US Taxpayers Pay Over $1,600 Per Prayer To Congressional Chaplains

[Johnnypenso]

I get that this is your "anti-progressive" line where improvement is (seemingly) never considered... but 240 years? Shut the front door.

Jainism and Buddhism definitely trump Christianity for age and therefore tradition. Boo for Christianity trying to do away with Millenia of doing things the same way every day for thousands of years.

*This is actually true

240 years of tradition gets you back to 1776. Get the link?

I'm actually not in favour of mixing religion and the state and I'm not affiliated with any religion in any way. I have no problem with taking religion out of schools for example, but on the other hand I have no problem with pledging allegiance to the flag and it's inherent acknowledgement of a God. I don't think that we need to do away with all practices and traditions that conflict with my other beliefs. I find that a truly progressive stance. I don't find being pedantic about every little issue especially progressive.

 

[Danoff]

I'm with @TenEightyOne

He's making a broader point, which is that tradition is a bad reason for doing stuff. There's always an older tradition.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm with @TenEightyOne

He's making a broader point, which is that tradition is a bad reason for doing stuff. There's always an older tradition.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. There is no one size fits all reasoning behind it. Changing something just because it's "progressive" isn't a reason for doing stuff either.

 

[squadops]

You know @Johnnypenso that 'one nation under god' was added in at a later date? Just an fyi. Religion in school would not be an issue if school wasn't mandatory but I guess that is for another thread. I think the largest complaint I've personally seen is the statement on our currency.

One thing I do know is that we have adhered to our law not to force a state religion.

 

[Danoff]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. There is no one size fits all reasoning behind it.

No, you're not taking me literally enough. "Because that's how we always do it" is never a good reason to do anything. That's not to say that you shouldn't keep doing it that way, it's to say that's not the reason.

 

[Rage Racer]

Daaamn... I thought my country is too religious.

 

[huskeR32]

For the record ladies and gentlemen

It's funny to pay attention to what people actually say, rather than projecting false assumptions onto them? Why do you even participate in conversations with other people?

preferential treatment, really? I've yet to see a muslim on the hill voice a grievance. You however are voicing a concern that is not warranted.

Maybe because it would be political suicide to advocate pro-Muslim sentiments? I'd hardly say that's an unwarranted concern to have.

Of course Muslims would like a prayer, what is stopping them? You are imagining things.

So I imagined you saying this? -

Why pay for a service none of them want?

Okay then.

Taxpayer money need not be spent on prayer, that much we can agree upon. I'm not seeing any of this preferential treatment you speak of.

So we're also spending $800k to bring imams, pujaris, and rabbis into Congress? I guess I missed that part.

 

[squadops]

Talk about left field

I promise you that if there was a voice in congress wanting prayers presented by any religion it would be granted.

It might be a bit of political suicide to some degree, take for example Romney, don't shoot the messenger but I know for a fact that the U.S. does not appreciate a Mormon. I thought you were in favor of democracy anyway, therefor if the mob is against anything other than Judaism, Catholicism, or Christianity, what is the problem?


Affiliation % of U.S. population
Christian 70.6 70.6
Protestant 46.5 46.5
Evangelical Protestant 25.4 25.4
Mainline Protestant 14.7 14.7

 

[huskeR32]

Talk about left field

Which part?

I promise you that if there was a voice in congress wanting prayers presented by any religion it would be granted.

I have very strong doubts about that. Why? Because:

It might be a bit of political suicide to some degree

Exactly.

take for example Romney, don't shoot the messenger but I know for a fact that the U.S. does not appreciate a Mormon.

As evidenced by the fact that he was a presidential nominee of one of the two main parties? Okay.

I thought you were in favor of democracy anyway, therefor if the mob is against anything other than Judaism, Catholicism, or Christianity, what is the problem?

I don't recall ever saying I was "in favor of democracy," as I find that term to be too misused and misunderstood to be all that helpful in conversation.

What I have stated, multiple times, is that the problem is that we aren't giving all faiths the same considerations. It's really not that complicated of an idea, I don't know why you keep trying to twist it around.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Affiliation % of U.S. population
Christian 70.6 70.6
Protestant 46.5 46.5
Evangelical Protestant 25.4 25.4
Mainline Protestant 14.7 14.7

Those sense don't make any numbers.

