Atheist Sues Congress to Deliver Invocation

[_Maksutov]

How is being included in an opening prayer/commentary for Congress inappropriate for an Atheist? Since the government has a clear secular nature it would only make sense an Atheist be allowed in the rotation.

- Doc

I'd give Tom Snyder's prayer. It could be adapted for the nation in general.

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2003/Tom ... ay-03.html

[_subgenius]

Always amazed at how atheists want so desperately to be validated without merit and how they yearn to be members of a club they claim to despise.

(and being "non religious" doesn't always mean "atheist")

I'm always amazed at how religious people want so desperately to be validated without merit that they shove chaplains and National Days of Prayer down our throats. No yearning, just censorship and oppression.

How so? People don't get to do things all the time - usually because they are not qualified or because their veil of snark-ness is just to thin.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prayer

Prayer being specifically related to "God" therefore excludes atheism. Why is this group not upset at not ringing the bell at the NYSE?

The premise is nonsense and only speaks to their defective notion that mockery is mature. No one is denying their constitutional right to be religious if they choose to be...the fact is, they choose not to be.

As for whatever fantasy you have for the "separation" of church and state, good luck with that because among grown-ups, it is just a fantasy. Just look at your money, your state buildings (eg the Supreme Court),and the actual Constitution. Not favoring one does not equate to excluding all of them.

I am sorry that reason, logic, common sense, and reality does not align with the atheist delusion.

[_MeDotOrg]

invocation
invəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of invoking something or someone for assistance or as an authority.
"the invocation of new disciplines and methodologies"

So a definition of terms. An invocation is not necessarily a prayer to a deity or other being. And it seems to me that after 200 years of hearing from one side, it might be reasonable to hear another point of view for one day.

But there were Christian protests when a Hindu gave an invocation.

In fact in Idaho this year, 3 senators refused to attend the invocation of a Hindu. Part of what was said:

Fulfill all your duties, action is better than inaction. Even to maintain your body, you are obligated to act. Selfish action imprisons the world. Act selflessly, without any throughout of personal profit.

[_subgenius]

invocation
invəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of invoking something or someone for assistance or as an authority.
"the invocation of new disciplines and methodologies"

So a definition of terms. An invocation is not necessarily a prayer to a deity or other being.

Correct, but the context of the OP notes the "National Day of Prayer"

And it seems to me that after 200 years of hearing from one side, it might be reasonable to hear another point of view for one day.

why? Is it because 200 is an arbitrary measure?...to me, it seems more reasonable to wait 20,000 years before hearing from that side.
The idea that "National Day of Prayer" is better served by hearing from an atheist is rather absurd.
Perhaps we should apply your philosophy of "reasonable" to arguments like abortion and climate change.

But there were Christian protests when a Hindu gave an invocation.

So? no one is disputing the right to protest...the question is the validity and/or reasonable nature of said protest.

In fact in Idaho this year, 3 senators refused to attend the invocation of a Hindu. Part of what was said:

Fulfill all your duties, action is better than inaction. Even to maintain your body, you are obligated to act. Selfish action imprisons the world. Act selflessly, without any throughout of personal profit.

All of which does not validate nor support the atheist in the matter. In fact, the atheist is the only one acting for personal profit in this matter.

[_EAllusion]

The idea that "National Day of Prayer" is better served by hearing from an atheist is rather absurd.

If an atheist does not have equal access to it, then it is straightforwardly unconstitutional according to current precedent. You're just spending a lot of words making the case for this being an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Again, since you are a tried and true originalist, would you agree that Congressional chaplains are unconstitutional given that the person who wrote the establishment clause thought they were in violation of the establishment clause?

[_EAllusion]

As for whatever fantasy you have for the "separation" of church and state, good luck with that because among grown-ups, it is just a fantasy. Just look at your money, your state buildings (eg the Supreme Court),and the actual Constitution. Not favoring one does not equate to excluding all of them.

The religion on money is supposed to only be allowed there because it is ceremonial deism devoid of religion like saying "God bless you" after a sneeze. This is totally a sham justification, which you seem to implicitly recognize, but if what you believe to be the case was accepted by the Supreme Court, it would've been ruled unconstitutional.

The the Supreme Court only allows a 10 commandments display if it exists within a larger display of many sources of legal code. It's up there not as an endorsement of religion but as a secular display of legal history.

The Constitution contains zero references to religion sans prohibiting holding religious tests for public office or the state acting to establish a religious point of view, so uh, yeah.

[_subgenius]

The the Supreme Court only allows a 10 commandments display if it exists within a larger display of many sources of legal code. It's up there not as an endorsement of religion but as a secular display of legal history.

My the Supreme Court reference was specific to my point and was noting the religious figures found adorning the actual building that houses the Supreme Court.

The Constitution contains zero references to religion sans prohibiting holding religious tests for public office or the state acting to establish a religious point of view, so uh, yeah.

Actually, it does not speak about a "view"..it simply prohibits laws that would "favor" religion. Again, the Constitution does not obligate freedom "from" religion but rather freedom "of" religion....and on either of those points "atheism" does not qualify anymore than being a member of NAMBLA.

[_EAllusion]

My the Supreme Court reference was specific to my point and was noting the religious figures found adorning the actual building that houses the Supreme Court.

That's also true and is allowed for the exact same reason given in my comment on the display of the 10 commandments on the building. That Moses is holding them is not different at all.

Actually, it does not speak about a "view"..it simply prohibits laws that would "favor" religion. Again, the Constitution does not obligate freedom "from" religion but rather freedom "of" religion....and on either of those points "atheism" does not qualify anymore than being a member of NAMBLA.

One, you are confusing the free exercise clause with the establishment clause. Two, the establishment clause does prohibit the establishment of a religious point of view because that is what is meant by "religion." This includes the religion that God exists. Allowing atheists equal access to the invocation is what allows the government to argue it isn't establishing that religion.

You should be happy the establishment clause includes atheism. If it didn't, the government could officially establish atheism. You want to argue the free exercise clause doesn't protect atheists. It does, but that isn't what this issue is about.

So, Mr. Orginalist: how about them chaplains?

[_subgenius]

One, you are confusing the free exercise clause with the establishment clause. Two, the establishment clause does prohibit the establishment of a religious point of view because that is what is meant by "religion." This includes the religion that God exists. Allowing atheists equal access to the invocation is what allows the government to argue it isn't establishing that religion.

You should be happy the establishment clause includes atheism. If it didn't, the government could officially establish atheism. You want to argue the free exercise clause doesn't protect atheists. It does, but that isn't what this issue is about.

So, Mr. Orginalist: how about them chaplains?

1.The complaint in the OP is contrary. While the Supreme Court has since found that atheism is a religion, the complainant is hard pressed to now, conveniently, take the position of being non-religious. So, I disregard their establishment clause argument. (Torcaso v Watkins)
2. Now, the RFRA complaint seems to rely upon a discrimination claim - though discrimination can be allowed when serving the government's compelling interest....and relies upon the idea that the government actions are a substantial burden to their exercise of said religion....(note, under establishment clause complaint the atheist is assuming the non-religious position while under the RFRA complaint the atheist is assuming the religious position). I do not see any valid argument that concludes with this burden being present. How is this particular atheist being burdened by the government under these circumstances? Is there a particular atheist doctrine for Invocation invitations?

The mere fact that this group believes that they have a constitutional right to participate in what they claim is an unconstitutional activity just accentuates the high level of douche one must attain before proclaiming themselves an atheist.