The purpose of this thread is to investigate, discuss and debate whether or not the First U. S. Congress opened its daily sessions with prayer, as is often claimed. After years of searching the historical records of the First U. S. Congress and finding no evidence of,

House or Senate resolutions, during the First U. S. Congress, ordering a daily opening prayer

The Chaplains to Congress ever being assigned any regular daily duties by either chamber of the First U. S. Congress, or

Opening prayers recorded in the House or Senate Journals of the First U. S. Congress, the Senate Executive Journal of the First U. S. Congress, Maclay's Journal or the Annals of Congress of the First U. S. Congress,

I am convinced that there is not much, if any, credible historical evidence to support the claim that the First U. S. Congress opened its sessions with prayer.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

seems there was at least one

I assume your point is religion was not part of our original government. But I don't know, because you leave it to the reader.

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, Office of the Chaplain

RJ

Do you know the difference between the Continental Congress and the U. S. Congress?

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

I didn't know religion was ever a portion, division, piece, or segment of our original government. I thought religion, under the U. S. Constitution, was totally excluded from the cognizance of civil authority.

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

Well, you think wrong. Better go back to your old high school and ask for your money back.

RJ

Exactly how and when was religion ever a portion, division, piece, or segment of our original government?

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

I can do that. However, I'm sure they will ask me to show them where the Constitution grants the government jurisdiction over religion. What should I tell them?

__________________
I find it appalling that Justice Antonin Scala, in his dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, constructed his model of "the relationship between church and state" in America without even considering the actual text of the Constitution. How do incompetents like him get on the U. S. Supreme Court?

Try these on for starters:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

In establishing their authority as free men and creating a self governing civil authority independent of the King of England, the Founding Fathers most certainly were cognizent of religion. It was their religion upon which they drew the moral authority to declare independence. It is only recently that it has become chic to deny the role of religion in our system of democracy. This notion of being among the intellectual avant guard shall pass and America can (and will) return to a philosophy of humility in government.

RJ

That's not from the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is an important document in the history of our country. However, it is meaningless towards our laws - you'll want to refer to the Constitution for that. The founding fathers were very careful NOT to make any references to God, the Creator, divinity, etc. in the document that is the basis for our laws.

Think of our Founding Fathers as Christians (remember this was over 200 years ago), who had deeply held beliefs yet they wanted a country that was governed by both idealists and fundamentalists alike that religion wouldn't create limitations in possibilities for the future. Very pioneering, this was contradictory to the restrictions they and their ancestors faced in England.

A very good point. My compliments

However, now we are getting into the quagmire of the goverment-religion debate. The original statement was:

First, he talks to any portion, division . . . . of our original government. Then he says religion was totally excluded from the cognizance of civil authority. I must say that communications skills are not his strong suit. I'm left to decipher his point on my own.

While it is true that the Constitution was amended to keep the Congress from making any laws that abridge the freedom of religion. We certainly did not exclude religious beliefs during the debate and construction of our government's authority. Nor do we exclude religious principles from the "cognizance" of civil authority. If I understand what he means by that, he is saying we must exclude religion from all civil authority. That's absurd on the face of it. If it were true then why does the government get involved in issuing marriage licenses? I could see it if the government only issued licenses for civil ceremonies. But any marriage needs civil authority, ergo religion is "cognizant" in our civil authority.

So, I suggest that the original poster clarify what he's talking about so we can all get on the same page and engage in a real debate, that is if one is even needed.

RJ

What does government issuance of marriage licenses have to do with religion?

I have to agree with Richard here. Mick asked about religion in the original government, which can be construed as the Continental Congress or the one under the Articles of Confederation. He did not ask about the role religion played in the early days of our current government under the Constitution, which has a completely different answer.

Marriage has everything to do with religion as the act is religiously sanctioned. Civil unions, on the other hand, are more secular, and thus fall under the purview of government. With government sanctioning marriage, it is getting involved in religious activities.

The original poster said:Issuing a marriage license is just one example where he is wrong.

RJ