Agree or Disagree?

[bigrebnc1775]

No, retard, I've read them all. You should try it. The Bible is a crock of shit, and the founders didn't found this nation on its nonsense.

Why did they appoint a congressional chaplain as one of congresses first official acts if it was bullshit them them?

 

[Lakhota]

No, retard, I've read them all. You should try it. The Bible is a crock of shit, and the founders didn't found this nation on its nonsense.

Why did they appoint a congressional chaplain as one of congresses first official acts if it was bullshit them them?

I said the Bible was bullshit. What does a Chaplain have to do with our governing documents?

 

[Artevelde]

No, retard, I've read them all. You should try it. The Bible is a crock of shit, and the founders didn't found this nation on its nonsense.

Why did they appoint a congressional chaplain as one of congresses first official acts if it was bullshit them them?

I said the Bible was bullshit. What does a Chaplain have to do with our governing documents?

Reading is hard for the uneducated and the stupid. We should feel compassion I guess.

 

[Lakhota]

Constitutionality

The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[10] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[10]

President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[10] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

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 estabfishes 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 Congress 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.[10]

The constitutionality question has been examined in a number of court cases.[3] According to "House and Senate Chaplains: An Overview," an official 2011 Crs report created by the Congressional Research Service for "Members and Committees of Congress":

The constitutionality of legislative chaplains was upheld in 1983 by the Supreme Court (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, related to chaplains in the Nebraska Legislature) on the grounds of precedent and tradition. The Court cited the practice going back to the Continental Congress in 1774 and noted that the custom “is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country” from colonial times and the founding of the republic. Further, the Court held that the use of prayer “has become part of the fabric of our society,” coexisting with “the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” This decision was cited in Murray v. Buchanan, which challenged the House chaplaincy, the next year. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint “for want of a substantial constitutional question.” Subsequently, on March 25, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, citing Marsh v. Chambers, dismissed a suit that challenged the congressional practice of paid chaplains as well as the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer.[3]

In 2000, a C-SPAN "public affairs on the web" response to the question of constitutional challenges noted that:

"In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of having an official chaplain as deeply ingrained in the history and tradition of this country. They stated the ultimate authority for the position lies in the Constitution which states that the House and Senate may each choose their officers, with no restrictions on what kind of officers may be chosen. Using that authority, both chambers have chosen to continue to elect an officer to act as Chaplain."[7]

Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superstition dies hard. One day, even wingnuts will outgrow it.

 

[Artevelde]

Constitutionality

The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[10] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[10]

President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[10] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

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 estabfishes 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 Congress 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.[10]

The constitutionality question has been examined in a number of court cases.[3] According to "House and Senate Chaplains: An Overview," an official 2011 Crs report created by the Congressional Research Service for "Members and Committees of Congress":

The constitutionality of legislative chaplains was upheld in 1983 by the Supreme Court (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, related to chaplains in the Nebraska Legislature) on the grounds of precedent and tradition. The Court cited the practice going back to the Continental Congress in 1774 and noted that the custom “is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country” from colonial times and the founding of the republic. Further, the Court held that the use of prayer “has become part of the fabric of our society,” coexisting with “the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” This decision was cited in Murray v. Buchanan, which challenged the House chaplaincy, the next year. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint “for want of a substantial constitutional question.” Subsequently, on March 25, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, citing Marsh v. Chambers, dismissed a suit that challenged the congressional practice of paid chaplains as well as the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer.[3]

In 2000, a C-SPAN "public affairs on the web" response to the question of constitutional challenges noted that:

"In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of having an official chaplain as deeply ingrained in the history and tradition of this country. They stated the ultimate authority for the position lies in the Constitution which states that the House and Senate may each choose their officers, with no restrictions on what kind of officers may be chosen. Using that authority, both chambers have chosen to continue to elect an officer to act as Chaplain."[7]

Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superstition dies hard. One day, even wingnuts will outgrow it.

Unfortunately ignorant bigots like yourself seldom outgrow their bigotry.

 

[Lakhota]

You're funny. You sound like an ex-wife...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, retard, I've read them all. You should try it. The Bible is a crock of shit, and the founders didn't found this nation on its nonsense.

Why did they appoint a congressional chaplain as one of congresses first official acts if it was bullshit them them?

I said the Bible was bullshit. What does a Chaplain have to do with our governing documents?

It doesn't matter what you view the Bible as, what matters is that the first legislative actions for the first congress was too appoint a Chaplain which also happen too be of the Christian faith.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Constitutionality

The question of the constitutionality of the position of the House Chaplain (as well as that of the Senate Chaplain, and at times, that of military chaplains as well), has been a subject of study and debate over the centuries.[10] Opponents have argued that it violates the separation of church-and-state and proponents have argued, among other factors, that the fact that the same early legislators who wrote the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, from which the position of "non-establishment" and church and state separation is derived, were the same ones who approved and appointed the chaplains.[10]

President James Madison was an example of a leader who ultimately came to think that the positions of Senate and House Chaplains could not be constitutionally supported, although whether he always held this view (and to what extent he believed it at various times during his life) is a subject of debate.[10] However it is clear from his "Detached Memoranda" writings during his retirement that he had come to believe the positions could not be justified:

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 estabfishes 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 Congress 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.[10]

The constitutionality question has been examined in a number of court cases.[3] According to "House and Senate Chaplains: An Overview," an official 2011 Crs report created by the Congressional Research Service for "Members and Committees of Congress":

