You know that’s a dissenting opinion, right? And therefore not legally binding?
You said in post #21 that the Constitution is being violated in this situation.
That statement is factually, demonstrably, incorrect.
The House Chaplain does not open with a “nondenominational prayer”, because there is no such thing. All prayers are denominational, by their very essence.
And this current brouhaha confirms the wisdom of such a stricter interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Actually what would be incorrect would be to say that house chaplans are illegal. It’s absolutely correct to say that if the Court were to judge legislative prayer through the unsentimental eye of our settled doctrine, it would have to strike it down as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Which is say say of course it’s unconstitutional - it’s just not currently illegal, because it’s getting a special exception because fuck the constitution, theocracy rocks.
Not under the current meaning of the word. In fact the prayers are kinda deist.
Not according to the Supreme Court:
*The justices in Marsh found that unless there were “impermissible motives” in choosing the chaplain, drafting clergy from a specific denomination did not create a constitutional violation. The 16-year tenure of the Nebraska Legislature’s chaplain did not rise to the level of “impermissible” in this situation. The high court found that because the Legislature was routinely led in prayer by numerous other religious leaders, the faith of the paid chaplain was not shown any unique deference. As to the question of pay, Chief Justice Warren Burger looked once again to the history of legislative chaplains and found “remuneration (of chaplains) grounded in historic practice.” Finally, the prayers at issue were found to be non-coercive and not intended to persuade their hearers into adopting the speaker’s form of belief. The Court commented that the chaplain had gone out of his way to avoid offending those of different faiths, even making a point of avoiding references to Jesus after a Jewish legislator had expressed discomfort in the matter.
Therefore, because the facts in the case failed to demonstrate any tendency to favor one religious faith over another, the majority determined to be unfounded any concerns that the practice of legislative prayer was just the first step to “an establishment of religion.” The practice was therefore held to be constitutional.
*
That’s far too narrow a conception of what the Founding Fathers–or at least some of the most important of them, including Jefferson and Madison–meant when they talked about religious liberty and not having establishments of religion. Jefferson, in discussing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, proudly pointed out that the law protected " the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." See also Thomas Jefferson and the fascinating history of Founding Fathers defending Muslim rights from The Washington Post.
The common idea of the “public sphere” when it comes to this topic is also frequently very ill-defined. No one ought to be suggesting that religion be banished from the “public sphere”, by any reasonable definition of the “public sphere”. This message board is arguably part of the “public sphere”, as is the Internet as a whole, along with sidewalks and street corners, radio and TV networks (and cable access shows), billboards by the side of the highway, those letter board signs on the lawns of churches, churches themselves (whose services are usually “free and open to the public”, as of course are many meetings of local freethought or atheist societies), and even public libraries (taxpayer-supported institutions which nonetheless–rightly–contain many religious works). What those of use who advocate for stricter separation of church and state want is the removal of references to God (for or against) from the official pronouncements of the governments to which we all owe allegiance, and whose authority ultimately derives from all of us.
Fuck the constitution, theocracy rocks!
Or slightly more eloquently, that opinion openly admits that the only reason this is, at the moment, okay enough to get an exception is because the chaplain has “gone out of his way” to avoid making an issue of the fact that he’s a specific religion’s chaplain. This is certainly not a given, and thus the position is inherently constitutionally problematic. Except of course we’re going to ignore that because theocracy rocks!
That emphasized sentence would be just as defensible with the word “change” replaced with “keep.”
Corporate prayer in a political gathering is like corporate sex in a religious gathering. It corrupts the whole enterprise and corrupts every person present.
I’m not against there being a House chaplain. But it occurs to me that a lot of Congressmen might be upset if that chaplain were a Sikh. And in fact this one seems to have been dismissed for being Roman Catholic!
*That *makes me wonder about the meaning of the office.
“Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” 
Um, Speaker Ryan is also a Roman Catholic, so I don’t think that’s the reason.
Well, it depends on why Ryan did it.
Ever heard the phrase “cafeteria Catholic”? Ryan likes maybe one or two items on the salad bar, and he gets quite uncomfortable when a priest confronts him with the main entree.
If one takes as a starting point that Paul Ryan has never sacrificed his principles for political reasons, you might have a point.
The important word in that sentence being “if.”
I do, in fact, have strong reason to believe that Paul Ryan has never sacrificed his principles for political reasons.
You think, in his heart, he actually thinks Donald Trump is doing a good job when he hands praise to the President?
Now THIS is a development. The House Chaplain is un-resigning.
What principles?
Wrong!