-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.
A witch hunt! “Are there other bus driver.” OMG!
Love of god or love of the sound of your own voice impressing others with your love of god?
In addition to learning something about the Constitution this man should also revisit Matthew 6:6.
David signals the White Flag with “Probably for the same reason slaves on a plantation are not beaten for trying to run away.”
Feel better now that you got that out?
He is a bus driver. An at-will employee. He can quit any time. The school can fire him at any time. For any reason. This has zero to do with slavery, David, and you know it. Why must you be the drama queen whenever you lose the argument? It only shows you are not serious, but instead like to complain. I wonder if you recognize your own street theater, off-key as it is?
James Knauer wrote: “This has zero to do with slavery, David, and you know it.”
Let me spell it out for you. When government forbids people to pray, it is a form of oppression. Every person has a fundamental and inalienable right to religious expression such as this. So government acts like the master of slave owners when it imposes its will upon individuals in this manner.
The question was asked why none of the other bus drivers were fired. The same reason why many slaves did not try to run away on the plantation. They saw what happens to slaves who try to be free. So they submit. The lack of others exercising their rights is not the measure by which to assess liberty or human rights, especially when punishments are imposed upon people for exercising their rights.
If the bus driver was trying to impose his religion upon others, by making them recite a particular prayer, or making them pray themselves, then such is too much of an imposition and I would be agreement with most of you. But such are not the facts here. The man was being himself. It is like having a Santa Claus come on the bus bearing gifts, and you guys get upset with him because all he is suppose to do is drive the bus and not spread cheer and goodwill around. So you guys are like a Scrooge, telling Santa Claus, take off those silly clothes, leave that bag of gifts and home, and for goodness sake, do not laugh or speak to any of the children on the bus. Your job is to drive the bus and that is it. Stop being who you are or we will fire you.
Dredd,
Are there other proselytizing prayer-leading school bus drivers in this school district in Burnsville, Minnesota?
Guess why none of the other bus drivers were fired for the infraction.
Dredd wrote: “Guess why none of the other bus drivers were fired for the infraction.”
Probably for the same reason slaves on a plantation are not beaten for trying to run away.
Elaine, Raff,
I stand corrected…..but since I’ve always kinda danced to my own drummer…. I like information from all sources…. Not everyone is capable of dismissing people such as this….. And I understand your point well…. Thank you all….
Tempest in a teapot, or bus, as it were.
Elaine nails it with “Some people like to impose their religion/religious beliefs on others and believe its an abrogation of their Constitutional rights when they aren’t allowed to do so.”
I was in a discussion with a self-professed evangelical on this topic just yesterday. When man’s laws cross those invented for some deity to have instead, we get the mentality where persecution of others is required to remain in good standing. The person I spoke with saw it as his Constitutional right to persecute others, even to the extent of depriving others of their rights, and even if it meant governmental enforcement.
I see it as hate by another name. “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Sounds just lovely. Solves all the problems. Right up until we get to the “hate” part. This permission to hate is pernicious. It will obliterate the love part and take over everything else.
How else do you end up with a person who disregards the lives of children while dressed up in religious song and dance? We see the clown suit, but all too often we ignore Pennywise.
Those times seem to be changing. And some people clearly do not like it.
The key here, I think, is the abusive behaviour of the driver in proselytizing on government time. He was a government agent, acting on government authority.
I do think jurisprudence on this has sent mixed messages by permitting prayer in the performance of various legislative, executive and judicial offices, but that’s not the issue here. If you are in charge of kids in public education, you don’t get to preach or lead prayer.
Elaine,
Amen!
rafflaw,
Some people like to impose their religion/religious beliefs on others and believe it’s an abrogation of their Constitutional rights when they aren’t allowed to do so.
Children have the right to have “prayer-free” transportation on their school buses.
David,
this driver was not praying. He was leading prayers and trying to get the children to pray with him. He should stick to his weekend job.
davidm,
“I do not believe that a person must be stripped of their Constitutionally protected rights in order to work for government. The way you think, only atheists and people who believe that religion should be private would be allowed to work for government.”
*****
This pastor wasn’t just praying. He was leading other people’s children in prayer.
If, while employed and acting as a bus driver, President Obama gave a State of the Union Address, including prayer or not, he should probably be fired — talk about a huge distraction to the driver…
Apart from that, comparing the two situations is like comparing apples to Buicks.
The bus driver, as well as every child on the bus, was free to pray while on the bus. The bus driver was not free to use his authority to involve the children in his personal religious observance.
David whines, “Do you think President Obama should be fired for praying in the State of the Union address?”
I am free to turn off my TV. Children in a moving bus are at once captive and impressionable.
You are being intentionally dense because you want permission to drag your magic thinking into our shared public square without consequence, even if it endangers children riding on a school bus.
No sale. This was the correct decision.
David,
This is NOT about a man being fired for praying to himself with his god of choice….
This is about a man LEADING other peoples children into Prayer……
Had he been praying to himself then nobody would even know that he was doing it…….
This is NOT the thought police after all…..
He was INDOCTRINATING these children, that he had NO business
even bringing up god or religion…..
David chirps, “Please explain to me how taking action to fire someone for praying is neutral?”
Cannot be done. You already see it as a hostile act. Well, that’s too bad. A bus is an extension of the classroom where we do not permit led prayer no matter who leads it. Period.
The man was paid to drive a bus, not be pastor. What part of that is confusing to you? Why do you think people who claim they are praying be exempt from the rules? The rules are meant to protect children from distracted drivers. among other things.
James Knauer wrote: “The man was paid to drive a bus, not be pastor.”
He did drive the bus. He did what he was paid to do. Pastoring involves a whole lot of other stuff which he was not doing on the bus.
I do not believe that a person must be stripped of their Constitutionally protected rights in order to work for government. The way you think, only atheists and people who believe that religion should be private would be allowed to work for government.
Let’s see how consistent you are with your thinking. Do you think President Obama should be fired for praying in the State of the Union address?
I do apologize for my changing name — I didn’t actually realize I logged in with a different account. “theatre goon” and “capnzeph” are the same person, but different logins.
I’ll try to remain only one person in the future.
“Dictatorial government oppression.”
Utter codswallop.
No one said that the person in question cannot pray, proselytize or juggle baby geese on his own time — only that he can not do so while driving a bus of school children.
Surely any reasonable person can see that there are times when certain behavior is inappropriate. There are things that one is not allowed to do while they are acting as any sort of extension of a public school — and this is one of them.