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

[Flopper]

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.

All of colonies had state sponsored religions. After the 1st amendment, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Georgia abolished it in their states. The other states slowly followed suit in the 19th century. The 14th amendment was added to the constitution in 1868 and it prohibited states from denying people “liberty” without “due process.” The Supreme Court used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. This effectively ended state sponsored religion in the US. New Hampshire was the last state to comply in 1877.

The existence of state sponsored religion made the 1st amendment very controversial during the debates in the ratification process of the Bill of Rights.

The harshness of state sponsored religion in the colonies seem perplexing to many people today since many of the colonists left Europe to escape religious percussion. However, you have to remember, that the religious freedom we have today existed almost nowhere in Europe. People were accustom to the binding of governments and religion.

Religion in the Original 13 Colonies - Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org

 

[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?

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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

 

[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.

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.”

The problem is the public thing. Nobody has to hide their religion, but nobody needs to showboat. The House, the Senate, the football field ain't Broadway. I meant follow your religion in your private life. When you have an office doing the public's business, do it. Your religious needs can be taken care of outside of the time that this takes. If it cannot be, do not stand for public office. Any member of Congress can have spiritual adviser on speed-dial. My problem is only with people who want to make their religious beliefs part of the governmental agenda.
I question why people think that they cannot call upon a Higher Power when then they need to.

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.​

Good grief! what kind of a filthy world do you people live in???

​

 

[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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

 

[sakinago]

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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.
A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively. A more fitting metaphor would be to complain about a leaky living room roof when the house sank in a 50 x 50 x 50 yard sinkhole.

B. Peps would definitely still need to get that porched fixed. That shits gonna leak into foundation, flood the basement, and sink the house. Even having a faulty gutter is enough to wreak havoc on someone’s house. Put some pots and pans out and get that shit taken care of before there is a subterranean river flowing under your house. No bueno.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Stop acting like a religious person that hates other religions. I’ll paraphrase a religious passage that fits nicely, “you will know them by the fruit they bear.” Or something like that. Well, this looks a lot like puritans screaming about a dress being half an inch short and not really paying any mind to witch trials of a billion alleged witches.

 

[sakinago]

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.”

The problem is the public thing. Nobody has to hide their religion, but nobody needs to showboat. The House, the Senate, the football field ain't Broadway. I meant follow your religion in your private life. When you have an office doing the public's business, do it. Your religious needs can be taken care of outside of the time that this takes. If it cannot be, do not stand for public office. Any member of Congress can have spiritual adviser on speed-dial. My problem is only with people who want to make their religious beliefs part of the governmental agenda.
I question why people think that they cannot call upon a Higher Power when then they need to.

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.​

Good grief! what kind of a filthy world do you people live in???

​

What you just said, about keeping your religion in your private life is IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I don’t know how many other ways to make this point to you, and you keep responding with just keep that shit private. WRONG. That’s completely against the first amendment, even for members of public office. THEY do not have the problem, YOU are the one with the problem since your a wasting all this time and energy worried about what other people believe religiously to the point where you want them to stop doing it in public...Again, there is zero difference between what you are doing, and some religious person saying “I don’t care what gay people do behind closed doors, they shouldn’t be allowed to kiss or show affection in public, or on TV, or in the Senate.”

 

[Pogo]

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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.

No actually terrible attempt at changing the subject.

But I bet you go right back to it as if having it called out never happened....

A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively.

And there it is. Nailed it.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Actually this has nothing to do with "religions". It's about a Double Standard and abuse of taxpayer funds.

"Pay cut"?
Why are they getting paid at all?
Staffs? Really --- staffs? Do tell the class wtf a chaplain needs a staff for.

Does Congress have an Astrologer? A Numerologist? Meditation therapist?
And do they have staffs?

 

[sakinago]

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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.
A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively. A more fitting metaphor would be to complain about a leaky living room roof when the house sank in a 50 x 50 x 50 yard sinkhole.

