FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Do We Have Congressional Chaplains?

by DAVID MACARAY

Why do we have them and why do they make $170,000?  Actually, the Senate Chaplain makes a bit less than that (in 2011, he made $155,000).  That’s probably because the Senate Chaplain has only 100 potential customers, whereas the House Chaplain has 435 of them.  In any event, considering the lack of heavy lifting required by the job, these salaries (underwritten by the taxpayer) seem fairly generous.

So, what, specifically, do these chaplains do?  According to their charter, congressional chaplains perform “ceremonial, symbolic, and pastoral duties.”  While it’s hard to know what those duties might have been in the 18th century, today they seem to consist mainly of opening sessions of congress with a prayer, making themselves available to House and Senate members for spiritual guidance, and giving visiting religious leaders a tour of the building.  Not a bad gig.

Of course, trying to evaluate or defend the incomes of disparate jobs is a fool’s errand.  It’s not only comparing apples and oranges, it’s comparing apples and papayas.  Dishwashers make $16,000 a year, school teachers toil in the vineyard for $50,000, the minimum major league baseball salary (even for a bench-warmer) is $480,000, and Wikipedia says Judge Judy gets $45 million a year for dispensing her aggressive, show biz justice.  Forget about it.

The Senate Chaplain has his own crew.  He has a Chief-of-Staff, a Director of Communications, and an Executive Assistant to help him dispense his duties.  In 2011, the total budget for the Senate Chaplain’s office (including salaries and expenses) was $415,000.  While that seems exorbitant from one perspective, from another perspective it seems meager, almost miniscule.  After all, don’t we taxpayers spend $415,000 every 90 seconds or so in Afghanistan?  It’s apples and papayas.

But the most conspicuous issue isn’t their salaries.  Clearly, the elephant in the room is the apparent violation of the constitutional provision establishing the separation of Church and State.  Clergymen prowling the corridors seems inappropriate.  Simply put, why are we permitting (and paying!) some sanctimonious, Bible-thumping zealot to step onto the floor of the U.S. Congress and lead our duly elected government representatives in a mandatory prayer?

The simple answer seems to be that no one cares—or, at least, no one cares enough to make (literally) a federal case out of it.  Not that this hasn’t been challenged in the past, because it has; it’s been challenged several times.  Even James Madison, the so-called “Father of the Constitution,” is said to have questioned whether creating a congressional chaplain violated the separation of Church and State provision.

Alas, it’s more complicated than that.  Consider:  The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787, and the first Congressional Chaplains (William Blinn, a Presbyterian, as House Chaplain, and Samuel Provost, an Episcopalian, as Senate Chaplain) were installed almost immediately thereafter, in 1789.  It was as if they almost went hand-in-hand.

Presumably, if the framers genuinely believed that having a congressional chaplain violated the Constitution’s separation of Church and State provision, they wouldn’t have stood by and allowed the position to be created—not with the ink on the document barely dry.  Or would they?  Anyone looking for a “purist” answer isn’t going to find one.

So we’re left with this:  The Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion, employers can’t ask job applicants if they’re church-goers, and the Supreme Court outlaws prayer in public schools.  Yet churches don’t pay taxes, “In God We Trust” is scrawled on our money, and Congress is asked to pray to God before conducting its business.  That seems strange.  It would be interesting to know what Judge Judy thinks.

David Macaray, an LA playwright and author (“It’s Never Been Easy:  Essays on Modern Labor”), was a former union rep. dmacaray@earthlink.net

David Macaray is a playwright and author. His newest book is “Nightshift: 270 Factory Stories.” He can be reached at dmacaray@gmail.com

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail