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

[Joey D]

Again, it's an open opinions forum. There is no residency requirement and as far as I know, there's no call for anyone to justify their motivations behind posting opinions. Are you actually asking me how I can have an opinion on what a gross misuse of tax dollars is? I think you really should look up the definition of gross before you proceed. It does not mean what you think it means.

No, I'm asking you how you have an opinion on how American tax dollars are spent and how our leaders entertain themselves and what is or isn't a misuse of them when you don't actually contribute willingly (or unwillingly) to our tax base.

And no, you don't have to justify why you are posting in the opinion forums, however I think it's a fair question to ask on my part given your opinion, your statements, and your location. As I've said, you could easily be an ex-pat living in another country, which would be a simple explanation and thus make sense.

Oh and gross, it means large scale. To me, $800,000 of taxpayer money being wasted on a large scale when you consider other programs or departments that could better use that money to serve the American people.

 

[Pupik]

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

Fact? There's no "war", it's just that Evangelical Christians and the ignorant recently woke up from pressing the snooze button on the existence of other faiths for the past two centuries, and now have to make some room for everything else. And they're pissed off that awareness of other belief systems didn't bring Almighty doom and destruction as they feared all that time.

Pardon me, I have to go chase my posterior which just laughed, giggled, and guffawed its way into another county.

 

[A2K78]

Another thing I would like to add, Congressional Chaplins have always been part of the system...from the Continnental Congress up until now. Secondly there are tons of other stuff the federal government is wasting money on like all the stuff not found in the Constitution e.g. Americas bloated welfare-warfare state.

 

[squadops]

Fact? There's no "war", it's just that Evangelical Christians and the ignorant just woke up from pressing the snooze button on the existence of other faiths for the past two centuries, and now have to make some room for everything else. And they're pissed off that awareness of other belief systems didn't bring Almighty doom and destruction as they feared all that time.

Pardon me, I have to go chase my posterior which just laughed, giggled, and guffawed its way into another county.

BS sure it's not an actual war, I should have figured we'd have to argue semantics. The truth is there is no reason for atheists to get so riled up, religion is a part of many peoples lives, so what? Some atheists will simply not accept a person of faith and that is very wrong, so wrong in fact that I say shame on them.

 

[CodeRedR51]

The truth is there is no reason for atheists to get so riled up, religion is a part of many peoples lives, so what?

Some of us have grown out of the fairy tales and don't need invisible friends anymore. We can't understand why a large majority of somewhat reasonably sane people on this planet still do. As the dominant species on this earth (some may argue against that) and with the technology we posses today, it boggles the mind why some continue to believe in stories from thousands of years ago which are told in a book that's changed countless times throughout history. It's not the people I dislike, it's the idea of religion itself. It's unnecessary, and thankfully is in decline.

 

[squadops]

Good for you, so now I no longer have any rights? That is what you are saying.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Good for you, so now I no longer have any rights? That is what you are saying.

There you go again with assumptions. I thought we talked about this already?

That's not what I am saying at all.

 

[LeMansAid]

Some of us have grown out of the fairy tales and don't need invisible friends anymore.

This is quite the tired, low brow commentary - and the kind of jab that riles up Christians.

I don't need more riled up Christians in my life thanks.

 

[squadops]

There you go again with assumptions. I thought we talked about this already?

That's not what I am saying at all.

So what are you saying?

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, I'm asking you how you have an opinion on how American tax dollars are spent and how our leaders entertain themselves and what is or isn't a misuse of them when you don't actually contribute willingly (or unwillingly) to our tax base.

I have an opinion because I'm a adult who pays an exhorbitant amount of taxes and I live in a democracy. I don't need to be an American nor do I need to contribute to your tax base to have an opinion about it.

And no, you don't have to justify why you are posting in the opinion forums, however I think it's a fair question to ask on my part given your opinion, your statements, and your location. As I've said, you could easily be an ex-pat living in another country, which would be a simple explanation and thus make sense.

Good, then I won't.

Oh and gross, it means large scale. To me, $800,000 of taxpayer money being wasted on a large scale when you consider other programs or departments that could better use that money to serve the American people.

Earlier you said $8 was a gross misuse of tax dollars. Are you changing your mind and the threshold is now $800k or is $8 still a gross misuse?

Some of us have grown out of the fairy tales and don't need invisible friends anymore. We can't understand why a large majority of somewhat reasonably sane people on this planet still do. As the dominant species on this earth (some may argue against that) and with the technology we posses today, it boggles the mind why some continue to believe in stories from thousands of years ago which are told in a book that's changed countless times throughout history. It's not the people I dislike, it's the idea of religion itself. It's unnecessary, and thankfully is in decline.

It's unnecessary for you. Some people still find comfort in it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So what are you saying?

Fairy tales and invisible friends are for children.

It's unnecessary for you. Some people still find comfort in it.

Children do find comfort in fairy tales...

 

[squadops]

I see, well it's a good thing that normal people as well as our government are a bit smarter than that.

Here is your man on the subject.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-religion-and-beliefs/

 

[CodeRedR51]

I see, well it's a good thing that normal people as well as our government are a bit smarter than that.

"Normal" people.

Here is your man on the subject.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-religion-and-beliefs/

Nobody said I agreed with him on every little thing.

 

[squadops]

Your are a bigot.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Your are a bigot.

👍

 

[LeMansAid]

Fairy tales and invisible friends are for children.

Children do find comfort in fairy tales...

You've taken this completely away from any discussion involving logical reasoning, now dealing exclusively in trash talk.

"Children"........ Hypocriticalismistance.

