Proportional Representation Anyone?

I can't get over this: for 11 years the chaplain of the US House of Representatives was a Roman Catholic priest. The man retired in April of this year, 2011, and Ohio Congressman Boehner nominated . . a Catholic priest to replace him.

By coincidence, Boehner's faith is Roman Catholicism.

Hmmmm, what do you all think?

Here are a few more thoughts/links on the matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner

http://mediamatters.org/research/200412160006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Religions_of_American_adults

 

To quote the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, "There is a difference between a Christian nation and a nation of Christians."

James Madison didn't write that the taxpayer shouldn't be billed for a chaplain for the House, -- for nuttin. Not only is it a question of dollars and the budget, but it will lead to clergy cultivating favor with politicians for the position.

just like Europe

 

Here are James Madison's exact words on the topic, and then a link to the source:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the 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?


http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm