School Bus Driver Fired For Praying

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

440px-school busGeorge 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.

194 thoughts on “School Bus Driver Fired For Praying”

  1. davidm2575:

    I understand your premise, but I disagree rather strongly with it because it leads to trampling upon fundamental rights of citizens that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    Government agents don’t have a “fundamental right” to compel a captive audience to listen to their religious expression.

    My daughter was once a victim of your way of thinking.

    Your daughter was not a government employee. My way of thinking only applies to government employees on the job.

    Secularism:

    “is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.”

    To call such a principle a “religion” is to stretch the meaning of religion to an unrecognizable form.

    … or, at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.

    As I said before, me and the ACLU support the rights of street preachers. Hardly a restriction to “only in private.” It is unsurprising that Supreme Court justices are not very good at apologetics.

    1. Nal wrote: “Government agents don’t have a “fundamental right” to compel a captive audience to listen to their religious expression.”

      I understand that this is YOUR belief system. I simply do not share it, especially when you interpret the word “compel” as meaning someone simply holding an office of authority. Does the President of the United States have the fundamental right to call upon God? I say he does. You say he doesn’t. Please take note that every President from George Washington to Barack Obama has called upon God when taking their Oath of Office. Were they compelling a captive audience to listen to them do it?

      Nal wrote: “Your daughter was not a government employee. My way of thinking only applies to government employees on the job.”

      Yes she was. She was employed by a public university. Her paycheck was from the State of Florida and subsidized by federal dollars from the Department of Education. Their argument was that she was a government employee representing a public university. It was the same thing you were saying, except they added that the nature of her job did not have certain hours when she was at liberty to engage in religious conversations. She had to consider that she was at all times representing the university and acting as a government agent.

      One good aspect of the event is that a Constitutional lawyer got the university to change their speech policy to be Constitutional. He argued that she does not shed her Constitutional rights by becoming a government employee. The Reprimand stayed in her file, but she was promoted in the Housing Department later. Some years later when she applied to the Florida Bar, the letter of Reprimand had to be disclosed and it caused her trouble to explain it all. Ultimately, it did not stop her from being accepted into the Florida Bar.

      Nal wrote: “To call such a principle a “religion” is to stretch the meaning of religion to an unrecognizable form.”

      I hear what you are saying, but there is a history behind this that makes it perhaps more understandable. Secular Humanists created the Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 that attempted to establish Secular Humanism as a non-theistic religion. In 1961, Torcaso v Watkins, Justice Black listed examples of non-theistic religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, and Secular Humanism. There is a philosophical belief system in making society irreligious that is called Secular Humanism, or sometimes Secularism, or sometimes just Humanism, and it at times acts hostile toward religion in a way that is very reminiscent of how one religion acts hostile toward another religion. So there is a basis for treating secularism itself like a religious system, even though it is not theistic, which is our most common perception of religion.

      Nal wrote: “As I said before, me and the ACLU support the rights of street preachers. Hardly a restriction to “only in private.” It is unsurprising that Supreme Court justices are not very good at apologetics.”

      The context was what happens when federal powers prohibit school policy from allowing religious exercise such as praying or Bible reading. The logical conclusion from these premises is just as Justice Potter stated it. The fact that we would not go down that path suggests there is a problem with the premises.

      Your support of rights of street preachers is only within a particular context. What if this school bus driver was hired as a janitor in the school and then engaged in sidewalk preaching during his lunch break while the students were eating lunch. Based upon your previous comments, I would surmise that you would not support this kind of street preaching. This is what Justice Potter was saying.

  2. If religious faith was anything more that imaginary, its adherents wouldn’t need to pick on the most gullible members of society.

    That is a bulls**t statement, but the district and bus company did the right thing by firing him. The pastor/driver is trying to make himself an employment martyr for freedom of religion, but I would hope that most thoughtful people, even practicing Christians, would be able to figure it out. I wouldn’t want my kids indoctrinated by him unless he was my pastor. I’ll choose for myself who teaches my kids about religion, thanks.

  3. david,
    it is not libertarian to induce children to pray on a public school bus. He pray silently at any time while working, but attempting to induce the children to pray with him, is beyond the scope of his job and crosses the separation of church and state. Your claim that forced secular indoctrination increases school violence is not only wrong, you provide no support of that claim or how keeping anyone’s religion out of public schools is considered, by you, to be secular indoctrination.
    And what Nal and Elaine said!

