So I mistake Colby at his point, fine. I thought he was arguing that atheists would find themselves unable to use the services provided by the congressional chaplains. But in fact he's arguing that the presence of the chaplains constitutes an establishment of religion, contrary to the first amendment.

But that's what Steve Erbhar pointed out wasn't a problem in the first place, right? The government can pay for religious services (as a fringe benefit of employment) to be consumed by government employees (e.g., uniformed personnel and congresscritters), as long as it's not an establishment. Common sense and judicial wrangling has led us to decide that it's not establishment as long as you let everybody in -- that means the wiccans too. It's just that there isn't anyone to bring in for the atheists.

The government is trying to balance between the free exercise clause and the no-establishment clause. Allowing free exercise to government-employed believers seems to involve providing them with on-site religious services. Non-establishment requires that the government not discriminate against any religion (in particular, not for any).

The ACLU has successfully argued that teacher-led prayer in school constitutes establishment. With pupils trapped a mandatory education system, that's signifcantly different from providing optional services to volunteer military and civilian employees who are all consenting adults.
Sheesh, it starts to sound dirty.

No, Colby's right -- the correct option would be to pretend the whole thing doesn't exist. I mean, if we're going to go after the chaplains, shouldn't we also go after the Doorkeeper of the House, whose job consists of banging a stick on the ground and announcing visitors?