Buffman

(I have been in the process of researching this subject in order to outline the accurate information concerning Congressional Chaplains as a response to several previous posts made by member Radorth. However, rather than burying this info in a string already too long, Toto has made the excellent suggestion that the research be given its own topic string because of the current law suit being mounted by Dr. Newdow to declare Congressional Chaplains as a constitutional violation of the separation of Church and State. I believe his suggestion makes wonderful good sense. Thus I am posting my original draft reply without final editing.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Radorth has asked: (December 23, 2002 10:49 AM)

Do you agree with the following or no?:

Quote:

As it turns out, after the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), they implemented Franklin's recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one to the House and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each. This practice continues today, posing no threat to the First Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote the Amendment.

Do you remember me posting this URL for you to read the more complete and accurate background on Congressional Chaplains?

Chaplains and Congress: An Overview from 1774 to early 1800's

(Extract):
Do you remember me posting the URL for Farrand's Records, Vol I, (June 28, 1787) pgs. 450-52 , so you, and everyone else, could read exactly what Ben Franklin actually recommended and the other delegates said concerning his recommendation?

(Extract)
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--
(End extract)


What follows are extracts taken from Congressional records/journals outlining some of the historical activity surrounding the appointment of Chaplains to Congressional bodies.


CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

Journals of the Continental Congress--In Thirty-Four Volumes

(Extracts)
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1774.

Resolved, That the Revd. Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress tomorrow morning with prayers, at the Carpenter's Hall, at 9 o'Clock.1.
[Note 1: 1 “After settling the mode of voting, which is by giving each Colony an equal voice, it was agreed to open the business with prayer. As many of our warmest friends are members of the Church of England, [I] thought it prudent, as well on that as on some other accounts, to move that the service should be performed by a clergyman of that denomination.” Samuel Adams to J. Warren, 9 September, 1774. John Adams says it was Cushing who made the motion that business be opened with prayer, and John Jay and Rutledge opposed it on the ground of a diversity in religious sentiments. That Samuel Adams asserted he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country; and nominated Duché. See note under September 7, post.]

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1774, 9 o'clock a. m.

Agreeable to the resolve of yesterday, the meeting was opened with prayers by the Revd. Mr. Duché.
Voted, That the thanks of the Congress be given to Mr. Duché, by Mr. Cushing and Mr. Ward, for performing divine Service, and for the excellent prayer, which he composed and deliver'd on the occasion.1
[Note 1: 1 Duché attended in full pontificals, read several prayers in the established form, the collect for the day (Psalm XXXV), and then “struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. * * * It has had an excellent effect upon everybody here.” John Adams to his wife,--September, 1774. Joseph Reed thought the appointment and prayer a “masterly stroke of policy.” Ward recorded “one of the most sublime, catholic, well-adapted prayers I ever heard.”]
(End extracts)

HOUSE

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States

(Extracts)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1789

The House met according to adjournment.
Two other members, to wit: James Schureman, from New Jersey, and Thomas Scott, from Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats.
And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present,


THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1789

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from Oliver Elsworth Esquire, a Member of the Senate, stating the appointment of a committee of that House to confer with a committee to be appointed on the part of this House, in preparing a system of rules to govern the two Houses in cases of conference, and to regulate the appointment of Chaplains; which was read.

FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 1789

That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed to Congress for the present session; the Senate to appoint one, and give notice thereof to the House of Representatives, who shall thereupon appoint the other; which Chaplains shall commence their services in the Houses that appoint them, but shall interchange weekly.”

SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1789

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Vice President of the United States, enclosing a vote of the Senate, appointing the Reverend Doctor Provost, a Chaplain to Congress, on the part of that House; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1789

Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Senate in the said resolution, amended to read as followeth, to wit:
“That, after the oath shall have been administered to the President, the Vice President, and members of the Senate, the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives, will accompany him to St. Paul s Chapel, to hear divine service, performed by the Chaplain of Congress.”

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1789

The House then, according to the order of the day, proceeded by ballot to the appointment Of a Chaplain to Congress on the part of this House; and upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of the Rev. William Linn.
(End extracts)

SENATE

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America

(Extracts)
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1789.

Being a Quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number of Senators of the United States.

TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1789.

Ordered, That Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Lee, Mr. Strong, Mr. Maclay, and Mr. Bassett, be. a committee to prepare a system of rules to govern the two Houses in cases of conference, and to take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains, and to confer thereupon with a committee of the House of Representatives.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1789.

The committee above mentioned, further reported,
That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed to Congress, for the present session, the Senate to appoint one, and give notice thereof to the House of Representatives, who shall, thereupon, appoint the other; which Chaplains shall commence their services in the Houses that appoint them, but shall interchange weekly.
Which was also accepted.

SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1789.

The Senate proceeded to the appointment of a Chaplain, in the manner agreed upon the 15th of April; and
The right reverend Samuel Provoost was elected.

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1789.

A letter of the 25th instant, from the Right Rev. Samuel Provoost, to the Secretary, signifying his acceptance of the appointment of Chaplain to Congress, was read, and ordered to be filed.

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1789.

The President, the Vice President, the Senate, and House of Representatives, &c. then proceeded to St. Paul's Chapel, where divine service was performed by the Chaplain of Congress, after which the President was reconducted to his house by the committee appointed for that purpose.
(End extracts)


==============================================

Obviously Ben Franklin's actual recommendation was "not" implemented in the Constitutional Convention. Obviously it was 19 months after the Convention before Chaplains were officially selected. Obviously Congress had been using Chaplains since 1774. Obviously there was a quorum in the House on April 1, 1789, and one in the Senate on April 6, 1789. Obviously, therefore, nine days is not accurate for either the House or the Senate based on an April 9. 1789 date in the Radorth quote cited. Obviously my answer to Radorth’s query remains “NO.” Obviously my “NO” response is not because of the Congressional member's lack of religiosity, but because the "quote" is in error...especially when an attempt to tie Franklin's alleged speech in the William Steele letter was the original basis of the above quote and when compared to the physical, verifiable, evidence of what was actually said and transpired on June 28,1787, and both before and after.

==============================================

Here is some incidental data concerning Congressional Chaplains:

Note: The salary for a Congressional chaplain is approximately $139,000 a year, just slightly less than what the senators and representatives themselves earn. The House Chaplain makes slightly more than the Senate Chaplain. Additional Note: The 35th Congress (1857-1859) discontinued the custom of electing a Senate chaplain, and extended an invitation to the clergy of the District of Columbia to alternate in opening the daily sessions with prayer. The 36th Congress returned to the former practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Chaplain Denomination Totals: (1789---Present)
Episcopalian = 19
Methodist = 17
Presbyterian = 14
Baptist = 6
Unitarian = 2
Congregationalist = 1
Lutheran = 1
Roman Catholic = 1
Total: 61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note for House: From 1855 to 1861 the local clergy in the District of Columbia conducted the opening prayer. Thereafter, the House has elected a Chaplain at the beginning of each Congress.

House Chaplain Denomination Totals: (1789---Present)
Methodist = 21
Presbyterian = 17
Baptist = 8
Episcopalian = 4
Congregationalist = 2
Unitarian = 2
Lutheran = 1
Disc. of Christ = 1
Universalist = 1
Roman Catholic = 1
Total: 59

{adjust quote and color tags and fix accidental frownies - Toto}

Toto

Scalia commented on this issue:

Radorth

If it's so obvious, why did you, expert on all separation issues, have to study it? Buffman, I really wonder if you know how snooty you come across sometimes.

Barton DOES NOT tie the Franklin speech to the Steele letter, to the appontment of chaplains. READ WHAT HE SAID AGAIN PLEASE. And also please note he does not buy Steele's story and leans on Madison. As I said we could have read the following cite, and saved tons of time.

From this site

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resource...?ResourceID=19

"As one reads these various sources, however, the response to Franklin's motion should not be viewed as an atheistic or deistic expression from the delegates. In their view, prayer was an official ceremony requiring ordained clergy to "officiate," (as Dr. Franklin noted) and the funds to pay them (as Mr. Williamson observed). It was not as simple as asking "Brother George" to ask God's blessings on their deliberations. This was not the general approach to religion during this time in history; orthodox formality was the preferable style and manner, at least in official settings. For example, when Rev. Duche offered the first prayer in the Continental Congress, he appeared "with his clerk and in his pontificals, and read several prayers in the established form. . . . " Granted, he also unexpectedly "struck out into an extemporary prayer," but the point is made: religious formality was the order of the day.

