Prayer in Schools: A Clarification

Apparently, the ACLU believes that one of the greatest threats to American civil liberties today is saying grace for the lunch meal.
Apparently, the ACLU believes that one of the greatest threats to American civil liberties today is saying grace for the lunch meal.

In a previous article, I wrote on how the prohibition on prayer in America’s schools is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the US Constitution’s First Amendment. In this article, I’d like to offer a further clarification on the matter of prayer in schools.

We should oppose the government suppression of religion in the schools. Religious free exercise is the heritage of the American people and it's a part of the Constitution. The American people need to claim it as their heritage until the courts catch up to the American people. On this issue, the American people have the Constitution and the history of American freedom on their side: actions such as the prohibiting of prayer in the schools are a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

But even more important, not only is that ban on prayer in schools unconstitutional, it is also right to pray to God. It is right in the sense that it is both moral and legal.

It is moral—men do not need the permission of the state to pray to God or to lead others in a prayer to God. It is a moral act to pray to God just as it is moral to tell the truth or help others.

It is legal—There are no statutes that prohibit prayer in schools. The prohibition is more “assumed” than “actual.” The Court has ruled against prayer in schools in some cases, but these are specific cases that get generally applied. However, there is no definitive claim that prohibitions on religious expression apply to your specific situation. So, when I say that you should go ahead anyway, I do so under the assumption that praying in schools is not illegal, but has been ruled against from time to time in specific situations. You must always keep in mind, however, that if you decide to challenge the ban on prayer, you're going to face opposition. You may be ruled against by the courts and some pressure groups, like the ACLU, will try to make your life miserable.

Second, if there is to be any imposition against praying, it should not come from the government, but from the local schools themselves. Now, I would be against local public schools that prohibited the praying to God, and it would be my right as a citizen to oppose it. However, I think the local schools are vastly more qualified to make such a decision, if for no other reason than the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion, while a local school would not have such a constitutional prohibition.

In short, I favor the many decisions by Americans over the one by the government. I favor the benefits and consequences that come with freedom (especially those in the Constitution) over the suppression of freedom by the tyrant. Yes, there will be problems if we allow freedom in this matter, but there are problems now. The issue over religion in schools is even more contentious than it was prior to the removal of religion from the schools starting in the 1960s.

Modern Heroes

On February, 2009, Frank Lay, the Principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida asked Pace Athletic Director Robert Freeman to pray before a meal held at the school to dedicate a new field house and did so in violation of an injunction by federal judge Casey Rogers. ACLU zombies, apparently tiring of harassing little school girls for carrying Bibles, decided to take on the big boys by bringing a lawsuit against Lay and Pace High School in August 2008, based on the complaint by a couple of the students that claimed that Lay and many of the school employees were too vocal about their faith at the school. The ACLU, adept at keeping Nazis and terrorist out of jail, wanted Lay and Freeman locked up because they might continue their dangerous campaign of praying over the meals. You never know what those Religious Right wingnuts will try to get away with. Who knows, if these religious renegades are allowed to continue, they might enjoin the students to remember that “cleanliness is next to godliness” during the next Health & Hygiene class.

Although the court actions against Lay & Freeman were dropped, we had a situation where we were going to send a school principal to jail for praying over a meal in school. Both these men are heroes because they risked going to jail in order to stand up for the heritage of every American: the freedom to pray, outside and inside, the public school.

Lay and Freeman are just a couple of the many victims of ACLU goons who spend their time and money laboring to get moral deviants released from the jails so that they can fill them with Bible-thumpers.

What should Americans do in the face of this assault against their religious freedoms: stand up for them. The Courts will probably catch up to the American people on this issue eventually. But if we lose our freedoms in this matter, if principals and teachers start going to jail because they said grace over a meal, let it not be because we stood by and did nothing..

More by this Author


Comments 25 comments

Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

CD,

My position is very similar to yours. I absolutely do not believe that there should be a mandated religion imposed by the government. But I also believe that school-initiated and directed prayer or other exercises of religion should not be prohibited either because of the Free Exercise Clause. I also believe that some course in comparative religions would be beneficial.


cooldad profile image

cooldad 5 years ago from Florida

Personally, I don't think prayer in public schools is necessary. But, I don't think it really hurts anyone either. I would like for students to have the option not to pray if they don't want to.