 

[JKgo]

Affiliation % of U.S. population
Christian 70.6 70.6
Protestant 46.5 46.5
Evangelical Protestant 25.4 25.4
Mainline Protestant 14.7 14.7

...Oy, did you even check what you're posting? There are repeats of the same numbers. Plus, where did you get these numbers? Sounds a bit... I dunno, fishy?

 

[MatskiMonk]

"America's Changing Religious Landscape". Pew Research Center: Religion & Public Life. May 12, 2015.

 

[TenEightyOne]

View attachment 543017

Thanks MatskiMonk, that makes far more sense than when @squadops presented the numbers without the subdivisions

 

[Pupik]

@squadops



...the fact that it wastes tax dollars means it should be scrapped.

There is a difference here between job perqs that help recruitment and stuff that's shoehorned in for no apparent reason. There's no reason that prayer needs to be done, is helpful, or is even desirable in this situation. Nobody is going to say "I don't want to be a congressman because there's not enough organized prayer". Generally religious folks seem to like to pick their particular brand of ritualistic nonsense. So this is not a perq.

Obama's golf outings are a perq. We don't want Obama burning out during his term. He needs to have some nice outings (all presidents do) and it's perfectly fine for taxpayers to cover that. The guy is basically a slave to the country (wait... what did I just say?).

Federal employees have trouble getting government approval to have paper towels in their break rooms. That's a perq. Not having to provide your own paper towels makes the job a little more pleasant, which benefits recruitment and gets better people into civil service. It's ok to spend tax dollars on that, so long as the role those people are playing is a proper role of government. In the case of the president, that's a proper role that needs to exist.

In short, golf yes, prayer no.

At the very least he should cover the greens fees and cart usage out of the $250K he gets a year. Plus any food or beverages (doubtful POTUS consumes anything he receives as a meal outside of appointed chefs).

It's the security detail and transportation that wind up being taxpayer expense.

 

[Joey D]

$800,000 is a gross misuse of tax dollars? In the U.S. of A.? I thought gross misuse started around a billion and went up from there

Yes, it's a gross misuse of tax dollar, whether it's $8, $80,000, $800,000, or $800,000,000,000. Waste is waste and every little bit wasted ends up being something that needs to be cut from legitimate programs.

It's no different than any other thing the government wastes money on. Just for a little perspective, I pay $50 for a round of golf but you could buy about 4 years of congressional prayers for the price of one Obama golf outing.

You may pay $50 for a round of golf, but you also don't have a full time security detail that goes with you and a private 747 that's fully staffed and has to pay landing fees at whatever airport it goes to. $3 million for that seems pretty reasonable, and honestly

Atheists seem to have a hatred for theists that is not reciprocated. Why all the anger?

I'm not an atheist and this makes me angry. Being a theist or atheist has nothing to do with thinking spending $800,000, meaninglessly, on prayer is a tremendous waste of resources. What would be a better use of time is allowing members of Congress a 10-15 minutes break that can be deemed as a "reflection break" where members can choose to pray, meditate, or just unwind...although I'm not really sure why they'd need to since I can't imagine only working a portion of the year and not really accomplishing anything is terribly stressful.

Why must 240 years of tradition be destroyed because of atheists? No one is harmed, the words are peaceful and uplifting. There's nothing confrontational about it. The amount of money is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Atheists can tune it out and do a little silent meditation if they want. How about atheists get their own traditions and leave the prayer service alone?

Actually, the American taxpayer is harmed because their money is being misused. They aren't physically being harmed, but financially they are. When money is taken from us, we expect it to be put to good use, $800,000 for Congressional prayer isn't a good use.

 

[Ledbetter]

The US government is built on cronyism, not democracy. A sincere person could deliver a prayer to any deity, and it would be just as good. But graft is not absent from religious endeavors.

 

[squadops]

Those sense don't make any numbers.

...Oy, did you even check what you're posting? There are repeats of the same numbers. Plus, where did you get these numbers? Sounds a bit... I dunno, fishy?

Thanks MatskiMonk, that makes far more sense than when @squadops presented the numbers without the subdivisions

Whatever, I cut and pasted a google search, I knew it had the double stuff on it, so what, the numbers do not lie and I was quite sure it would be understood.

