| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 May 2007 07:13:11 AM |
| Object: |
Sep C&S History lessons #2 |
CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND 1N THE ARMY AND NAVY.
Message #9269 of 9293
MARCH 27, 1854
33rd CONGRESS, Rep. No. 124.
Ho. OF REPS..
1st Session,
CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND 1N THE ARMY AND NAVY.
March 27, 1854.--Ordered to be printed.
Mr. MEACHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following
REPORT,
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the memorials of
citizens of several States, praying that the office of chaplain in the
army, navy, at West Point, at Indian stations, and in both Houses of
Congress, be abolished, respectfully report :
That they have had the subject under consideration, and, after
careful examination, are not prepared to come to the conclusion
desired by the memorialists. Having made that decision, it is due that
the reason should be given. Two clauses of the constitution are relied
on by the memorialists to show that their prayer should be granted.
One of these is in the sixth article, that " no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States." If the whole section were quoted, we
apprehend that no one could suppose
it intended to apply to the appointment of chaplains.
" ART. 6, Sec. 3. The senators and representatives before mentioned,
and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive
and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this
constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Every one must perceive that this refers to a class of persons
entirely distinct from chaplains.
Another article supposed to be violated is article 1st of Amendments:
" Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion."
Does our present practice violate that article? What is an
establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man
must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must
observe; it must have ministers of defined qualification to teach the
doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the
submissive, and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was an
established religion without all these. Is there now, or has there
ever been, anything of this in the appointment of chaplains in
Congress, or army, or navy? The practice before the adaption of the
constitution is much the same as since: the adoption of that
constitution does not seem to have changed the principle in this
respect. We ask the memorialists to look at the facts. First, in the
army: chaplains were appointed for the
revolutionary army on its organization; rules for their regulation are
found among the earliest of' the articles of war. Congress ordered on
May 27, 1777, that there should be one chaplain to each brigade of
the army, nominated by the brigade general, and appointed by Congress,
with the same pay as colonel; and, on the 18th of September following,
ordered chaplains to be appointed to the hospitals in the several
departments, with the pay of' $60 per month, three rations per day,
and forage for one horse..
When the constitution was formed, Congress had power to raise and
support armies, and to provide for and support a navy , and to make
rules and regulations for the government and regulation of land and
naval forces. In the absence or all limitations, general or special,
is it not fair to assume that they were to do these substantially in
the same manner as had been done before? If so, then they were as
truly empowered to appoint chaplains as to appoint generals or to
enlist solders. Accordingly, we find provision for chaplains on the
acts of 1791, of 1812, and 1838. By the last there is to be one to
each brigade in the army; the number is limited to thirty, and these
in the most destitute places. The chaplain is also to discharge the
duties of schoolmaster. The number in the navy is twenty four. Is
there any violation of the constitution in these laws for the
appointment of chaplains in the army and navy? If not, let us look at
the history of chaplains in Congress. Here, as before, we shall find
that the same practice was in existence before and after the adoption
of the constitution. The American Congress began its session September
5, 1774. On the second day of the session, Mr. Samuel Adams proposed
to open the
session with prayer. I give Mr. Webster's account of it: "At the
meeting of the first Congress
there was a doubt in the minds of many about the propriety of opening
the session with prayer; and the reason assigned was, as here, the
great diversity of opinion and religious belief. until, at last, Mr.
Samuel Adams, with his gray hairs hanging about his shoulders, and
with In impressive venerableness now seldom to be met with (I suppose
owning to different habits) rose in that
assembly, and with the air of a perfect Puritan, said it did not
become men professing to be Christian men, who had come together for
solemn deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say there was
so wide a difference in their religious belief that they could not, as
one man, bow
the knee in prayer to the Almighty, whose advice and assistance they
hoped to obtain; and, independent as he was known to be, he moved
that Rev. Mr.. Dushe, of the Episcopal Church, should address the
Throne of Grace in prayer. John Adams, in his letter to his wife,
says he never saw a more moving spectacle. Mr. Dushe read the
Episcopal service of' the church of England; and then, as if moved by
the occasion, he broke out into extemporaneous prayer, and those men
who were about to resort to force to obtain their rights were moved to
tears; and floods of tears, he says, ran down the cheeks of pacific
Quakers, who formed part of that interesting assembly; and depend
upon it, that where there is a spirit of Christianity, there is a
spirit which rises above form, above ceremonies, independent of sect
or creed, and the controversies of clashing doctrines." That same
clergyman was afterwards appointed chaplain of American Congress. He
had such an appointment five days after the declaration of independence.