  4. davidm,

    Leading children in prayer is different from just praying. You call the reporting of the incident that you don’t like “left-wing spin.” You’re also ignoring much of what I said in my previous comment to you. You make a lot of assumptions about people who don’t proclaim to be religious. You stereotype them and imply that they are anti-religion.

    I attended parochial school for twelve years. I was a devout Catholic until my young adulthood. My daughter was baptized in a Catholic church. Although my husband and I didn’t raise our daughter to be Catholic, we read her Bible stories when she was young. As she grew older, we let her make decisions about religion. When it was time for her to decide what high school to attend, we went with her to visit a Catholic school. She decided to attend a public school instead. I encouraged her to take an elective course about religions of the world when she was a senior–which she did. When it was time to look at colleges, my husband and I encouraged her to visit the small Catholic liberal arts school that her grandfather had attended. She didn’t want to at first–but after seeing the school and speaking with people there she feel in love with the place. My daughter was married in a Catholic church.

    I often wonder why some religious people feel the need to wear their religion on their sleeves. I have friends who are devout Catholics. They attend church. They pray in church and they pray in private. They don’t impose their prayers and religion on others.

    I was a teacher. It was not my job–nor my right–to encourage the students in my classroom to join me in prayer.

    “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

    Pray in church…pray at home…pray in public–if you want. But don’t impose your desire to get kids to pray on a public school bus. Don’t put young children at unease and don’t make them feel uncomfortable in public among their peers.

    1. Elaine M wrote: “Leading children in prayer is different from just praying.”

      I asked you to explain what you meant by “leading in prayer,” but you have not done so.

      Elaine M wrote: “You call the reporting of the incident that you don’t like “left-wing spin.””

      Yes, I call the reporting left-wing spin because it builds upon the facts to create the image that the children on the bus were being oppressed by this pastor. The article said that he was “leading kids on his busses in Christian prayer” and it followed up with characterizing it as “his religious rituals.” These are not facts and they contradict the pastor’s characterization. These are the reporter’s interpretation of the facts. People are going to interpret the reporter’s characterization in different ways. Some people are going to think that somehow while driving the bus, he was holding a prayer meeting with the kids and teaching them how to pray. I don’t interpret it that way because that just sounds absurd on its face. You apparently do interpret it this way, or something similar, but you will not define it when asked and prefer instead to claim that I am ignoring you.

      Elaine M wrote: ” You’re also ignoring much of what I said in my previous comment to you.”

      The entirety of what you said in your previous comment is pretty much this:

      Elaine wrote:
      “You’re the one avoiding a complex issue. You refuse to understand why some people would be troubled by a pastor leading their children in prayer or encourgaing [sic] their children to recite Christian prayers on a public school bus.”

      You say that I refuse to understand, but I actually just disagree with their way of thinking. I also disagree with your premise that he was encouraging children to recite Christian prayers. Such is suggestive that he was giving prayers to the children to memorize at home and then come back and recite them. I see no evidence of this.

      Elaine M wrote:
      “You make a lot of assumptions about people who don’t proclaim to be religious. You stereotype them and imply that they are anti-religion.”

      I have not expressed assumptions about people who don’t proclaim to be religious. I actually assume many of them are religious. My statements were just a generalization about many commenters here who have not hidden the fact that they are irreligious. I am somewhat hostile toward religious institutions myself, but I consider myself to be spiritual and so I believe in the right of individuals to have speech or expression that is considered religious by secularists. This is the way that I differ from the irreligious commenters here who basically would love to see religion disappear completely from society.

      Elaine, do you recognize any irreligious commenters in this forum at all?

  5. davidm2575:

    … but he never forced anyone to pray.

    Straw man argument. No one claimed he was “forcing” children to pray.

    When a person uses their position of authority to influence a captive audience of young children, pressure is applied. The children will feel compelled to participate.

    … if they don’t pray in public, they don’t think others should pray in public.

    A school bus is not a public place. Like the ACLU, I support the rights of street corner preachers.

    … I think teachers should enjoy the same fundamental rights as students in schools, to pray if they want to pray.

    Teachers are government agents, students are not. Teachers, when not acting as government agents, can pray just like the students.

    1. Nal wrote: “Teachers are government agents, students are not. Teachers, when not acting as government agents, can pray just like the students.”

