Bring Your Bible to School Day

The Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, has recently come under fire for promoting national “Bring Your Bible to School Day” on twitter. The “Bring Your Bible to School Day” was a student-led event, sponsored by a Christian organization, Focus on the Family. This event comes after Kentucky passed a law allowing public schools to teach a class on Bible literacy. In his endorsement of the “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” Governor Bevin tweeted “The Judeo-Christian principles that are bound in this book are timeless, containing an amazing amount of history, knowledge, wisdom and guidance…” along with a video of him spouting “And I would encourage you please, don't just bring your Bible to school, but read your Bible"..."Bring it, share it with others. If you have an extra Bible, bring it and share it with someone who maybe doesn't have one, (who) maybe has never read this book." There are two components to this issue. The first is that there is a law that permits teaching a Bible literacy class in public school and the second is that the Governor endorsed this law and even encouraged children to participate in this aspect of the Christian faith. Although this law of teaching a class on Bible literacy was passed, some individuals and groups think that this, along with the Governor's endorsement, is an example of an establishment of religion.

This scenario is not unique in combining issues of the establishment clause and schools. For example, in Abington v. Schempp, the court ruled that it was in violation of the establishment clause to sponsor Bible readings and recitations. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This was created as a way to protect religious minorities from majority rule. There have been many court cases that have set precedent when it comes to dealing with cases related to the establishment clause. One of the most famous cases dealing with the intersection of the establishment clause and schools is Lemon v. Kurtzman. Using a separationist approach, the court established what is now referred to as the Lemon test. The Lemon test offers three prongs courts can use to determine whether there was a violation of the establishment clause. In order for a piece of legislation to pass the Lemon test, it must serve a secular purpose, may not inhibit or advance religion, and may not include excessive entanglement with the government. The Lemon test sets the precedent for what is considered an establishment of religion, and by examining this legislation under the Lemon test, it fails. Although the purpose is secular in regards to expanding the knowledge of children, one could argue that the law advances religion. Additionally, there would be excessive entanglement between religion and government because the government would have to ensure that the class was not being used to indoctrinate the students.

I, however, take an accommodationist stance on issues regarding the establishment of religion and therefore disagree with the separationist view presented in the lemon test. An accommodationist would argue that the aiding of religion should be allowed, as long as there is no privilege of one religion over another religion. I think that this law and the Governor’s endorsement of the national “Bring Your Bible to School Day” is only unconstitutional because it is an establishment of only the Christian religion. The government can have relations with religion and even encourage some aspects of religion, however, if only for a specific religion, that would be unconstitutional. A separationist approach would want to prohibit any aid and encouragement to any religion. However, similar to the stance of many Bible literacy class proponents, I believe that this class will offer a “well-rounded education and understanding of history.” My issue is not with the content itself but the availability for all religions to have the same opportunity as the majority (Christians).

Neutrality is key in understanding what is and is not an establishment of religion. In order to be neutral, there must not be neutrality solely between religion and secularism, but also between religions. In this particular case, one could argue that there is neutrality between religion and secularism because the children have the opportunity to take both secular and religious classes. However, there was no neutrality between religions. The Bible is the holy text for only the Christian faith. Therefore, other religions such as Islam and Judaism are being discriminated against. In order to truly have neutrality between religions, there should be literacy classes taught for every religious holy text or the class itself should encompass the literacy of multiple holy texts. I realize that this may not be practical, but even if every religion that exists could not have a class taught about it, I believe that if a student or someone in the community of a particular religion wants to have a literacy class, they should be granted that opportunity. The alternative to not teaching that Bible literacy class will then privilege secularism over religion.

Encouraging the practice of a specific religion and respecting the existence of all religions are two distinct things. The Governor, an agent of the state, specifically encouraged the practices of the Christian faith. This again shows the lack of neutrality between religions. The Governor should either not encourage the reading of any holy text, or encourage the reading of all holy texts, not just the Bible. He could have easily written a statement that encouraged young people to tap into their faith and read their respective holy text. For some that could be the Bible, and for others that could be Quran, but there would be no endorsement of a singular religion. In all, I think it is appropriate for the government to aid religion in some capacity in order to remain neutral between religion and nonreligion, but I think that it is equally important for the government to be careful what programs they implement for a specific religion, in order to stay neutral between religions as well.