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

[Scaff]

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.

So it's a characteristic that is only held by those of faith?

Can you provide something to show that's true?

 

[squadops]

@Danoff

In the eyes of someone like r1600? Religious people are considered second class citizens, now he might not actually believe that but it was the point I was trying to make. The simple fact that I am of faith should change nothing as far as holding office etc.

Besides swearing to uphold the constitution is what is important here, most of them religious or not can't even come close to upholding their duties.

So it's a characteristic that is only held by those of faith?

Can you provide something to show that's true?

I don't think you are reading my post correctly, I'm telling you that is a feeling of many voters, nothing more. I'll give you a simple example of it then, show me the POTUS who have not claimed a faith.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The simple fact that I am of faith should change nothing as far as holding office etc.

Of course it shouldn't. You're entitled to believe what you believe. I do think that if you're standing for office it might be helpful to tell people that you believe something like that, they have a free choice in whether they continue to see you as a credible candidate for the given office.

That still doesn't mean that the governing office should be allowed $800,000 to facilitate that personal, intangible belief which can bring nothing to governance.

Besides swearing to uphold the constitution is what is important here, most of them religious or not can't even come close to upholding their duties.

You're right, the second point isn't important here and belongs elsewhere.

 

[squadops]

You are not going to find any widespread outrage over that $800,000 expenditure here in the U.S. you just won't. It's probably not the best use of money but then again what really is.

I disagree it brings nothing to governance, if it's a part of a man's life that is important to him then it allows him to function as he should.

Not important here? You are surely joking, of course it belongs here as a man's faith cannot keep him from his duty to uphold the highest law of the land. As a matter of fact, the bible dictates he does exactly that.

If religion is not for you then it's not for you, the fact our leaders are religious doesn't take anything away from their ability to uphold the law.

EDIT: you are still missing the point that having religion is a selling point for a candidate, not the other way around. I know you are not from the U.S. so maybe you don't get that bit.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I'm telling you that is a feeling of many voters, nothing more.

That's because a majority of voters are religious.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You are not going to find any widespread outrage over that $800,000 expenditure here in the U.S. you just won't. It's probably not the best use of money but then again what really is.

I disagree it brings nothing to governance, if it's a part of a man's life that is important to him then it allows him to function as he should.

Surely if that were true then we'd also pay for their sexual activities or buy them a sportscar if they want one.

Not important here? You are surely joking, of course it belongs here as a man's faith cannot keep him from his duty to uphold the highest law of the land.

The second point in that quote was actually your accusation that people don't come close to upholding their duties. I pointed out that it isn't important here, ability to do one's duty isn't necessarily limited by beliefs in fantasy realms.

 

[squadops]

It's very important here, whatever it takes for them to be able to uphold our law, very relevant whether you choose to see it or not. And you have the separation clause so upside down it's not even funny, our law absolutely grants them the right to prayer not the other way around, they are not forcing you to pray which is the point, they are also not up there on the hill enforcing biblical law, the are enforcing the constitutional law, or at least trying to.

Keep on moaning about it, I promise you we don't care if the congress prays or not, what we do care about is their right to do so if they choose. No religion is being forced on the nation, our nation is religious by choice.

And really $800,000? that is equivalent to zero, is it a perk of their job? Most likely, just as I give kids gas cards, I know they buy things other than gas, usually cigs or a soda. So what? We employ the congress, so what?

That's because a majority of voters are religious.

And deserving of representation, are you still supporting Bernie? I wonder if he has prayed on our $800,000 dime

 

[CodeRedR51]

And deserving of representation..

Explain.

 

[Danoff]

And really $800,000? that is equivalent to zero, is it a perk of their job? Most likely...

I put together a very nice post explaining why it's not.

 

[squadops]

Explain.

Explain what? That people vote their conscience? I surely hope you are not suggesting telling people how to vote to save themselves from themselves.

I put together a very nice post explaining why it's not.

Yeah I know, but it means diddly squat to me. If it takes prayer for our congress to realize they should uphold the constitution then so be it.

