Atheists Blocked from Delivering an Invocation in the PA House Have Made Their Case to a Judge February 23, 2017

Atheists Blocked from Delivering an Invocation in the PA House Have Made Their Case to a Judge

Back in August of 2014, atheist Carl Silverman asked the Pennsylvania House of Representatives if he could deliver the opening invocation. He received a rejection letter the following month from Speaker Samuel H. Smith, who explained that invocations could only be delivered by people who believed in God.

A rabbi delivers a PA House invocation in 2013
A rabbi delivers a PA House invocation in 2013

Nowhere [in the Supreme Court decision of Greece v. Galloway] did we see any language which would require legislative bodies to allow nonbelievers to address the opening of legislative bodies in lieu of an opening prayer by a regular chaplain. It is our opinion, that while the Court encouraged a diversity of prayer givers, we do not believe that government bodies are required to allowed non-adherents or nonbelievers the opportunity to serve as chaplains.

In September of 2015, even with Americans United for Separation of Church and State running interference, House Parliamentarian Clancy Myer reiterated the idea that only theists could give the invocation:

House Rule 17 provides, inter alia, that the first order of business shall be prayer by the chaplain… This same Rule provides that the Chaplain shall be a member of a regularly establishes church or religious organization or shall be a member of the House.

Accordingly, we cannot approve your request.

It was a strange argument to make, in part because it hadn’t worked anywhere else. We’ve seen atheists, Satanists, and Pagans deliver countless invocations across the nation since the Greece v. Galloway ruling. Why should Pennsylvania be any different?

They can’t be. And that’s why several members of the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, Dillsburg Area Freethinkers, and Lancaster Freethought Society — supported by AU and American Atheists — filed a federal lawsuit last August against Myer, current House Speaker Mike Turzai, and five other House members.

“When governmental bodies open their meetings with invocations, no viewpoints should be excluded,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “That includes people who do not believe in God. No one should be made to feel like a second-class citizen by their government.”

Said Americans United Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser: “Just like people who believe in God, atheists and Humanists are capable of delivering inspiring and moving invocations. There is no good reason for the House to exclude them.”

“This is about fairness and equality,” said Amanda Knief, American Atheists National Legal and Public Policy Director. “If the House wants to have invocations, they can’t simply exclude an invocation that would represent the more-than 2.5 million nonreligious Pennsylvanians.”

“It is long past time for the Pennsylvania House to stop treating atheists like second-class citizens,” said David Silverman, President of American Atheists. “This case could have been resolved by simply allowing everyone to participate, but it seems that the leadership of the House is more interested in preserving privilege for religious citizens than truly representing all Pennsylvanians.”

The lawsuit also included examples of the invocations the atheists wanted to deliver, like this one from Pennsylvania Nonbelievers President Brian Fields, a plaintiff in the case:

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

Our commonwealth was founded on the principles of tolerance, respect, and equality. As we gather, let us fully consider each citizen of this commonwealth as equals in the eyes of the law. May reason and rationality guide our decisions, and may those decisions be considered to be in the best interests of all of us.

We are a commonwealth of many different people working together. We are a commonwealth of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, agnostics, atheists and many, many others. We may disagree in many respects, but we can all agree here that our laws are the foundation of our civil society. To that end, I ask that those gathered here today remember that the reason that society works is the fair and judicious application of those laws discussed here.

To close, I would like to offer the words of Albert Einstein: “Nothing truly valuable can be achieved except by the unselfish cooperation of many individuals.”

Thank you.

Somehow, that’s the sort of invocation the PA House leaders found so awful that they forbade it from being delivered in their chambers.

Remember: This was never about special treatment. This was about having the same opportunities as Christians, Muslims, and everyone else in the state who is allowed to deliver a government invocation without a problem.

That brings us to what happened yesterday, when the atheists made their case in court. What surprised me is that the attorney representing the House made the case that only religious people had the right to deliver an invocation. Even the judge seemed to be wondering: Are we seriously having this argument?

Mark E. Chopko, the attorney representing the House, urged Conner to dismiss the suit, arguing that the House is well within the law in requiring the prayers delivered to it be of a theistic nature. In other words, to meet the House’s standards, a higher power must be invoked, whether that power comes from one god or several, Chopko said.

“Is that really the issue I have to decide here, whether prayer must involve some divine entreaty?” [U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Christopher C.] Conner asked.

“The ultimate question is, Can a government body discriminate based on who can give an invocation?” Luchenitser replied.

Even if the rule says representatives of religious groups are the only people allowed to give invocations, aren’t atheist leaders included in the mix? Even if atheism isn’t philosophically a religion, the courts have traditionally considered them so when it comes to matters of church/state separation. That’s what Judge Conner said, to the agreement of the atheists.

So that, Conner observed, opens the question of what does the House consider to be a religion. He noted that, in the legal sense, atheism is recognized as a religion and there are ministers of secularism.

“We would say the humanists, free thinkers, atheists are religions,” Luchenitser insisted. “There is nothing that requires a prayer… to include requests to a higher spiritual authority,”

When it comes down to it, the law in Pennsylvania’s House discriminates against atheists. If they want to have an invocation, they can’t open the doors to everyone except the godless.

Hopefully, Judge Conner will see it that way when he makes his final ruling. It’s not clear when the ruling will be issued.

(Large portions of this article were published earlier)

"terrorism/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/nounthe unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political ..."

MAGA Cultist Josh Bernstein: If Biden ..."
"I'll give you Ryan... just remember that Henry Cavill is for me :-)"

New COVID Restrictions in England Punished ..."
"My thoughts exactly.Britain: "Oh, yeah, sorry about that... here, we fixed it promptly. Carry on!"US: ..."

New COVID Restrictions in England Punished ..."
"Yet, I have walked you through the grammar of this situation. I have given multiple ..."

Michigan Man Pleads Guilty After Threatening ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment