress 1790

CID1990 wrote:I like how critical klam is when it comes to Christianity and yet so triggered by criticisms of Islam


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

houndawg wrote:
"...the United States are in no sense a Christian nation..." Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress 1790

Yes I've seen that quoted a lot. It's not a question of whether the United States is a "Christian Nation." It's a question as to whether the language "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." was intended as it is interpreted today where there is disassociation between government and religion and government can't be seen as "supporting" religion. And to me the answer is obvious. First of all the plain English meaning of the phrase does not support today's interpretation. Secondly, the fact that Congress appropriated funds to hire a chaplain and held Christian church services in the House chamber shortly after the Amendment was ratified, with both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison attending those services, nukes any doubt that today's interpretation is not consistent with the understanding of the time.

Also, I don't think having that language in a treaty is all that compelling. It was a treaty with a Muslim nation and they needed to say something like that. I don't think it's an official declaration of the nature of the United States made just for the purpose of declaring the nature of the United States. I think It was something they included to facilitate getting the agreement.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It's not even a "separation" clause. There's an "establishment" clause and a "free practice" clause. There is no "separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution.

"...the United States are in no sense a Christian nation..." Treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress 1790

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Yes I've seen that quoted a lot. It's not a question of whether the United States is a "Christian Nation." It's a question as to whether the language "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." was intended as it is interpreted today where there is disassociation between government and religion and government can't be seen as "supporting" religion. And to me the answer is obvious. First of all the plain English meaning of the phrase does not support today's interpretation. Secondly, the fact that Congress appropriated funds to hire a chaplain and held Christian church services in the House chamber shortly after the Amendment was ratified, with both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison attending those services, nukes any doubt that today's interpretation is not consistent with the understanding of the time.

Also, I don't think having that language in a treaty is all that compelling. It was a treaty with a Muslim nation and they needed to say something like that. I don't think it's an official declaration of the nature of the United States made just for the purpose of declaring the nature of the United States. I think It was something they included to facilitate getting the agreement.

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness, the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles..."

JoltinJoe wrote:

kalm wrote:
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness, the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles..."

What are you quoting?

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
What are you quoting?

Re-quoting Madison from the OP.