constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion

Really? when the people appointed promote religion instead of the science they are being paid a salary to uphold and that comes from public funds?When the "test" of appointability is faith and not competence or ability?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, to be fair to jar, the article to which I linked (and which I assume he was referring to, in part) did talk about a lot more than just Hager's religious beliefs and their influence on his public policy positions.

---

"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

I reject the view that the establishment of the Chaplains to Congress is legitimate legal precedent?Reason one - The principles underlying the establishment of the Legislative Chaplains are obviously inconsistent with the type of religious liberty that prevailed during the formative years of the Republic.Reason two - Congress never attempted to apply or extend further the principles underlying the Chaplainships.Reason three - The procedure employed to establish the Chaplain did not involve the use of legislative power upon the religious opinions and sentiments of the people or the manner or methods of the people to render homage to their Creator. (The legislative authority of Congress was not employed to select the group of individuals to be victimized by the establishment nor was it engaged to select the religious opinions and sentiments to be established or the modes of worship to be set up or the election and dismissal of the clergy of the establishment)Reason three - The direct and immediate injury inflicted on the rights of conscience was miniscule. (It was improper for Congress to use its legislative authority to establish the duty of the people to contribute to the support of the religions of Congress. However, the $500 per year taxed to the public was equal to about two one thousandths of a cent / per American citizen per year)Reason four - In 1811 the House of Representatives rejected the argument that the principle underlying the Legislative Chaplainships was the correct the principle of the establishment clause and that Congress “electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains” did not violate the establishment clause.Reason five - James Madison advised us not let the establishment of the Chaplains have the effect of a legitimate precedent. Madison believed that it would be better to apply the legal principle “de minimis non curat lex” which means “the law does not consider trivial matters” or to class the establishment cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura" which means “a slight mistake such as our nature's frailty may excuse.”I conclude that we should not quarrel over the establishment of the chaplains, unless someone attempts to give it the effect of a legitimate precedent.FVF