      I understand your premise, but I disagree rather strongly with it because it leads to trampling upon fundamental rights of citizens that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The same problem exists with the premise that government funds cannot be involved with religious exercise.

      My daughter was once a victim of your way of thinking. She was hired as a Resident Assistant at the University of Florida. When an open air preacher on campus was speaking, some of the students who gathered there began to engage her in discussing the things being said. One of her supervisors saw her there with a dozen or so students as they were arguing religious points of view as presented by the preacher. He wrote her up with a Letter of Reprimand. My daughter appealed it unsuccessfully because the administration adopted the viewpoint that you just offered. They said that she is always representing the University 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. She has the responsibility to represent the policies of the University at all times, which is to be neutral in regards to religious opinions and religious expression such as preaching.

      There are many jobs where the employee is considered always representing their employer. The President of the United States is one clear example. We should not prohibit religious expression such as prayer from the President just because he is a government agent. Teachers also are said to represent their school whether acting in their capacity of teaching or not. And then what do you do with Chaplains maintained by Congress or the Military? Are you going to say that as long as they are government agents, they cannot pray? It becomes clear that your premise is faulty when attempting to apply it to the wide variety of situations where government and religion inevitably intersect.

      The most important point is that a citizen should not be expected to shed his Constitutional rights just because he takes a job working for government. Certainly a specific job, whether for government or not, might entail some restrictions or qualifications specific to the job, but the argument that working for government means you have no right to pray or be involved in other religious expression is ludicrous. Such an idea comes from a faulty notion of separation of church and state.

      The dissent opinion of Justice Potter Stewart in “Engel v. Vitale” and “Abington School District v. Schempp” presents a strong case for how such matters should be evaluated. He said that if religious exercises are an impermissible activity in school, religion is then placed in an artificial and state-created disadvantage. Such is so true. Justice Stewart wrote: “refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or, at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.” I would encourage you to read his opinions in these two cases for a more full development of the argument.

      Justice Stewart’s dissent in Engel v. Vitale:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZD.html

      Justice Stewart’s dissent in Abington School District v. Schempp:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZD.html

  6. davidm,

    You continually feign ignorance of what really took place. Here’s an excerpt from one of Nal’s sources:

    School Bus Driver Fired for Leading Kids in Prayer
    By Austin ClineNovember 12, 2013
    http://atheism.about.com/b/2013/11/12/school-bus-driver-fired-for-leading-kids-in-prayer.htm

    Excerpt:
    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…

    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.

    *****

    “While I have recognized this tendency among many people, I have been somewhat bewildered by it. Many people say two things should not be talked about in public: religion and politics. They want to avoid complex issues that often tend to lead to disagreements. However, education should not be so sheltered, IMO. Education should be as liberal and as diverse as possible. Otherwise, education truly becomes indoctrination centers, and that results in a bad education where students learn how to be parrots rather than creative thinkers.”

    Many people say many things. No one has suggested that religion and politics should not be talked about in public. The pastor can pray whenever he wants. We’re saying that he should be trying to impose his religion on other people’s children or encouraging them to join in his Christian prayers. He was responsible for transporting children to and from school. That was his job. He had a captive audience of impressionable children. His job was not to lead any of the children in prayer.

    *****

    You’re the one avoiding a complex issue. You refuse to understand why some people would be troubled by a pastor leading their children in prayer or encourgaing their children to recite Christian prayers on a public school bus.

    1. Elaine, I am not feigning ignorance, just trying to stay with the facts rather than the left wing spin about the facts. As usual, you have a lot of trouble separating actual facts from left wing commentary. You constantly treat other people’s opinions published in some news story as facts.

      Nothing in your quote changes the facts of the case as I stated them. For the most part, people want others to behave the way that they behave, and if they don’t pray in public, they don’t think others should pray in public. I get that. I embrace a more libertarian approach and think others should as well. While I do not want teachers leading children to recite a specific prayer in schools, I think teachers should enjoy the same fundamental rights as students in schools, to pray if they want to pray. I saw no harm to students when such a policy was in effect, and I would argue that societal problems like school violence tends to rise when we force secular indoctrination onto students.

  7. David,

    You claim to be OK with a Muslim or Jewish religious leader saying prayers on a school bus full of children. What about a Satanic priest leading the children in Satanic incantations? Satanism is a religion. Still OK?