I think religion should be taught in schools simply in a historical context. When I say religion, I mean all forms of religion. The world is much bigger than America and our children should be taught to understand that.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

As to your third paragraph, I don’t think the Establishment Clause is imprecise: rather, I think that it’s meaning has become controversial because of the conflict over the Christian religion in this country, primarily propagated by atheists. We can know what the Establishment Clause meant with strong confidence because of the 18th century condition of established religion in which the Bill of Rights was passed.

Second, I think you should reconsider this point that the school is an agent of the government. Yes, public schools are funded by the government, and to some degree, they regulate the schools. But I know few people that think that a teacher in the classroom is an agent of the government. Yes, they are often paid with taxpayer money; hence they are “public.” But, in addition, very often school administrators are hired and fired by a school board. That administrator is an agent of the school board and that board is the agent of the people that elected them to that school board position. In many states, the state superintendent of public schools is elected by the people.

Besides, do you really want, technically-speaking, “government schools”? Do you want your first grader to be taught reading in the same system the runs Amtrak, operates the postal service, and collects government revenue? God forbid, that any of us would want such a system! That’s what they had in the Soviet Union. The teaching was militantly atheist. Atheist teachers had students repeating mantras like “there is no God.”

Third, I would point out that it’s not the “Christian church” that is at issue in this matter. We’re talking about Christianity as the general faith of the America people. Displays that reflect the American heritage, whether or not they’re religious, do not constitute an “establishment of religion.” The reason I know this is because they did not constitute an establishment of religion at the time the framers adopted the First Amendment. To celebrate the Christian religion in the school is to acknowledge one of the most important dynamics in American history. Children (and teachers) for years have prayed in school and read from the Bible. Since this is a Christian nation (I have another hub where I make the argument for this), this is more than acceptable. To remove such practices and symbols is to whitewash our heritage; it’s simply censorship by another name.

I believe that Christianity should be accommodated in the public sector because it has been the tradition to do so. In part, this is what it means to be “American.” This, or course, would not be treating every religion in the very same way, but I don’t think that’s required.

Next, it’s not proselytizing to pray in a classroom where other children can hear it. As a Christian, if my child went to an orthodox Jewish or Islamic school, I would not think it “proselytizing” for the class to conduct some ritual pertaining to Passover or Ramadan in the classroom. My sense is most Christians and Jews, and some Muslims view it the way I do. It’s the hypersensitivity of atheists, who tend to be hostile to all things religious that would extend the meaning of the word “proselytizing” to such actions. I would expect that nation to uphold its traditions.

Finally, for reasons I have said earlier, prayers by government officials do not constitute an establishment of religion. They have been praying in Congress for years with the aid of chaplains that are paid for by the American taxpayer. And keep in mind, it is to Congress that the prohibition on religious establishment is aimed, not the nation’s schools.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

As with your first paragraph, I have no argument against it per se. It’s biblical to exercise patience when wrongs are done to you, and even when they are done unjustly. Of course, that does not mean that I should sit by and watch my neighbor suffer unjustly. So there’s nothing wrong for me to protest the ill treatment of Frank Lay. It’s unjust to lock up a man for praying even though it’s against the law (and in my case, it’s also a sin for someone to lock up someone for praying). So I deem it right to say to our society “this is America; we don’t lock up people for praying and I don’t care what the situation is. Historically, it’s unheard of and, as a nation, we’re not going that direction if I can do something about it.”

As for your second paragraph, I would probably have a problem with it (this is only hypothetical to me). But my knee-jerk response would not be that “we should outlaw this because I disapprove of it.” There are many things that people say that I disapprove of, but I don’t make constitutional issues out of them. I might protest to the school or the school board, but in doing that, I’m using the forum of resolving conflict without recourse to law. In fact, I find this question puzzling from people: do you think we should outlaw things (and thereby make them criminal) just because we disagree with them?

