Tennessee Supreme Court (March 9, 1956) in Philip M. CARDEN et al. v. Mrs. Tom A. BLAND et al. The decision stated:
<As we view our statute herein assailed we are firmly convinced that the reading of a verse in the Bible without comment, the same verse not to be repeated more often than once every thirty days, the singing of some inspiring song, and repeating the Lord's Prayer, is not a violation of the constitutional mandate which guarantees to all men 'a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according We find it more or less difficult to conceive that these simple ceremonies amount to 'establishment of a religion', or any attempt to do so; nor is it an interference with any student's secular beliefs contrary to law...
We find a number of decisions by State Appellate Courts which hold that Bible reading in the public schools is not in violation of one's constitutional rights...
In the latter case it was said by the New Jersey Court: 'We consider that the Old Testament and the Lord's Prayer pronounced without comment, are not sectarian, and that the short exercise provided by the statute does not constitute sectarian instruction or sectarian worship'. 5 N.J. 435, 75 A.2d 880, 888.
Turning now to State cases we think the greater number of these decisions hold that the Bible is not a sectarian or denominational book. Thus in Evans v. Selma Union High School Dist., 193 Cal. 54, 222 P. 801, 31 A.L.R. 1121, the Court holds that the King James version of the Bible was not within the prohibition of the statute that 'no publication of a sectarian, partisan, or denominational character' may be used or distributed in any school or made a part of any school library. See cases cited in the opinion.
In an early case in Pennsylvania, Hart v. Sharpsville Borough School Dist., (1885), 2 Lanc.L.Rev., 346, and Stevenson v. Hanyon, 1898, 7 Pa.Dist. & Co.R. 585, it was held that the reading of the Bible, whether the King James or the Douay version, as a part of the opening exercises of the public school was not in contravention of any constitutional provision.
In People ex rel. Vollmar v. Stanley, 1927, 81 Colo. 276, 255 P. 610, 612, the relator (a member of the Catholic Church) sought by mandamus to compel the Board of Education to revoke their rule requiring the reading of portions of the King James version of the Bible without comment as a part of the opening of morning school exercises. The Court held that Bible reading could not be prohibited altogether. The Court further holds:
'Reading of the Bible in public schools without comment held not teaching of sectarian tenets and doctrines, contrary to Const. art. 9, 8; King James Bible not being sectarian.'
'Reading of the Bible in public schools held not to constitute expenditure of public money in aid of 'sectarian purpose,' in violation of Const. art. 9, § 7, where Bible was read without comment; Bible itself not being sectarian.'...
It has been held that such reading of the Bible, as in Hart v. School Dist., supra, does not make the school house a house of religious worship within the meaning of a constitutional prohibition against compelling any person to attend or support any place of religious worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent.
In Commonwealth ex rel. Wall v. Cooke, Mass. 1859, 7 Am.Law Reg. 417, dealing with the reading of the Bible in public schools the Court holds: '...the constitutional provision securing liberty of conscience and worship 'was intended to prevent persecution by punishing for religious opinions. The Bible has long been in our common schools....It was placed there as the book best adapted from which to 'teach children and youth the principles of piety, Justice, and a sacred regard to truth, love for their country, humanity, and a universal benevolence, sobriety, moderation, and temperance....'
But, in doing this no scholar is requested to believe it; none to receive it as the only true version of the laws of God.' See also Spiller v. Woburn, 1866, 12 Allen 127, 94 Mass. 127. To the same effect is Donahoe v. Richards, 38 Me. 379, 61 Am.Dec. 256. In Kaplan v. Independent School Dist., 1927, 171 Minn. 142, 214 N.W. 18, 57 A.L.R. 185, the Court holds that reading of a particular version of the Bible without comment (in the public schools) is not per se an infringement of constitutional rights...
We are asked to banish the Bible from the public schools, not as an evil thing, but that it is embarrassing to parents who subscribe to some creed or ritual, and that their children may be prejudiced in some way against their religion.
Implicit in this contention is the thought that all children singing great and inspiring songs such as 'Faith of our Fathers', and 'America the Beautiful', is so contrary to their own faith that it should be enjoined as being a preference of one religion over another.