The main point is that the congresses paying for prayer services doesn't go against our laws in anyway. It's not a matter of separation of church and state, as that simply means we shall force no state religion and we don't.

To be perfectly clear, any congressman who prays is doing so on our dime anyway.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Explain what? That people vote their conscience? I surely hope you are not suggesting telling people how to vote to save themselves from themselves.

There you go telling people what they meant to say again. This is becoming a bad habit with you.

Everyone deserves to be represented in the government. What I get from you is that, say, an Atheist doesn't. And that sir, make you the bigot.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah I know, but it means diddly squat to me. If it takes prayer for our congress to realize they should uphold the constitution then so be it.

On what basis do you conclude that this prayer helps them do that (or anything)?

The main point is that the congresses paying for prayer services doesn't go against our laws in anyway. It's not a matter of separation of church and state, as that simply means we shall force no state religion and we don't.

To be perfectly clear, any congressman who prays is doing so on our dime anyway.

Except this is less productive than that. This is an organized prayer that doesn't gel with everyone in the room. BTW this technique is part of the cognitive dissonance strategy used by religions to indoctrinate members. Maybe only 20% of the room agrees, but you subconsciously assume that the number is larger when speaking out against the prayer is socially stigmatized. In that way you can cause people to assume that more people agree with the sanctioned statement than actually do - which has a measurable psychological effect to squash disagreement. It actually changes minds and is part of the indoctrination practiced used by organized religions worldwide. Scientology has reduced it to a "science".

...so it's easy to see how it hurts - costs money, fosters compliance with the chosen religion, blocks people from using the time to gather their thoughts in their chosen way, alienates people who do not agree. And it's quite difficult to see any positive outcome. It's especially tenuous to see a link between that and upholding the constitution.

 

[squadops]

On what basis do you conclude that this prayer helps them do that (or anything)?

How can you seriously ask that question, religious people rely on their religion to perform in life, so simple to understand.

Except this is less productive than that. This is an organized prayer that doesn't gel with everyone in the room. BTW this technique is part of the cognitive dissonance strategy used by religions to indoctrinate members. Maybe only 20% of the room agrees, but you subconsciously assume that the number is larger when speaking out against the prayer is socially stigmatized. In that way you can cause people to assume that more people agree with the sanctioned statement than actually do - which has a measurable psychological effect to squash disagreement. It actually changes minds and is part of the indoctrination practiced used by organized religions worldwide. Scientology has reduced it to a "science".

Indoctrinate a congressman? Oh really, it's not as though they are highly educated people or anything.

...so it's easy to see how it hurts - costs money, fosters compliance with the chosen religion, blocks people from using the time to gather their thoughts in their chosen way, alienates people who do not agree. And it's quite difficult to see any positive outcome. It's especially tenuous to see a link between that and upholding the constitution.

It only seems to hurt your feelings as you are against all religion, that is my view and I call it sour. Anyway possible a man can uphold the constitution is fine with me, I'm beginning to realize you are not so much for the document anyway.

Would you rather they vote themselves another raise to compensate for their need for prayer? Get real

Government costs money to run, of all the things to complain about... I don't get it. They need security in all that they do, so why is it an issue when it comes to one of our fundamental rights? I think I know why, and my answer is too f'n bad. I see it as wishing to remove a cornerstone out of spite, that is how I see it.

Everyone deserves to be represented in the government. What I get from you is that, say, an Atheist doesn't. And that sir, make you the bigot.

lolwut?

Vote as you will, when have I ever hinted at denying you anything? Here is a hint, never.

 

[Danoff]

How can you seriously ask that question, religious people rely on their religion to perform in life, so simple to understand.

...but how does it help them uphold the constitution? And on what basis do you conclude that this prayer assists them with their religion? On what basis do you conclude that they agree with this prayer? That they want this prayer? That the prayer in any way benefits their particular religious belief? That the prayer is in any way consistent with their religious beliefs? That the prayer in any way assists any aspect of their performance in life? Let alone a particular aspect.

