Pennsylvania House resumes guest chaplain invocation |

Pennsylvania House resumes guest chaplain invocation

Patrick Varine
AP Photo/Matt Rourke

On Monday, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives resumed its policy of having guest chaplains offer a session-opening prayer following an August reversal of a lower-court decision by a federal appeals court.

In 2016, a group of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and humanists filed suit, arguing against the practice of limiting prayers to guest chaplains who believe in God or a divine or higher power.

A 2018 court decision sided with the group, ruling the restrictions violated constitutional prohibitions on making laws that establish a religion.

Following that ruling, House leadership began assigning the invocation to a state representative. The lower court’s decision was reversed over the summer by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia.

“The 3rd Circuit ruled in the House’s favor on all counts, holding the House’s prayer practices constitutional because they fit within the long history of legislative prayer in this country,” said House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, Allegheny County. “The court explained that ‘only theistic prayer can satisfy the historical purpose of appealing for divine guidance in lawmaking.’ ”

The majority opinion also cited a June decision in the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed a World War I memorial in the shape of a 40-foot-tall cross to continue to stand on public land in Maryland, according to the Associated Press.

On Monday, U.S. Navy Mid-Atlantic Region Force Chaplain Capt. Glen Wood offered the invocation.

“This ruling enabled us to resume our practice of inviting a guest chaplain to deliver an interfaith prayer before we begin legislative business,” Turzai said.

Patrick Varine is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Patrick at 724-850-2862, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.