B. Peps would definitely still need to get that porched fixed. That shits gonna leak into foundation, flood the basement, and sink the house. Even having a faulty gutter is enough to wreak havoc on someone’s house. Put some pots and pans out and get that shit taken care of before there is a subterranean river flowing under your house. No bueno.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Stop acting like a religious person that hates other religions. I’ll paraphrase a religious passage that fits nicely, “you will know them by the fruit they bear.” Or something like that.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.

No actually terrible attempt at changing the subject.

But I bet you go right back to it as if having it called out never happened....

A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively.

And there it is. Nailed it.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Actually this has nothing to do with "religions". It's about a Double Standard and abuse of taxpayer funds.

"Pay cut"?
Why are they getting paid at all?
Staffs? Really --- staffs? Do tell the class wtf a chaplain needs a staff for.

Does Congress have an Astrologer? A Numerologist? Meditation therapist?
And do they have staffs?

I would be perfectly happy if they cut out the whole Chaplin thing. However, I would be thoroughly pissed if they started with that...shows a FUBAR lack of priorities. The billion dollar useless gas station that’s currently rotting away unused in Afghanistan is just ONE agregious example I stated. How about the over 1 TRILLION dollars they mispent in the fiscal year 2016 (misspent being categorized as payments that should not have been made, double payments, etc.) Uh, that’s a pretty damn big problem, wouldn’t you say? That’s over a 3rd of what they take in annually in taxes. There isn’t even a company in existance that’s worth 1 trillion dollars, and they just say whoops, sorry. How about the 80 billion the state department lost track of? Pogo, you are surely not dumb enough to miss the obvious nuance (oxymoron I know, probably a good band name too, definitely a good band name. I kind of want to start a band now just because of that name, I can play drums, whose in?) of the point I’ve been making here.

You do not care about the spending. You care about the fact that there are religious people in government, who cite and get council from religion. There is no separation of church and state other than the first amendment. Here it is.

Text of the 1st Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it say that lawmakers need to abstain from religion in the public setting, or not pray with a Chaplin in front of the house floor. It actually says the opposite. If you do not like them for their religious beliefs, easy fix, don’t vote for them.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.

No actually terrible attempt at changing the subject.

But I bet you go right back to it as if having it called out never happened....

A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively.

And there it is. Nailed it.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Actually this has nothing to do with "religions". It's about a Double Standard and abuse of taxpayer funds.

"Pay cut"?
Why are they getting paid at all?
Staffs? Really --- staffs? Do tell the class wtf a chaplain needs a staff for.

Does Congress have an Astrologer? A Numerologist? Meditation therapist?
And do they have staffs?

I also said at the very least they should receive a pay cut. So spare me the cheap tactics. I don’t roll around in the mud because I don’t need to. And as far as the usefulness of the Chaplin’s staff...who else are they going to get blow jobs from?

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.

No actually terrible attempt at changing the subject.

But I bet you go right back to it as if having it called out never happened....

A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively.

And there it is. Nailed it.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Actually this has nothing to do with "religions". It's about a Double Standard and abuse of taxpayer funds.

"Pay cut"?
Why are they getting paid at all?
Staffs? Really --- staffs? Do tell the class wtf a chaplain needs a staff for.

Does Congress have an Astrologer? A Numerologist? Meditation therapist?
And do they have staffs?

I would be perfectly happy if they cut out the whole Chaplin thing. However, I would be thoroughly pissed if they started with that...shows a FUBAR lack of priorities. The billion dollar useless gas station that’s currently rotting away unused in Afghanistan blah blah rant rave.... <snip>

"Priorities" isn't even in play here. There is no established "order" for where you arrest errant spending. If it's easier to cut an egregious abuse in the Capitol building than it is to cut something in AfFreakingGhanisfuckingtan, then that's what you do now, and move to the larger stuff after. It's easy, it's quick, it's simple. So simple that Paul Ryan fired the guy, although not for the right reason. What's going on in Afwhothefuckcaresghanistan has no bearing on the matter. They are in no way related.

Now if you have an issue with Afthefuckghanistan gas stations, then by all means start or join a thread on it but it ain't the topic here.

