Atheists may be prevented from giving invocations in Pennsylvania, federal court says

A federal appeals court ruled last week that anyone who is atheist, agnostic or does not adhere to a specific religion may be prevented from giving invocations in the Pennsylvania statehouse.

In a 2-1 ruling handed down on August 23, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld the state House of Representatives policy that only permits invocations to be presented by lawmakers or members of “a regularly established church or religious organization.”

The court said the rule is constitutionally permissible under the government speech doctrine, which holds that a government entity has the ability “to say what it wishes” and it fits with “historical tradition of legislative prayer” and does not violate the First Amendment.

This overturns a lower court ruling made almost a year ago ruling in favor of the individuals who challenged the religious requirement, claiming they were violating their free speech and equal-rights protections.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the ruling a “troubling trend” of the blurring of the separation between church and state.

“The court buttressed its argument by pointing to ’historical practices,’” Americans United said in a statement to NBC News. “This is blind to the reality of modern-day America where increasing numbers of people are declaring themselves ’nones’ — individuals who seek spirituality outside the confines of a house or worship or discard religion entirely.”

They also accused the lawmakers of believing they have “special privileges to people because they believe in a god.”

PEW Research Center recent data shows 29% of people identify as non-religious, with 10% not believing in any god while 9% believe in a higher power.

In a similar case last year, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled the U.S. House of Representatives was not forced to allow an atheist to give a secular prayer.

“First, only theistic prayer can satisfy all the traditional purposes of legislative prayer. Second, the Supreme Court has long taken as given that prayer presumes invoking a higher power,” the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled.

“Legislative prayer has historically served many purposes, both secular and religious. Because only theistic prayer can achieve them all, the historical tradition supports the House’s choice to restrict prayer to theistic invocations.”