Your third paragraph will take longer so I will include that in another posting.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Bibowen, yes, I am consistent, what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander. When people engage in civil disobiediance, regardless of where on the political spectrum they exist, then they need to accept the legal consequences of their actions. What is sad is that it takes that to get change when that change is so obviously right. Of course, I draw the line at violent civil disorder or when the purpose of the protest is to cause riots.

I think I take your response to my second post as a no, you wouldn't have any issue with others standing up in a classroom professing their non-Christian faiths on the grounds that neither the State nor Federal government have the right to prohibit from doing so.

As to whether the government has a right or not, it all comes down to interpretation because the First Amendment is not precise. My route to believing the government does have the right is via the Establishment clause. My arguement is not unique but is convincing to me. It goes something like this: in that a public school is an extension and agent of both the State and Federal government, any action taken by or allowed by the school is no different than the State or Federal government taking or allowing that same action. Therefore, if the school allows the Christian church to display icons of any sort without displaying icons of all other faiths at the same time, that has the effect of the State and Federal government Establishing Christianity as the Official religion; which is unconstitutional. Similarly, if the school allows students to pray in front of other students without all other faiths being likewise represented, that is effectively prostilyzing for that particular religion with the backing of the school and therefore the State and the Federal government which again has the Federal government Establishing the Christian religion as the Official religion of the United States; again unconstitutional. At least that is my take on things.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

My Esoteric,

As for your second point (in your first post), I’m aware of what the Court has done and what they have said. However, I maintain that the Court cannot regulate the exercise of religion in the schools. It violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

Regarding your second post, what I have said is similar to what I just said; the national government is prohibited from prohibiting the free exercise of religion—anywhere. Whether I have a problem with what would be done in the classroom sans the federal prohibition is irrelevant to my argument.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

My Esoteric,

You raise a lot of good points here

Regarding the threat to punish Frank Lay, I also agree that lawbreakers need to be punished as I embrace the concept of the rule of law. And this is supported in the Bible that those that are wrongly punished are to take it patiently. That is, they should not retaliate against authority.

But this in no way implies that we should tolerate such unjust laws as a society and not seek to change them.

So at one level, I might agree with you, but I hope you’re willing to stand by this position consistently.

Here it is: every legal punitive action, no matter how absurd and unjust should be implemented and when people say “that is unjust” or “that is unconstitutional” we should berate them for exercising their First Amendment rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Since you chastise me for reacting negatively to the treatment of Frank Lay, I suppose you’re also willing the chastise those that spoke out against a system that locked up Dr. King and others (since you use them as examples). Should we tell those that complained about the incarceration of Dr. King that “hey, they broke the law; stop whining about the fact that they’re in jail.”


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Bebowen, I was getting a little long in the tooth on the last comment so I will finish here with a question. I am assuming, if I understand your discussion above correctly, that you would have no problen if, after one student was finished leading those in a class who wished to participate in a Christian prayer their God, that a Muslim student would lead his fellow Muslims in a prayer to Allah to be followed by a Bhuddist student leading any other Bhuddist students in their prayers to be followed by ... until all religious groups who wish to lead a prayer are allowed to? Then class can continue, is that right?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Hl CMerritt, fancy meeting you here :-).

I will leave Bibowen and TheBruceBeat to battle it out about the ACLU and go back to the 1st Amendment and school prayer. Obviously, as CMerritt knows, I must disagree in almost every respect but will put off most of the rebuttle to a hub on the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment; I might as well kick-off my series on the Constitution that I have been thinking of with this.

First, let me offer you this, Bebowen, you can add it to your arsenal. It is an article I just ran across regarding a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling overturning a federal judge's earlier ruling that a student's valadictorian cannot lead a prayer at her graduation. The URL is http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110604/us_ac/8588373

_appeals_court_reverses

_judges_ruling_prayer_to_take_place_at_texas_graduation_1.

I find it ironic that you jettison one of your core principals that all violators of the law face the consequences of their actions. Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman broke the law, period, regardless of the reason; they need to face the consequences of their actions. The civil rights marchers of the 1960's understood this as did Reverand King; they expected to go to jail for their civil disobedience, although I doubt they expected to get beaten up so much. Why should you, Lay or Freeman expect anything different for their disobedience?