If you actually think spending cuts have to be made in the actual order of which is the stupidest expenditure, you're gonna be at it a long LONG time.

You do not care about the spending. You care about the fact that there are religious people in government, who cite and get council from religion.

Actually I care more about spelling than whatever your fantasy is here -- it's "counsel". Religion is a private and personal matter. Not my place, or yours, to decide what other people are doing with it, and I've noted that throughout. Yet here you are taking voices in your own head and attributing them to me.

There is no separation of church and state other than the first amendment.

Actually we already covered this specious argument back in post 112. Roll tape.

If there were actually no separation between church and state, we'd be in a theocracy. Can't boil it down any simpler than that.

The Liberalism that established this country and wrote its Constitution was specifically wresting governmental power AWAY FROM the First and Second Estates, those being the Clergy and the Aristocracy. That's why we didn't set up "kings" with "divine rights" sanctioned by the Church, which is the way Europe had operated up until then. Indeed separating the Church (and the "royalty" game) from the State was the whole POINT.

Here it is. <snip>

I have no need of your supplying something I know by heart, thanks.

Nowhere does it say that lawmakers need to abstain from religion in the public setting, or not pray with a Chaplin in front of the house floor. It actually says the opposite. If you do not like them for their religious beliefs, easy fix, don’t vote for them.

Nor (again) do I give a flying **** what they do in that realm. I just want to know why WE are paying half a million bucks a year for a chaplain to murmur some words they could do themselves, which has zero to do with the People's Business that they're supposed to be there to do. I don't give a friggety **** if the chaplain they pay is a literal Flying Spaghetti Monster; I just want to know how it is we have to pay for it.

And again for the umpteenth time --- religious beliefs are a private and personal matter. I don't know, and don't want or need to know, what those of my Congresscritters may be. It's not my business and it's not what they're there for.

 

[sakinago]

Ok more than I expected, but still not surprising considering it’s government....still is a drop in the bucket compared to spending 1 billion dollars to build a single gas station in Afghanistan, or state department saying “whoops, we lost track of 80 billion dollars...again where are your priorities?

I don't give a **** what it is "compared to" whatever unrelated shit in AfFuckingGhanistan; it's a half million bucks annually for no reason. The only legitimate comparator is "zero".

If you've got rain coming in through two leaks in your roof do you dismiss the one in the living room just because the one on the porch is bigger?

Terrible metaphor.

No actually terrible attempt at changing the subject.

But I bet you go right back to it as if having it called out never happened....

A. spending money is still spending money. Spending astronomical amounts of money on something stupid (and utterly useless since this was a gas station for vehicles that run on natural gas...in Afghanistan, where they barely have any cars that run on petroleum let alone natural gas. Have you ever meet someone in America who has a car that runs on natural gas?) is always way worse than spending 0.0005 of that amount on something stupid, but actually is semi-useful, comparatively.

And there it is. Nailed it.

At no point did I ever say I’m thrilled we have legislative Chaplin’s. They definitely get paid too much, and should at very least be given a pay cut. That being said...the whole scenario I laid out in example A is proving my whole point in this thread, that the so called “non-religious left” is even more religious than religious people they are going after. They need to “purify” their sancturary, and classify those not a part of their church to be stupid, evil, motivated by lust, savages who worship incorrect gods.

Actually this has nothing to do with "religions". It's about a Double Standard and abuse of taxpayer funds.

"Pay cut"?
Why are they getting paid at all?
Staffs? Really --- staffs? Do tell the class wtf a chaplain needs a staff for.

Does Congress have an Astrologer? A Numerologist? Meditation therapist?
And do they have staffs?

I would be perfectly happy if they cut out the whole Chaplin thing. However, I would be thoroughly pissed if they started with that...shows a FUBAR lack of priorities. The billion dollar useless gas station that’s currently rotting away unused in Afghanistan blah blah rant rave.... <snip>

"Priorities" isn't even in play here. There is no established "order" for where you arrest errant spending. If it's easier to cut an egregious abuse in the Capitol building than it is to cut something in AfFreakingGhanisfuckingtan, then that's what you do now, and move to the larger stuff after. It's easy, it's quick, it's simple. So simple that Paul Ryan fired the guy, although not for the right reason. What's going on in Afwhothefuckcaresghanistan has no bearing on the matter. They are in no way related.

