Wednesday, October 23, 2019

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.

7 comments:

George K said...

I agree with your accommodationist approach to analyzing the constitutionality of Government assistance to religion to the degree that it has to be neutral between religion and non religion as well as between religions. However I disagree that the governor encouraging students to read all holy texts would be constitutional by that very analysis. I think that in one's capacity as an employee of the state, it is unconstitutional to show support of religion in general, because that makes you non neutral between religion and non religion. He should have just liked the tweet from a personal account under an alias if he felt so strongly about supporting it. It is not his place to encourage religious belief as a governor.

Maddy D said...

I dont think that teaching the Bible as a literacy course is unconstitutional because it has such great historical significance, so it would serve a secular purpose to teach that class. I also don't think that the student-led bring-your-Bible-to-school day is unconstitutional because I think that students have a right to free speech and they have a right to organize and they have a right to free exercise of religion. As long as the students participating are not causing disruptions in the school day or in the teaching ability of the faculty at the school, then the bring-your-Bible-to-school day isn't unconstitutional. I do, however, agree with the above comment that active endorsement of the Bible, and of Christianity, by the Governor of Kentucky is unconstitutional. I think that especially because his tweet promoted indoctrination -- encouraging students to share their Bibles with others and to try to get people who hadn't read the Bible before to read it. I think that, and the fact that we learned he tweeted it from his public governor's twitter account, is where the situation runs into some unconstitutionality.

Anonymous said...

I think that having a student-led 'bring your bible to school' day would not be considered unconstitutional, but I do not think that the senator should be able to tweet something encouraging students to read the Bible. I also do not think there should be a class where the Bible is taught, because it is still technically a religious text and you really do not know what is going to occur in the classrooms. Teachers could be teaching the religious content of the bible and not necessarily the historical context.

Manning M said...

I agree with most of the commenters, and I agree with the author's accomodationist approach. The event in itself is not unconstitutional because there is a clear secular purpose in teaching the Bible, and the event was student-led. It is problematic, however, that the governor would endorse this event FROM HIS ROLE as governor. Similar to what George said, if the governor felt so strongly about this, he should have tweeted about it from his personal account.

Carolyn M said...

Encouraging students to read the Bible is not inherently unconstitutional because, as the author notes, the Bible is both a historical and literary text, as well as a religious one. The governor is encouraging students to read the Bible, yet not necessarily to adhere to its message. I also do not think this case is too different from Kentucky schools posting the Ten Commandments as an influential, historical document. While the Bible is not used by all religions, it is not exclusive to the Christian faith. Students are not being forced to bring their Bibles to school, therefore I do not see this as unconstitutional.

Stef said...

Teaching of the Bible of the literacy course is fine! It is an advocation of truth and read from a literary perspective provides student's with opportunities to read some of history's greatest poets such as the psalmist. There is much historical significance in reading the Bible, it is the #1 selling book in the history of time! Billions of people throughout the generations have opened its pages and gazed upon the majesty of its divine words. It is a great thing that this is being promoted within the school

Evelin M. said...

America was founded by Christian and Puritan ideologies. Christianity has ruled European history as well throughout the centuries. To teach the bible does not mean that the bible is being enforced or praised in the classroom. It is possible to teach the bible is literature and focus on what it did to society. However, I don't think a "bring a bible" to school day is appropriate because it then excludes children of other religions. A bible can belong in a classroom but it should not be a school day event because that crosses into the line of establishing a religion in the school. It is even more wrong for the governor to not only support this day but support forcing other children of other religions to read this book. This is not for the school or governor to decide.