I sort of have to disagree with you about the reach of a Supreme Court decision. The phrase "Law of the Land" really does mean that, "Law of the Land". If the justices what their ruling to be limited in scope, they say so and lay out the parameters of that limit in their ruling. No such limits were given in the 6-1, 1962 Engel v Vitale decision that initially restricted school prayer. Ever since then, the battle has been on to find loopholes around that ruling and to-date none have been successful. The last one to reach the Supreme Court, I believe, is the 2000 ruling you mention regarding student led school prayer at a football game over the loudspeaker system. This was a 6-3 decision from the most Conservative court America has known for a century.

It seems to me that what the Court is deciding is that if the school is allowing the use of ANY school owned property during ANY school sponsored event (including that graduation, I bet), it will be found in violation of the 1st Amendment. It is only when the school was not sponsoring the event did the Court find prayer to be lawful.


Mister Veritis profile image

Mister Veritis 5 years ago from Alabama

Hi Bruce, So you believe that an unelected bureaucrat should be able to decide what sort of toilet I can flush, the kind of light bulb I can turn on, the size of automobile I can buy....because this is still a representative republic?

Awesome.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 5 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

EXCELLENT HUB!!..I love this passion, and we so badly need more Americans that possess this...Reagan once said, if we ever forget we are One Nation under GOD, we will become a Nation gone under.

I vote up, awesome and useful...


thebrucebeat profile image

thebrucebeat 5 years ago from Nags Head, NC

Mr. Veritis,

It's a cute line, but in a representative republic the government IS the voice of the people. If you don't like the voice, vote one in you do.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

Thank you Mr. Veritis. Best wishes on Hubpages...


Mister Veritis profile image

Mister Veritis 5 years ago from Alabama

"In short, I favor the many decisions by Americans over the one by the government."

I love this phrase. I shall make it part of my lexicon.


thebrucebeat profile image

thebrucebeat 5 years ago from Nags Head, NC

Seems to me like the ACLU lawyers are well suited to their jobs, based on the results.

I think the child with Muslim parents is alot more free with your personal brand of religion not being emphasized by the people of authority around them in school. Same for the agnostic child, or the Jewish kid. When their freedoms are protected, so are yours.

Until you support the sharing of the morning announcements with all your theological rivals on an equal basis, you are in the process of establishing an official faith. It won't work, it won't get past the clause, and you will fail. What you don't understand is that is in an effort to protect you and your freedom to worship as you choose. Right now you are the majority, but if that changes, and the demographics are changing, you would be the pariah in homeroom, the icky kid who won't follow the crowd. He has the same rights you do, and the ACLU will protect him, and while doing so, protect you as well.

The kids are free to pray any way they like. The school is not free to take sides. When you suggest the kids were more free before, you are only talking about the kids that agree with your vision of what prayer should be, but what about the others? Are they not just as American as you, with all the same rights? Are they more free now, or are they marginalized by an atmosphere that implicitly states they are the "other", a stigma no kid needs?

Make your argument from their perspective and see how it holds up.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

"I think that is a good name for the ACLU. They are definitely against Christian lunatics."

Good job of wrenching my expression from its original meaning and making it say the reverse. This is an art form that has not been wasted on the left or on you.

If you want to propagate the loony left drivel about the coming Christian Theocracy to be lead by the shock troops of the Religious Right, then keep drinking from that well. I want the readers to see what machinations the loons on the left are obsessing over these days.

"Thank God! Only in an environment of freedom from coersion can a true and honest faith be realized."

It's a wonder you don't gag on your own words. You and the ACLU anti-freedom brigade advocate locking up teachers for praying over a lunch, creating a climate of fear in opposition to the free exercise of religion. You exercise the same double-speak as that of the late Soviet apparatchiks. "...environment of freedom from coercion..." Who are you kidding?

