This one makes me scratch my head. The Tennessee House of Representatives has passed a bill (by 55-38), to make the Bible the “state book,” and it has passed on to the Senate. Many of us who are Christians (and perhaps religious Jews) might like this idea—not to force our beliefs on anyone, but merely to give honor to a book and belief system that has had a major social and political impact in the history of our nation. Furthermore, we might like something like this because we might perceive a steady oppression of anything Christian in our larger culture—this would be an affirmation that Christians and their faith are equally as celebrated as any other faith (or lack of faith).
But for me, on the surface, I see a problem. This country was founded, in large part, from people fleeing countries who had been oppressing certain faith traditions over others. One of the first amendments to the US Constitution states that the government may not give preference to any religion (it was ratified by all states on December 15, 1791). It is quite concise:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Tennessee’s own state constitution has the same concept, with a but more specifics:
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
Of course, concise statements of law mean that it is open to interpretation, and so the court must step in to decide the meanings and applications when a controversy arrives. Interestingly, there was little controversy about it for almost 200 years. But since then, in a number of important cases, it has largely been understood that the government can neither prohibit the free expression of religion, nor can the government itself preference one over another. Both have caused difficulties in recent decades. After all, what if my free expression of religion violates someone else’s freedom? (the gay marriage debates are a current example). The courts have decided that having “In God We Trust” on our currency is general enough to not violate the constitution; but a plaque with the Ten Commandments in a government schoolroom does violate it. In all the cases, we see the Supreme Court struggling to balance the freedom of one group with the freedom of another.
For a State to make the Bible the “State Book” seems to be a problem. Isn’t that the State of Tennessee respecting one religious text over another? The Bible is the Christian religious text. What if they had wanted to make the Koran the state book? What if Utah wanted to make the Book of Mormon the State Book?
Not surprisingly, the Tennessee Attorney General issued an opinion that the legislation would violate the US Bill of Rights and the Tennessee Constitution. You can read his legal analysis here.
The House then had what was described as “a sometimes raucous floor debate,” resulting in an amendment to the bill that added secular arguments: the cultural and historical significance of the Bible in Tennessee history, the use of Bibles for genealogy records in “family bibles” and other vital records that are kept in Tennessee archives, Bible publishing houses are a large part of the Tennessee economy, Bibles are part of the historical archives of Tennessee, and others. The House then passed the bill and sent it over to the Senate.
These are all true. Is it enough for a court (for surely a court battle is coming) to say, yes, this is a historical, general book, that speaks more to history and culture than it does to Christian faith and practice. (I wonder if some Christians might not be insulted by a court saying that their primary religious text is not all that religious, it is more of a cultural and historical artifact and symbol.) Read the amendment here.
It will be interesting to see what happens (and if it passes the Senate). If so, my suspicion is that this is a pretty clear-cut case of a government respecting one religion over another. This is not “in God we trust” on our coins, or a cross over a grave—it is the written basis of Christian history, doctrine, and practice. I agree it is also a historic book with all the other secular reasons, too. However I may feel about the Bible, I live in a country who decided that religious practice should be free from the government picking favorites.
As always, if you are interested in this issue from a religious and legal perspective, I urge you to go read the documents yourself. Do not take my word for anything, nor anyone else’s (even a court or politician). Informed debate, without personal attacks, is a time-honored tradition in this country.
The bill, as passed by the house and sent to the senate, is here. The Amendment adds a preamble, and is here. (Before it can become law, the Senate must pass it, of course.)
The Attorney General’s analysis and opinion is here.
You can also follow the passage and status of the bill here on the Tennessee legislature’s website (which is quite well-done.)