You seems to be confusing, as many do, the difference between the establishment or the preference of one faith over another vs the general believe in a Deity. Quite a few of the Founding fathers might be called “Deists” in that they didnt put one faith over another*, the thought was all faiths should be equal. Not that any and all professions of a belief should be banned, in fact they’d be rather shocked at that idea. So SCOTUS is Ok with a Chaplain as long as that Chaplain gives non-denominational preaching mostly. “In God We Trust” is perfectly Ok (No particular deity is specified). Putting up the Ten Commandments (Judeo-Christian) is not- unless you also show other, similar codes of conduct. A generalized belief in a Deity is OK, pushing one religion over another is not.
yes, several attended a certain church but belonging to a church in those days was also like belonging to a Fraternal organization- you did for the connections, the social events, meeting friends, etc.- not just for the religion part.
I’m actually not suffering from any such confusion. And I’m aware that the SCOTUS is okay with the current chaplain loophole. But the arguments are quite clear that it is a loophole, and that the chaplain doesn’t pass the normal establishment clause tests, not even close.
If “establishment of religion” is taken very narrowly to mean a printed law forcing every American to belong to one particular denomination of Christianity, then it’s plausible for Christian politicians (and, more importantly, Christian voters) to consider themselves off the hook in this regard.
If “establishment of religion” means (as I expected when reading it) the existence of any influence whatsoever, through any public office, on any citizen’s religious choices or lack thereof - that would be a different story.
I don’t see any commands from the Holy Qur’an carved into American courtroom walls. I don’t see any official proclamations on government letterhead of the futility and ridiculousness of all forms of faith either. Until those start being just as prominent and just as frequent and heartfelt as the Christian ones, or until the Ten Commandments and the Bibles are removed from the courtrooms and until there’s no more public prayer anywhere and until God is off the money and out of the Pledge (and all the other less-famous religious material is removed from all public places and all government speech) the US government is derelict in its duty and is stealing freedom from its citizens.
I figured out my own position more clearly while I was writing that - sorry if it rambled - but I think avoiding establishment of religion comes down simply to “There must not be freedom of speech regarding religion, for anyone in public office or in public service; civil servants, public office holders, governments, and government agencies must not publish or produce or permit any speech, document, writing, sign, symbol, or depiction, in any form, that could be construed as religious in nature or as having a religious origin or intent”.
I’m a Christian, though an atheist one. I don’t expect my religion to be fed to the public; I demand that no one else’s religion be fed to the public either.
Well the establishment clause test itself was created by the SCOTUS ex nihilo in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. So I have a hard time myself calling a previously existing practice which has existed prior to the Constitutional provision and affirmed by the same Congress who wrote said provision ‘a loophole’. Rather, I see it as said Congress didn’t intend for the Establishment Clause to cover said practices, and that SCOTUSes in the future decided to respect that interpretation even as they decided to create extra-constitutional tests to judge Constitutional provisions.
I think that, respectfully, you have discovered why your own view of the Establishment Clause is incorrect, as it nullifies the Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, and Free Exercise Clauses. An “establishment of religion” is what they have in the UK, not when some guy says a prayer in the public sphere that nobody has to listen to.
My view doesn’t nullify any of those things; it places reasonable limits on them. “Freedom of religion” means ALL of the Christians (and everyone else) think an atheist President and a Muslim Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a Buddhist Attorney General are the best choices because of their skills and their policies - not “Sure we have freedom of religion, you can be any kind of conservative Christian you want!”
If people actually don’t have to listen, then make sure the prayer is from a completely different religion every single day, not for special occasions or token appearances.
Are you suggesting that a voter should not be able to vote against, say, a Christian candidate for President because he or she is an atheist and would rather vote for the atheist candidate?
Or the opposite. Should a Christian be barred from voting because he or she will only vote for Christian candidates?
It seems the same to me as any case of conflict of interest in a public official. Allowing office holders to endorse (or appear to endorse) any religion over any other, presents the same problems as allowing them to promote their personal stock picks or allowing them to inherit government jobs from their parents.
No, I’m suggesting that anyone who is elected or appointed to a government job be subject to a complete and very wide-ranging “gag order” on religion-related topics once they take office/start work. That government business be always conducted without a breath of a hint of religion. That all government offices and documents be thoroughly cleansed of religion - no Bibles or Ten Commandments in the courts, no “under God”, no public praying, no religious topics in any school of any kind (religion not only out of science class but altogether gone from the school system including out of private schools). You’d be able to vote in a Christian President or an atheist President, because neither one would have any way at all to advance his agenda in terms of religion.
So, if 90% are Christian in Congress, and none are Shinto, you’d still expect a Shinto prayer as often as Christian one? The Chaplain is for the benefit of the members of Congress. Yes, some are Jewish, which is why the prayers are non-denominational and why once in a while they have a guest Rabbi.
I am sure if there was a Buddhist Congresscritter, they would include a occasional Buddhist prayer as well.
This argument is sometimes known as “Chesterton’s Fence,” because G.K. Chesterton said
My thoughts:
this isn’t a “paradox,” really, is it? More of a dilemma. IDK what Chesterton meant by “paradox.”
the argument is inductive, hence self-justifying. Trusting the wisdom of the people who established past traditions (until proven otherwise) only makes sense as a rule of thumb if … you already generally trust the wisdom of those people. If your experience has led you to believe that a bunch of crackpots have spent millennia erecting random, useless/harmless fences, you’re gonna be a lot more skeptical of the next fence you encounter.
all that said, the argument still has some value as an injunction to make decisions based on the best evidence available.
But when conservatives have (successfully) complained about their taxes going to pay for abortions, they invariably have invoked the “it’s-not-the-lousy-two-dollars-it’s-the-principle” argument. I think that’s just as valid here.
There’s more justification for chaplains in the armed services. Unlike elected representatives in Washington, military personnel are often ordered to far-flung locations where such counsel would otherwise be unavailable.
The main problem with established religion is not the religion itself, it’s the ability of some to dictate to others. If I attend your church voluntarily, I conform - I allow myself to be dictated to, in terms of my religious practices, at least while I’m there.
There should be no possibility for anyone to dictate religious practices to anyone else - not prayers, not customs, not one single thing - in the context of a legislative body. Anyone who wants to pray can pray silently and alone.
Heh. Maybe there needs to be a warning period in the US Congress - a month during which every congressional prayer is replaced with a reading of Matthew 6:5-6 - followed by cancellation of the whole public prayer thing.
They do. And this guy is the paid staff member who handles the administration.
So they could easily split that part off. But they’d probably wind up paying more, and it would mean the volunteers were answering to a person with no relevant experience.
Chaplaincy isn’t particularly religious in Aus or the UK, but the job is still largely filled by ministers/rabbi’s or religious volunteers etc, because that is the traditional path for people interested in doing “caring and sharing”, and they are cheaper than paying for a social worker with equivalent training.
I know that pastoral care positions are more often filled by “non-religious” people in American schools. It’s interesting to read here that the Congress chaplain handles so many “religious” duties in Congress – it’s an interesting division of duties.
note: “pastoral care” is the non-religious informal part of being a minister or school counselor. It’s the part where you’re just a nice person who takes an interest and tries to help out if there are problems
If only there existed privately funded facilities where people could worship and seek guidance. Until then, I guess they’ll need to do it in the Capital Building using public funding.
In tours of the House of Commons in London, it is often said that business commences every day when the Chaplain stands up in front of the MPs, takes a good long look at them - and says a prayer for the country.