fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're arguing with yourself. I don't have to substantiate an argument that I didn't make.
Given that the original unamended Constitution granted the government no authority...
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
It doesn't. Nevertheless, it's (congressional chaplains) been a tradition since the Continental Congress. That's just the way it is. Is it unconstitutional? Probably, but who's going to be the one to suggest that the position be eliminated? What would the benefits be? More importantly, what would the backlash be? Now compare. Is it worth tearing the country further apart just so you can say that we're sticking to principles? Some battles are not worth fighting. Congressional chaplains would fall into that category.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I agree, this isn't a sword worth falling on. There are many other, bigger fish to fry vis-a-vis the Constitution.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
I agree with you my friend. The Constitution grants the government no authority whatsoever over religion.
Show me where the lawmakers ever indicated that "tradition" should trump the will of the lawmakers at the time the Constitution was made.
James Madison said that rather than let the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex.
My purpose is to ensure that we don't forget that the establishment of Congressional Chaplainships is an exception to Constitutional principles, not an expression of them, as the Religious Right and the Counterfeit Christians would have us believe.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
There is no evidence of opening prayers in the Senate until the 1850's.
I would say that the US senate website is a pretty good source for that info...
The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain
Also, just because you can cite Madison as thinking that establishing a Chaplain was a violation of the establishment clause doesn't mean that the rest of the framers or the rest of the nation at that time thought it was a violation. If they did in fact appoint a Chaplain, then that would suggest that they didn't see that as a violation of the 1st amendment.
The website says the following which (i assume) is meant to sidestep the establishment clause: "The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian."
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
We have established that Chaplains were elected. What has not be established is that the Chaplains to Congress opened each daily legislative session with prayer, prior to the 1850's.
What Madison or anyone else believed doesn't change the fact that the Constitution grants Congress no power over the people's duty to support religion.
If we're going to gather the meaning of the Constitution from the actions of the lawmakers, then we must also gather the meaning from the actions the lawmakers didn't take. For example, they didn't open their daily sessions with prayer, they didn't put "In God We Trust" on the nations coins, they didn't issue religious recommendations, they didn't put up displays of the Ten Commandments and they never declared that we are "one nation under God." The fact that they didn't do any of those things suggests that they did see them as violations of the Constitution.
Non sectarian religion is watered down religion. Watered down religion is corrupt religion. Corrupt religion is Satan's religion.
When you phrase religion like that "peoples duty to support" it is dependent on action. Under that definition of religion then no the federal government wouldn't have any authority over religion because it would fall under the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment. but religion is not an action it is a set of beliefs, the institutions of which would fall under the purview of the federal government, in as much as any other social institution would.
That is illogical. You can assume that if the framers took an action concerning government and religion, they considered the potential constitutional issues. You cannot say that for any inaction on their part, unless you can prove that they did consider that action and rejected it. You are assuming rejection due to inaction without any connection between the two.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Religion is the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it.
Jayce 1971
Active LVC Member
Here's one hypothetical example:
It really upsets me that I'm not allowed to practice all aspects of my Rastafarianistic beliefs, freely and openly. I'm forced into the basement with the doors locked, waiting for "the man" to kick in my door.
Like I said, "hypothetical", as I openly practice Rastafianism with my family and neighbors
.
It really upsets me that I'm not allowed to practice all aspects of my Rastafarianistic beliefs, freely and openly. I'm forced into the basement with the doors locked, waiting for "the man" to kick in my door.
Like I said, "hypothetical", as I openly practice Rastafianism with my family and neighbors
.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
What aspects are you not allowed to freely practice?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
If religion is defined as "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it", the government wouldn't have any authority over "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it".
I would say that it would fall into the category of those things over which the government was granted no authority.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Under the Constitution "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it" are exempt from all civil authority.
It doesn't really matter, because the Constitution wasn't meant to be interpreted according to "action(s) taken by the framers concerning government and religion", except perhaps for the action of framing a Constitution that granted the government no authority whatsoever over religion