Posted on Apr 30, 2018
4
4
0
Hmmm, what do you guys think?
Lawmakers Worried About Religious Freedom After Chaplain Ouster
Posted from rollcall.com
Religion
Congress
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
1
1
0
I have grave concerns over the theological and "political" stance taken by the current Pope. I'm certain that various priests within the Catholic Church have political leanings opposed to the current administration. The excerpt of the prayer in question does seem to contain a mild political message.
That said-I disagree STRONGLY with Speaker Ryan's decision.
I disagree because to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite, and set a precedent that works in favor of what I consider a gross misinterpretation and misuse of the First Amendment, often used against Christian concerns of any denomination. If I believe a sitting U.S. Congressman, serving military officer, or county clerk has the right under law to act, vote and speak in accordance with their religious beliefs...I believe that to be true regardless of whether or not I agree with their actions or statements when they do.
Beyond that, I don't personally see anything in the Chaplain's prayer (yes, I listened to it) that went beyond evoking a sense of wisdom and compassion as exemplified in the Scriptures...though context and intent can be broadly interpreted as one wishes.
That said-I disagree STRONGLY with Speaker Ryan's decision.
I disagree because to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite, and set a precedent that works in favor of what I consider a gross misinterpretation and misuse of the First Amendment, often used against Christian concerns of any denomination. If I believe a sitting U.S. Congressman, serving military officer, or county clerk has the right under law to act, vote and speak in accordance with their religious beliefs...I believe that to be true regardless of whether or not I agree with their actions or statements when they do.
Beyond that, I don't personally see anything in the Chaplain's prayer (yes, I listened to it) that went beyond evoking a sense of wisdom and compassion as exemplified in the Scriptures...though context and intent can be broadly interpreted as one wishes.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
I am inclined to agree with most everything you said. That exception is their right to vote on things based on their religious views, but even on that I have a conflict. When it comes to their own personal vote (say their vote on a Presidential candidate, or mayor of a city they live in) I agree with you, they can vote based on their personal religious beliefs. When it comes to voting on and writing laws, I believe they should keep their personal religious beliefs out of it.
An example would be...Personally I am against abortion, I think there are better ways (adoption being one since I am an adopted child). That all being said, I support a woman's right to chose what happens to her own body and nobody has the right to take that choice from them. So if it came down to a vote on abortion, I would come down on the side of pro-choice even though it conflicts with my own belief system.
I don't thinks laws should be enacted based on religious ideology. It's a double edged sword. If religious belief can impact politics, then politics can impact religion, and we run the risk of a State Sponsored religion or more support for one religion or religious denomination over another, and that is something I do not support.
An example would be...Personally I am against abortion, I think there are better ways (adoption being one since I am an adopted child). That all being said, I support a woman's right to chose what happens to her own body and nobody has the right to take that choice from them. So if it came down to a vote on abortion, I would come down on the side of pro-choice even though it conflicts with my own belief system.
I don't thinks laws should be enacted based on religious ideology. It's a double edged sword. If religious belief can impact politics, then politics can impact religion, and we run the risk of a State Sponsored religion or more support for one religion or religious denomination over another, and that is something I do not support.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
I believe the great "flaw" in our Constitution involves the much debated "Separation of Church and State" relative to the 1st Amendment. In particular, the 18th Century use of "respecting" vs. "regarding"...to my mind, it is clear the latter is more appropriate to the context. Otherwise, the Constitution is simultaneously protecting and excluding religious principles...a "logic bomb" that was as much a concern to many then, as it is today, prompting Jefferson's communications on the subject to religious leaders.
In early American society, there existed a true "separation" between issues brought before legislature, and those resolved in religious communities. For example: in Europe, where there was a symbiosis between the state and the Church, the latter presided over and governed marriage...to the extent that even the King of England had to form his own church to allow for a divorce and marriage as he chose. In the Colonies, the break with Great Britain (and by extension the Anglican Church) forced Americans to form the Episcopal and Methodist churches largely from Anglican roots to provide this infrastructure...one whose "say" in the legality of marriage was largely recognized as inviolate into the 19th Century, despite being "separate" from a "state Church". The moment these (and connecting issues) became governed by state issued license, taxation, and other legislative concerns...the "separation" between "Church" and "State" was essentially invalidated.
Owing to the predominance of Judeo-Christian thought at every level of American society, this led to an unspoken, functionally "extra-legal" endorsement of Christian philosophy in government. By and large, this existed unchallenged until the last century, when issues pertaining to the validity of "religious" principle in determining the legality of everything from civic issues such as suffrage and inheritance...to private issues such as marriage and reproductive rights, entered the arena.
To my mind, the last "compromise" standing between a total breakdown in the relationship of government to faith is the right of an individual to act in accordance with their own beliefs whether public or private. This will inevitably "fail" over time as the argument that legislators, public officials, even employees or beneficiaries of the federal government must act impartially will likely succeed in driving religious people from these offices. At that point, the best "we" can hope for is the continued right to act privately in accordance with "our" beliefs. Should that ever be lost...then perhaps the worst fears of faith communities will one day be realized. Hopefully, not in my lifetime, or that of my child.
In early American society, there existed a true "separation" between issues brought before legislature, and those resolved in religious communities. For example: in Europe, where there was a symbiosis between the state and the Church, the latter presided over and governed marriage...to the extent that even the King of England had to form his own church to allow for a divorce and marriage as he chose. In the Colonies, the break with Great Britain (and by extension the Anglican Church) forced Americans to form the Episcopal and Methodist churches largely from Anglican roots to provide this infrastructure...one whose "say" in the legality of marriage was largely recognized as inviolate into the 19th Century, despite being "separate" from a "state Church". The moment these (and connecting issues) became governed by state issued license, taxation, and other legislative concerns...the "separation" between "Church" and "State" was essentially invalidated.
Owing to the predominance of Judeo-Christian thought at every level of American society, this led to an unspoken, functionally "extra-legal" endorsement of Christian philosophy in government. By and large, this existed unchallenged until the last century, when issues pertaining to the validity of "religious" principle in determining the legality of everything from civic issues such as suffrage and inheritance...to private issues such as marriage and reproductive rights, entered the arena.
To my mind, the last "compromise" standing between a total breakdown in the relationship of government to faith is the right of an individual to act in accordance with their own beliefs whether public or private. This will inevitably "fail" over time as the argument that legislators, public officials, even employees or beneficiaries of the federal government must act impartially will likely succeed in driving religious people from these offices. At that point, the best "we" can hope for is the continued right to act privately in accordance with "our" beliefs. Should that ever be lost...then perhaps the worst fears of faith communities will one day be realized. Hopefully, not in my lifetime, or that of my child.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Why do lawmakers have a chaplain to begin with, is not what their individual places of worship are for.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google