And that’s a good reason to violate the Constitution? They can’t go to a local place of worship or call their holy man of choice from their home town?
So have some on call. There are probably dozens of churches where a chaplain could be in the Capitol within 10 minutes. The primary purpose of the chaplain is not to give guidance and comfort to congressmen, it’s to make them look good to the Bible-thumpers.
Y’know, I’m not bothered by an institutional chaplaincy as long as it is NOT used as a way to officially endorse one or another doctrine. The Legislative chaplaincy (part-time) back in PR annoys me because it is obnoxiously* “Of Course EVERYONE here MUST be Christian!! You can only be a real Puertorrican if you are Christian!!!”* about it.
In this US Congress case I am bothered by the notion that the institutional chaplaincy must accommodate the ideologies or social leanings of those to whom it ministers. A good minister does not pander to the flock.
Not sure if anyone has bothered to look it up, but since I had no idea I just Googled it. Here is the wiki on it:
So, it seems to be a hold over from a previous age. I am unsure of how much pastoral care is still needed by the members of congress, their staff or their families today, though I suppose it’s a fairly large body of people so perhaps there are still some that need and use this service.
I can’t find what it costs the US per year, but even if we pay the guy a million dollars a year and provide him with a large staff it’s such a minuscule amount of money that it’s not even a rounding era on the Congressional budget. Sure, we could do without it, and it doesn’t seem to be as necessary as it probably was when Washington DC was a small town and you had to travel long distances from your state to live and work there, but I also don’t see any huge need to get rid of the office either. Probably why it’s still around is it isn’t worth the political capital to do away with it.
A lot of government agencies have chaplains, including public hospitals. But in my experience, most of them have multiple, volunteer chaplains of different faiths. The exceptions are the agencies that run prisons and jails, police departments and fire departments which tend to pay their chaplains, although it may be considered to be a part-time job.
I don't see why Congress can't manage with volunteers and there certainly shouldn't only be one.Having a House Chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause. Do you have a court ruling showing otherwise?
They can count their money if they want to feel better.
There’s no need for a House Chaplain, especially with this bunch. Their willingness to fire this one for no good reason shows why they have no use for such spiritual guidance as a chaplain might claim to provide. But firing this old dude is low, they could have - and should have - retired the position along with the man when his time came. Presuming the necessity and usefulness of such a ceremonial role was what Paul Ryan had in mind when he fired the guy, which I don’t.
The first part is similar to how it works in Spain; those chaplains who are assigned full-time to the Armed Forces and Guardia Civil draw the pay which corresponds to their grade. The only references I find to chaplains in our Parliament is to the Vicario Castrense (military bishop) attending the occasional ceremony there.
The references I find to hospital chaplains are from anticlerical groups which seem to have problems marrying the concept of “full-time chaplain” and “doesn’t have a salary” (they’re usually assigned multiple full-time jobs, such as “hospital chaplain”, “pastor of St John’s” and “coadjutor at The Good Shepherd”, all on one salary from the Diocese); the same people apparently also think cemetery chaplains draw a salary from the cemetery, when they’re just those religious officers who are authorized to officiate there regularly (i.e., the people who have keys). For hospitals and prisons, “full time” means the chaplains can be called at any hours.
Religious Displays and the Courts
Religious Liberty: Landmark Supreme Court Cases
If cities and states can’t establish religion, I fail to see how Congress can. Especially as Congress is directly prohibited in the Constitution from such actions.
Just because no one has had the balls to make a fuss doesn’t make it right.
There are non-Christian Congresspersons. Why should they do without?
It’s hard for me to comprehend why anyone thinks having House and Senate Chaplains is a good idea. I mean that literally. I cannot understand.
On the other hand, what a cushy job. You don’t even have to prepare a Sunday sermon.
don’t forget Puerto Rico is still largely in shambles.
I’ve actually heard it seriously argued by more than one person that Puerto Rico should have become a state, then they’d be us and it would be our responsibility to help, but they haven’t, so screw 'em.
Literally hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans have moved to central Florida alone since the hurricane. And here they can vote.
What id “dubious” about it? The Chaplain gives a non-denominational benediction. Most members are Christian, and he can give counseling as requested.
How does it “violate the Constitution”? :dubious:
You know there are Chaplains in the armed services also.
The only mention of chaplains in either of those links is Marsh v. Chambers (1983) where the USSC found the Nebraska legislature’s practice of opening its sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid from public funds was not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
So while it’s fair for you like anyone else to have their opinions how the constitution should be interpreted, including overturning old decisions, it doesn’t seem to be just a matter of lack of balls, but a history of rulings that the EC does not mean banishment of references to Christianity or especially generalized monotheistic expressions (often what it actually is) in the public sphere.
And, the kind of concept you propose is definitly not what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” meant at the time. It meant the new govt should not officially favor one Protestant denomination over others. Catholicism let alone other religions were secondary considerations. The concept of banning reference to God in the public sphere might be a good one (though I can’t gtee I agree personally), but it’s not what they were talking about then, so isn’t supported by simple reference to the text of the 1st amendment. It’s a relatively new concept.
Not exclusively Christian. The wiki article mentions Jewish, Roman Catholic, Moslem and Buddhist.
This is a Christian chaplain, leaving out anyone not of that faith.
But the concept of government sponsorship of a specific religion has been struck down in a number of cases. The devil is in the details.
In this case, the Chaplain is not just opening the session with a prayer, he’s there to act as a religious counselor to the members.
If they want an opening prayer, why not people of different faiths do the honors in rotation? That would not favor a single religion or denomination.
It doesnt have to be a Christian Chaplain. They could vote in a Rabbi or etc… But indeed most congresscritters are Christian. Most Military Chaplains are Christian, but since there are many they can cover all faiths.
There was a Unitarian chaplain, who technically is Christian.
and the Chaplain will minister to those of any faith:
There have been Guest Chaplains who were rabbis:
https://seanmaloney.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/maloney-welcomes-mahopac-rabbi-to-congress-as-guest-chaplain
And it is constitutional:
You seem to be ignoring Marsh v Chambers which pertains to government funded chaplains in legislatures. Contrary to your claim, the existence of a chaplain does not violate the Constitution.
Not everyone thinks it’s so clear.