Paul Ryan dismissed the House chaplain. Wait, why does Congress even have a chaplain?

[yallerdawg]

Source: Washington Post, by Sarah Pulliam Bailey


In the early days of the American Revolution, the Continental Congress approved the role of military chaplains, and it chose Anglican minister Jacob Duché to be its first chaplain in 1774. The founders debated how to pick someone among the different denominations represented, but they ultimately decided that the main question was whether the person supported the American Revolution.

*****

Why did they decide to open congressional sessions with prayer? In 1787, Benjamin Franklin proposed prayer as a way of encouraging discourse during the Constitutional Convention, citing how it helped during the American Revolution.

*****

In a 1983 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer offered by a paid chaplain. The case, Marsh vs. Chambers, involved a Nebraska lawmaker who had challenged the state legislature’s chaplaincy practice. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court cited history and tradition in determining that the chaplain did not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

In 2014, the Supreme Court determined in Town of Greece v. Galloway that town boards can begin sessions with prayer.

*****

(On the dismissal of Rev. Conroy by fellow Catholic Paul Ryan: )

Some have speculated that Conroy comes from a more progressive end of the spectrum while Ryan, who is also Catholic, comes from the right. The tension among Catholics right now, said Raymond Arroyo of the Catholic network EWTN, is not about politics but, rather, about Catholic doctrine and Pope Francis’s pastoral approach over Catholic teachings on marriage, divorce, communion and other issues.

“People go to their political corners and try to politicize it,” Arroyo said of the debate within the church, “but it’s foundational issues that make people nervous.”

*****

Read it all at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/04/27/paul-d-ryan-dismissed-the-house-chaplain-wait-why-does-congress-even-have-a-chaplain/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Seriously! How is that constitutional?!

[yallerdawg]

2. Marsh v. Chambers:

While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, historical evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret the Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government. In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. Makes sense, Ryan is of the Saint Ayn Rand the Selfish and Self Absorbed faction...

[cyclonefence]

4. Why does any person of faith

even try to get through to Congress? Clearly, this chaplain, who is doing his duty as a Christian and reminding the powerful of their duty to the weak and helpless, isn't able to get his message heard. I think the post ought to be abolished because it's a waste of time, money and effort. Oh, and it's imo un-American to have a state religion.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

5. "why does Congress even have a chaplain"?

Really... Why would pretend xtians need a genuine Chaplin?

[CrispyQ]

6. That was my first thought, too!

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court cited history and tradition in determining that the chaplain did not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

"History & tradition" trump the Constitution?