Tennessee House votes Bible as official state book

The Holy Bible is the official book of Tennessee in the view of the Tennessee House of Representatives.

Despite questions of constitutionality, lawmakers beat back an attempt to make Andrew Jackson's Bible the official book and voted 55-38 in favor of Rep. Jerry Sexton's original bill.

"History's going to tell us where we stand on this. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to have the side that I'm on," said Sexton, R-Bean Station, after the vote.

"It may be kind to me in the future and it may not be kind, and that's OK. I made a decision for today and I feel good about it."

Although a GOP-led effort, House Speaker Beth Harwell, R-Nashville, was one of 20 Republicans to vote against the measure. House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh, D-Ripley, and four Republicans abstained. Only six Democrats voted in favor of the bill

.

Rep. John Ragan, R-Oak Ridge, suggested making Jackson's Bible the official state book. He thought the move would have shifted the bill into safer legal waters, noting Attorney General Herbert Slatery's opinion that making the Bible the official state book would violate the state and federal constitutions.

Reps. Matthew and Timothy Hill, brothers and Republicans, questioned why Ragan chose Jackson's Bible. Matthew Hill asked why not Elvis' Bible; Timothy Hill asked why not consider Davy Crockett's Bible.

Ragan said neither were president, but the debate didn't go very far. The House voted 48-41 to kill the Jackson amendment.

Gov. Bill Haslam and Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey have said they have concerns with the bill.

The bill faced a little opposition in the House, but sailed through one Senate committee easily when it came up for discussion.

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris opposed the bill in committee, and he hopes the bill doesn't pass when it's considered by the Senate.

"I sure hope it won't pass. I think it'll be a dark day for Tennessee if it does," Norris said.

"All I know is that I hear Satan snickering. He loves this kind of mischief. You just dumb the good book down far enough to make it whatever it takes to make it a state symbol, and you're on your way to where he wants you."

Wednesday morning Haslam wouldn't say if he'd veto the bill if it makes it to his desk as it stands now.

He did deny a statement in the Citizen Tribune of Morristown by the Senate sponsor of the bill, Sen. Steve Southerland, that the governor would allow the bill to go into law without his signature.

"He must be reading my mind, or attempting to. That's definitely not coming from us," Haslam said.

"I've expressed my concerns. They get to vote. That's how that works."

House lawmakers debated the original bill for more than an hour Wednesday after a similar amount of discussion Tuesday. Sexton and other supporters say the original bill highlighted the economic and historical impact of the Bible.

But other supporters did argue the bill should be considered for its religious reasons.

"I am what I am because that book made me what I am. The morals, the values," said Rep. Ron Lollar, R-Bartlett.

"Everybody that talks about diversity: in this country, they're here because of that book and that constitution."

Opponents noted Slatery's opinion — the bill doesn't specify which Bible would be honored and a general fear the state is elevating one religion while discriminating against others.

At least a few supporters specifically called out the American Civil Liberties Union — Rep. Michael Sparks, R-Smyrna, called out ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg by name — in discussions about possible lawsuits over the bill.

After the session Weinberg wouldn't say if the ACLU planned a lawsuit if the bill became law. But she did say the organization agrees with Slatery's interpretation that the bill is unconstitutional.

"This is taking a sacred text and making it a political football. It's really challenging people's religiosity, and putting them in a situation where they have to say I am Christian...and therefore this book should be the state book," said Weinberg, noting the ACLU aims to protect religious freedom.

"This was a very important conversation, because we began to understand how people feel about their religious freedom and the importance of the constitution, the state constitution, to protect religious freedom."

Sexton said it would be someone else's fault if the state had to spend money on any legal action that could arise if the bill becomes law. Slatery has already said he would not defend the law if it were legally challenged.

Reach Dave Boucher at 615-259-8892 and on Twitter @Dave_Boucher1.