Now if you have an issue with Afthefuckghanistan gas stations, then by all means start or join a thread on it but it ain't the topic here.

If you actually think spending cuts have to be made in the actual order of which is the stupidest expenditure, you're gonna be at it a long LONG time.

You do not care about the spending. You care about the fact that there are religious people in government, who cite and get council from religion.

Actually I care more about spelling than whatever your fantasy is here -- it's "counsel". Religion is a private and personal matter. Not my place, or yours, to decide what other people are doing with it, and I've noted that throughout. Yet here you are taking voices in your own head and attributing them to me.

There is no separation of church and state other than the first amendment.

Actually we already covered this specious argument back in post 112. Roll tape.

If there were actually no separation between church and state, we'd be in a theocracy. Can't boil it down any simpler than that.

The Liberalism that established this country and wrote its Constitution was specifically wresting governmental power AWAY FROM the First and Second Estates, those being the Clergy and the Aristocracy. That's why we didn't set up "kings" with "divine rights" sanctioned by the Church, which is the way Europe had operated up until then. Indeed separating the Church (and the "royalty" game) from the State was the whole POINT.

Here it is. <snip>

I have no need of your supplying something I know by heart, thanks.

Nowhere does it say that lawmakers need to abstain from religion in the public setting, or not pray with a Chaplin in front of the house floor. It actually says the opposite. If you do not like them for their religious beliefs, easy fix, don’t vote for them.

Nor (again) do I give a flying **** what they do in that realm. I just want to know why WE are paying half a million bucks a year for a chaplain to murmur some words they could do themselves, which has zero to do with the People's Business that they're supposed to be there to do. I don't give a friggety **** if the chaplain they pay is a literal Flying Spaghetti Monster; I just want to know how it is we have to pay for it.

And again for the umpteenth time --- religious beliefs are a private and personal matter. I don't know, and don't want or need to know, what those of my Congresscritters may be. It's not my business and it's not what they're there for.

Jesus this is like trying to draw intellectual blood from an ideological rock. On what planet is it easier to say no to spending 500,000 dollars on a Chaplin than it is one billion dollars on for a gas station that would’ve been useless in America, that’s infinitely more useless in “AfFreakingGhanisfuckingtan”? And I already started a thread about this a while ago. It’s just an example of off the wall bonkers spending that NEEDS to be addressed. There are about a thousand other easier spending cuts to make, and about a thousand other areas we should aim the justice department at to say...what’s up with this missing 80 billion dollars, or what’s up with this “misspent” trillion dollars? That’s a much easier place to start than Chaplin’s...which again, on what planet do you live on where elected legislators are going to say to a country, where 70% or so of the population identifies as Christian, “we need to kick these Chaplin’s outta here.” I’d say that’s way less reasonable than the whole billion dollar gas station in Afghanistan.

And starting with the big agregious shit, would go way quicker than nitpicking the small shit. If you were to start a company that lost a million dollars every year since the time of Jesus or 0 AD, you’d still be in less debt than the US government. I vote we start with the very big agregious shit first. You could cut the spending on 4,036 Chaplin’s and their staffs and still not make a much of a dent. You would have to cut 2 million Chaplin’s and their staffs just to make up for the 1 trillion dollars of “misspent” money...still oh so worried about the Chaplin’s?

You want to know why we’re spending half a mil on Chaplin’s, well I want to know why we spend a quarter mil on a ******* clown college in Argentina...I’d still be pissed if they started with that type of cut, over the ones they desperately need to address. Why? Because my priorities are straight, and 250,000 on a goddamn clown college is an e-coli cell in an elephants intestinal tract.

 

[Snouter]

Oddly enough, the Connecticut legislature has a chaplain. A jewish "rabbi" actually, House Chaplain, Rabbi Alan Lefkowitz. Strange, but not unexpected!