On December 22, 1776; on December 13, 1784; and on February 29, 1788,
it was resolved that two chaplains should be appointed. So far for the
old American Congress. I do not deem it out of place to notice one
act, of many, to show that that Congress was not indifferent
to the religious interests of the people; and they were not peculiarly
afraid of the charge of' uniting church and State. On the 11th of
September, 1777, a committee having consulted with Dr. Allison about
printing an edition of thirty thousand Bibles, and finding that they
would be compelled to send abroad for type and paper, with an advance
of L 10,272 10s., Congress voted to instruct the Committee on
Commerce to import twenty thousand Bibles from Scotland and Holland
into the different ports of the Union. The reason assigned was, that
the use of the book was so universal and important. Now, what was
passing on that day? The army of Washington
was fighting the battle of Brandywine, the gallant soldiers of the
Revolution were displaying their heroic though unavailing valor;
twelve hundred soldiers were stretched in death on that battlefield;
Lafayette was bleeding; the booming of the cannon was heard in the
hall where Congress was sitting--in the hall from which Congress was
soon to be a fugitive: at that important
Congress was passing an order for importing twenty thousand Bibles;
and yet we have never heard that they' were charged by their
generation of any attempt to unite church and State, or surpassing
their powers to legislate on religious matters.
There was a convention assembled between the old and new forms of
government. Considering the character of men, the work in which they
engaged, and the results of their labors
which they were engaged, and the results of their labors, I think them
the most remarkable body of men ever assembled. Benjamin Franklin
addressed that body on the subject of employing chaplains; and,
certainly Franklin will not be accused of fanaticism in religion, or
of a wish to unite church and State. I give his words as reported by
Madison.
Debates in the Federal Convention, June 28, 1787.
Dr. Franklin said: Mr. President The small progress we have made
after four or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with
each other--our different sentiments on almost every question, several
of the last prodding as many noes as ays-- is, methinks a melancholy
proof of the imperfection of the human Understanding. We indeed, seem
to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running
about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models
of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics
which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now
no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe,
but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances. In
this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to
find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented
to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once
thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when
we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the
divine protection.--Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were
graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must
have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our
favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of
consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national
felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend! or do we
imagine that we no longer need his assistance?
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs in the affairs
of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice,
is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been
assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the
House they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and
I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in
this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We
shall be divided y our little partial local interests; our projects
will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye
word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter
from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by
Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
"I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the
assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held
in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that
one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in
that Service"--Elliott's Debates Vol. 5 p. 253
There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing
chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the
constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in
that respect in the new order of affairs.
The first Congress under the constitution began on the 4th of
March, 1789; but there was not n quorum for business till the 1st of
April. On the 9th of that month Oliver Ellsworth was appointed, on
the part of the Senate, to confer with a committee of the House on
rules, and
on the appointment of Chaplains. The House chose five men--Boudinot,
Bland, Tucker, Sherman, and Madison. THe result of their consulation
was a recommendation to appoint two chaplains of different
denominations--one by the Senate and one by the house--to interchange
weekly. The Senate appointed Dr. Provost, on the 25th of April.
On the 1st day of May Washington's first speech was read to the
house, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of
Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of
that joint committee were members of the convention that framed
the constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from
the hall of the convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know
what was constitutional? The law of 1789 was passed in compliance with
their plan, giving chaplains a salary of $500. It was re-enacted in
1816, and continues to the present time. Chaplains have been appointed
from all the leading
denominations--Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Congregationalist; Catholic, Unitarian, and others.