Did anyone stop to think what those numbers would mean if we were a democracy?

I'm not an atheist and this makes me angry. Being a theist or atheist has nothing to do with thinking spending $800,000, meaninglessly, on prayer is a tremendous waste of resources. What would be a better use of time is allowing members of Congress a 10-15 minutes break that can be deemed as a "reflection break" where members can choose to pray, meditate, or just unwind...although I'm not really sure why they'd need to since I can't imagine only working a portion of the year and not really accomplishing anything is terribly stressful.

A tremendous waste? Our federal government is much better at wasting money than this example. As someone said however, there is the point of security and that does cost plenty.

 

[Joey D]

A tremendous waste? Our federal government is much better at wasting money than this example. As someone said however, there is the point of security and that does cost plenty.

While I agree the government wastes more money on things other than this, I still find this to be a tremendous waste because every penny of that $800k is providing zero benefit to bettering the country.

And this is not to say I'm against prayer being in Congress, if they want to get someone to volunteer to do it or if someone wants to personally pay for it, then have at it. I just don't want to pay for it.

 

[squadops]

I still find this to be a tremendous waste because every penny of that $800k is providing zero benefit to bettering the country

I'm not so sure of that, if it's a part of what makes a man then it should be of a help. Of course he could simply do it somewhere else on his own time.

 

[A2K78]

Ron Paul address the issue of Church/State masterfully:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/12/ron-paul/the-war-on-religion/

 

[squadops]

Spot on Ron 👍

Elite social left I love it and again I'm wanting to ask what happened to their pretend democracy where 70% are religious? hmmm

 

[CodeRedR51]

"War on Religion".

 

[squadops]

War on religion is waged in the U.S. it's a simple fact.

 

[CodeRedR51]

War on religion is waged in the U.S. it's a simple fact.

No, I could say what it really is but then I may end up never being able to post here again.

 

[squadops]

No, I could say what it really is but then I may end up never being able to post here again.

And that would be? .... oh of course something rude about religious people?

 

[CodeRedR51]

And that would be? .... oh of course something rude about religious people?

Pretty much.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not so sure of that, if it's a part of what makes a man then it should be of a help. Of course he could simply do it somewhere else on his own time.

If it helps individual members of Congress, then they should be paying for that benefit, not me.

War on religion is waged in the U.S. it's a simple fact.

I don't believe that for an instance, especially when a vast major of the country is religious in some way. You still have every right to practice freely and however you wish as long as it's on private property and doesn't infringe on the rights of others...which is exactly how it should be.

What there is a war on is using religion to pass laws that violate the rights of others.

I have nothing rude to say about theists either considering I am one. Being a believer and thinking religion doesn't belong in government aren't opposites.

 

[squadops]

What there is a war on is using religion to pass laws that violate the rights of others.

Do you have an example of that?

So you what, freely pay for anything that benefits your congressman as long as it has nothing to do with religion? Please show me how practicing religion is infringing on anyone.

It is a war and it's not warranted, what difference can it possibly make?

 

[Joey D]

Do you have an example of that?

So you what, freely pay for anything that benefits your congressman as long as it has nothing to do with religion? Please show me how practicing religion is infringing on anyone.

It is a war and it's not warranted, what difference can it possibly make?

Gay marriage. The only argument being presented against it uses religion. If the government is going to allow a contract between a man and a women, then there is no reason they shouldn't allow two men or two women to enter that contact with one another. Religious organization should be allowed to refuse to perform any ceremonies, but marriage, in a legal definition, is nothing more than a contact between two people that grant them certain benefits.

As for paying for the benefits of Congressmen, I think @Danoff already touched on that point when he talked about perks of the job in post #27. I should only have to pay for their salary and benefits that come with it (vacation, sick pay, insurance, etc.).

And what examples do you have of a war being waged on religion? Just because a handful of people want the word "God" off the dollar bill or out of the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't mean there's any kind of war. A war on religion would be the government trying to prevent you from practicing a certain belief on your own property.

 

[Scaff]

Do you have an example of that?

How about the states that bar you from holding office if you don't believe in God?

"
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

That would certainly strike me as religion having been used to pass laws that violates the rights of others.