Let be clear: you don't advocate the free exercise of religion--you favor an imposition against it. I’m not saying that you are intentionally doing it; in fact, I suspect that your actions and rhetoric stem more from ignorance than from malice. But regardless of your motives, your actions are an imposition on the freedoms of others. Prayers, whether they are student-led, teacher-led, school-board led, or janitor-led, are not violations of the Establishment Clause and therefore not violations of the Constitution. However, to ban prayer, regardless of the reason, is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

Ask yourself "Are children in schools freer or less free to practice their religion since the ACLU began their threats of draining the school's coffers dry"? Make sure you answer correctly, because otherwise, people are going to laugh.

Finally, keep emphasizing how my side is losing. Perhaps it will provoke enough Americans to start opposing the leftist crazies that are trying to suppress their children's freedoms in the schools.

Just think, you and I working together might actually see the day with the ACLU bankrupt, its attorneys out of work, having to find real jobs that they're suited for...something like chasing ambulances and putting terrorists back on the streets (oh, that's right, they're already doing the last one).

Think about it...


thebrucebeat profile image

thebrucebeat 5 years ago from Nags Head, NC

I think that is a good name for the ACLU. They are definitely against Christian lunatics.

Well said.

It is true that school systems have become very defensive about the restrictions they must respect under the Establishment clause and have stepped on kids Free Exercise rights in the process. No question about it. But the ACLU has been the champion for these kids in court, defending their rights while making sure the school itself was not influencing the faith lives of the children.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64...

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practic...

These will provide dozens of cases where the ACLU has come to defense of people in their free exercise of faith, and a lovely op-ed piece from Christianity Today that defends the group. I know you have read it before, but you like to pretend it doesn't exist.

The only problem you have with the ACLU is that they defend the rights of other religions as vigorously as they defend the rights of Christians. All your blather about this being a Christian country and wanting to inculcate that myth into the minds of the populace point out your agenda clearly, but the ACLU is not your enemy if you wish all people to have the same faith freedoms you already enjoy.

The legal groups you name are all Christian based organizations and approach the issue with a bias that is acknowledged by them, but the ACLU has no such bias. They are strictly and consistently on the side of civil rights, defending free exercise while making sure any hint of establishment is suppressed.

Don't blame my lack of recognition of hyperbole for my arguments. You consistently suggest that the rights of the children to express their faith is under attack, and that is not hyperbole, it's a lie! They are free to express their faith, it is the school that is not. If the commandment not to bear false witness has any importance to you, stop with the blatant misrepresentation of the truth. It's not hyperbole, it's not an extrapolation, it's not tongue in cheek. It's a lie. What would you pull the ACLU into court for? Providing a vigorous defense? Your fear of the intellectual fire power of these people make your hatred of them irrational. Make your case, and the courts will decide. That's how it works, and so far you are on the losing end.

You have dreams of theocracy, but the Founders provided a way to keep you from realizing your dreams.

Thank God! Only in an environment of freedom from coersion can a true and honest faith be realized.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

Bruce,

As for the ACLU and the school girls, I guess I have to clarify that given that hyperbole is not in your vocabulary. Giving a literal reading to everything I write is probably a mistake, but I do believe it's a step in the right direction. Now, try applying that skill to the First Amendment.

In the meantime, here is one list of the ACLU's Hall of Shame for those that are interested. http://www.theacru.org/aclu-outrages.html.

The ACLU has done more to create the intimidation against religion in the school place than any other organization. After I wrote this article a woman informed me that her child had been sent to the principal's office a few years ago because she gave another student a Bible at school. This is just one example among hundreds of how the ACLU has created a climate of intimidation in the schools comparable to what you would find in a communist country.

Schools fear the lawsuits that the ACLU has been threatening them with for years. Therefore, they make policies that intimidate the children so as to avoid the lawsuits. Children are regularly harassed indirectly because of the lawsuit intimidation placed on them by the ACLU, AU and other similar types.

Fortunately, several groups like the American Center for Law & Justice, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Thomas More Law Center, and the Christian Law Association have wised up to the ACLU tactic and they are now doing the same thing on the other side.

I feel sorry for the schools and the administrators in all of this. For the most part, these are good people who are trying to do a job under already difficult circumstances. They are caught in the middle of this struggle, kind of like the Tories during the American Revolution.