Those orders were followed a few days later at the Reformed Calvinist Lutheran Church. In response to Franklin's appeal, Virginia's Mr. Randolph offered a counter proposal. He recommended that a "sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,— & thence forward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning." One report has Washington leading most of the Convention delegates to the church, where James Campbell preached a sermon trusting in the wisdom of the delegates to establish a "free and vigorous government."

As it turns out, after the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), they implemented Franklin's recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one to the House and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each. This practice continues today, posing no threat to the First Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote the Amendment."

He says "nine days after the first Continental Congress convened." You can argue it was not a result of Franklin's appeal, sure. But you ought not to say I or Barton is relying on Steele. That is not the case. Also, Madison notes that some delegates liked the idea but one said "the real reason we don't is because we have no funds."

The real question is, how is it you claim (or imply) they thought differently about separation at various times?

It seems it was thought legal after the first Congress convened. In fact it was one of the first pieces of legislation.

Rad

Buffman

Note that I provided Member Radorth with the URL he is using. I also provided him with this one:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm#BOSTON

Note the date of this latest Barton statement.

Copyright © 2002 WallBuilders | Web Design by Drewa Designs

Note this was the last statement member Radorth posted requesting that I respond....again.

"So Buffman. You never said. Did the chaplaincy effectively start about nine days after Franklins' speech, or no? I don't really trust Barton, you know. I'm sorry you never figured that out. It would have cut 2 pages off the thread."

So, member Radorth, exactly what was the date of the source from which you copied the quote? For that matter, what was the source you used?

I tracked one to a William Federer book ("America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations") in which he attributes it to Barton. However, The Federer publication date is at least seven years before this latest Barton statement. Has if occurred to you that Barton had to post an "updated statement" because others alerted him to the errors in the William Steele second hand story and the erroneous statements attributed to Ben Franklin.

Radorth

I originally misread Barton. However I quoted him correctly in my last inquiry I believe. My bad.

Well you certainly made hay from that gaff, eh? I don't suppose you noticed my error a few weeks ago?

Rad

keitht

Since the founding fathers allowed congressional chaplains, then that must mean they were correct about slavery, women voting, and any number of things that are contrary to logic.

Radorth

Well thank you Keith, for answering my question. Apparently these "strict separationists" changed their minds nine days after the first Congress met. Apparently they found fundng as well.

The other issues are not separation issues of course, and since the Quakers came out against slavery in 1680, I suppose that makes them 'strict separationists."

My my. The irony is gonna kill me.

Rad

Radorth

And it was always I who recommended you argue the founders were WRONG instead of reading their minds for us.

Rad

Buffman

Rad

I originally misread Barton. However I quoted him correctly in my last inquiry I believe. My bad.

Duly noted. Thank you. (Actually you quoted him correctly in your December 23, 2001 post...the first one to which I responded and provided you with reference sites.)

I don't really trust Barton, you know. I'm sorry you never figured that out. It would have cut 2 pages off the thread."

If you don't trust him, then why did you quote him? Perhaps that accounts for why I couldn't figure it out what you were doing other than trying to be a Christian apologist propagandist.

The other issues are not separation issues of course, and since the Quakers came out against slavery in 1680, I suppose that makes them 'strict separationists."

Is that why Mary Dyer, the Quaker, was hanged in John Winthrop's Christian Massachusetts on June 1, 1660? A total of four Quakers were put to death in the Boston Commons between 1659-61.

Is that why the Christian Puritans, under Winthrop's (1588-1649) leadership banished Roger Williams in 1635 because he preached the separation of Church and State way back then? And he wasn't a Quaker. And what about Anne Hutchinson? Winthrop banished her as well. She wasn't a Quaker.

If you are going to reference one group of Christians, you better reference all of them or folks might think that you are intentionally attempting to cover up the Christian dirty laundry.

crazyfingers

I've always enjoyed this quote from Madison.

From here quoting his "Essay on Monopolies," unpublished until 1946

That source goes on to say that Emphasis mine.