One was a judicial ruling that banned anyone from offering an invocation or benediction at a high school graduation. Perry criticized that ruling, noting that the Supreme Court has ruled Congress itself can open with
an invocation and prayer, which it does. I fail to see the horror of a high school graduation invocation.
I have posted this before (see below) but since you have only in the past couple of days deigned to cavort with this thread full of alleged "religion haters," I'll post it again just for you. It is from one of the founders that you say you revere, James Madison. It is just one of several things that he wrote about the separation of church and state, along with his friend and neighbor, Thomas Jefferson, and all of them were in a similar vein.
You have claimed that you want to understand the perspective of people you disagree with. If you had grown up in a culture that was dominated by a religion that was different from your own, and, indeed, by a religion that had for more than a thousand years perpetrated discrimination and much worse against your religion, perhaps you would be less sanguine about having to listen to their prayers in public places at a time when it would be difficult or at least awkward to leave (i.e., a high school graduation--I could care less about events like Perry's prayer service today as long as it didn't use any public funds, which I assume he didn't use).
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & QUAKERS who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt.
press-pubs.uchicago.edu |
