Judge Allows Advancement of Lawsuit Challenging Denial of ‘Atheist Prayer’ Before ...

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Judge Allows Advancement of Lawsuit Challenging Denial of ‘Atheist Prayer’ Before Pennsylvania House

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has allowed the advancement of parts of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of atheist groups upset that unbelievers cannot present a prayer before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives just like Christian chaplains.

As previously reported, since its initial formation in 1682, the Pennsylvania House has invited a chaplain to offer a prayer at the opening of each meeting. The House’s general operating rules require that those delivering the invocation be “a member of a regularly established church or religious organization or shall be a member of the House of Representatives.”

Nonetheless, in 2014, Carl Silverman with Pennsylvania Nonbelievers contacted House leaders to apply to serve as chaplain and deliver an invocation before the House.

“We do not believe that governmental bodies are required to allow non-adherents or nonbelievers the opportunity to serve as chaplains,” Samuel Smith, the former Speaker of the House, replied to Silverman in denying his request. “We disagree with your assertion that the House may not disallow atheists from serving as chaplains.”

The following year, Alex Luchenitser with Americans United for Separation of Church and State similarly submitted an inquiry as to whether unbelievers may deliver secular invocations before the House. His request was likewise rejected.

“We cannot approve your request,” Parliamentarian Clancy Myer responded.

Last August, a coalition of three atheist groups—Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, the Dillsburg Area Freethinkers and the Lancaster Freethought Society—as well as five individuals affiliated with the groups, filed a federal lawsuit asserting that the denial violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Connect with Christian News
Follow @4christiannews


“Over the last half-century, our country has made great progress—both legally and socially—toward eradicating discrimination and meeting the goal of equality for all, which lies at the heart of our Constitution. …. Nevertheless, in the House’s eyes, people who do not believe in God remain a disfavored minority against whom it is acceptable to discriminate,” the legal challenge read.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner dismissed parts of the suit, while allowing other claims to proceed. Conner rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the House rules violate the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses of the First Amendment.

However, the case was permitted to move forward based on the atheists’ Establishment Clause claims.

“Whether history and tradition sanctify the House’s line of demarcation between theistic and nontheistic chaplains is a factual issue for a later day,” Conner wrote. “Establishment Clause issues are inherently fact-intensive, and we must resist the academic intrigue of casting the salient inquiry too narrowly at this juncture.”

“To the extent the parties’ arguments evoke more nuanced constitutional questions—e.g., whether plaintiffs practice ‘religion’ and are capable of ‘praying,’ or whether tradition dictates that legislative prayer address a ‘higher power’—any such determination demands, and deserves, a fully developed record,” he said.

American Atheists, which is partnered with Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, expressed satisfaction that the lawsuit will proceed.

“We’re pleased the court has decided that this lawsuit can continue,” said Amanda Knief, legal director for American Atheists. “There is no question that this policy discriminates against atheists. If the House of Representatives is going to invite members of the community to deliver invocations, they must welcome all members of the community, not just those with particular religious beliefs.”

But House Republican Spokesman Steve Miskin noted that Conner’s ruling simply means that the court needs to gather additional facts in making a determination.

“The practices in the House began 335 years ago and we believe conform with constitutional requirements,” he said.

According to the office of the chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives, the first prayer of the Continental Congress was presented on Sept. 7, 1774 by Jacob Duche of Christ Church of Philadelphia, and was delivered in the name of Jesus.

“O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the kingdoms, empires and governments,” he prayed, “look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee.”

In light of this, TOLS atheists, please tell me again that atheism isnt a religion, and has no prayer?

If Atheism isnt a religion, why would it pray or want to? Why is it now competing as a religion before the states and nations?

If Atheism were as you maintain, wouldnt no prayer more fit its definition?

Why then seek a prayer, and to whom do you believe you would be praying?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
They don't want to pray, just deliver a lecture 'in place of' a prayer, and not even that (which is why they are happy with the ruling). The answer is 'no' but may result in 'no prayer at all' allowed in the future since their equal access and representation is negated.
Not only don't they want prayer, they don't want their 'representatives' praying either. Controlling aren't they.... :plain:
They simply want a completely secular state, a vacuum of no values. Ultimately, it is anarchy and will lead to chaos. The good news? 70% of us will win that war once it gets to that. Nature abhors a vacuum.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Funny.

On one side are the atheists who have said "atheism is religion, like baldness is a hairstyle."

On the other side are the fundamentalists who kept insisting that "atheism is a religion."

Now both of them are trying to switch sides.

Hilarious.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Ah, I love that when the rabid fundamentalists here would be happy to imprison or kill any homosexuals or Muslims. Such Christian values are heartwarming.
:think: You think a prescription for counselling for virtual abuse of all in an particular people group is akin to Muslim, imprisonment, or execution????
:liberals:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Funny.

On one side are the atheists who have said "atheism is religion, like baldness is a hairstyle."

On the other side are the fundamentalists who kept insisting that "atheism is a religion."

Now both of them are trying to switch sides.

Hilarious.
Well, I think the virtual halo above your head in your pic is funny, but we probably don't share the same-"what strikes our funny bone."

Irony tends to be chuckle-worthy than rotflol bust-a-gut. Tim Conway, for me, he was bust-a-gut hilarious.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Well, I think the virtual halo above your head in your pic is funny, but we probably don't share the same-"what strikes our funny bone."

Irony tends to be chuckle-worthy than rotflol bust-a-gut. Tim Conway, for me, he was bust-a-gut hilarious.

i liked steven wright :thumb:
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Perverted66 said he prayed to flying spaghetti monster. What ever that is.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Well, I think the virtual halo above your head in your pic is funny

It's not virtual. The picture is completely unedited.

It's a snapshot, with nothing artificial whatever.

But it's hilarious that atheists have been working so hard to establish that they aren't a religion, and fundamentalists have been trying so hard to make atheism a religion, after which they quickly switched sides for this particular dust-up.
 

Lon

Well-known member
It's not virtual. The picture is completely unedited.

It's a snapshot, with nothing artificial whatever.

But it's hilarious that atheists have been working so hard to establish that they aren't a religion, and fundamentalists have been trying so hard to make atheism a religion, after which they quickly switched sides for this particular dust-up.

Deja vu!

(Did I just say that?)

It is a light, hence a 'virtual' halo, not a real one.
 
Top