Bible class must pass scrutiny

Superintendent says schools will be sued whether or not they decide to offer course Bible class must be secular, attorney general says

Web posted November 23, 1999

 Have your say in the @ugusta Forums.

By Walter C. Jones and Dave Williams
Morris News Service

ATLANTA -- Attorney General Thurbert Baker satisfied people on both sides of the issue Monday when he released an official opinion on the constitutionality of using state funds to offer courses based on the Bible.

Opponents and proponents of the courses each saw what they liked in his seven-page opinion letter written in response to questions posed in August by Otis Brumby, chairman of the State Board of Education.

Mr. Baker wrote, ``It is my official opinion that courses that include reference to the Bible may survive First Amendment scrutiny only if their content is determined to be secular and they are taught in a secular, objective manner.''

Mr. Baker briefed Mr. Brumby on the letter before it arrived. Later, the chairman said he was glad he sought legal advice after reading Mr. Baker's warnings.

``As I read the conclusion, frankly, I think he's saying, as a state school board, we need to stay out of this,'' Mr. Brumby said.

Board member Bruce Jackson, a tax attorney, agrees.

``If we got a clear-cut legal opinion saying we could offer it, I would have no problem offering it any more than drivers education,'' he said. ``(But) I don't want to buy a lawsuit.''

State Superintendent Linda Schrenko says the board is likely to get sued for not offering the course, too.

``We know we're going to be sued. We're going to be sued whether we offer it or not. The question is which side you want to be on,'' she said. ``I want to be on the side of offering it.''

Both Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Schrenko, though, agree that Mr. Baker's opinion offered the board little direction.

Much of the reason for hedging is because the board only sent a general outline of the course. Mr. Baker repeatedly cautioned that the actual classroom instruction ultimately determines whether the course violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment prohibits the government from doing anything to establish a religion, a clause courts have relied upon to draw a line separating church and state. Spending tax funds on a Bible course could be considered ``aid'' to a religion, Mr. Baker writes, especially if no other religions are taught.

Two legislators unveiled a bill last week attempting to go around the board and authorize the course with many of the safeguards Mr. Baker suggests.

The bill's sponsors, Rep. Tommy Smith, D-Alma, and Sen. Tommie Williams, R-Lyons, greeted the lack of a firm recommendation from the attorney general on the proposed courses as good news.

Mr. Williams, a former teacher, noted that Mr. Baker's suggestion that the courses be taught in a ``secular and objective manner'' already is incorporated in the bill's language.

``I see the attorney general as stating what we already knew,'' said Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said he sees Mr. Baker's warning about the state school board's lack of control over what local teachers might do with a Bible course as a concern his bill would address. The legislation would require that teachers be trained in how to handle First Amendment issues.

As for the attorney general's assertion that using tax money to teach the Bible could be construed as government ``aid'' to the Christian religion under the state Constitution, Mr. Williams said members of any other religious group are free to make the same proposal he and Mr. Smith are making.

Reach Walter Jones and Dave Williams at (404) 589-8424.