    1. RTC wrote: “What about a Satanic priest leading the children in Satanic incantations?”

      Do you mean leading children into reciting incantations meant to harm others? No, I would not be supportive of that anymore than I would be supportive of the bus driver leading children to curse and use vulgar language.

      Most Satanists do not believe in prayer. Their belief system is pretty much like that of the atheist. The Satanic Bible says:
      “The Satanist knows that praying does absolutely no good – in fact, it actually lessens the chance of success, for the devoutly religious too often sit back complacently and pray for a situation which, if they were to do something about it on their own, could be accomplished much quicker! … The Satanist shuns terms such as “hope” and “prayer” as they are indicative of apprehension. If we hope and pray for something to come about, we will not act in a positive way which will make it happen. The Satanist, realizing that anything he gets is of his own doing, takes command of the situation instead of praying to God for it to happen. Positive thinking and positive action add up to results.”

  8. david,
    you are ignoring the facts. The bus driver wasn’t just praying. He was pushing his religion on the students who were on a public school bus. He was not exercising his personal liberties. Those who disagree with you don’t hate religious expression. They only disagree with you or anyone else pushing their religious beliefs in a public school setting.

    1. rafflaw wrote: “you are ignoring the facts. The bus driver wasn’t just praying. He was pushing his religion on the students who were on a public school bus.”

      Are you sure that you are not embellishing the facts? I think when you say that “he was pushing his religion on the students” that is your interpretation of the facts. The facts I read said that he prayed, sang songs, and let children pray who wanted to pray do so, but he never forced anyone to pray.

  9. It’s also no accident that the Supreme Court building is also decorated with images of distinctly non-Christian historical law givers as well.

  10. davidm2575:

    If you follow this premise to its logical conclusion, then anybody who gets a job with government must lay aside their individual liberties in order to work on behalf of government.

    I didn’t know that proselytizing to a captive audience was an “individual liberty.”

    Furthermore, the logical conclusion would be to take “In God We Trust” off money, …

    I’m OK with that.

    … strip the phrases “endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights” and “Nature’s God” from the Declaration of Independence, …

    That’s an illogical conclusion, about as illogical as thinking these terms are identical with the Christian god.

    … remove Sabbath acknowledgment and the word “Lord” from the Constitution, …

    The word “Sabbath” is not in the Constitution. The word “Sunday” is. Sunday is a day of the week. Acknowledging Sunday as the Christian Sabbath is factually correct. The use of the word “Lord” is from “in the Year of our Lord,” a common dating term.

    … fire all chaplains of Congress and in the military, …

    I’m OK with that.

    … forbid all government employees, including soldiers, school teachers, etc. from all forms of religious expression, …

    Does not logically follow.

    … remove the Ten Commandments image from the U.S. Supreme Court …

    It is no accident that only the not-inherently-religious commandments, 6 through 10, are shown.

  11. I do not want my grandchildren subjected to prayer services on a bus they are unable to leave. The bus driver’s religion is unknown, but if there were Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, or non religious children on board, they have the right to not be forced to listen to or engage in a religious observance that they do not belong to. Again shades of “A Christian Nation”.

  12. davidm,

    “But praying? In my opinion, I think that is acceptable. Obviously others disagree. I think those who disagree hate religious expression and desire a completely secular society.”

    The bus driver wasn’t JUST praying. He was leading other people’s children in prayer.

    Ah, saying that those who disagree with you hate religious expression. That’s quite an accusation. Some people don’t appreciate it when other people stick their religion in other individual’s faces–especially their children’s faces. Be as religious as you want. Pray as much as you want. But don’t expect everyone to be happy when you to attempt to proselytize to them and their impressionable children.

    1. Elaine M wrote: “The bus driver wasn’t JUST praying. He was leading other people’s children in prayer.”

      I’m not sure how you define “leading in prayer.” Most people consider someone praying in the presence of others as “leading in prayer.” If that is what you mean, then I have no problem with him leading in prayer. However, if he is causing other children to recite specific prayers that he has crafted, then I am not okay with that. He should not be indoctrinating children into a religion, or proselytizing children on the school bus to join a particular establishment of religion.

      According to the man’s statement, he prayed and he allowed children to pray who wanted to pray. He never forced children to pray.

      Elaine M wrote: “Some people don’t appreciate it when other people stick their religion in other individual’s faces–especially their children’s faces.”