They would indeed strike from the schoolroom and school libraries the great stories in the Bible which recount the deeds of heroic men and women and of their enduring faith in God, of love and devotion, of high honor and of duty to respect the will of the Creator, which have enriched the lives of all races from the beginning of recorded time.
Following the oral argument of this case, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief as Amicus Curiae, previously granted by the Court. This brief is filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error. It would unduly prolong this opinion for us to make response to every contention made on the brief. The brief supports the general insistence that our statute is unconstitutional as being violative of both the State and Federal Constitutions...
In order to wipe out any and all right of the State to control their own system of public education great stress is laid upon the need of maintaining the doctrine of 'Separation of Church and State'. We concede that this is important. But it should not be tortured into a meaning that was never intended by the Founders of this Republic, with the result that the public school system of the several states is to be made a Godless institution as a matter of law...
The Court cites Thomas Jefferson as being the author of the 'Separation of Church and State', as provided in the First Amendment to the Constitution, he having coined the phrase that there must be 'a wall of separation between church and State.' There was no convincing argument as to just what the wall was to separate. In the Everson case it was pointed out that Jefferson had favored religious instruction at the University of Virginia, of which he was the founder, and which was supported by the State. It appears that the method of such instruction at the University was similar in most respects to that which the Supreme Court had outlawed in the McCollum case.
Mr. Justice Jackson concurred in the opinion on the ground that the method of instruction amounted to proselyting pupils. He exposed, however, with great ability the fallacy of driving all religion from the public schools. He says [333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 477]:
'And I should suppose it is a proper, if not an indispensable, part of preparation for a worldly life to know the roles that religion and religions have played in the tragic story of mankind. The fact is that, for good or for ill, nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences, derived from paganism, Judaism, Christianity - both Catholic and Protestant - and other faiths accepted by a large part of the world's peoples. One can hardly respect a system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared.'
It thus appears that the protagonists in this contest for the maintenance of freedom of religion and separation of the Church and State have falsified the history of the times, especially when they undertake to call Mr. Jefferson to their standard. And the same is true of other distinguished contemporaries who are referred to in the opinion.
From a historical point of view the Federal Government has, from time immemorial, given its express approval to secular worship in the United States Naval Academy, West Point Military Academy, and all of the armed forces of our country. It is thus pointed out by Mr. Justice Reed in his Dissenting opinion, which is not controverted:
'The Congress of the United States has a chaplain for each House who daily invokes divine blessings and guidance for the proceedings. The armed forces have commissioned chaplains from early days. They conduct the public services in accordance with the liturgical requirements of their respective faiths, ashore and afloat, employing for the purpose property belonging to the United States and dedicated to the services of religion. Under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, eligible veterans may receive training at government expense for the ministry in denominational schools. The schools of the District of Columbia have opening exercises which 'include a reading from the Bible without note or comment, and the Lord's prayer.'
We do not wish, however, to be understood as holding that any form of sectarian worship, or secular instruction in the Bible, is permissible under our statute and the Constitution of this State. But we cannot close our eyes to the customs and practices as pointed out by Mr. Justice Reed, as evidence of the fact that the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, as well as other agencies of the Federal Government, do not consider such activities as being in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In Conclusion we think that the highest duty of those who are charged with the responsibility of training the young people of this State in the public schools is in teaching both by precept and example that in the conflicts of life they should not forget God. And this in substance is about all that our statute requires. For this Court to hold that the statute herein assailed contemplates the establishment of a religion, and that it is a subtle method of breaking down Mr. Jefferson's 'wall of separation' between church and State, would be a spectacular exhibition of judicial sophistry.
There is no error in the Chancellor's decree, and it is affirmed.> 1956TN001
--
American Quotations by William J. Federer, 2024, All Rights Reserved, Permission granted to use with acknowledgement.
1956TN001. William J. Federer, American Quotations (2014). Tennessee Supreme Court, March 9, 1956, in Philip M. CARDEN et al. v. Mrs. Tom A. BLAND et al.