Official Bible or Official Religion?

 

In January of this year Reverend Randolph Hollerith, dean of the National Cathedral, blessed what is being called the “official Bible for the new United States Space Force.” The U.S. Air Force chief of chaplains, Maj. Gen. Steven Schaick accepted the King James Bible and held it for the religious ceremony. The now officially blessed Space Force Bible was donated by the Museum of the Bible, a private Washington, D.C. institution. 

While the National Cathedral posted a statement describing the blessing of the Bible and explaining that it will now “be used to swear in all commanders of America’s newest military branch,” an Air Force spokesperson denied this remark clarifying that “there is no official religious or other sacred text, nor is there any requirement for a member to use any sacred or religious text, during swearing-in ceremonies.” 

In his blessing, Reverend Hollerith asked that the military “accept this Bible which we dedicate here today for the United States Space Force, that all may so diligently search your holy word and find in it the wisdom that leads to peace and salvation, through Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.” 

The blessing was met with protests from religious liberty activists, particularly the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which condemned the ceremony as a “shocking and repulsive display of only the most vile, exclusivist, fundamentalist Christian supremacy.” The group’s founder and president, Mikey Weinstein, expressed concern that the “official Bible” of the U.S. Space Force violates the Free Exercise and Establishment provisions in Air Force Instruction 1-1, which states that leaders “must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief.” 

While initial reports of the Bible’s use for swearing in all officers suggests an issue of free exercise, the clarification given by the Air Force that the use of a Bible during swear-in proceedings is only a direct result of individual choice relieves this case of a question regarding free exercise. Thus, the major question in this case is whether or not the introduction of an official Bible for the U.S. Space Force creates an unconstitutional establishment of religion. 

While this case poses a difficult question, court precedent and a clear understanding of the meaning of an “official” military religious text suggest that the Bible dedicated to the United States Space Force is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion. 

In order to clearly develop a position on the constitutionality of the “official Bible of the U.S. Space Force,” it is necessary to understand the role that the Bible has in government proceedings. Swearing-in ceremonies traditionally use some meaningful text upon which individuals swear their necessary oath; the text most commonly used is the Bible. The Bible that has been dedicated and donated to the U.S. Space Force is thus the specific Bible that will be used during the swear-in ceremonies of those that request it. The title of “official” Bible only indicates that it is the specific Bible that the military branch keeps in its possession for the elected use of its members. Therefore, the “official” label applies only to the role that the Bible plays, and does not imply that the teachings of the Bible themselves are an “official” extension of the United States Space Force. Any other religious or secular texts that might be donated to the military branch for the same purpose would presumably also be given the title of “official,” reinforcing the notion that the acceptance of a donated religious text does not constitute an endorsement of its teachings. Thus, as in Lynch v. Donnelly “when viewed in the proper context” it is clear that the Space Force Bible is not a “surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious message” (Muñoz 263). 

 It is possible that perhaps the title given to the Bible could be misunderstood by the reasonable observer as suggesting that the Space Force accepts the teachings of the Bible as its “official” established religion. However, a proper understanding of the role of the Bible within the proceedings of the Space Force and numerous other government institutions would clarify to the reasonable observer that the Space Force’s reception of the donated and dedicated Bible is not an establishment of Christianity as an official religion, but merely a neutral accommodation that is available to all religious and secular texts. Furthermore, this possible misinterpretation from a reasonable observer is only a danger when only one “official” text is possessed by the Space Force, or any other government entity for that matter. If a private Jewish organization, for example, was to dedicate and donate a Torah for the use of the Space Force that was deemed the “official” Torah, a reasonable observer could never assume that the military branch was endorsing its teachings as an official religion at the same time as endorsing the teachings of the official Bible. The temporary nature of this concern therefore weakens the indication that this situation is unconstitutional. 

The existing precedent of religious texts being held by government institutions for use during swearing-in ceremonies and the acceptance of religiously symbolic donations further support that the Space Force’s official Bible is not an establishment of religion. Bibles and other religious texts are used during the oath procedures of U.S. courts, the president, and other elected officials. The previous existence of official, though perhaps not explicitly named as such, Bibles or other texts of government institutions for the voluntary use of its members suggests that the Space Force’s acceptance of an “official” bible should be interpreted no differently. Additionally, Van Orden v. Perry established in 2005 that government acceptance of donated religious monuments does not necessarily indicate an establishment or endorsement of religion. In this instance, the government possession of a monument display of fundamental Christian beliefs, the Ten Commandments, did not suggest government endorsement, rather an example of “the rich American tradition of religious acknowledgments” (Muñoz 528). The Space Force’s possession of Christian beliefs in the form of a Bible is providing the same accommodation to religious ideology as the Ten Commandment monument, and thus should be interpreted equally as constitutional. The court also established in their opinion of Van Orden that the passivity of the monument did not create a coercive environment that would conflict with the establishment clause: “In no sense does the Texas compel petitioner Van Orden to do anything...the mere presence of the monument along his path involves no coercion” (Muñoz 529). The “official” Bible of the Space Force is similarly passive in its role as a symbol of sincerity and honor, and therefore cannot be considered unconstitutionally coercive. 

The lack of coercion created by the “official” Bible is also made clear by the fact that the Space Force does not require any use or reference to the Bible. The voluntary nature of the Bible’s role inherently negates the idea that it places a coercive pressure upon individuals. Unlike school children what are understandably more susceptible to the peer pressures potentially associated with religion, as demonstrated in Wallace v. Jaffree, Stone v. Graham, and Engal v. Vitale, the men and women who would be sworn in as members of the Space Force are intelligent adults who are unlikely to be swayed in their religious and philosophical ideologies. Thus, the mere option of using the dedicated “official” Bible to solemnize their oath is very unlikely to coerce a Space Force member to adopt its teachings. The equally available option of swearing their oath upon another text, religious or secular, or to forego the use of a text at all further removes the threat of coercion and possible religious establishment. 

While the blessing of an “official” Bible of the United States Air Force may initially appear questionable in regard to the First Amendment, an understanding of the Bible’s neutral, uncoercive role and of government and court precedent clarifies that the Bible is constitutional and not an establishment of religion.