      While I have recognized this tendency among many people, I have been somewhat bewildered by it. Many people say two things should not be talked about in public: religion and politics. They want to avoid complex issues that often tend to lead to disagreements. However, education should not be so sheltered, IMO. Education should be as liberal and as diverse as possible. Otherwise, education truly becomes indoctrination centers, and that results in a bad education where students learn how to be parrots rather than creative thinkers.

  13. Hubert Cumberdale:

    “Separation of Church and State originally was intended to keep the government out of the churches business. Not a tool to strip rights away and discriminate against certain people.”

    That is absolutely true, but you have the roles reversed in this case. The bus driver was acting as an agent of the state in providing state-funded transportation to public school students. In this case, the bus driver was putting the government into the middle of a religious matter, the religious beliefs and practices of the students and their families.

    1. Porkchop wrote: “The bus driver was acting as an agent of the state in providing state-funded transportation to public school students. In this case, the bus driver was putting the government into the middle of a religious matter, the religious beliefs and practices of the students and their families.”

      If you follow this premise to its logical conclusion, then anybody who gets a job with government must lay aside their individual liberties in order to work on behalf of government. Furthermore, the logical conclusion would be to take “In God We Trust” off money, strip the phrases “endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights” and “Nature’s God” from the Declaration of Independence, remove Sabbath acknowledgment and the word “Lord” from the Constitution, fire all chaplains of Congress and in the military, forbid all government employees, including soldiers, school teachers, etc. from all forms of religious expression, forbid the President from mentioning God or praying, remove the Ten Commandments image from the U.S. Supreme Court and other government buildings, etc. Such logic leads to decreased freedom and liberty and is therefore against American principles. You may earnestly desire your society to be free from religion, but that desire is un-American.

  14. RTC bleated “Truth is there were no lions, there was no lion’s den, and there probably wasn’t any Daniel. Why do you insist on treating myths as historical fact?”

    How do you know??? And talking about what is in the Bible as a “myth” only illustrates your obscene ignorance to what is in scripture. Do you actually know what’s in the Bible, or are you simply regurgitating brain dead, illogical, tired worn out strawman arguments from atheist websites?

    There are things written in history books about Lincoln, George Washington, and others but since we didn’t witness it first hand, it’s a myth. Good luck with that logic.

  15. Yet another example of discrimination and hostility against Christianity (not religion in general – always Christianity). Furthermore, this also brilliantly illustrates the utter worthlessness of the American Civil Liberties Union. If they were worth their salt, they would be DEFENDING the bus driver. Clearly free speech, and if he wants to pray, he can pray. Separation of Church and State originally was intended to keep the government out of the churches business. Not a tool to strip rights away and discriminate against certain people.

    If the bus driver was shouting profanities and got in trouble, the ACLU would be defending him for his right to free speech.

  16. BTW David,

    They threw Daniel into the lion’s den for the same reason Hanzel and Gretel pushed the witch into the oven…because it made a good story.

    Truth is there were no lions, there was no lion’s den, and there probably wasn’t any Daniel. Why do you insist on treating myths as historical fact?

    PS, I like SlingT’s suggestion about dressing up as Santy Claus all year. What do ya say, are you willing to trade in your Mickey Mouse costume?

  17. DavidM completely misses the point about the employer’s freedom in this case to enforce its regulations in the workplace.

    If DavidM had an employee that continually disregarded explicit instructions concerning workplace behavior, he would feel obligated to terminate them. DavidM would snivel to the end of time at any suggestion that he wrong to do so.

    1. RTC wrote: “DavidM completely misses the point about the employer’s freedom in this case to enforce its regulations in the workplace.”

      I recognize an employer’s freedom to enforce its employment policies, but in this particular case we are dealing with government that is suppose to be guarding the individual liberties protected by the First Amendment. This particular employer is not suppose to be using a religious test of employment, nor acting against someone for his religious expression. The behavior here reminds me of Founding Fathers bemoaning of the flogging of citizens whose only crime was belonging to a disapproved religious establishment.

      I recognize that there are limits to religious expression, as well as limits to free speech. The man should not be passing out marijuana or peyote for aiding a “religious experience,” nor should he be tormenting children with vulgar language. But praying? In my opinion, I think that is acceptable. Obviously others disagree. I think those who disagree hate religious expression and desire a completely secular society. Our Constitution was created partly to prevent a completely secular society from happening.

Comments are closed.