I didn’t say that I didn’t believe imams have been invited. But ideally, such an event would pass without notice and Googling, the invitation of Imam Omar Suleiman was controversial because he was perceived as anti-Israeli more than because he was Islamic. Perhaps another Islamic religious leader would have been more acceptable? Is the lesson then that any of the Abrahamic faiths are welcome but no one else?
As mentioned there have been Hindus who have given the opening invocation (though conservative Christians get mad about it) in the House and Senate. Though (which may create more controversy on this thread 
), all of those are guest chaplains. There is, of course, an official Chaplain of the House and Chaplain of the Senate. Those offices have been filled with Christians (including a few Unitarians - though that was around the turn of the 20th Century)
So let’s reestablish slavery, because that was the founders’ original intent?
I trust you understand that’s why there had to be a 13th Amendment to the US Constitution?
You can see the list of guest chaplains in the House here going back to 2000. Skimming it, you can see that it’s heavily Christian with a number of Rabbis, ten (by my count) Imams, 3 Hindu practitioners, and at least one (but probably only one) Native American practitioner.
I’m fine with amending the whole thing, or tossing it out and writing a 21st century (hell, a 19th century) constitution instead. You’re the one who brought up “original intent” as if the Founders’ opinions are worth a rat’s ass in 2021.
Why wouldn’t the intent of the drafters of a statutory text be relevant? It’s an important way to do statutory analysis. Don’t tell me you are a textualist, a la Justice Scalia?
Well, I don’t find it particularly newsworthy that something that has happened routinely since long before I was born happened again.
Whereas “awomen” is weird and yeah, kinda newsworthy.
Intent matters in court when you are analyzing the law. It doesn’t matter when trying to figure out what the law should be.
Yes, the Founders’ intent was to enshrine a Christian-themed Deism as a substitute for a state religion. That’s because they were 18th century agrarian slaveholders who did not yet understand how the world could have come about through natural processes.
Many of the Founders’ ideals were good. That all men are created equal; that the rule of law should apply to even the holders of the highest office; that church and state should be separated.
But they were also a product of their time, and so their execution was very flawed. By “all men” they meant “white landowning men”. Their checks and balances failed to account for the turmoil of modern politics, for a bad actor like Trump or a political party so blinded by ideology that they’d forgive “high crimes and misdemeanors” like asking a foreign government to interfere with our elections. And they couldn’t comprehend a world in which everyone believed in a deity.
So I recognize that the law allows for overt displays of religion like these. I am saying that this is bad for our country, and does not live up to a modern interpretation of the ideals America claims to stand for.
I guess I’m saying it “ought” to be weird. Never should have happened before, and shouldn’t happen again. That it often has and will is somewhat beside the point I’m making.
For the “founders’ intent” crowd, I would ask how you think the founders’ belief that opening Congress with prayer wouldn’t be an action in furtherance of establishing a state religion should square with a demonstration that such prayer does, in fact, go towards establishing a state religion? Because, even if I grant that their intent (and their intent specifically, more so than the people as a whole, seeing as the document opens, “We the people…”) there’s a difference between what the document meant and what the founders’ actions meant with respect to the document.
To sum it up: I think that if it can be shown that opening Congress with prayer, or any other sort of “ceremonial deism,” can be shown to establish state religious practices (a state religion), then it doesn’t matter whether the founders would have agreed or not. What matters is that such establishment is explicitly prohibited by the first amendment.
If “a-women” was intended as a joke, as it appears to be, then it deserves nothing more than rolled eyes and to move on. That doesn’t even reach a dad-joke level of quality. And if he had been serious, I’d still file him with the people who think saying “Heaven-o” instead of “Hello” means anything; it’s pointless and stupid but otherwise harmless.
I had to look around to see if I was on a website that was actually dedicated to fighting ignorance. Because you two are not fighting ignorance, but rather spreading it. This is behavior that I would expect on Twitter or Facebook, not here.
“Establishment of religion” means just that; nothing more. Congress having a chaplain, or opening a ceremony with prayer, or that sort of thing IS NOT establishment of religion.
“Establishment of religion” means ACTUALLY ESTABLISHING a religion. Most of the colonies, when they were founded or shortly afterward, established a particular denomination of Christianity as their official denomination. For examble, the colony of Virginia established the Anglican Church. Massachusetts established the Congregational Church.
Even today, Germany has establishment of religion–primarily the Lutheran Church. (So do some other European countries.)
https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/germany-continues-payments-churches-century-after-deciding-stop
Read and learn what establishment of religion actually is!
Oh, I wanna see that. I wonder if old Quetzalcoatl will take a D or an R.
A prayer which invokes “God”, by that name, and concludes with “Amen”, is inherently Christian and thus comprises an establishment of Christianity.
But “person” has “son” in it! Still sexist! 
Quite apart from the views of the Founding Fathers (and it’s not just “one letter”; Adams and Madison also explicitly indicated in writings and letters that the US was not a “Christian nation” but a secular one), there’s also quite a large body of judicial rulings to support the broader interpretation. For example, under your narrow definition a teacher-led prayer in a public school wouldn’t violate the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has made it quite clear over the years that it does.
Yes, establishment of religion is making one particular religion the official religion of the country. By doing things like naming an official chaplain, who is of course of one particular religion. Or by putting a slogan associated with a particular religion on the money.
“Amen” is a Hebrew word, and the “men” part has nothing to do with the English word, “men”.
Wikipedia: " Common English translations of the word amen include “verily”, “truly”, “it is true”, and “let it be so”.[3][4] It is also used colloquially, to express strong agreement.["
It’s pretty astonishing that anyone didn’t realize it’s a dumb joke. I mean, seriously, citing etymologies? Nah, etymologies only matter with puns to the extent that careful attention to etymologies sometimes weakens puns. And lord help this man, his pun couldn’t stand to be weakened any further.
This is recreational outrage at its flimsiest. Dude makes failed joke. Move on.
Maybe. But some people do take religion seriously. Among those, some are atheists (taking it seriously when there is a state action involved) and some are devout believers (seeing such a garbling, bad joke or not, as blasphemy).
So… yet another example of how, where state and religion mix, it diminishes both. Keep the prayer out of Congress and the devoutly religious won’t have to worry about bad jokes as part of prayer before Congress. It’s win-win as far as I can see.