[Nevadan]

re: “No, what I am saying is that members of Congress and the states were very clear on the law. Congress continued to “skirt” this law and does so even today.”

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the very people who debated and voted on the 1st Amendment, violated it and continue to violate it to this day?

You believe having a non-sectarian prayer said in Congress is an “establishment” of religion. I guess you must also believe that Washington (by proxy), Lincoln, and countless other Presidents who mentioned God in their speeches all violated the “establishment” clause of the 1st Amendment?

Just so you know, I have served as a chaplain in hospitals before, so I do know what a chaplain is. George Washington called for Chaplain’s to serve in the Continental Army, so I guess (also by proxy), according to you, he violated the future 1st Amendment in this regard, too.

The Declaration of Independence states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights”. Jefferson, though no Christian, was certainly invoking a Theistic God from whom our rights as individuals are derived - not from a Government or a piece of paper - but, from God Himself. Sounds like you would say this is an “establishment” of religion and thus another violation.

You see, what you fail to understand is that our Nation was founded on a Judeo-Christian worldview. That didn’t mean everyone was a practicing Christian, but most held a belief in God and respect for the ethical teachings in the Bible. None of the expressions of faith in God was too much of a problem to anyone until the last 30 - 50 years because everyone understood that such expressions did not “establish” a national church, which was the intent of the 1st Amendment. Such expressions do imply general belief in God, but not any particular individual church.

The problem is now that America has become a morally and a religiously pluralistic society and the Judeo-Christian worldview no longer has as strong a hold on our people any more.

The danger is, as I see it, at some point, if America continues to sponge away the religious underpinnings of it’s laws, customs, and moral foundation - our Constitution will rest in mid-air with no foundation at all upon which to base our beliefs in liberty or justice.

After all, who says liberty is good? Who says the value of the individual is the best? Why are personal property rights important? Maybe we are just made to serve the state. Why not? What foundation is there for us to say that that isn’t the case? Does Islam, or Wicca, or Atheism build a firm foundation upon which to ground our rights upon?

By the way, it was the 35th Congress (1857-1859) that discontinued the custom of electing a Senate chaplain, and extended an invitation to the clergy of the District of Columbia to alternate in opening the daily sessions with prayer. The 36th Congress returned to the former practice.

I hear what you are saying about political correctness forcing Congress to include Iman’s or Pagan Witches to lead “prayers”, but that’s only because our politicians are too weak to stand up and say no to this. Our Nation’s laws and ideals were not founded on Islam, Sharia law, or Aboriginal beliefs - having prayers led in our Congress by Christian or Jewish ministers is in accord with our customs and traditions. One may not like that that is the way it is (or at least was) - but it is true nonetheless.

Now, the move is to eradicate all religious expression from the political realm. That is not what our Founders intended.

[BocoLoco]

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the very people who debated and voted on the 1st Amendment, violated it and continue to violate it to this day?

You believe having a non-sectarian prayer said in Congress is an “establishment” of religion. I guess you must also believe that Washington (by proxy), Lincoln, and countless other Presidents who mentioned God in their speeches all violated the “establishment” clause of the 1st Amendment?

Yes, yes, and yes. God has no place in the government because it can be easily corrupted by members of the church. Time after time after time it has been used against the people. The Kings. The Pope. Divinity upon the masses in mission style. This connection between "church and state" has been most dangerous and deadly combination to religious persecution since the Eastern Roman Empire. Whenever the two collide you get an imbalance. As Jesus said:

respondit Iesus regnum meum non est de mundo hoc si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum ministri mei decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis nunc autem meum regnum non est hinc.

Now, the move is to eradicate all religious expression from the political realm. That is not what our Founders intended.

If that's not what the framers intended, then they should have never created the first Amendment. And surprise, they didn't. It sounds like you are encouraging the Dominist approach to leadership in America. So you are correct. The founders wanted Christian leadership. However, the states and the first Congress did not, at least not in the sense we view it today.

The role of chaplains is to foster religion. The role of lawmakers is to foster law. The framing fathers knew full well they were making exceptions to the rule because they never included it in the original draft of the Constitution. The first Congress created the law yet failed to follow it. Instead they encouraged Christian behavior, naively assuming another religion would never become a contender for authority in the United States. They didn't follow their own guidelines, assuming "it will never happen here". Fast forward 200 years later. Where are we now?

Concentrating on the latter, it's clear that the courts have interpreted what the law has meant, and what it means now. This is a Constitutional approach to a Constitutional problem. Are you saying we forego the decisions of the Judicial Branch and ignore the third branch of the government? Shall we ignore parts of the Constitution when it suits us? Are you suggesting that Congress has been right all along, even though the courts have disagreed with it on many occasions with regards to prayer in school, government facilities, and various other federal locations?

If you want religious expression in the political realm and allow it freely you must allow it freely to all. Otherwise it's a rule of exclusionism. What you are saying is that Amendment I really says "freedom of Christian religion", correct? What happens when Christianity is threatened by another religion in the political realm and it loses top spot in the Government?

That being said which "Christian" religion is correct for the nation? And why even bother having freedom of religion when the only religion is Christianity and the only prayers in the government are Christian ones? Although Christians may feel their religion is the only one on the planet, the reality is something quite different. Walking the path of Jesus is a choice. And that choice means to follow his path, follow a different path, or don't follow it at all. Without this choice given to others we are not following the practices of our Savior. We are not granting the freedom to choose to others who need saving.

There have been countless items "slid in" to the Government under the radar. Examples include Christmas as a national holiday (forbidden until the late 1800's), "In God We Trust" (introduced in 1864), and bible swearing in courts (mid 1800's). Note that they weren't when Amendment I was passedthere but have been "accepted" as "Constitutional". Why is that?