AHC: No Congressional Chaplains

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...)
 
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...)

I'm not American and thus know very little about this, but I do read the papers (or at least see the headlines) in my native country. It seems essentially what you want is a complete divorce of church and state. Speaking as someone who comes from a place where this happened only recently (1994), it is possible, but there will be complaints about it. There will be those who see the new government (i.e. w/o the church having a voice through the chaplain) as godless. But it'll probably only take a generation or two before things settle. What's going to be problematic is getting it to stay that way when you have things like the Great Revival in the latter half of the 19th century come along.

An option is to make the Church (or rather just the powerful clergy, not the lower ranks - like what often happened in South Africa before 1994. The clergy of the Dutch Reformed Church involved with the "Struggle" weren't the ones at the top, preaching from the pulpit in the presidential congregation. And as a result, there's still a lot of bad blood between the Dutch Reformed Church and the formerly oppressed) side with the monarchy without exception during the Revolution. That it gets seen that the church is antiAmerican, and pro British, resulting in a clause being inserted into the Constitution or some other important document, that a cleric can't serve his parish and the state. It's either or.
 
side with the monarchy without exception during the Revolution.

Is it even possible when everyone can create its own church? I mean, if you are in a Catholic country or in a country with a state-run church like England or the Nordic Countries it is obviously possible, but basically, the Protestant general rule number one is that there are no general rules other than the number one...
 
Is it even possible when everyone can create its own church? I mean, if you are in a Catholic country or in a country with a state-run church like England or the Nordic Countries it is obviously possible, but basically, the Protestant general rule number one is that there are no general rules other than the number one...

True, but the Anglican Church would have had the king of England as its head. Kinda difficult to keep that around when you don't keep the king. True, you can have various other Protestant denominations (and the American colonies AIUI were a hotbed for religious dissidents as settlers - the Puritans in Massachusetts, the Catholics in Maryland, the Quakers in Pennsylvania etc) come to the fore, but none would've had the "clout" of the Anglican Church. AFAIK most, but not all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Protestant - some were Catholic - and even among the Protestants they ranged in scope from agnostic/atheistic to Low Church Puritan sort to High Church almost Catholics. So, simply have them agree to disagree on the matter of religion - they never promulgated a "state religion" in the concept of the European countries of the time (IIRC, the Code Napoléon was the first such document in Europe, saying that while Catholicism was the religion of France, it was not the only religion, or somesuch). Which is why I suggested the clause that one cannot be priest/pastor/minister/reverend/sangoma/whatever the title (of any denomination) and politician at the same time.
 
Top