-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
George Nathaniel III, a pastor of a church in Minneapolis and school bus driver in Burnsville, Minnesota, was terminated from his school bus driving job. Nathaniel said: “To fire a bus driver for praying for the safety of the children” is not right. It is wrong to fire someone for praying for the safety of the children, but Nathaniel is misrepresenting the facts to portray himself as a victim of the War on Christianity.
Nathaniel related a typical bus ride: “We start out with a song,” he said. “Then each person will pray if they want to pray. If they don’t want to pray, they don’t have to pray.” Nathaniel would lead the prayer.
The voluntary nature of the prayer has been addressed by the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962). J. Black, wrote in the 6-1 opinion:
Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause …
In his concurrence in Vitale, J. Douglas cited McGowan v. Maryland (1961), where J. Warren wrote: “The First Amendment commands government to have no interest in theology or ritual,” and that on “matters of this kind government must be neutral.” J. Douglas also noted:
The First Amendment leaves the Government in a position not of hostility to religion, but of neutrality.
Ruth Dunn, communications director for the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District, said, “We do consider the school bus to be an extension of the school day when it pertains to student behavior and support.”
Teresa Nelson, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, noted that the bus driver has a “captive audience of kids on a school bus” and that Nathaniel’s actions would violate the Establishment Clause.
Operating a school bus should occupy the driver’s complete attention. A momentary lapse could be disastrous. Leading singing and prayers would distract even the most competent driver.
As Jeffrey Shulman notes: “at common law the parent had a “sacred right” to the custody of his or her child, that the parent’s right to control the upbringing of the child was almost absolute.” Nathaniel, in leading the children in prayer, had usurped their parent’s authority.
Nathaniel just couldn’t resist. He had a captive audience of children who were too young to object and lacked the education to offer reasoned counterarguments to his faith claims. If religious faith was anything more that imaginary, its adherents wouldn’t need to pick on the most gullible members of society.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” (Thomas Paine)
H/T: Austin Cline, Laurie Blake and Erin Adler, CBS Minnesota, Ed Brayton.
It’s about captive children being liberated from religion and prayer on a school bus.
School Bus Driver Fired for Leading Kids in Prayer
By Austin Cline
November 12, 2013
http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/11/12/school-bus-driver-fired-for-leading-kids-in-prayer.htm
Excerpt:
According to the school district, the school bus is an “extension of the school day when it pertains to student behavior and support.” They have to treat busses like that, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to set rules and punishments for what happens on the busses. Ergo, the bus drivers must behave in a manner similar to any other school employee… like teachers.
And this means that they cannot lead kids in prayer. It doesn’t matter if kids can opt out of actively participating; people who represent the power of the public school have no right to single out any particular religion for favorable or unfavorable treatment.
David wrongly asserts, “You seem to forget about the First Amendment.”
The man is being paid to drive a bus, not be pastor. He was warned this was not acceptable behavior. He was lucky to get that. At-will employees can be let go at the drop of a hat. This is called “the real world.”
The First Amendment is not a get out of jail card, nor is it universal armor. You can behave self-righteously offended by this all you like but law it remains, and this driver will not be getting his job back.
If a driver was warned repeatedly for anything not related to prayer, this story would not have made the JT circuit. But since in the past we have been made to make silly legal exceptions in public life for magic-thinking, prayer is somehow still relevant.
But that is not what the man was paid to do.
He can be pastor on his own time, not taxpayer funded time. This was the correct response from a public institution.
davidm,
“Although the school bus is not a traditional public forum, a lot of talking and expression happens there. Education is about exposing students to many concepts and ideas. It is meant to be liberal in regards to knowledge. I want my children exposed to people of different ideas and concepts, whether from atheists or from various religious people. I don’t want a bus driver fired for talking about his atheistic beliefs anymore than I would want a bus driver fired for praying.”
*****
A school bus driver isn’t an educator. It’s not his/her job to do anything but transport children safely to and from school. If you want your children “exposed to people of different ideas and concepts, whether from atheists or from various religious people,” then expose them to people of different ideas and concepts. This isn’t about what YOU want.
Elaine M wrote: “This isn’t about what YOU want.”
Tony Sidaway wrote: “If you are in charge of kids in public education, you don’t get to preach or lead prayer.”
