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.
6 comments:
I agree with Emma in that the Bible dedicated to the United States Space Force is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion. One major point aiding me in my decision was the fact that there is no coercion, as using the dedicated “official” Bible to solemnize their oath was not mandatory, it was one option. Space Force members were free to swearing their oath upon an alternative religious text or to opt out on using a text at all, and thus, the possibility of coercion is eradicated. Conversely, in my recent blog post discussing Carugan v. Merrill, Alabama residents seeking to register to vote must swear “so help me God” on Alabama’s Mail-In Voter Registration Form, and all other forms, with no secular alternative. This mandatory religious oath is a representation of an unconstitutional establishment of religion because it deliberately coerces a statement of belief in a monotheistic deity onto nontheists. If citizens are unable to swear this oath due to their religious commitments, they would be excluded from participating in elections as there are absolutely no exemptions or secular alternatives.
I agree with your assessment of this case, the role of the christian Bible in US government proceedings is well established, and I believe not so easily washed away. For example, our chief military official, the President swears in using a Bible when they are inaugurated. Additionally, the oaths of enlistment and the oath for commissioned officers in the Army today both contain the phrase "So help me God." The precedent of christianities presence in the military is well founded historically, supported Constitutionally, and shows no convincing reasons to me as to why it should be stricken.
I agree with your analysis of the case but it is kind of strange as to why they would use the word "official" in regard to the Bible. You would think the government would try to avoid all potential issues of establishment and so would not want to use that word in conjunction with religion, but after your explanation of the case more, I see that the word "official" is meant in a different sense than it at first seems. For me, it comes down to the fact that the use of a Bible or some other religious text is a result of each individual's choice and so then, this cannot be looked upon as the government endorsing religion, but it is merely allowing for it to happen if the person being sworn in would so choose.
I also agree with your analysis and the comments posted thus far. We've seen time and time again in cases and issues addressed on the blog that the Bible and Christianity are so far engrained into US history and government that will likely not be changed or lessened for some time. Like Seth said, there is so much precedent and history of Christianity in our government, the Supreme Court, the military and has not been struck down so far. I think that the use of the word 'official' definitely causes strong reactions and can create issues, but the word itself does not carry the same definition that we typically think of as accommodations or exceptions are made and other religions are not barred.
At first, I assumed I would view this as an establishment of religion, but I ended up agreeing with Emma's conclusion. I don't necessarily think it is reasonable to say that an "official" Bible would be acceptable because Christianity is part of American culture because that further reinforces the idea that other religions are secondary in this country. Additionally, the mention of no requirement to swear an oath on the Bible didn't seem very compelling to me because if there was only an official Bible, then that still places Christianity at a higher ranking than other religions. However, the point about any donated religious or secular texts being donated was convincing to me. If donated, a person of any religion would be able to take an oath using their own religious text that is deemed "official" in this context, and because of that, I don't think this is a violated of the Establishment Clause, so long as these texts are accepted in later offered.
I agree with your viewpoint here. No one in the "Space Force" is being explicitly compelled to use specifically the Bible to swear their oath of office, similar to how Presidents and other elected officials are permitted to use any sort of religious or secular text to swear on. Since they're allowed to use any personally important text, I don't see how there can be any sort of establishment concerns, and I would go further by saying that if there were any sort of restrictions on the available text, it would be a violation of their free exercise.
Post a Comment