constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion

In another thread, randman replies to me:

quote:

---

Can you prove that Shraf? Military and prison chaplains promote religion and particular religion and they are paid by the US government. Same with the Congressional chaplain/minister that opens Congress with prayer.

​

Is opening Congress with prayer in the name of Jesus wrong?

---

Yes, it is wrong, just as having "under god" in the pledge to the flag is wrong, and "in God we trust" on our money is wrong.The 1st and 14th amendments are pretty clear about this.It's just that the religious people in this country are a large and powerful majority with a lot of influence they use to bully everybody else into getting and keeping their (unconstitutional) way.The Founding Fathers are currently spinning in their graves over the "under god" bit in the pledge, and even that we have a pledge oa allegance at all.Tell me, if the pledge said "under Allah", or "under the Goddess", or "under Vishnu", or "under Satan", would you mind that your school was having kids recite it every day?

And there have been news stories about this and how wrong it is. Because this behavior exists that doesn't make it right or constitutional. My understanding is that the prayers are usually non-sectarian (or used to be anyway ... with this GOP congress ...) as a way to get around the seperation issue. Not that it makes it any more constitutional. Yes. The founding fathers and mothers certainly didn't need one to be patriotic. But this is not about patriotism - it is jingoism.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hi Schrafinator, Just to give some hisorical background:1. Pledge written in 1892 by the American socialist Francis Bellamy: 2. Pledge rewritten in 1924 by the "National Flag Conference": 3. Pledge rewritten in 1954 by Congress, following a bill by Republican Senator Homer Ferguson: I got the information from religioustolerance.orgThey give an interesting quote from Eisenhower: That looks like a pretty clear violation of the separation of church and state to me. So you seem to be correct.Mickadded in edit: I changed the subtitle. I also wanted to point out that there was some debate in the UK recently about introducing a national pledge. But it wouldn't have to be recited every day by schoolchildren, only by new immigrants, and wouldn't mention God. Even that provoked outrage. In the UK we don't have that kind of patriotism rammed down our throats all the time and there seems a popular dislike of it. But on the other hand, we are still legally considered "subjects of the crown" rather than "citizens", so we have our own constitutional anachronisms too...This message has been edited by mick, 11-12-2005 08:06 PM

Hello, schrafinator.I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, despite the fact that I am as anti-clerical as the best of them.It appears that the U.S. military has had chaplains in the service since the beginning of the Republic. Whatever the First Amendment is supposed to mean, it doesn't seem to preclude the use of public funds to support chaplains in the military -- unless there was some sort of controverey in the 1790s of which I am not aware.On the other hand, on a quick search on the history of the chaplain in Congress, I found this: So it appears that there may have been some controversey after all.At any rate, as someone who recognizes that the Constitution is based on tradition and judicial rulings as much as a now ancient sheet of parchment, I would say that the existence of chaplains in the military, and the opening of Congress with a prayer, is as Constitutional as anything else.Of course, traditions and judicial rulings go change, as recent events remind us.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Aren't they supposed to be there for those in the service -- one for each faith as near as possible -- so that service to the country doesn't restrict the soldiers from their religion?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes, and I think this is why chaplains in the army and in the Congress aren't really against the Constitution. They are there as resources for those in service away from their homes.I do worry when prayer is made a part of regular functioning, or as can be seen under Bush's reign, used as a chance to further political speech, rather than helping all involved regardless of political or religious viewpoint.I also find it a bit disturbing that while we may allow chaplains for those in service, we are now restricting resources to those of nonreligious persuasion.Then again I was never the kind of person to get bent out of shape by a prayer before a school ball game either, which does stretch the boundary (if not breaking it) to be sure.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The idea that god would be concerned with who won a sports game between two teams from the same {ethnic\cultural\religious} society has always been highly amusing to me. Removing that from the discussion then it just becomes another greedily taken opportunity for proselytization by commandeering a community program.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

(1) What's the big fuss about the pledge of allegiance? It seems to me that a pledge of allegiance has to come from the heart; it cannot be a result of coercion. A required recital of the pledge has always seemed foolish. Children will likely recite it as if meaningless mumbo-jumbo. It will do nothing to instill patriotism. Surely it would be more effective to spend the time on American history.(2) Why the concern about school prayer? Sure, I do agree that it is a constitutional problem, and that there should not be teacher led prayer. But why is there so much passion over the issue?I have always thought of teacher led prayer as a way of teaching children to disrespect religion. It seems to me that atheists should be happy with the practice. And then we have So it seems that public prayer, whether in the schools or elsewhere, is anti-Christian. Why aren't fundy groups opposed to such prayer?

Agreed, but I still maintain that I don't get bent out of shape over it. During a game a lot more will happen that has nothing to do with Gods.Then again, if they are going to banish Janet's nipple, screw 'em, pull the plug on prayers.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

It [the pledge] will do nothing to instill patriotism.

---

Probably true. I grew up at a time when we were required to say the pledge, and I can't imagine how I could be more apatriotic. It becomes just like what the evangelicals accuse the Catholic Church of becoming: one of a set of empty rituals whose meaning has long been forgotten.-

quote:

---

Surely it would be more effective to spend the time on American history.

---

Probably true. Especially if the heavily propaganized version of history as favored by the Religious Right is taught. If combined with a Fox News based curriculum of "current events", this might be much more effective at instilling patriotism.I also suggest implementing a daily Two Minutes Hate, as well.-

quote:

---

I have always thought of teacher led prayer as a way of teaching children to disrespect religion.

---

I dunno. I think it would be just like the pledge; an empty ritual that would so nothing to establish respect or disrespect for religion. But I don't know; school prayer was long gone before I entered school. At least in my area.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

... and one learned by rote and not a personal message as well. More like slogans force learned in totalitarian social systems eh? What does prayer accomplish in this format? Does it add to learning?It seems some people can't tie their shoes without praying about the outcome first, which is pretty helpless, imh(sa)o, but if they want to do that it is okay with me as long as they don't ask that I participate.Maybe it's more about abrogating vs recognizing personal responsibility in accomplishing goals. Because it's about making you pray. Or showing off. Those are the only purposes served by public prayer: coercion & pride. Any other purpose is served better by private prayer.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

"god" gets an exception because it's a nondescriptive title, not a name. it could be ANY god really.i don't feel that logic is right, but it's the logic that stands right now. the tendency to call god by a title instead of a name is a judeoschristian one, so "god" clearly refers to yahweh, not allah, not vishnu, and not the emporer of japan. personally, i think any reference, even a vague one, vioaltes the establishment clause.and people are starting to agree -- that's why the pledge is coming under fire.

---

אָרַח

yes. the idea was to fight the godless communists. which is outdated now. it was wrong then. but now it's wrong AND outdated.

---

אָרַח

I like that, RAZD. Those are the basic principles of this nation (with apologies to those who live elsewhere).