Friday, August 31, 2018

Atheists Now Give "Invocations" at Statehouse

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled against the state House of Representative's policy of guest chaplains giving invocations before meetings.

You can guess why---You're right. "Separation of church and state."

Now atheists will also be giving an invocation.

What and whom would an atheist "invoke?"

In the state and city where the Liberty Bell first rang, was famously cracked, and remains on display to this day---Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--- a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the time-honored policy of Christian clergy praying before meetings is "unconstitutional."

You must now also seek guidance and wisdom under the leadership of atheists.

When the men who created the Constitution, in the same city and state, could not find agreement on what the Constitution of the United States would actually say, probably the least religious among them---Benjamin Franklin---strongly recommended they pray.

To God.

To invoke His wisdom, and power, and guidance on their sometimes chaotic discussion.

He answered their prayers and under His guidance and wisdom and power, these imperfect men gave the world the greatest document of freedom under God the world has ever seen.

This notion of seeking wisdom and guidance from someone and something other than God and His omniscience was foreign to our Founders who created the Constitution.

Modern atheists and progressives, who have purposefully inverted Thomas Jefferson's intent regarding separation of church and state, are now trying to replace God Himself in our public life.

If the Founders believed atheists should contribute to the preservation of liberty under God, why didn't they invite their counsel?

While the document our Founders created provides for the atheist to freely believe there is no God, does it really demand our elected leaders seek guidance from something or someone other than God?

Does the "God-given" religious freedom the Constitution claims to protect, also require people who believe in God to be forced to seek guidance elsewhere---from an unknown god, or one who does not exist?

In the decision released Wednesday, a judge ruled the Pennsylvania policy of only using Christian clergy discriminated against atheists who want to give a "secular invocation."

In fact, the judge said having people stand during the invocation is also unconstitutional, although voluntary standing may be permissible.

He said,
"The House's practice of barring residents who don't believe in God from offering invocations created an atmosphere of exclusion and religious disfavor that was both discriminatory and unconstitutional."

This is only understood by those who see prayer, or "invocation" as a performance, not a sincere appeal.

Previously, the Supreme Court ruled in a case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, that a New York town could open meetings with explicitly Christian prayers provided other religious groups were not barred from giving invocations.

That could include Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists, and a host of other religious people, but is atheism now a "religion?"

In that case, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy made some interesting observations.

He said, in the majority opinion
"...legislative prayer, while religious in nature, has long been understood as compatible with the Establishment Clause. As practiced by Congress since the framing of the Constitution, legislative prayer lends to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society."

Take away.

Are atheists demanding to "pray" or give an invocation to no one, petty?

Does that lend to public business, or simply give platform to non-belief?

Does an atheist "invocation" pursue a higher purpose?

Does it express a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society?

If so, how?

In 1751, the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly paid 100 pounds for a large bell to hang in its new state house. This very state house.

Cast in London, the bell arrived in August 1752. Because the metal was too brittle, it cracked during a test strike and had to be recast twice.

On July 8, 1776, the bell was rung to celebrate the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence. It was then hidden in a Christian church so it would be safe until it could be returned to the state house after the Revolutionary War---this very state house.

Although it was not called the "Liberty Bell" until the 1830s by abolitionists, the bell became an icon of this new nation and our independence.

Inscribed across the top of the 2080 pound, 12-feet circumference bell is this:
"Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Leviticus . XXV X ."

Each year millions of tourists travel to the bell's current home at Liberty Bell Center in Independence National Historic Park---not far from the State House.

Most of the visitors are anxious to see the famous "crack" in the bell.

No one is sure when the bell got its famous "crack"---there are numerous stories as to how it happened---but most understand what it represents.

Atheists did not found this nation or frame its documents, but they are blessed by the freedom and liberty it extends to them.

And that freedom and liberty is extended by a God whom they do not know. And protected by a government of the people, whom they seek to exploit.

Their litigious demands are given equal hearing in the courts of our land because LIBERTY is still heard throughout the land.

Liberty is heard because it is proclaimed, not by the government created to protect it, but by the church that proclaims the Gospel of liberty and freedom.

Even as the church was called upon to watch over the "bell" during the Revolutionary War, it has been commanded to ring out the message of the Gospel of freedom and liberty in Christ in these chaotic times.

Be Blessed. Be Heard. Be Prayerful.


  1. When a group in government wants to begin their meeting, it should be up to the leader of the meeting whether or not to allow prayer, or whether or not to pray. If the majority of the group would like prayer, he would be wise to start the meeting off in prayer. It would be a wise thing to do anyway, as long as it is sincere prayer to the maker of us all.

    I can't see a rule that would say, "If one person prays, then everyone must get to pray.", although group prayer where anyone can pray is often the best kind of prayer for a group.

    If someone wanted to impose something upon others, he would want the rule that would say, "If someone prays, then anyone should be allowed to pray also." Those who do not seek to impose anything on anyone, but simply want to freely exercise their religious freedom for the best of everyone, they don't feel the need to impose anything on anyone, though they will speak up against evil, when given the opportunity, and we all should honor freedom of speech liberties. This however does not give a person the right to use freedom of speech, as a disguise, to disrupt a meeting.

  2. As Americans, we allow things we do not agree with, because of religious freedom, but we do not want to allow imposing religion on anyone. I listened to a man who had been a Muslim, who received Christ, and he said that the God of the Muslims is not the God of the Bible, yet God does take note of their prayers, even if they are not addressed to him, and if he sees any virtue, he may go into action, to reach them and bring them unto him. He looks at the heart, and he can deal with the heart of man. The man said that he had been feeling uncomfortable in his heart, before he came to Christ, and he also said that there is this feeling going on, on a massive scale in some Muslim nations right now. He said he can sense it spiritually.

  3. What or who would atheists invoke? A number of decades ago I heard an atheist leader in a PNW church conference give a (prayer?) invokation. It was weird to say the least. This person was as surprised as anyone when the Bishop unplanned and unscheduled asked this atheist to do so. To this atheists credit he publicly asked the Bishop, how do I pray to God when I don't believe in God? Basically what he did was to invoke the created rather than the creator. Mother earth etc. It was totally out of place at a church conference. The Bishop was totally out of line for doing this. The whole thing was blasphemous. I have never understood how those who do not believe in God, believe in some mystical power of the Created and do not believe in the CREATOR. As many have said, these people don't want there to be a God. He makes them accountable, and they don't want that. I have heard other liberal-progressive dignitaries in a church conference pray in the power and might of man? I guess people like that simply do not believe in the Bible. Sadly they are in leadership positions. They should be excommunicated! As Scripture states, can good fruit come from a bad tree? And further, "flesh counts for nothing". But if one doesn't believe in God's Word, then all one is left with is the fallen inperfect power of the created, rather than the almighty perfect power of the Creator.

  4. Are the 'guest chaplains' invited to give invocations by the representatives or are they simply 'allowed' to come as they desire? If they are coming by invitation, I shudder to think where this path is going. I can see the court denying my right to invite fellow Christians into my house for whatever shared purpose unless I also invite all other religions as well.

    As for 'what are they (the atheists) invoking', I read in Old French, people would use invocations to summon evil spirits. This seems fitting as the atheists seem to be themselves, contrary to what is Good and Right.

  5. How very Christian of you all. All of you who exposed your biases and snarky attitudes should be ashamed for showing such a lack of comprehension & understanding, for your lack of justice, fairness & equality, and for your unwillingness to put aside your false sense of religious privilege that has gone unchallenged for too long. That holier than thou sense of entitlement and superiority that you somehow justify as your moral authority over others is exactly why the court ruled as it did.

    Atheists are as much a part of our communities as you are. They are entitled to the same rights that you are. These aren't church gatherings, they're public meetings. Atheists are taxpayers and part of our communities too. They are your neighbors, store owners, business leaders, teachers, soldiers, first responders, doctors, scientists and bankers. You probably aren't even aware of the atheists amongst us who are taking care of your needs every day; flying that airplane, building your house, styling your hair, ringing up your groceries, preparing food & serving you meals, teaching your kids, giving you medicine, cleaning your suits, protecting our country & fighting abroad, repairing your car, making sure your communities & our state function every day.

    How dare you have the audacity to think these responsible citizens not worthy of standing before you with something of value to say! Maybe instead of worring about how God will judge the atheist, you might be a bit more concerned about how you will be judged.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.