Attitudes like these express here contribute to the failure of a pluralism.
I see this similar to the policeman on the motorcycle racing a fellow citizen. There are boundaries to be expected, but firing is not warranted. We need to learn to all get along and not invent rules that put people who are different from us at a disadvantage. Tolerance of others is what is needed here. The bus driver harmed nobody.
“There are boundaries to be expected, but firing is not warranted. We need to learn to all get along and not invent rules that put people who are different from us at a disadvantage. Tolerance of others is what is needed here. The bus driver harmed nobody.”
Shouldn’t we all get DavidM’s game by now? He’s smart enough to understand the discussion, but as a Tea Partying religious conservative, he just loves riling up them “libruls”. Notice how he weaves and dodges, he’s having fun. BTW watch for his chastising me for calling him a dogmatic “religious conservative”. He pretends not to be, but he is and at times he lets it slip through.
Elaine,
As I suggested earlier, would David be as concerned for this minister/driver if he was an iman pushing the Koran to this captive audience? I think not.
rafflaw wrote: “As I suggested earlier, would David be as concerned for this minister/driver if he was an iman pushing the Koran to this captive audience? I think not.”
You think wrong. If this was an Imam instead of a Christian pastor, I would feel the same way about it. I side with liberty and freedom rather than authoritative, dictatorial government oppression.
There’s a reason why a school bus is not a “traditional public forum.”
From the original article: “He had a captive audience of children who were too young to object and lacked the education to offer reasoned counterarguments to his faith claims.”
A public forum does not, traditionally, include a captive audience. This is but one of many reasons proselytizing is not allowed in public schools.
As an aside, I expect that any bus driver who talked to students about pornography would be fired, if their superiors knew about the activity. I would certainly support such a firing — there are subjects that adults do not discuss with children not their own.
davidm2575 1, November 16, 2013 at 10:44 am
Firing a school bus driver over his singing or praying represents government hostility toward religion rather than government neutrality. If the government were neutral toward religion, they would take no action at all. If they are concerned about him proselytizing, they should instruct him about the proper boundaries, not fire him.
*****
It shows no hostility toward religion. It shows neutrality toward religion.
Elaine M wrote: “It shows no hostility toward religion. It shows neutrality toward religion.”
Please explain to me how taking action to fire someone for praying is neutral? Was throwing Daniel into the lion’s den for praying also a neutral response?
Neutrality means acting the same way toward an individual as if the religious expression did not exist. If the man did not pray, he would not have been fired. People who do not pray do not get fired, but people who do pray get fired. I fail to see how you perceive this firing as showing neutrality toward religion.
Great article David. If that minister/driver was pushing Islam, would people feel any different about his actions??
” If they are concerned about him proselytizing, they should instruct him about the proper boundaries, not fire him.” – David
David, they did instruct him about the proper boundaries. This was a second series of complaints and a letter of warning was already in his file. See Elaine’s post above.
bettykath wrote: “David, they did instruct him about the proper boundaries.”
What were their boundaries? If they forbid him from praying, then they would be wrong and the pastor is right to keep praying. If they forbid him from proselytizing, that is fine, but I see no accusations here that the pastor is proselytizing. The dispute here is apparently about whether he is allowed to pray. Even President Obama prays in every State of the Union address, and both houses of Congress open their proceedings with prayer.
If he wanted to pray for the children he should do it before he, or they, step into the bus and it should be a private conversation between him and his God, no other participants or observers. His belief that, as a pastor, he has the right to lead the children of other people in prayer without parental consent is part of his delusions.
bettykath wrote: “If he wanted to pray for the children he should do it before he, or they, step into the bus and it should be a private conversation between him and his God, no other participants or observers.”
You seem to forget about the First Amendment, which is not designed to protect speech in private, but rather to protect public expression.
Although the school bus is not a traditional public forum, a lot of talking and expression happens there. Education is about exposing students to many concepts and ideas. It is meant to be liberal in regards to knowledge. I want my children exposed to people of different ideas and concepts, whether from atheists or from various religious people. I don’t want a bus driver fired for talking about his atheistic beliefs anymore than I would want a bus driver fired for praying. My bus driver in high school use to talk and joke with us about pornography or the XXX film she recently watched. She never got fired, but I’m sure if she had prayed, the government would have fired her straight away.