I am aware that one of our petitioners might truly reply that the
article was not in the body of the constitution, But was one of the
amendments recommended by Virginia. This does not weaken the argument
in favor of chaplains. In the convention of Virginia, which proposed
amendments, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Marshall were
members. All these men were members closely connected with the
government. Madison and Monroe were members of Congress when the first
amendment was adopted and became a part of the constitution.
(EDITORS NOTE: Monroe was not a member of the First Federal Congress
during its first session when the amendments to the Constitution were
framed and passed by that Congress. Monroe went to Congress as a
Senator, as a permenant replacement, replacing Senator William
Grayson who had died in office in March, 1790.)
Madison was a member of the convention framing the constitution, of
the convention proposing the amendment, and of Congress when adopted;
and yet neither Madison nor Monroe ever uttered a word or gave a vote
to indicate that the appointment of chaplains was unconstitutional.
(EDITORS NOTE: Rep. Meacham is being a little lose with the facts
here. Madison was a member of the convention that framed the
Constitution, the subject of chaplains was never mentioned during that
convention, Benjamin Franklin's suggestion that sessions begin with
prayer was never voted on and never enacted. Madison was also a member
of the Virginia ratifying convention but he did not propose amendments
to the Constitution during that convention, in fact argued the such
was not needed during that convention. Monroe was not a member of the
First Federal Congress during its first session [Mar 1789 - Sept.
1789], and in later years after Madison had retired from public office
he did write [in his Detached Memoranda] that he had not supported the
idea of chaplains when Congress had decided to appoint them and that
he felt that the idea of chaplains was unconstitutional. Regarding the
committee that Madison was a member of and which had recommended the
appointment of chaplains, there are no records of its debates,
discussions, or votes.)
The convention of Virginia elected on its first day a chaplain--Rev.
Abner Waugh--who every morning read prayers immediately after the
ringing of' the bell for calling the convention. No one will suppose
that convention so inconsistent as to appoint their chaplain for their
own deliberative assembly in the State of Virginia, and then recommend
that this should be denied to the deliberative bodies of the nation.
The reason more generally urged, is the. danger of a union of church
and State. If the danger were real, we should be disposed to take the
most prompt and decided measures to forestall the evil, because one of
the worst for the religious and political interests of this nation
that could possibly overtake us. But we deem this apprehension
entirely imaginary; and we think any one of' tile petitioners must be
convinced of this on examination of the facts. I have prepared a table
showing the churches, ministers, members, and worshippers, in the:
leading denominations of Christians in this land. It was hastily made,
and is doubtless imperfect. I shall append another table, which was
published in the Christian Almanac; and any person who has tile
leisure may compare, and from both form a correct conclusion. The
column of worshippers was made by taking from the census the list of
church accommodations of' each church. This, of course, makes no
pretence to entire accuracy; but it is, comparatively, perfectly fair,
because it assumes that all churches are filled with worshippers, and
that this is the measure of them. It is the nearest and fairest
approach to accuracy that I know how to make. Now look at that score
of different denominations and tell us, do you believe it possible to
make a majority agree in forming a league to unite their religious
interests with those of' the State? If you take from tile larger
sects, you must select some three or four of the largest to make a
majority of clergy, or laity, or worshippers. And these sects are
widely separated in their doctrines, their religious rites, and in
their church discipline. How do you expect them to unite for
any such object? If you take the smaller sects you must unite some
fifteen to make a majority, and must take such discordant materials as
the Quaker, the Jew, the Universalist, the Unitarian, the Tunker, and
the Swedenborgian. Does any one suppose it possible to make these
harmonize? If not, there can be no union of church and State. Your
committee know of no denomination of Christians who wish for such
union. They have had their existence in the voluntary system, and wish
to continue. The sentiment of the whole body of American Christians is
against a union with the State. A great change has been wrought in
this respect. At the adoption of the constitution, we believed every
State--certainly ten of the thirteen--provided regularly for the
support of the church, as for the support of the government: one,
Virginia, had the system of tithes.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: I am not sure what Rep Meacham is referring to here,
but by the time of the framing of the U S Constitution, Virginia had
ended any and all required support of religion. Any financial support
of religion by that time was totally voluntary.
