With the firing and rehiring of Patrick J. Conroy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_J._Conroy in the news, is there any plausible POD for no congressional chaplains at all? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...gress-ryan-tradition-0502-20180501-story.html notes that
"Founder James Madison saw the flaw in the idea when it began in 1789: 'Is the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?' he wrote. 'In strictness, the answer on both points must be in the negative.'
"Let lawmakers 'like their constituents, (worship) at their own expense,' wrote Madison. 'How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution and the divine rights of conscience! Why should the expense of a religious worship for the legislature be paid by the public?'"
Any plausible way Madison's views could have prevailed, either from the beginning or later on? (Obviously one way it could prevail would be by Marsh v. Chambers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Chambers going the other way...)
"Founder James Madison saw the flaw in the idea when it began in 1789: 'Is the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?' he wrote. 'In strictness, the answer on both points must be in the negative.'
"Let lawmakers 'like their constituents, (worship) at their own expense,' wrote Madison. 'How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution and the divine rights of conscience! Why should the expense of a religious worship for the legislature be paid by the public?'"
Any plausible way Madison's views could have prevailed, either from the beginning or later on? (Obviously one way it could prevail would be by Marsh v. Chambers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Chambers going the other way...)