Firing a school bus driver over his singing or praying represents government hostility toward religion rather than government neutrality. If the government were neutral toward religion, they would take no action at all. If they are concerned about him proselytizing, they should instruct him about the proper boundaries, not fire him.
If a Muslim or Jew did the same thing, I would have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is government allowing only the expression of secular humanists and being hostile toward the religious.
“God bless the ACLU and all other freedom loving patriots!”
Dttto Oro Lee,
This driver’s actions were indefensible and clearly violated the “Establishment Clause.” Since he is a Pastor of two congregations and driving a school bus is a part-time job I wonder whether he was doing it for the money, small as it was, or for the opportunity to “Preach” to a captive audience that because of their age were susceptible? I bet that in his mind and in the minds of those who would support him, his actions were innocent exercises of his free speech. The reality is that there was nothing innocent about his “Preaching”.
JAG, I don’t disagree. I had a good friend in my youth who was a Seventh Day Adventist, taking the converse as an example. Our connection was sports. We played on the same baseball team and played pick up sports daily. I always felt bad for Bob because he couldn’t watch TV, go to movies, as we got older, go to dances, etc. So, I understand that being left out. I felt real bad for him although Bob never was broody about it. And, I understand the history and importance of the Establishment Clause. I’m just saying, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry and the ACLU seems to be frying pollywogs on this one.
God bless the ACLU and all other freedom loving patriots!
“Voluntary” or not, anyone supporting the bus driver in this case should put themselves into the shoes of others — what would their reaction be if the bus driver was leading a “voluntary,” “non-denominational” Muslim prayer?
If one can honestly claim that they would still support the bus driver’s actions, then they have a valid argument. If not…
AY,
I disagree. These were impressionable kids on the bus. A bus driver’s job is not to proselytize to children. The pastor is an adult who had responsibility for their welfare and safety. He had no business “encouraging” other people’s children to pray.
I’ve read Nal’s sources. There were complaints filed against this bus driver. He had been warned–but paid no heed to the warnings.
*****
Excerpt from one of Nal’s sources:
George Nathaniel, a school bus driver in Burnsville, Minnesota, was warned and reassigned after leading kids on his busses in Christian prayer. He didn’t care, though, and continued the practice anyway. Now he’s been fired because he insists that as a Christian pastor he has a right to lead other people’s kids in his religious rituals.”
*****
Excerpt from another source:
A bus driver for the Burnsville school district was fired last week for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus, even after he was warned to stop — a move he considers a violation of his freedom of speech.
George Nathaniel, 49, of Richfield, who is also a pastor for a pair of Minneapolis churches, was in his second year as a school bus driver for a company under contract to the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage district.
After receiving a complaint from the district about the prayers, the bus company, Durham School Services, gave Nathaniel a warning and assigned him two new bus routes serving Edward D. Neill Elementary School and Metcalf Junior High School in Burnsville, he said.
That didn’t dissuade Nathaniel. “I let them know I am a pastor and I am going to pray,” he said.
When Nathaniel continued to lead prayers on his new routes, Durham sent him a separation letter dated Oct. 30, saying: “There have been more complaints of religious material on the bus as well as other complaints regarding performance. In accordance with the previous final written warning you received, your employment is hereby terminated.”
So if it was voluntary…. I don’t see the issue…. But indoctrination should start at home…. Unless other issues…. Safety is job one… Control the children starts with safety…
KEEP= FEEL left out….
Actually, I would say there is bullying….
Lets say there are 30 kids on the bus….
20 of them are Christian….. and 5 of them are Jewish….
and 5 are Atheist…..
To lead a prayer in mixed company like this may make some
of the kids keep left out…..
I also do NOT want anybody talking about religion to my child
until they understand what it is…..
This is MY JOB…..
I feel it is indoctrination….
“The First Amendment leaves the Government in a position not of hostility to religion, but of neutrality.”
as it should be…..
All of the horrible behavior that occurs on school buses and this is the fight the ACLU picks. I’m going to go out on a limb and bet there’s no bullying, fighting, etc. on this guy’s bus like there is on thousands of buses every day. Why doesn’t the ACLU take on that problem? Yes, this probably does violate the Establishment Clause. I’m very impressed they got this guy.