Down to the revolution every colony did sustain religion in some form.
It was deemed peculiarly proper that religion of liberty should be
upheld by a free people. Has the people, during the Revolution, had a
suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution
would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption
of the constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was
that Christianity should be encourages--not any one sect. Any attempt
to level and discard all religion, would have been viewed with
universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or
Mahomedanism, infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among sects to the
exclusion of others. The result of the change above named is, that
now there is not a single state, as a state, supports the gospel. In
1816 Connecticut repealed her law which was passed to sustain the
church; and 1833, Massachusetts wiped form her statute- book the last
law on the subject that existed in the whole union. Every one will
notice this is a very great change be made in so short a period,
greater than , we believe, was ever before made in ecclesiastical
affairs in sixty-five years, without a revolution or some great
convulsion. This change has been made silently and noiselessly, with
the consent and wish of all parties, civil and religious. From this
it will be seen that the tendency of the times is not to a union of
church and state, but the decidedly and strongly bearing in an
opposite direction. Every tie is sundered; and there is no wish on
either side to have the bond renewed. It seems to us that the men
who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things, would cry
fire on the thirty-ninth day of a general deluge.
If there be no constitutional objection and no danger, why should not
the office be continued? It is objected that we pay money from the
treasury for this office. That is certainly true; and equally true in
regard to the Sergeant-at-arms and Doorkeeper, who, with the chaplain
are appointed under the general authority to organize the house. Judge
Thompson, chairman of this committee in the thirty-first Congress, in
a very able report on this subject, said, that if the cost of
chaplains to Congress were equally divided among the people, it would
not be annually more than the two-hundredth part of one cent to each
person. That being true, a man who lives under the protection of this
government and pays taxes for fifty years, will have to lay aside from
his hard earnings two and a half mills during his half century for the
purpose of supporting chaplains in Congress! This is the weight of
pecuniary burden which the committee are called to lift from off the
neck of the people.
If there be a God who hears prayers--as we believe there is— we
submit, that there never was a deliberative body that so eminently
needed the fervent prayers of righteous men as the Congress of the
United States. There never was another representative assembly that
had so many and so widely different interests to protect and to
harmonize, and so many local passions to subdue. One member feels
charged to defend the rights of the Atlantic, another of the Pacific
coast; one urges the claims of constituents on the borders of the
torrid, another on the borders of the frigid zone; while hundreds have
the defence of local and varied interests stretching across an entire
continent. If personal selfishness or ambition, if party or sectional
views alone, bear rule, all attempts at legislation will bw fruitless,
or bear only bitter fruit. If wisdom from above, that is profitable to
direct, be given in answer to prayers of the pious, then Congress need
those devotions, as they surely need to have their views of personal
importance daily chastened by the reflection that they are under the
government of a Supreme Power, that rules not for one locality or one
time, but governs a world by general laws, subjecting all motives and
acts to an omniscient scrunity, and holds all agents to their just
awards by an irresistible power.
In the provisions of the law for chaplains in the army, the number is
limited, and these not to be granted unless for "most destitute
places;" and then for a very small salary they are to perform the
double service of clergymen and schoolsmasters. While every political
office under all administrations is filled to overflowing; while
ante-chambers of the departments are crowded and crammed with anxious
applicants, waiting for additions, or resignations, or death, to make
for them some vacant place, it is recent occurrence that only fourteen
of the twenty posts for chaplains were supplied.
We presume all will grant that it is proper to appoint physicians and
surgeons in the army and navy. The power to appoint chaplains is just
the same because neither are expressly named, but are appointed under
the general authority to organize the army and navy, and we deem the
one as truly a matter of necessity as the other. Napoleon was obliged
to establish chaplains for his army, in order to their quiet while
making his winter quarters in the heart of an enemy's country, and
that army had been drenched in the infidelity of the french
revolution. The main portion of our troops , though not in a foreign
land, are stationed on the extreme frontiers, the very outposts of
civilization; and if the government does not furnish them moral and
religious instruction, we know, as a practical fact, they will go
without it.
