Mind everyone, this is really speaking in general terms not any specific debate or SCOTUS case.
I have noticed even on the left, that some don't understand what the Supreme Court says about the First Amendment and what "separation of church and state" actually means. It does not say that religious people cannot participate in government, they can. What they do say at the same time however, is that the government cannot set up a social pecking order based on religion and prevent different religions or sects from preforming the same ceremonies that a majority may do. This is separate than religion in schools that I am talking about here.
For example, if Congress allows a Catholic Chaplain to give an invocation, they have to let a Jewish holy person or Muslim or Buddhist to have the ability to do the same. Same with the Military. If you allow for a Catholic and Baptist Chaplain, you have to allow for a Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist Chaplain. Not sure what they provide atheists in the military though. I do know my stint at Air Force basic, they did violate my rights by saying, "you either go to Church, or peal potatos". It was a punishment and should not exist in any branch of the Military.
But what ends up happening when minorities have sued to have those same rights(not so much congress, but more on the local level, if the majority doesn't like the outcome of that case that sides with that minority, the majority usually throws a fit and scraps the ceremony for everyone, then blames the minority sect/religion for wanting equal rights.
But with schools it is different. With schools prayer isn't banned. A student can pray say before a test, or before a game. But what the teachers and staff cannot do is force the students to pray to any god. Prayer in that context has to be strictly voluntary without any group pressure or force. But my personal view on students, even with students, I don't think they should be forming religious clubs or conducting group prayer even if not staffed lead or forced. That basically puts any minority in the position of peer pressure or even being bullied.
And especially with the oath of office outside of mere ceremony. I really get pissed at the far right nuts, especially those in congress who scream that someone outside there religion has to be forced to swear on a bible to their Christian God. "No Religious Test" does not say only atheists can hold office. It merely means that society cannot prevent someone seeking an office from holding that office based on a religious test. The person seeking that office still has to convince enough people to vote for them though.
Personally, I wish all the ceremonial religious stuff should be left out of government because it always ends up dividing people. There is always going to be someone, or some group of people mad that others are interjecting religious ceremony into open up a session and object to it. But the reality is there is no ban, say outside public school settings that prevents someone from giving a religious invocation, be it at a city council, state congress or Capital Hill in DC.
I brought this up because every so often, and it happened again on Twitter again today, asking why a Chaplain even exists in Congress. There is what one wishes people should avoid, and the reality that the law allows for it. So the only argument one can make is making the law equal for everyone. If the law says you can have a ceremonial invocation to start off a session of Congress, then your choices are to let others do it too, or agree to simply skip it. But since that won't happen, then you have to let a variety of others to do the same.
I feel about Chaplains in Congress the same way I do about the National Anthem at sporting events, just skip it. If we are a pluralistic society, and laws are to be equal for everyone, why start a session off promoting one religion over another? Just like the National Anthem, America values vary from individual to individual, but our nations still remains pluralistic.
I have noticed even on the left, that some don't understand what the Supreme Court says about the First Amendment and what "separation of church and state" actually means. It does not say that religious people cannot participate in government, they can. What they do say at the same time however, is that the government cannot set up a social pecking order based on religion and prevent different religions or sects from preforming the same ceremonies that a majority may do. This is separate than religion in schools that I am talking about here.
For example, if Congress allows a Catholic Chaplain to give an invocation, they have to let a Jewish holy person or Muslim or Buddhist to have the ability to do the same. Same with the Military. If you allow for a Catholic and Baptist Chaplain, you have to allow for a Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist Chaplain. Not sure what they provide atheists in the military though. I do know my stint at Air Force basic, they did violate my rights by saying, "you either go to Church, or peal potatos". It was a punishment and should not exist in any branch of the Military.
But what ends up happening when minorities have sued to have those same rights(not so much congress, but more on the local level, if the majority doesn't like the outcome of that case that sides with that minority, the majority usually throws a fit and scraps the ceremony for everyone, then blames the minority sect/religion for wanting equal rights.
But with schools it is different. With schools prayer isn't banned. A student can pray say before a test, or before a game. But what the teachers and staff cannot do is force the students to pray to any god. Prayer in that context has to be strictly voluntary without any group pressure or force. But my personal view on students, even with students, I don't think they should be forming religious clubs or conducting group prayer even if not staffed lead or forced. That basically puts any minority in the position of peer pressure or even being bullied.
And especially with the oath of office outside of mere ceremony. I really get pissed at the far right nuts, especially those in congress who scream that someone outside there religion has to be forced to swear on a bible to their Christian God. "No Religious Test" does not say only atheists can hold office. It merely means that society cannot prevent someone seeking an office from holding that office based on a religious test. The person seeking that office still has to convince enough people to vote for them though.
Personally, I wish all the ceremonial religious stuff should be left out of government because it always ends up dividing people. There is always going to be someone, or some group of people mad that others are interjecting religious ceremony into open up a session and object to it. But the reality is there is no ban, say outside public school settings that prevents someone from giving a religious invocation, be it at a city council, state congress or Capital Hill in DC.
I brought this up because every so often, and it happened again on Twitter again today, asking why a Chaplain even exists in Congress. There is what one wishes people should avoid, and the reality that the law allows for it. So the only argument one can make is making the law equal for everyone. If the law says you can have a ceremonial invocation to start off a session of Congress, then your choices are to let others do it too, or agree to simply skip it. But since that won't happen, then you have to let a variety of others to do the same.
I feel about Chaplains in Congress the same way I do about the National Anthem at sporting events, just skip it. If we are a pluralistic society, and laws are to be equal for everyone, why start a session off promoting one religion over another? Just like the National Anthem, America values vary from individual to individual, but our nations still remains pluralistic.
