Federal Judge Rules U.S. Congress May Reject Atheist’s Request to Present Invocation

WASHINGTON — A federal judge appointed to the bench by then-President George W. Bush has ruled that Congress may reject an atheist’s request to present an opening invocation and that officials did not discriminate against him in requiring that those who present prayers be actual faith leaders.

“This court concludes that the refusal of the House chaplain to invite an avowed atheist to deliver the morning ‘prayer,’ in the guise of a non-religious public exhortation as a ‘guest chaplain,’ did not violate the Establishment Clause,” wrote U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer on Wednesday.

“For the same reasons that legislative prayer has been found consistent with the Establishment Clause, so is it consistent with the Equal Protection Clause,” she said.

As previously reported, Dan Barker, the co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), filed suit against House Chaplain Patrick Conroy and Speaker Paul Ryan in May—on the National Day of Prayer—after he was prevented from delivering an atheist invocation before Congress.

According to FFRF, Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, had sponsored Barker to deliver the invocation as a Congressional guest in February 2015. Conroy’s office notified Barker that all guest chaplains must be “ordained by a recognized body in the faith in which he/she practices” and must present a copy of their ordination certificate as proof. He also advised that the invocation must address a “higher power.”

“This is a substantive requirement—not a mechanical or check-the-box requirement,” Conroy advised. “For example, I do not invite member-recommended individuals who have obtained an Internet-generated ordination to serve as guest chaplains, even if they hold deep and long-standing religious beliefs.”

Barker had formerly served as a minister in California, being ordained in 1975, but proclaimed his atheism in 1984 and no longer is affiliated with any Christian denomination. He still uses his ordination, however, as a means to officiate weddings.

  • Connect with Christian News

Believing that this was sufficient, Barker consequently submitted his ordination certificate to Conroy’s office. In regard to addressing a “higher power,” he provided Conroy with the text of his planned invocation, stating that he believes there is no higher power than “we, the people of these United States.”

But Conroy was not convinced that Barker qualified under the rules about guest chaplains, and the matter remained outstanding for nearly a year when Conroy advised Barker in January 2016 that he was denying his appearance because he has “announced his atheism publicly” and is not a true “minister of the gospel.”

“Daniel Barker was ordained in a denomination in which he no longer practices,” an email from Conroy’s office outlined.

Barker later filed suit, alleging that Conroy had violated his rights by prohibiting him from delivering an invocation. He specifically contended that the rejection was a violation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which states that the government must not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless there is a “compelling government interest” in doing so.

However, on Wednesday, Judge Collyer rejected Barker’s arguments, stating that the RFRA does not apply to the situation as it only pertains to religious entities being forced by the government to act contrary to the tenets of their faith.

“Taking as true Mr. Barker’s allegations that atheism is his religion and assuming, but not finding, that RFRA applies to the House, the court finds Mr. Barker has failed adequately to allege a claim under RFRA because he fails to allege a substantial burden,” she wrote. “A substantial burden ‘exists when government action puts ‘substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.’”

“Mr. Barker alleges that he was prevented from serving as a guest chaplain, but fails to allege that serving as a guest chaplain was required by his religion or that Conroy or any other individual at the House forced him to engage in any conduct contrary to his religion,” Collyer said.

She also rejected Barker’s argument that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Greece v. Galloway is applicable to his legal challenge, explaining that the matter pertained to various religious leaders presenting a prayer to God—and atheists are not seeking to do so.

“[C]ontrary to Mr. Barker’s hopeful interpretation, Town of Greece did not reference atheists—who are, by definition, nontheists who do not believe in God or gods—but ‘any minister or layman who wished to give [a prayer],'” Collyer wrote.

“Despite Mr. Barker’s repeated attempts to characterize his claims as not challenging the constitutionality of legislative prayer, the reality is that his request to open the House with a secular invocation, which resulted in the denial of his request to serve as a guest chaplain, was a challenge to the ability of Congress to open with a prayer,” she outlined.

“To decide that Mr. Barker was discriminated against and should be permitted to address the House would be to disregard the Supreme Court precedent that permits legislative prayer.”

Barker expressed disappointment in the ruling, writing in a statement, “Conroy’s personal biases against the nonreligious have prevented me from participating in my government. The judge’s acquiescence in this inequity sends a crystal clear message that our government, founded upon our entirely secular Constitution, may discriminate with impunity against atheists and freethinkers.”

However, Speaker Ryan applauded the decision, noting that from the nation’s founding, Congress has always sought to acknowledge the Almighty.

“Since the first session of the Continental Congress, our nation’s legislature has opened with a prayer to God. Today, that tradition was upheld and the freedom to exercise religion was vindicated. The court rightfully dismissed the claims of an atheist that he had the right to deliver a secular invocation in place of the opening prayer,” he said.

“I commend the district court for its decision, and I am grateful that the People’s House can continue to begin its work each day as we have for centuries: taking a moment to pray to God,” Ryan stated.

“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: 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,” read the first prayer delivered before the Continental Congress on Sept. 7, 1774.

The invocation concluded “in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Jerome Horwitz

    Well, well, well: Guess who’s behind this one? None other than Dan Barker of the anti-Christian hate group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

    The widdle bigot got himself humbled. Bets he’ll be a man and drop it?