It is said they can contribute and hire their own chaplains.
Certainly they can, and their own physicians and surgeons; but if we
throw on them this additional burden, are we not bound to
increase their pay to meet these personal expenses? We may supply them
directly, with more economy and effect then we can do it indirectly.
We trust that the military force of the United States will never be
engaged in a contest, unless is such an one that devout men can
honestly invoke the God of battles to go with their armies. If so, it
will inspire fortitude and courage in the soldier to know that the
righteous man is invoking the Supreme Power to succeed his efforts. If
our armies are exposed to pestilential climates or to the carnage of
the battle-field, we believe it the duty of government to send the
sick, and wounded and dying, that spiritual counsel and consolation by
the strongest cravings of our nature.
The navy have still stronger claims than the army for the supply of
chaplains: a large portion of the time our ships-of-war are on service
foreign from our own shore. If they are in ports of other nations, the
crews cannot be disbanded to worship with the people of those nations;
and if they could, the instances are rare in which the sailors could
understand the language in which the devotions are conducted. If you
could not afford them the means of religious service while at sea, the
Sabbath is, to all intents and purposes, annihilated, and we do not
allow crews the free exercise of religion.
In that important branch of service the government is educating a
large number of youth who are hereafter to have the control of our
navy. They are taken from their homes at a very early age, when their
minds are not generally instructed, their opinions formed on
religious affairs. If the mature men can be safely deprived of such
privileges, is it wise or just to deprive the youth of all means of
moral and religious culture? Naval commanders have often desired to
have their crews unite in devotions before commencing action. They
have sometimes done it when their was no chaplain on board. One
striking instance of this was in the naval action on Lake Champlain.
On Sunday morning, September 11, just as the sun rose over the eastern
mountains, the American guard-boat on the watch was seen rowing
swiftly into the harbor. It reported the enemy in sight. The drums
immediately beat to quarters, and every vessel was cleared for action.
The preparations being completed, young McDonough summoned his
officers around him, and there on the deck of the Saratoga, read the
prayers of the ritual before entering battle; and that voice, which
soon after rand like a clarion amid the carnage, sent heavenward, in
earnest tones: "Stir up thy strength, O Lord, and come help us; for
thou givest not always the battle to the strong, but canst save by
many or by few." It was a solemn, thrilling sight, and one never
before witnessed on a vessel-of-war cleared for action. A young
commander who had the courage thus to brave the derision and sneers
which such as act was sure to provoke, would fight his vessel while
there was a plank left to stand on. Of the deeds of daring done on
that day of great achievements, none evinced so bold and firm heart as
this act of religious worship.
While your committee believe that neither Congress nor the army or
navy should be deprived of the service of chaplains, they freely
concede that the ecclesiastical and civil powers have been, and should
continue to be, entirely divorced from each other. But we beg leave to
rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not
needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the
foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have
permanence or power without the sanction of religious
sentiment-without a firm belief that there is a power above us that
will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there can be
no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is
the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity
and permanence of the republic, and they expect it to remain the
religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent
error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized the
government did not legislate on religion. They did legislate on it by
making it free to all, "to the Jew and the Greek, to the learned and
the unlearned." The error has risen from the belief that there is no
legislation unless in permissive or restricting enactments. But making
a thing free is as truly a part of legislation as confining it by
limitations; and what the government has made free, it is bound to
keep free.
Your committee recommend the following resolution:
Resolved, That the committee be discharged from further consideration
of the subject..