Indoctrinate a congressman? Oh really, it's not as though they are highly educated people or anything.

Education has almost nothing to do with it. The technique is a psychological manipulation. Highly educated people fall prey to it just as easily (unless your education is in that particular area).

It only seems to hurt your feelings as you are against all religion, that is my view and I call it sour.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some.

Anyway possible a man can uphold the constitution is fine with me, I'm beginning to realize you are not so much for the document anyway.

Well for starters they're doing a terrible job of it. So if you just look at their track record you'd assume that everything they're doing is hurting. But you've provided me with absolutely zero reason to think that this assists with upholding the constitution. I've given you a number of reasons why it's detrimental. If I missed the part where you gave me some shred of reason to think that this claim is legitimate, please point me to it.

Would you rather they vote themselves another raise to compensate for their need for prayer? Get real

I think you'll recall that I explained that a moment of silence would necessarily be more effective and cost less. We're already paying for the time. Least we could do is reduce the number of people we are paying for by 1 (the guy doing the talking).

Government costs money to run, of all the things to complain about... I don't get it. They need security in all that they do, so why is it an issue when it comes to one of our fundamental rights?

This is really convoluted as a human rights issue (I'd explain it but I'm trying to keep things very simple and it won't help the conversation one iota). Assume for the moment that this is not a human rights issue. This is just one of a myriad of examples of government waste that is counterproductive.

I think I know why, and my answer is too f'n bad. I see it as wishing to remove a cornerstone out of spite, that is how I see it.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some. For example, what makes it a cornerstone? Why do you assume "spite"?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Would you rather they vote themselves another raise to compensate for their need for prayer?

They are entitled to work breaks to do as they will with. The issue (which you seem intent on fudging) is that the taxpayer are paying them to pray. By that logic there should be tax-breaks for ordinary praying citizens. Pray As You Earn, it might be called.

Prayer and belief are a personal matter. Nobody is saying (as far as I can see) that any congress member's right to pray should be taken away from them, nor their right to belief. The question is should the taxpayer spend nearly a billion dollars a year on formal, in-congress prayer? I still think no, they shouldn't.

 

[squadops]

We pay either way, it's very simple. What is the cost and should it be spent elsewhere is what you are asking, let's take a closer look at the budget shall we?

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data

Keep on telling me how wrong it is for the government to pray on our dime and I'll keep telling you it's not only a non issue but also something we support.

Can you show me where it is unconstitutional? Keeping in mind they currently do so many other things that are clearly against our constitution.

If you don't like the U.S. that is fine, if you don't like our laws that is fine too, I already know your disdain for religion, get over it.

 

[Danoff]

We pay either way, it's very simple. What is the cost and should it be spent elsewhere is what you are asking, let's take a closer look at the budget shall we?

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data

Keep on telling me how wrong it is for the government to pray on our dime and I'll keep telling you it's not only a non issue but also something we support.

Can you show me where it is unconstitutional? Keeping in mind they currently do so many other things that are clearly against our constitution.

If you don't like the U.S. that is fine, if you don't like our laws that is fine too, I already know your disdain for religion, get over it.

I have no idea who this is directed to. I personally never claimed it was unconstitutional, so probably you're talking to someone else. This is not a matter of liking or disliking the country (and I have no idea why you'd associate this with the country). This is merely a dislike for government waste wherever it's found. Since you were responding to someone else here, I'm assuming that your response to my questions is forthcoming.

 

[squadops]

You would be correct, please tell me which question I'm to answer? I'll do my best.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We pay either way, it's very simple.

So even if you weren't paying for prayer you'd be paying for prayer, or do you mean something else?

What is the cost and should it be spent elsewhere is what you are asking

That's what this thread is about, so yes, that's what I'm asking. We know the cost and clearly there are a number of posters who think it should be spelt elsewhere. I think we covered that.

let's take a closer look at the budget shall we?

https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data

I don't know what your point is and I'm sure the CBO don't either. If you're trying to show how small $800,000 looks as a percentage then yes, it looks small. However, it looks a hell of a lot as $800,000.