The bottom line is that the ACLU should be renamed the Anti-Christian Lunatics United. Any group that seeks to jail a couple of men for praying at a dinner on school property are out-of-control thugs that must be stopped.

They are going to be stopped. This is the United States of America in case you've forgotten. We don't jail (ever!) people for praying. Public prayer has never been a crime in this nation and we're not going to start it now.

My recommendation to people is that they support the groups that are actively opposing the ACLU. I think the next step is to start dragging the ACLU into court. This will be difficult as the ACLU is dispersed broadly and they have deep pockets. But I think that if enough people and groups will start, this will slow them down some. It’s about time that the Anti-Christian Lunatics United start taking their own medicine.


thebrucebeat profile image

thebrucebeat 5 years ago from Nags Head, NC

If the kids are suppressed, the ACLU will protect them, but you already know that.

Now let's see if you can find something. Like a shred of character, admitting your blather about the kids is bunk and your condemnation of the ACLU has already been shown to be a mischaracterization and an assassination of their real record. I can reprint it here if you like, or you can step up and publicly take your licks.

Let me guess what you'll do.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

Bruce, your capacity for finding the difficult is unsurpassed. I knew I would not be able to hide long: after all, if you can find the illusive prohibition on religious speech in the First Amendment, I knew that you'd be able to find anything.

In the midst of your self-congratulation, take some notice that I grant you more freedom of speech than you are willing to grant children in our nation's schools.


thebrucebeat profile image

thebrucebeat 5 years ago from Nags Head, NC

So you ran away from your other hub as your arguments were suffering so badly and started a new one where you could retread them and sell them as new.

Interesting tactic.

In the other you admitted that you were not making your case very well. You have done it even more poorly here, rehashing your ACLU lies and now adding that your position should be the default one because you declare it "right". Shall I list the many times the ACLU has protected "little school girls" again, exposing you as a fraud and a fabricator, or will you have the character to admit that these cases have been pointed out to you before but you choose to be an agenda driven hack, rather than make a valid argument.

I wondered why you disappeared. Now I know.

Well, Bb, you can run but you can't hide.

Apparently your biggest fan is Tony, who likes to take pride in being a pushy bully toward other citizens he has decided don't deserve his respect. He boasts about his abusive nature, and you welcome him as a kindred spirit.

Perhaps he is. You would both like to advance the lies about the ACLU than to have to construct a more nuanced argument against their real agenda and litigious history.

You should be ashamed. You are appealing to the lowest common denominator that will not vet what you are selling. Take great pride in that.

If this is the greatness you two hope to have America elevate itself to, you can keep it. We are better than this, and won't settle for it.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

MV,

I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about that proposal. On the one hand, almost all the founders supported public education. However, their support was in the context of local schools, not national ones. Furthermore, I'm confident that if they could see the condition of the schools today, it would make them physically ill.

Given the amount of wealth in the society, I would favor minimizing the role of public education. The state is more likely to encourage citizens that are skilled, but compliant. But a forceful dynamic in early America is an independent people, who value their freedom, and are willing to risk much to maintain it. A government school is not going to advance such values.

Certainly, if we're going to have public schools, we should minimize their role. They should not be the dominant forum for learning; rather, they should be maintained as a stopgap measure.

Thanks for stopping by and for your remarks...


Mister Veritis profile image

Mister Veritis 5 years ago from Alabama

This is an interesting hub. What do you think of getting government, instead of God, out of the schools? The government takes money from us, often in the form of rents on our homes and other property, that it then uses to provide "free" education to our children. Perhaps one solution to this problem is to change thw eay we think about the services we demand from out government.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

Tony, it's always good to hear from a kindred spirit. Frank Lay is one of my heroes. Thanks for your kind words and the vote of confidence.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 5 years ago from san diego calif

Bibowen all I gotta say is bravo to Frank Lay and I hope many more people like him would step forward. I am so sick of the freaking ACLU ! I ran an ACLU Lawyer out of one of the locaal pharmacies here awhile back and I did not mind intimidating him and in fact was proud of it.

And I also gave the big thumbs up to this hub. Us real Americans will prevail but is going to be a long fight.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working