CHART REFERRED TO IN Mr. MEACHAM'S SPEECH:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-------------------------------------------------
Name Ministers Members
Worshippers Churches
Baptist 8,018 948,867
3,130,878 8,791
Christian 1,500 50,000
296,050 812
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Reports of Committees of the House of
Representatives Made During the First Session Of The Thirty-Third
Congress, Printed By Order Of The House Of Representatives in Three
Volumes, Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, Printer, (1854) Rep. No. 124,
pp 1-10)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #2 |
04 May 2007 05:13:02 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|On May 1, 7:13 am, wrote:
:|> CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND 1N THE ARMY AND NAVY.
:|> Message #9269 of 9293
:|> MARCH 27, 1854
:|>
:|> 33rd CONGRESS, Rep. No. 124.
:|> Ho. OF REPS..
:|> 1st Session,
:|>
:|> CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND 1N THE ARMY AND NAVY.
:|>
:|> March 27, 1854.--Ordered to be printed.
:|>
:|> Mr. MEACHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following
:|>
:|> REPORT,
:|>
:|> The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the memorials of
:|> citizens of several States, praying that the office of chaplain in the
:|> army, navy, at West Point, at Indian stations, and in both Houses of
:|> Congress, be abolished, respectfully report :
:|>
:|> That they have had the subject under consideration, and, after
:|> careful examination, are not prepared to come to the conclusion
:|> desired by the memorialists. Having made that decision, it is due that
:|> the reason should be given. Two clauses of the constitution are relied
:|> on by the memorialists to show that their prayer should be granted.
:|> One of these is in the sixth article, that " no religious test shall
:|> ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
:|> under the United States." If the whole section were quoted, we
:|> apprehend that no one could suppose
:|> it intended to apply to the appointment of chaplains.
:|>
:|> " ART. 6, Sec. 3. The senators and representatives before mentioned,
:|> and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive
:|> and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
:|> States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this
:|> constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
:|> qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
:|> Every one must perceive that this refers to a class of persons
:|> entirely distinct from chaplains.
:|>
:|> Another article supposed to be violated is article 1st of Amendments:
:|> " Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion."
:|> Does our present practice violate that article? What is an
:|> establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man
:|> must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must
:|> observe; it must have ministers of defined qualification to teach the
:|> doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the
:|> submissive, and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was an
:|> established religion without all these. Is there now, or has there
:|> ever been, anything of this in the appointment of chaplains in
:|> Congress, or army, or navy? The practice before the adaption of the
:|> constitution is much the same as since: the adoption of that
:|> constitution does not seem to have changed the principle in this
:|> respect. We ask the memorialists to look at the facts. First, in the
:|> army: chaplains were appointed for the
:|> revolutionary army on its organization; rules for their regulation are
:|> found among the earliest of' the articles of war. Congress ordered on
:|> May 27, 1777, that there should be one chaplain to each brigade of
:|> the army, nominated by the brigade general, and appointed by Congress,
:|> with the same pay as colonel; and, on the 18th of September following,
:|> ordered chaplains to be appointed to the hospitals in the several
:|> departments, with the pay of' $60 per month, three rations per day,
:|> and forage for one horse..
:|>
[snip]
:|Supreme Court decision declaring, "To invoke Divine guidance on a
:|public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances,
:|an 'establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment." and,
:|"Nor is the compensation of the chaplain from public funds a reason to
:|invalidate the Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy.".... US Supreme
:|Court, Marsh v. Chambers 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
:|
:|***************************************************************
:|You are invited to check out the following:
:|
:|Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
:|one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
:|after God.
:|
:|Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
:|
:|Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
:|eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
:|
:|****************************************************************
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
Christian idopt internet troll
The Founding Period: 1774-1791
Chaplains
An Overview from 1774 to early 1800's
* Chaplains and Congress
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm
* The Political Move That Backfired
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
* Duche's Letter To Washington
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/duche.htm
First Federal Congress (1789)
Chaplains
* Chief Justice Burger, I Would Like You To Meet Mr. Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm
* Discrepancies
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/discrep.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
Letter to Edward Livingston
Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.
by James Madison
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_livingston.html
Revisiting Marsh v. Chambers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/marshchm.htm
* A Religious Bias Suit by Evangelical Chaplains Against the Navy: The
Law Confronts Denominational Diversity
Thursday, Aug. 29, 2002
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020829.html
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #2 |
04 May 2007 09:15:14 AM |
|
|
On May 4, 5:13 am, wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|On May 1, 7:13 am, wrote:
:|> CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND 1N THE ARMY AND NAVY.
:|> Message #9269 of 9293
:|> MARCH 27, 1854
:|>
:|> 33rd CONGRESS, Rep. No. 124.
:|> Ho. OF REPS..
:|> 1st Session,
:|>
:|> CHAPLAINS IN CONGRESS AND 1N THE ARMY AND NAVY.
:|>
:|> March 27, 1854.--Ordered to be printed.
:|>
:|> Mr. MEACHAM, from the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following
:|>
:|> REPORT,
:|>
:|> The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the memorials of
:|> citizens of several States, praying that the office of chaplain in the
:|> army, navy, at West Point, at Indian stations, and in both Houses of
:|> Congress, be abolished, respectfully report :
:|>
:|> That they have had the subject under consideration, and, after
:|> careful examination, are not prepared to come to the conclusion
:|> desired by the memorialists. Having made that decision, it is due that
:|> the reason should be given. Two clauses of the constitution are relied
:|> on by the memorialists to show that their prayer should be granted.
:|> One of these is in the sixth article, that " no religious test shall
:|> ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
:|> under the United States." If the whole section were quoted, we
:|> apprehend that no one could suppose
:|> it intended to apply to the appointment of chaplains.
:|>
:|> " ART. 6, Sec. 3. The senators and representatives before mentioned,
:|> and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive
:|> and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several
:|> States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this
:|> constitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
:|> qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
:|> Every one must perceive that this refers to a class of persons
:|> entirely distinct from chaplains.
:|>
:|> Another article supposed to be violated is article 1st of Amendments:
:|> " Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion."
:|> Does our present practice violate that article? What is an
:|> establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man
:|> must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must
:|> observe; it must have ministers of defined qualification to teach the
:|> doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the
:|> submissive, and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was an
:|> established religion without all these. Is there now, or has there
:|> ever been, anything of this in the appointment of chaplains in
:|> Congress, or army, or navy? The practice before the adaption of the
:|> constitution is much the same as since: the adoption of that
:|> constitution does not seem to have changed the principle in this
:|> respect. We ask the memorialists to look at the facts. First, in the
:|> army: chaplains were appointed for the
:|> revolutionary army on its organization; rules for their regulation are
:|> found among the earliest of' the articles of war. Congress ordered on
:|> May 27, 1777, that there should be one chaplain to each brigade of
:|> the army, nominated by the brigade general, and appointed by Congress,
:|> with the same pay as colonel; and, on the 18th of September following,
:|> ordered chaplains to be appointed to the hospitals in the several
:|> departments, with the pay of' $60 per month, three rations per day,
:|> and forage for one horse..
:|>
[snip]
:|Supreme Court decision declaring, "To invoke Divine guidance on a
:|public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances,
:|an 'establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment." and,
:|"Nor is the compensation of the chaplain from public funds a reason to
:|invalidate the Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy.".... US Supreme
:|Court, Marsh v. Chambers 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
:|
:|***************************************************************
:|You are invited to check out the following:
:|
:|Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no not
:|one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
:|after God.
:|
:|Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
:|
:|Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
:|eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
:|
:|****************************************************************
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
Christian idopt internet troll
Your intentional avoiding of the Supreme Court's decision is noticed.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sep C&S History lessons #2 |
08 May 2007 04:53:10 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|
:|Your intentional avoiding of the Supreme Court's decision is noticed.
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
The above is from the same guy who brought you this
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|On May 4, 5:31 am, wrote:
:|> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> >:|On May 1, 7:13 am, wrote:
:|> >:|> Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a corpo
:|> >:|> Message #9272 of 9293
:|> >:|> 1888
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> Bancroft on the Constitution
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality
:|> >:|> and individuality. It knows nothing of differences by descent, or
:|> >:|> opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political
:|> >:|> power of property. It leaves the individual alongside of the
:|> >:|> individual. No nationality of character could take form, except on the
:|> >:|> principle of individuality, so that the mind might be free, and every
:|> >:|> faculty have the unlimited opportunity for its development and culture
:|> >:|> . . . .