    • Appleman

      He’s a hater. This is what haters do.

    • chronicintel

      Anti-Christian hate group? I don’t recall a single time where FFRF advocated hatred for Christians. The only thing they advocate for is separation of church and state (or more accurately, separation of religion and government). In cases like this where religion is TIED to government in the form of invocations, FFRF is fighting for PLURALITY to ensure that NO religious viewpoints are discriminated against, including NON-religious ones.

      The government shouldn’t have the power to pick and choose one religion over another.

  • james blue

    All he has to do is ordain himself as an atheist “minister”. Atheism is recognized.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      Congress shall make no law …… that applies to Congress ………….

      • james blue

        Please continue

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          Congress specifically exempts itself from the laws it writes ………….

          • james blue

            It can’t exempt itself form the constitution.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “It can’t exempt itself form the constitution.”

            sure … NOT what was said …. is it …………

            “Congress shall make no law …… that applies to Congress …………. Congress specifically exempts itself from the laws it writes ………….”

            Congress is still exempt from:

            — The Freedom of Information Act.

            — Investigatory subpoenas to obtain information for safety and health probes.

            — Protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.

            — Having to post notices of worker rights in offices.

            — Prosecution for retaliating against employees who report safety and health hazards.

            — Having to train employees about workplace rights and legal remedies.

            — Record-keeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses.

            ___

          • james blue

            Is there any actual point to this waffling?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            To Congress waffling … you would have to ask them ….. there is nothing in the rules of the Senate or House that allow the above request …. has nothing to do with the constitution ….. and Congress does not have to if they do not want to ….. and no court can alter it …… FYI …. the constitution calls it a separation of powers …………..

          • james blue

            Seriously? You think meant “congress” when I asked you about the waffling?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            could only be them … as i was not ………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants – ProPublica
            propublica;org/article/do-as-we-say-congress-says-then-does-what-it-wants
            31 Jan 2013 … Congress exempts itself from a number of laws that apply to the private sector and the executive branch.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Do As We Say, Congress Says, Then Does What It Wants – ProPublica
            propublica;org/article/do-as-we-say-congress-says-then-does-what-it-wants
            31 Jan 2013 … Congress exempts itself from a number of laws that apply to the private sector and the executive branch

  • meamsane

    This judge really had this atheists number. Schooled and busted!!!!

  • Yolanda Meira

    These people are so stupid they don’t realize that calling “we the people” the highest power existant, they are elevating “we the people” got divine status.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Interesting.

  • Guzzman

    Chaplain Conroy said a guest chaplain must be ordained and invoke a higher power to meet the criteria for giving an invocation. But he is wrong. Secular invocations have routinely been given before legislative bodies throughout the country since the Town of Greece v. Galloway decision.

    Also, to date, 8 imams have given invocations before Congress, and they can hardly be considered “ministers of the gospel.” Islam has no formal or ordained clergy, so the 8 imams did not meet the requirement of being ordained either. And the Dali Lama invoked Buddha, not a supernatural power, so the Dali Lama didn’t meet any of the bogus requirements for being a guest chaplain.

    One reason the Supreme Court in Town of Greece v. Galloway upheld legislative prayer invocations was because the town “maintained that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an ATHEIST, could give the invocation.”

    Why does this judge and Congress think it can discriminate against its non-religious, taxpaying citizens?

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “guest chaplain must be ordained and invoke a higher power to meet the criteria for giving an invocation. But he is wrong. Secular invocations have routinely been given before legislative bodies throughout the country”

      different venue … different rules ………

      • Guzzman

        You may very well be correct, and if so, then the U.S. Congress may be the last remaining legislative body in the country that can openly discriminate against tax paying citizens based on viewpoint discrimination.

        I only wish that Congress would be consistent in applying its own criteria for selecting guest chaplains. Congress has gone against its own criteria by selecting guest chaplains who were not ordained, were not ministers of the gospel, did not call on a higher power, and were not nominated by a House representative from their state.

        James Madison was against chaplains in Congress funded by taxpayers – he called it a “palpable violation” of Constitutional principles. He said, at the very least, members of Congress should pay for these “Ministers of religion” out of their own pockets.

    • Jerome Horwitz

      Thanks for completely ignoring the fact Dan Barker and FFRF were behind this whole thing in the first place.

      • Guzzman

        You wrote, “Thanks for completely ignoring the fact Dan Barker and FFRF were behind this whole thing in the first place. ”

        Uh, the article made that abundantly clear: “As previously reported, Dan Barker, the co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), filed suit against House Chaplain Patrick Conroy and Speaker Paul Ryan in May—on the National Day of Prayer—after he was prevented from delivering an atheist invocation before Congress.”

        And your point?

        • Jerome Horwitz

          The point is he would’ve done it regardless.

  • MCrow

    Shoe on the other foot, Christians would be crying persecution. In fact…there’s a recent article on this site about India…

  • Odysseus Ulysses

    Sounds like the perfect job for the Church of Satan then (they don’t actually believe in the Devil, but the are still legally recognized as a legitimate religious group.
    It would be better if society would see the good works of atheists and agnostics thru existing Humanist “churches.”
    But until then: Hail Satan!