Historically Significant or Religious Endorsement?

This past week, Tennessee passed a Bill making their state book The Holy Bible. Supporters of this Bill argue that the Bible holds deep significance in Tennessee’s state history, and making the Bible their state book is an attempt to honor that history.  Supporters of the Bill reject the idea that this is a government endorsement of a religion, stating that the historical significance of the Bible should hold more meaning than its religious connotation. Opponents of the Bill, however, see this bill as a clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Further, arguing that by making a book as sacred as The Bible so trivialized; putting it alongside things like ‘state exercise’ or ‘state sport’ detracts considerably from the holy beliefs deeply held by those who believe in its teachings.

In a 19-8 decision the bill passed the State Senate and is now going to Republican Senator Hassan to be signed. It’s unclear whether the Senator will sign or veto the bill due to concerns about whether it goes against the Establishment Clause. In a statement he released he said; “The Bible is the most important book in my life, and I think in the world, but that's very different than being the state's official book.”

The opposition surrounding this is very vocal; Tennessee’s Attorney General cited the First Amendment in the statement he released earlier this week; “The Holy Bible as the official state book of Tennessee would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article I, § 3, of the Tennessee Constitution, which provides ‘that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship’”.

In the past, when The Supreme Court has grappled with the question of whether the religious significance or secular interest reins supreme, there have been multiple factors that decide this. In the cases we’ve examined in class the defense of history and context has appeared imperative for the Supreme Court in their decision. In Van Orden v. Perry, the court ruled although a monument that has its roots in religion, the secular interest of historical significance was important enough to have the monument kept.  Further in Chambers v. Marsh and The Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court ruled that a state instructed prayer was constitutional. They ruled this on the basis of historic past that legislative prayer, and the tradition it holds in the legislature. Additionally, Justice Kennedy argued that legislative prayer is only meant for the legislature.

This all being said, I believe this example, although similar to the cases above, differs in some very key ways.  In Van Orden v. Perry, the concurring argument stated as one of its main reasons the monument was not coercion was because passers-by didn’t have to stare at it and could choose different walking paths to avoid it. Further the fact that the monument was in a park with multiple monuments informing the states history was also important in the decision of this case. Conversely, in this case, there is nothing else around a state book to inform its historical significance. In Chambers v. Marsh and The Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court decided in their concurring argument that legislated prayer is not intended for everyday people, further, there is not the tradition of having a religious text assigned as a state's official book. This Bill, however, is overreaching to all citizens, not just the legislature, and coerces as well as endorses religion by doing so.

In my opinion, Tennessee’s bill to change the state’s official book to The Bible is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Although there have been court cases that justify the secular use of religious symbols to inform history or tradition, this goes beyond the conditions set forth by the Supreme Court, because it is an unavoidable and blatantly endorsing a religion, as well as elevating one religion above non-religion and other religions.

What do you think, in this case, do you think that the historical significance trumps the religious connotations; or is this a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?