The constitutionality of legislative chaplains was upheld in 1983 by the Supreme Court (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, related to chaplains in the Nebraska Legislature) on the grounds of precedent and tradition. The Court cited the practice going back to the Continental Congress in 1774 and noted that the custom “is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country” from colonial times and the founding of the republic. Further, the Court held that the use of prayer “has become part of the fabric of our society,” coexisting with “the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” This decision was cited in Murray v. Buchanan, which challenged the House chaplaincy, the next year. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint “for want of a substantial constitutional question.” Subsequently, on March 25, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, citing Marsh v. Chambers, dismissed a suit that challenged the congressional practice of paid chaplains as well as the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer.[3]

In 2000, a C-SPAN "public affairs on the web" response to the question of constitutional challenges noted that:

"In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of having an official chaplain as deeply ingrained in the history and tradition of this country. They stated the ultimate authority for the position lies in the Constitution which states that the House and Senate may each choose their officers, with no restrictions on what kind of officers may be chosen. Using that authority, both chambers have chosen to continue to elect an officer to act as Chaplain."[7]

Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superstition dies hard. One day, even wingnuts will outgrow it.

It does not matter what we view as Constitutional and not Constitutional in regards to the Congressional Chaplain. The founders who wrote the Constitution appointed the Chaplains. They would know better what their intent was than we second guessing them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did someone stutter?

 

[zonly1]

our coinage or paperbacks..."In God WE Trust"...that is judeo christian values

the word "God"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

our coinage or paperbacks..."In God WE Trust"...that is judeo christian values

the word "God"

Someone will say In God we trust did not appear on U.S. currency until the 1950's I will cut them off before they make that comment. In God we trust first appeared on U.S. currency in 1864.

 

[zonly1]

...on federal notes it is printed "In God We Trust"
those words douche bag didn't just fall from the sky
eat a steaming pile of dogshiite sandwich top off with cat piss honey

 

[paulitician]

People who deny our Founders were Christians, are no different than the wingnuts who deny the Holocaust. It's hardly worth the time to try and reason with them. Of course our Nation was founded by Christians and on Christian principles. It is what it is.

 

[BlindBoo]

People who deny our Founders were Christians, are no different than the wingnuts who deny the Holocaust. It's hardly worth the time to try and reason with them. Of course our Nation was founded by Christians and on Christian principles. It is what it is.

Who exactly denied that they were Christians?

The governement they formed was not a Christian one. Where in the bible does the two houses of Congress come from? How about the President, is that position described by Jesus? Supreme Court?????

 

[peach174]

Written by and for the majority of Christians, pushed by the founders that the Constitution would only work with Christian values and morals.

 

[The T]

Written by and for the majority of Christians, pushed by the founders that the Constitution would only work with Christian values and morals.

And the more those values are demonized, and given up on? The fall of this Republic is going to long arduous, and painful for all involved.

Trick here is to stay focused and defend the Republic and the principles.

 

[amrchaos]

It was not founded on the Christian religion, but that doesn't mean a default to no religion.

Why doesn't it? Should we go on which branch has the most people? Which religion? Catholics?

What is the majority?

The founders did not found a nation of atheists. If they intended to do thatm they would have done so.

The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is whollly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams.

We are talking about very thoughtful men. Had they intended the United States to be atheist, they would have undoubtably said so. Yet over and over the references are to God, Creator, Providence, and religion, not necessarily a Christian religion but one that shared Christian philosophy

You are right. The founders did not found an Atheist nation--they founded a plurist nation. Not just for religious people, but including non-religious people as well.

The problem in saying that America is founded on any set religious is that you are claiming that the religion is considered supreme in the making of laws and the actions of government. But that is not true, religion is a component introduced by those that practice that religion, but not necessarily a guiding light.

In any case, the reason why the clergy makes such a claim has more to do with propaganda supporting their brand of faith than actual truth. By claiming that the nation you love is a product of the religion you practice is an attempt to keep present members(example of an arguement:"How can you turn back on GOD after he gave you this great nation to live in?) while trying to attract new members("Our God gave you this great nation, don't you think you should thank him with us?" )

The fact that we even having this arguement is just proof of the need for confusion to harvest members. If truth was clear and well nuanced, the claimants of this "America found on Christianity" would explain exactly what they mean by such claims. They do not because that do not help them in making such a claim.


Another case of hand waving and no verification. An old Christian theologian's technique.

 

[paulitician]

People who deny our Founders were Christians, are no different than the wingnuts who deny the Holocaust. It's hardly worth the time to try and reason with them. Of course our Nation was founded by Christians and on Christian principles. It is what it is.

Who exactly denied that they were Christians?

The governement they formed was not a Christian one. Where in the bible does the two houses of Congress come from? How about the President, is that position described by Jesus? Supreme Court?????

Our Nation and its Laws were founded by Christians and on Christian values and beliefs. I know that pisses you off, but it is reality. Our Nation was not founded by Christian-hating wingnuts like you and the OP. Sorry, but that's the truth. God Bless.

 

[BDBoop]

You're funny. You sound like an ex-wife...

OMG, you're right! Bitter, nagging, always right, always has to have the last word. Way to nail it, Lakhota!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're funny. You sound like an ex-wife...

OMG, you're right! Bitter, nagging, always right, always has to have the last word. Way to nail it, Lakhota!

So what loonykota post you read and pay attention too which was nothing but an insult but what I post which addresses your OP you ignore. How interesting. indeed.