Concerned Catholics

[kalm]

I believe it's JSO who likes to use congressional chaplains in defense of church and state. But Paul Ryan didn't like an egalitarian sermon so he fired one. James Madison protests the entire concept from the grave...

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."

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... in-resign/

[Chizzang]

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"

[Pwns]

Curiously, those that are constantly vigilant about creeping theocracy are quiet when spiritual leaders call for governments to do more to help the poor.

[93henfan]

Jesus really cleaned up nice for that meme!

[Chizzang]

Jesus really cleaned up nice for that meme!

and he's white... like Cleopatra

[kalm]

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"

I admittedly struggle with nuance.

I leave nuance up to Catholics, Republicans, lawyers, and other assorted pussies.

[JohnStOnge]

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.

[kalm]

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.

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

[BlueHen86]

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

[kalm]

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

Damn I glad you’re back!

[JohnStOnge]

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.

Madison also attended the House Chamber Christian church services.

From https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html:

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.

Also from that article:

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.

Note that the source is the Library of Congress. So we're not talking about something like the 700 club making the claim.

I guess I've hijacked the thread though. Trying to think of some way to segue back into discussion of the Republicans firing a chaplain because he might have been construed as critical of them.

[css75]

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.

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]

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

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.

[houndawg]

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.

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

[kalm]

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

So we are not a Christian Nation and we were not founded on judeo-Christian principles? Thank god!

[CID1990]

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]

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

He just does that to piss off BDKLULESS. The only reason Islam is so vilified in the west is because they're a religion opposed to lending money at interest and the west is run by bankers.

[JohnStOnge]

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

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.

[kalm]

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

Who's triggered?

I chime in to dumb and meaningless criticisms of islam without solutions. We're supposed to be better than that. Christians are supposed to be better than that.

For example, if we're truly worried about muslims, why do we keep arming them?

[kalm]

"...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.

"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..."

[∞∞∞]

Thirteen states intensely debated about the Constitution and couldn't agree on specifics, so they agreed on wording that's somewhat vague. Ultimately it's just a baseline and each American society gets to make it whatever they want. It's not some infallible document.

However, there's always been a social agreement to separate Church and State; this is clear through the Federalist papers and letters written by the founders. And I always tell people to read "Democracy in America," written by Tocqueville in the 1830s after he was sent to observe America.

One of his observations is that Americans took separation of Church and State so seriously that it was ingrained in sub-cultures throughout the known continent...less than 50 years after the Revolution.

[JoltinJoe]

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

You are (mis)quoting a snippet of a longer sentence. In context:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Saying the "government ... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" is not the same as saying "the United States are in no sense a Christian nation."

[JoltinJoe]

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..."

What are you quoting?

[kalm]

"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?

Re-quoting Madison from the OP.

[JoltinJoe]

What are you quoting?

Re-quoting Madison from the OP.

Thanks.

Was reading up from where I came in.

Interesting that Madison asked whether a Catholic could ever be appointed chaplain. Here we have a Catholic chaplain canned by a Catholic speaker acting at the demand of Southern Baptists. That Madison was probably on to something, wasn't he?