Keep on telling me how wrong it is for the government to pray on our dime and I'll keep telling you it's not only a non issue but also something we support.

By "we" I guess you mean "you". Clearly a goodly number of Americans don't support it, the publicity against the taxprayer is considerable and one of the key reasons for this thread existing.

Can you show me where it is unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court says I can't, by 5 to 4. Who said it was unconstitutional?

Keeping in mind they currently do so many other things that are clearly against our constitution.

Irrelevant here - that's been explained to you several times.

If you don't like the U.S. that is fine

Don't guess what I think.

if you don't like our laws that is fine too

Don't guess what I think.

I already know your disdain for religion, get over it.

See, this is why you shouldn't guess what I think.

Will you be answering @Danoff's questions?

 

[squadops]

Of course 10 8 1, and I do speak for the country not just me, even though we are not democratic the voice of the majority does carry weight.

It is still very relevant to point out the main objective is to uphold the constitution, why you don't see that I can't comprehend.

I didn't guess what you think, I made a few statements all starting with the word if. You know that word don't you?

 

[Danoff]

You would be correct, please tell me which question I'm to answer? I'll do my best.

Look for question marks in post 164. 4 posts before yours. I'd appreciate some effort on your part to look for questions asked and to address them rather than circling around and asking me to ask them again. I like conversing about these subjects but I don't have infinite time to discuss with someone who is not actively participating.

 

[squadops]

I didn't mean it that way, I'll accommodate you as best I can. The sort of micro conversation you seem to like rubs me the wrong way, anytime I see ten thousand two word quotes I generally pass the post by, can you blame me?

 

[squadops]

...but how does it help them uphold the constitution? And on what basis do you conclude that this prayer assists them with their religion? On what basis do you conclude that they agree with this prayer? That they want this prayer? That the prayer in any way benefits their particular religious belief? That the prayer is in any way consistent with their religious beliefs? That the prayer in any way assists any aspect of their performance in life? Let alone a particular aspect.

They rely on their faith to guide them, how hard is that to accept?

Education has almost nothing to do with it. The technique is a psychological manipulation. Highly educated people fall prey to it just as easily (unless your education is in that particular area).

Education has everything to do with it, an educated man is not going to be easily indoctrinated by nonsense.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some.

Provide what? I see a spade and I call it a spade, I could be wrong of course, but I see so much sour in atheists on this forum in general. I will call it a fact only to myself and I will also tell you I see it as fact.

Well for starters they're doing a terrible job of it. So if you just look at their track record you'd assume that everything they're doing is hurting. But you've provided me with absolutely zero reason to think that this assists with upholding the constitution. I've given you a number of reasons why it's detrimental. If I missed the part where you gave me some shred of reason to think that this claim is legitimate, please point me to it.

Well all I can say is you don't believe a man deserves his freedom.

I think you'll recall that I explained that a moment of silence would necessarily be more effective and cost less. We're already paying for the time. Least we could do is reduce the number of people we are paying for by 1 (the guy doing the talking).

I don't argue with that, but I also don't care if they do more than that.

This is really convoluted as a human rights issue (I'd explain it but I'm trying to keep things very simple and it won't help the conversation one iota). Assume for the moment that this is not a human rights issue. This is just one of a myriad of examples of government waste that is counterproductive.

It very much is a human rights issue, a man's conscience and all of that, it's what our constitution is based upon.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some. For example, what makes it a cornerstone? Why do you assume "spite"?

Dismiss me all you like, I don't mind.

Yeesh what a boring ass way to communicate, please do not ask me to do it again. I see spite, lots of it, take away a man's conscience because we should be robotic governors

So what a few dollars go here or there, I can tell you for a fact no one cares and nothing will change over this thread.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't mean it that way, I'll accommodate you as best I can. The sort of micro conversation you seem to like rubs me the wrong way, anytime I see ten thousand two word quotes I generally pass the post by, can you blame me?