:|> >:|> "The rule of individuality was extended as never before . . . .
:|> >:|> Religion was become avowedly the attribute of man and not of a
:|> >:|> corporation. In the earliest states known to history, government and
:|> >:|> religion were one and indivisible. Each state had its special deity,
:|> >:|> and of these protectors one after another might be overthrown in
:|> >:|> battle, never to rise again. The Peloponnesian War grew out of a
:|> >:|> strife about an oracle. Rome, as it adopted into citizenship those
:|> >:|> whom it vanquished, sometimes introduced, and with good logic for that
:|> >:|> day, the worship of their gods. No one thought of vindicating liberty
:|> >:|> of religion for the conscience of the individual till a voice in
:|> >:|> Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity by
:|> >:|> establishing for all mankind a pure, spiritual, and universal
:|> >:|> religion, enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar's.
:|> >:|> The rule was upheld during the infancy of this gospel for all men. No
:|> >:|> sooner was the religion of freedom adopted by the chief of the Roman
:|> >:|> Empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality and
:|> >:|> enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy state; and so it
:|> >:|> continued till the new nation-the least defiled with the barren
:|> >:|> scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most sincere believer in
:|> >:|> Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of the
:|> >:|> Reformation in its purest form-when it came to establish a government
:|> >:|> for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be
:|> >:|> regulated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or a
:|> >:|> state.
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|> "Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in
:|> >:|> religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of
:|> >:|> accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely
:|> >:|> ordained in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the
:|> >:|> temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the
:|> >:|> people of the several States, withheld from the Federal Government the
:|> >:|> power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the
:|> >:|> sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the
:|> >:|> infinite spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity
:|> >:|> and power. "
:|> >:|> (SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Bancroft, George, "History of the United
:|> >:|> States" (1888), Vol. VI, pp. 443, 444. American State Papers on
:|> >:|> Freedom in Religion. 3rd Revised Edition. Published in 1943 for The
:|> >:|> Religious Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. by the Review and
:|> >:|> Herald. First Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the
:|> >:|> Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on
:|> >:|> Sunday Legislation. pp 140-141)
:|> >:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Continental Congress Thanksgiving Proclamation (1779):
:|> >:|"...too few have been sufficiently awakened to a sense of their guilt,
:|> >:|or warmed our Bosoms with gratitude, or taught to amend their lives
:|> >:|and turn from their sins, that so He might turn from His wrath."
:|>
:|> Duh.
:|>
:|> When was the Constitution framed?
:|> When was the Constitution ratified by the states?
:|> When did the US of A, you know, this nation under that Constitution
:|> actually begin operation?
:|>
:|> Your example above is irrelevant since the answers to the above questions are
:|> all AFTER 1779.
:|>
:|> Better luck next time
:|>
:|
:|DUH! Your post was about the Constitution, and this is from the
:|Constitutional Convention. Pay attention next time.
:|
:|Ken Clifton
:|christiansuperhero.com
More accurately
Christian Idiot and internet troll
Duh and double DUH
Had you bothered to have answered the questions I posed to you above, even
if only silently in your own mind, you would have realized your mistake
and not provided further evidence that you are an idiot who doesn't know
what you are talking about.
Answers to the questions
Q. When was the Constitution framed?
A. 1787
Q. When was the Constitution ratified by the states?
A. In the period of late 1787 - 1788
Q. When did the US of A, you know, this nation under that Constitution
actually begin operation?
A. March 1789
Dude anythign that happned in 1779 is totally irrelevant and was not in any
way shape or form part of the Constitutional Convention which took place
thought the summer of 1787
A mind is a powereful thing to waste.
My condescendence on your wasted mind
(grin)
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
