Tennessee county under fire for adding 'Judeo-Christian' preamble to official document

• The Sumner County Commission in October passed a preamble to its Standing Rules and Procedures document.
• The preamble stated the commission would act and reflect "Judeo-Christian values."
• First Amendment experts and the county's own attorney say this violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

A Tennessee county is under scrutiny for passing a preamble to an official document that assures commissioners act with "Judeo-Christian values," a move even the county's own attorney − along with outside experts − say is a violation of the First Amendment.

The Sumner County Commission in October voted 20-4 to pass a preamble to the county's Standing Rules and Procedures stating it should work to serve residents and exceed what Tennessee law requires. The rules and procedures are needed "in order to perfect the operation of our county government, to ensure that it is just, orderly, efficient, cost-effective and most importantly reflective of the Judeo-Christian values inherent in our nation's founding," according to the preamble commissioners approved.

But adding the section about Judeo-Christian values immediately faced criticism and legal questions.

“This would be a violation of the First Amendment and the establishment clause,” interim county attorney Ben Allen told commissioners during the lengthy meeting. “The Supreme Court could change their mind on what a violation of the establishment clause means tomorrow, but it’s very expensive to be the ones to find out if that’s the case.”

Commissioners said passing the preamble was important and, in their view, recognized the values embedded in the nation's founding.

Read this:What Tennessee's politics say about the rise of Christian nationalism in the U.S.

"The only thing that this states here is ‘Judeo-Christian values inherent in our nation’s founding’ — it’s just referencing history,” Commissioner Matthew Shoaf said. “We’re not placing the Ten Commandments up and stating that we’re going to abide by that code. We’re only acknowledging specific historic context.”

But Allen and other experts say the preamble could be seen as an “endorsement” of Christianity, opening the county up to a lawsuit.

“When government is able to incorporate religion, like in our prayers, there are very specific rules from the Supreme Court that spell out which government organizations can, when they can, and under what circumstances they can,” he said. “’Establishment’ under the establishment clause is not just creating, it’s also endorsing or adopting.

“The First Amendment protects religious rights in two ways — both by the freedom of expression as individuals, and the freedom from your government choosing your religion and endorsing it under the establishment clause that you may or may not follow,” he said. “So this would be under that portion of the First Amendment.”

‘Illegal, unpatriotic and just plain rude,’ says First Amendment expert

Pushback against the preamble has been swift. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, for instance, is asking for its immediate removal.

“The Supreme Court has long held that the Establishment Clause requires that the government remain neutral between religions, and between religion and non-religion,” Samantha Lawrence, a legal fellow with the group, said in a statement to Sumner County Commission Chair Merrol Hyde. “When the board blatantly promotes a specific brand of religion, going so far as to declare it in the preamble to its Standing Rules and Procedures, it sends the unmistakable message to all nonreligious and minority religious citizens ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherent that they are insiders, favored members,’ to quote the Supreme Court.”

The organization, which works to promote the separation of church and state, also pushed back on the concept that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

“It is erroneous to assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values,” Lawrence said. “The concept of ‘Judeo-Christian values’ did not even exist until the mid-20th Century, let alone at the time the United States was founded. To the contrary, the United States was founded by Enlightenment-inspired thinkers who valued reason and skepticism.

“If the Framers had wanted to establish the United States based on religious principles, they would have said so in the Constitution, the founding document of our nation. Instead, our Founders made our country the first among nations to adopt a godless and entirely secular Constitution, one whose only references to religion are exclusionary.”

David Hudson, a professor at Belmont University’s College of Law and a First Amendment expert, called the preamble a “clear violation.”

“I think this is a clear violation of the establishment clause,” said Hudson, who also is a fellow with the Freedom Forum. “Because the essence of the establishment clause — the first 10 words of the First Amendment — is to provide a degree of separation between church and state. And one of the essential tenants of the establishment clause is neutrality towards religion.”

Hudson said the perception of favoritism creates the issue.

“It indicates favoritism or an endorsement of a religion,” he said. “It is true that history and tradition are important values in our constitutional calculus … But that being said, the clear command is that there needs to be government neutrality in matters of religion, and this indicates non-neutrality."

Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, said the issue could not be “more straightforward.”

“This action is clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and beyond that is just plain rude,” Paulson said. “Government is supposed to represent all of the people, not just those with Judeo-Christian backgrounds. It’s bad manners to pretend no one else’s faith matters … What they’re doing is illegal and unpatriotic.”

Paulson said the preamble creates multiple issues.

”You have a two-fer here — you have a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, and you have a government body that apparently proudly tramples on the rights of others,” he said. “That’s an interesting approach to the job. I’m pretty sure Judeo-Christian values include following the law, and yet that seems not to register with this particular government body.”

Paulson disagreed with arguments from commissioners that the preamble simply acknowledged the history of religious influence on the nation's founding.

“I’m puzzled by anyone who would point to the wording of the language as though they were ashamed to be doing this,” he said, explaining that commissioners referring to the language as simply "a nod to history" showed they clearly knew they were treading thin legal ice. "Either the county commission is proud of its collective Judaic-Christian heritage, and willing to violate the constitution to officially embrace it, or not. Why would they turn to get out of jail language? It sounds like they’re ashamed of what they’ve done, and they should be.”

Paulson said comments about “defending Christianity,” like those from Jones that encouraged other commissioners to vote despite the potential for litigation, “makes it clear” that the Sumner County Commission is intent on violating the First Amendment.

“Those comments make clear that the Sumner County Commission is absolutely determined to violate the separation of church and state,” he said. “They now have an obligation—when they go against the advice of their own lawyer—to share record of every tax dollar they spend in what will unquestionably be a losing battle. They know they’re going to lose, and if they want to fight it they should not use tax-payer dollars.”

Why Sumner commissioners are pushing the issue

Commissioner Mary Genung proposed the preamble and, according to Allen, brought it forward at the request of a resident. There is no record of an email with a resident regarding the preamble, according to a public records request by The Tennessean, and the Genung did not return a request for comment.

The vast majority of commissioners supported the preamble.

Commissioner Tim Jones welcomed a legal challenge.

“I think we can still be litigated, it doesn’t matter, but (the First Amendment) guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” he said. “Reflective versus making a historical reference matters much. And as a Christian, I cannot operate from a position of fear. I serve God first, and this county second.”

Jones said some things “need to be litigated.”

“Look at the shape our county has gotten into by acting out of a place of fear, out of not standing up for what every one of you knows is right, that claim to be Christians,” he said. “We have to stand together on this if you believe in your Christian values. Don’t be afraid to say it because of what someone may try to do to us. Setting a precent could cause our county to come into a good place. Because right now, a lot of things are going to heck in a handbasket.”

After Commissioner J. Wes Wynne asked if the inclusion of the phrase was a waste of taxpayer dollars, Commissioner Jeremy Mansfield pushed back.

“We’re not Iran, we’re not Iraq, we’re not Australia,” he said. “We’re American, and founded on Judeo-Christian values. That’s what makes us unique … Let’s talk about a waste of tax money — our schools have pornographic material in their libraries that violate state law. That’s a waste of taxpayer money. Let’s get rid of that crap in our school. (Commissioners) are going to make a judgment on that because they have values inherent in our nation’s founding, codified in principals in Judaism and Christianity.”

Mansfield said the language “honored” their Judeo-Christian values and told taxpayers that commissioners wouldn’t “lie, steal people’s property, or cheat.”

“This is not a violation of the First Amendment,” he said. “It’s just not. We’re not establishing a religion here. America was not founded on freedom from establishing of religion…We’re not an Islamic nation. We weren’t founded on Buddhism. Hinduism. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values. That’s a historical fact. Any other argument is just grandstanding.”

After Commissioner Jerry Becker proposed a failed motion to remove the reference altogether, saying he could not “support anything that’s a violation of the constitution,” Wynne attempted to find a compromise by changing the language to say “acknowledging the historical Judeo-Christian” instead of “reflective of Judeo-Christian” values.

The action was also shot down and the original language was passed.

The USA Today Network - Tennessee's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.

Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@gannett.com, by phone at 731-343-5212, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham.