c. 1998 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The Clinton administration, which has made a point of reaching out to a wide spectrum of religious leaders, Monday hosted what is believed to be the first formal White House meeting between an organized atheist group and representatives of the president.

Ron Barrier, national spokesman for American Atheists, the Austin, Texas-based group, called the meeting”a very positive”first step toward informing the White House about what his organization says are civil rights violations against nonbelievers.”Essentially, we wanted this as a beginning step,”he said.”Hopefully, this will open up lines of communication between the atheist community and this administration and any subsequent administration.” Barrier said it was the first time members of his organization had met with White House officials.”I think this was a historic meeting as far as the free-thought community in the United States is concerned,”he said.

Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, and Robert Zauner, the organization’s new Washington-based legislative director, also were among those at the 45-minute meeting. Other participants, many of whom are not members of American Atheists, included atheists from different states who told stories of their rights being violated because they refused to pledge a belief in God _ a man who was prevented from becoming a notary public, a boy who was thrown out of the Boy Scouts and a man who was prevented from serving in public office.

Maureen Shea, associate director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, said she and William Marshall of the White House counsel’s office met with the nine people.

She could not confirm it was the first meeting of atheists at the White House, but she said she was open to hearing their concerns.”I said I’d be glad to listen and we did,”said Shea, who serves as the White House’s liaison with the religious community.

She said the group discussed”having a place at the table”and concerns about”their exclusion from their point of view from government-run programs.” No specific plans have been made for further meetings, Shea and Barrier said.”They raised some interesting issues and I can’t at this point comment on the validity of them,”Shea said.

The meeting comes at a time when American Atheists has resolved to build the organization’s visibility and become more prominent in debates about the separation of church and state.

On the same day as the White House meeting, the group opened its Washington-area office in Centreville, Va. And the group has invited Steven McFarland, a prominent lawyer for the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Religious Freedom, to take part in a panel discussion at its June convention in Washington on whether a constitutional amendment is needed to protect religious liberty.

Barrier said his organization is fighting efforts to enact the Religious Freedom Amendment and to pass state-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), struck down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.”We explained that we felt that such legislation would create a two-tiered system of government by which there would be a set of laws for religious organizations and individuals and another set of laws for secular organizations and individuals, which we felt was obviously the antithesis of equal rights for all under the law,”he said.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., and approved by the House Judiciary Committee in March, would amend the Constitution to protect”the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property.” RFRA, supported by a wide range of religious groups but opposed by atheists, forced the government to show a compelling interest before it could interfere with religious practices.

Barrier said the atheists who met at the White House also touched on broad concerns about efforts to accommodate religious persons in schools and workplaces that they feel do not also affirm nonbelievers.”In the final analysis, what we wanted to demonstrate was we were tired of going to court for our civil rights all the time,”said Barrier.”Rather than be confrontational, we wanted to be accommodational and be a part of the process.”

END BANKS