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:
James Madison was a member of the committee of the First Congress which planned the Chaplaincy system in 1789, even though he claims that he opposed such a system at that time....Madison definitely came out against the system. He asked whether the fact that the Chaplains were paid by "the nation" did not involve the principle of establishment forbidden by the Bill of Rights, and also whether, since some groups like Catholics and Quakers could scarcely be elected to the office, the provision of chaplains by a majority vote were not a palpable violation of civil rights and unfair to minorities."
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
™ Version 4.2
