Atheist group to sue House chaplain

[rug]

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 07:29 PM - Edit history (1)

The United States Capitol dome at dawn. (Photo by Jonathan P. Larsen / Diadem Images)

By Kelsey Snell
May 5 at 11:32 AM

The leader of a group dedicated to promoting the separation of church and state plans to file a lawsuit Thursday against House Chaplain Rev. Patrick Conroy after he rejected a request to deliver a non-religious invocation on the House floor.

Dan Barker, president of the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, plans to allege that Conroy denied him an opportunity to deliver a guest invocation because Barker is an atheist. The lawsuit is expected to be filed in D.C. District Court on Thursday, the same day designated as the National Day of Prayer.

Barker also plans to name Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and several members of Conroy’s staff in his suit in an effort to persuade the court to force the chaplain to allow him to address the House.

“I would really love the opportunity to participate in solemnizing Congress,” Barker said in an interview. “We hope that I, or an atheist, be allowed to deliver a guest invocation before Congress.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/05/athiest-group-to-sue-house-chaplain/

So, does Barker "plan" to sue because he is an atheist, in which case he has no standing, or because he is an ordained minister in the Christian Center Church, in which case he is a hypocrite?

Edit: Here's the Complaint:

http://ffrf.org/images/A2459503.pdf

[scscholar]

1. Hopefully they try to take his paycheck

Sad to see we're forced to pay for this.

[Meldread]

2. This lawsuit should be brought by a Secular Humanist organization.

Their reason for declining is that he is not an active leader of a congregation. There are secular humanist congregations.

Ideally, though, there would be a way to shut this down entirely. We shouldn't be throwing money away at this nonsense.

[rug]

3. There have been two Unitarians and one Universalist to date.

Under the Constitution the House elects its own officers, including Chaplains, which is not restricted to particular religions.

[Meldread]

4. Then allow a Satanist to lead the prayer.

The entire point is to force them into a position where they have to shut it down, and stop wasting tax payer money on this nonsense.

Rather than having this guy do it, they need to find someone who meets all the criteria, but is rejected on the basis of religious belief.

[rug]

5. They're satirists, not satanists.

[Meldread]

6. Doesn't matter. So long as they have a congregation and are ordained by it.

[rug]

8. It does. The ordination itself would be a parody.

[Meldread]

9. Wouldn't matter. Every ordination is a parody.

[rug]

10. That premise is precisley what will cause the lawsuit to fail.

BTW, the 29 page Complaint filed today has been added to the OP.

[struggle4progress]

7. I can't imagine that there's any right to deliver the daily invocation

and I can't imagine that there's any other particular injury that would confer standing

The constitutionality of legislative chaplains has already been resolved by SCOTUS; and the total cost of the House program works out to a fraction of a cent per US taxpayer, so it's diffuse and de minimus

So a suit goes on the fast-track to nowhere

[rug]

11. But it's sure to generate publicity and donations.

[struggle4progress]

12. I read the complaint. I don't really understand its alleged grounds for a Bivens action:

there seems to me to be no constitutional right to offer an invocation on the House floor, so I cannot see how the failure of the plaintiff to be allowed the opportunity to offer such invocation can be regarded as deprivation of a constitutional right

Moreover, it is my understanding that a Bivens action requires wrongful intrusion against constitutional right under color of law --- which is to say, intrusion against constitutional right disguised as an official act. But where there is no constitutional right, there cannot be any intrusion against constitutional right; and here, in fact, there is not even any intrusion whatsoever against the plaintiff

As the chaplain is elected by the House to provide for the invocations, the office is of a political character, and the chaplain's continuation in office depends on the chaplain's ability to mollify a majority of the representatives who hear the daily invocations. The courts are therefore likely to regard questions about the chaplain's performance as prerogatives of the House, essentially political on nature, and therefore not a proper topic for the courts, which will naturally find themselves reluctant to intervene in the internal operations of a co-equal federal branch. The plaintiff's remedy, as for any other citizen who might wish to offer an invocation on the House floor but was denied, is political in nature: the plaintiff may lobby congress to replace the chaplain or to abolish the chaplaincy entire, but will not succeed in obtaining a directive from the courts that the House must hear a particular invocation delivered on the House floor

[rug]

13. There are none.

You wrote a damned good summary. Under Bivens there must be a clear violation of a Constitutional right by a federal agent acting under color of law against an individual who has suffered actual damages.

The other problem with this lawsuit is that, as plead, it connot overcome the separation of powers doctrine. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution establishes complete autonomy in the House over its own officers. Many more well-crafted suits have foundered on these grounds.

At least his claim of standing is clear:

20. Barker retains his ordination and uses it to perform weddings, though he no longer preaches the tenets of his former religion.

21. Barker has deeply and sincerely held beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in
source and content but that impose upon him a duty of conscience parallel to his former religion.

He's one syllable shy of saying atheism is a religion.