Carden v. Bland
| Decision Date | 09 March 1956 |
| Citation | 288 S.W.2d 718,199 Tenn. 665,3 McCanless 665 |
| Parties | Philip M. CARDEN et al. v. Mrs. Tom A. BLAND et al. 3 McCanless 665, 199 Tenn. 665, 288 S.W.2d 718 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
C. Vernon Hines, Nashville, for appellants.
Raymond H. Leathers and Robert H. Jennings, Jr., Nashville, for Board of Education.
Jack Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen.
The complainant filed his original injunction bill in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, against the members of the Board of Education of the City of Nashville alleging that he is a citizen and tax-payer of said City and that the Board of Education of Nashville operates the public school system of the City; that as a tax-payer he and his children (who are of school age and are attending school) will be, and are, prejudiced by the appropriation of public funds for the maintenance and operation of the public schools by the defendant Board of Education in that said Board is violating the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Tennessee as hereinafter stated. The bill is filed by complainant for and on behalf of his minor children (named therein) and himself seeking an injunction to restrain the Board members and others from engaging in certain practices with reference to the requirements of students to attend Sunday School, and make a report of such attendance to school authorities; that a declaratory judgment be pronounced by the Chancellor declaring that Code Section 49-1307(4) of T.C.A. is unconstitutional and void. The Section of the Code so assailed reads, as follows:
'Duties of teachers.--It shall be the duty of the teacher:
* * *
'(4) To read, or cause to be read, at the opening of the school every day, a selection from the Bible and the same selection shall not be read more than twice a month.'
The charges in the bill regarding the compulsory attendance at Sunday School are, that those who had failed to attend Sunday School were required, as a penalty, to copy many verses from the Bible; that on each Monday morning the teacher ('or this teacher') regularly followed a practice of requesting that those pupils who had attended Sunday School the day before to stand; that those who remained seated were given special assignments, i. e. to copy some portions of the Bible. It is also charged that 'some of the teachers' at 'Ross School' kept and displayed in the classroom a record of attendance of their pupils at Sunday School and that during school hours they conducted a devotional period consisting of reading from the Bible and saying the Lord's Prayer as it appears in the King James version.
The complainant further charges that the 'aforesaid practices were embarrassing and offensive to him and to his said child and were in violation of their constitutional rights.'
The following complaint is made regarding requirements of pupils in a particular Junior High School, the complainant's son, John W. Carden, being a pupil in said school
The complainant finally charges 'that the said practices and each of them are contrary to their religious beliefs and principles; and that they have been and will continue to be aggrieved, offended and embarrassed by the said practices thus sanctioned and approved by the defendant Board of Education.'
Following the charge in the bill of the foregoing orders, directions and practices of teachers in the public schools, it is averred that all such amount to the unlawful use of school funds to support public worship contrary to Article 1, Sec. 3 of the Constitution of Tennessee and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The bill prays for an injunction to restrain the Board of Education from continuing the practices complained of and to declare Section 49-1307(4), T.C.A., unconstitutional.
The Attorney General of the State demurred to the bill on the following grounds:
1. 'There is no equity on the face of the bill.
2. 'It does not appear from the bill that the complainants, or any of them, have such special interest in the subject-matter of the suit as entitles them to maintain this action.
3. 'It does not appear from the bill that Section 2343(4) of the Code of Tennessee violates Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution of Tennessee.
4. 'It does not appear from the bill that Section 2343(4) of the Code of Tennessee violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. 'It does not appear from the bill that Section 2343(4) of the Code of Tennessee violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
6. 'Section 2343(4) of the Code of Tennessee is a valid constitutional enactment which does not violate the Constitution of Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States in any particular.'
The defendant Board of Education filed a separate demurrer averring, 'It does not appear from the bill that the complainants, or any of them, have such special interest in the subject matter of the suit as entitles them to maintain this action'; that the Code Section is a valid constitutional enactment and does not violate either the Constitution of Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States 'in any particular'.
The Chancellor sustained each of the demurrers and the cause is now before us on appeal, his action being assigned as error.
Since counsel has conceded in argument that all the practices complained of with reference to requiring pupils to attend Sunday School, and penalties imposed for non-attendance, etc., have ceased, it will not become necessary in this opinion to consider and determine the legality of such practices and conduct, other than to say that it is beyond the scope and authority of School Boards and teachers in the public schools to conduct a program of education in the Bible and undertake to explain the meaning of any chapter or verse in either the Old or the New Testament.
While there are numerous authorities which seem to sustain the contention of both the State's Attorney General and the School Board that complainants have not shown that they have such special interest that entitles them to maintain this suit, we feel that it should not be dismissed on that ground because of the general public interest involved, and more especially the interest of pupils, most of whom are at an impressionable age, and who cannot otherwise speak for themselves.
The demurrer to the bill admits certain practices generally, such as singing religious songs, reading a verse in the Bible each day without comment, and repeating the Lord's Prayer. But contention, however, is made that such public school exercises do not involve the question of 'religious liberty' or 'freedom of conscience', and in no way does it violate either the State or Federal Constitution. The sole question at issue is whether or not the statute quoted at the outset in this opinion violates the Constitution of this State and that of the United States.
Article 1, Sec. 3 of our Constitution reads, as follows:
'That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.'
Amendment 1 to the United States Constitution is, as follows:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'
The two sections above quoted are practically synonymous. If anything, our own organic law is broader and more comprehensive in its guarantee of freedom of worship and freedom of conscience, in that 'no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.' (Emphasis ours.)
It will doubtless be conceded that the fundamental reason which prompted the adoption of the 'Bill of Rights', and more particularly that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', was the fear of State authority over the human conscience, and that in the course of events there would be a prohibition against the freedom of worship and 'freedom of assembly', etc. The 'Founding Fathers' were not living in a vacuum. They knew full well as a matter of history of all religious wars, the bloody conflicts resulting from different religious beliefs, and the power of the sovereign to enforce supreme authority over the minds and conscience of every subject. Throughout the entire history of the Middle Ages in Europe there was a continuing conflict between the Church and State for temporal authority, the Church...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v Medicine Bird Black Bear White Eagle
...Tenn. Const. art. I, § 3 as "practically synonymous" with the Religion Clauses in the First Amendment. Carden v. Bland, 199 Tenn. 665, 672, 288 S.W.2d 718, 721 (1956). More recently, however, the Court has noted that "practical synonymity does not necessarily correspond to coextensive expre......
-
Martin v. Beer Bd. for City of Dickson
...L.Ed.2d 593 (1978). Even though Tenn. Const. art. I, § 3 is "practically synonymous" with the First Amendment, Carden v. Bland, 199 Tenn. 665, 672, 288 S.W.2d 718, 721 (1956); State v. Loudon, 857 S.W.2d 878, 883 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993), the Court has also observed that it contains a substanti......
-
Daniel v. Waters
...not warrant abstention, because the state provision here is substantially similar to the federal First Amendment. Carden v. Bland, 199 Tenn. 665, 672, 288 S.W.2d 718 (1956). Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 91 S.Ct. 507, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 The case on which the District Court relied to......
-
Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist
...of religious freedom contained in the federal constitution, is a stronger guarantee of religious freedom. See Carden v. Bland, 199 Tenn. 665, 288 S.W.2d 718, 721 (1956). Tennessee's guarantees of free speech and free press are similarly more descriptive than the federal grant. The verbal ex......