 

[ukfan758]

Your are a bigot.

*You're

or

*You are

 

[CodeRedR51]

You've taken this completely away from any discussion involving logical reasoning...

I don't think so. I will admit that it's a bit off topic, but I didn't start the path down to off topic land.

 

[squadops]

The best you can come up with is a grammatical error?

Keep on with your condescending attitude and see how far it takes you.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't think so. I will admit that it's a bit off topic, but I didn't start the path down to off topic land.

Do you want to convince people of your view, or just get your jollies by demeaning them? The presence of the latter tends to erode the effectiveness of the former.

Particularly in debates involving religion, there's great value in keeping the arguments as purely academic as possible. Make them discuss within the context of logic, and not emotion.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Do you want to convince people of your view, or just get your jollies by demeaning them? The presence of the latter tends to erode the effectiveness of the former.

Particularly in debates involving religion, there's great value in keeping the arguments as purely academic as possible. Make them discuss within the context of logic, and not emotion.

I see no logic in religion, but that's my opinion and we'll just leave it at that.

 

[LeMansAid]

I see no logic in religion, but that's my opinion and we'll just leave it at that.

Me too, but it's a harder sell to sway someone on their religious beliefs than to convince them to agree that government should not have any intrinsic religious aspects, I suspect. Again, depends on what the aim (and perhaps the sub-aim) is though.

 

[Scaff]

BS sure it's not an actual war, I should have figured we'd have to argue semantics. The truth is there is no reason for atheists to get so riled up, religion is a part of many peoples lives, so what? Some atheists will simply not accept a person of faith and that is very wrong, so wrong in fact that I say shame on them.

It's got nothing to do with atheists not accepting people of faith, it's about faith being used to limit the rights of others.

Feel free to deny it happens, the laws of a number of states show otherwise.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Earlier you said $8 was a gross misuse of tax dollars. Are you changing your mind and the threshold is now $800k or is $8 still a gross misuse?

There are a couple of stages to the opinion; firstly is a particular spend "misuse" and secondly is it an "okay misuse".

It seems that @Joey D feels that any misuse is a gross misuse and that argument about a "gross" threshold is moot. There's a parallel argument from some that seems to be "well it's still okay because there are bigger misuses"... but my own view is that a misuse is still a misuse. We could drop the word "gross" to avoid a clouded argument.

Spending $800,000 a year (although I note that the Chaplain only draws $155,000 of that in salary) on the facilitation of quiet reflection on Star Wars* seems to me to be a misuse, however big or small other misuses may be. That quiet reflection should be a personal thing and has no place in government routine.

*Or whatever today's fantasy story is

 

[Johnnypenso]

Some of us have grown out of the fairy tales and don't need invisible friends anymore. We can't understand why a large majority of somewhat reasonably sane people on this planet still do. As the dominant species on this earth (some may argue against that) and with the technology we posses today, it boggles the mind why some continue to believe in stories from thousands of years ago which are told in a book that's changed countless times throughout history. It's not the people I dislike, it's the idea of religion itself. It's unnecessary, and thankfully is in decline.

Fairy tales and invisible friends are for children.
Children do find comfort in fairy tales...

I see no logic in religion, but that's my opinion and we'll just leave it at that.

Interesting that you feel this way and yet are so devoted to a guy who is illogical and believes in fairy tales like a child. You obviously think this behaviour is ludicrous since you mock it so openly in an ordinary citizen and yet you are willing to vote for a guy and passionately support someone who holds the belief that an imaginary being lives in the sky and came down to talk to us only once, 2000 years ago. Someone who wants to run the most powerful nation in the world, literally with his finger on the trigger of armageddon, who reads fairy tales on a regular basis and believes them to be true.

You see no contradiction there? It's not good enough for an ordinary citizen but it's good enough for the leader of the free world who has his finger on the trigger of the nuclear arsenal?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you actually asking me how I can have an opinion on what a gross misuse of tax dollars is? I think you really should look up the definition of gross before you proceed. It does not mean what you think it means.

Gross: glaringly noticeable usually because of inexcusable badness or objectionableness

It's a subjective definition, can the badness or objectionableness* be excused? My opinion is that no misuse can be excused, it is after all... misuse.

*Objectionableness? Really?

 

[squadops]

It's got nothing to do with atheists not accepting people of faith, it's about faith being used to limit the rights of others.

Feel free to deny it happens, the laws of a number of states show otherwise.

Didn't I already agree with that statement?

The question is where do you draw the line, faith obviously should not be a requirement by law to hold office however here in the U.S. most who hold office are of faith and the reason for that is pretty simple. Do you think office should be reserved for those of only no faith? I hope not.

 

[Scaff]

Didn't I already agree with that statement?

To quote you "Well sorta", which would imply that no you don't fully agree with it.

The question is where do you draw the line, faith obviously should not be a requirement by law to hold office however here in the U.S. most who hold office are of faith and the reason for that is pretty simple.

Having a faith and it being a requirement to hold office are totally different.

Do you think office should be reserved for those of only no faith? I hope not.

Not at all, its shouldn't be a consideration to hold office at all. Faith or not should not be a requirement to hold office in any way.

 

[squadops]

So we do agree then. While it should not be a requirement by law I can tell you here in the U.S. it is a requirement of many voters, we call it 'a man of character' which means more than simply having faith but also knowing how to use it, integrity comes to mind.

I know it's not well liked but it happens to be true, especially in higher positions.

 

[Danoff]

Good for you, so now I no longer have any rights? That is what you are saying.

I'm curious, why rights are you concerned you don't have?