Who is this directed to? Since I don't engage in micro conversations I'll assume this is directed at someone else.

I'll comment that when you see a long list of short quotes you should know that it means that the person took the time to understand your points and respond to each one. Consider it a courtesy to thoroughly respond to every question, thought, and comment in a manner so that the person that is being conversed with doesn't then have to subsequently circle back and ask for a response to unanswered questions.

 

[squadops]

You are going to pay for congressmen to pray one way or another, the fact you are against it is of no consequence.

Who is this directed at? It was directed at you, how hard is it to follow a conversation? You are very similar to Husker as in complaining more about how I communicate than actually communicating yourself

And not micro? Please explain why it is necessary to have 10 bazilion quotes in one post? It's so silly.

 

[Danoff]

They rely on their faith to guide them, how hard is that to accept?

None at all. It doesn't address the question quoted in any way.

Education has everything to do with it, an educated man is not going to be easily indoctrinated by nonsense.

It's not an intellectually based indoctrination. This isn't a logic puzzle, it's a pyschological/emotional response. It's really not related.

Provide what? I see a spade and I call it a spade, I could be wrong of course, but I see so much sour in atheists on this forum in general. I will call it a fact only to myself and I will also tell you I see it as fact.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some.

Well all I can say is you don't believe a man deserves his freedom.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some.

I don't argue with that, but I also don't care if they do more than that.

So you don't mind government waste. Since it's a fairly objectively bad thing, I'll ask why not?

It very much is a human rights issue, a man's conscience and all of that, it's what our constitution is based upon.

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some.

I see spite, lots of it, take away a man's conscience because we should be robotic governors

Ok, I see that it's your view. But this is the opinions forum where we substantiate our views, and you have no substantiation for that. Please provide some. Beyond that, please explain how not having a vocalized public prayer takes anyone's conscience from them.

 

[Danoff]

You are going to pay for congressmen to pray one way or another, the fact you are against it is of no consequence.

Who is this directed at? It was directed at you, how hard is it to follow a conversation? You are very similar to Husker as in complaining more about how I communicate than actually communicating yourself

And not micro? Please explain why it is necessary to have 10 bazilion quotes in one post? It's so silly.

Who is this directed to? You say "you" but it's not clear who "you" is. Since my previous post gave you the explanation you've asked for above, I can only assume this is not directed at me.

 

[squadops]

Yeah I'm done with this, I'll still voice my opinion in this thread but I'm not going to break my fingers typing [ quote ] a million more times.

I've substantiated my views just fine, it seems to anger you, your inability to admit your disdain for religion.

 

[Joey D]

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.

Before you go off and think I'm telling you not to post, I'm simply trying to understand why someone cares about how US tax dollars are spent on internal US affairs, especially given the example you initially brought up of President Obama playing expensive golf. To me having any kind of outrage over domestic affairs that occur in another country doesn't really make sense considering you are missing so many pieces to how the system works. Even most folks in the US don't fully understand it. Now if we were discussion foreign aid, international conflict, or any number of things that the US does that affects the entire world or even another country, then it's easy for me to understand how a foreigner would have a solid opinion about it.

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?

For whatever reason you are getting caught up in one word of the point I was trying to make, so in fairness I'll drop that word as to make this discussion relevant again instead of going on about semantics.

Essentially I believe the misappropriation of any tax dollars is considered a misuse of money, regardless of the dollar amount. If you misuse $8 enough, it adds up. Granted this wasn't always my opinion on the subject, but things change.[/QUOTE]

 

[Danoff]

I've substantiated my views just fine, it seems to anger you, your inability to admit your disdain for religion.

Who is this directed to? Since I haven't displayed any anger in any way, I can only assume this isn't directed at me. I will comment though that asserting a view is not the same as substantiating it. When you say you see "spite" in posts, that's not automatically substantiated. That's an assertion. You'd need to provide a statement made by another member here that you see as being spiteful. To substantiate something you need to point to support for your claim.