A.J. Hernandez, Esq.

Jacksonville, FL

January 9, 2020

Hon. Jose R. Oliva FL House PreK-12 Hon. Audrey Gibson

Speaker of the FL House Appropriations Subcommittee Min. Leader of the FL Senate
420 The Capitol 221 The Capitol 200 Senate Building
402 South Monroe Street 402 South Monroe Street 404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100

Hon. Kionne L. McGhee FL House Education FL Senate Education

Min. Leader of the FL House
316 The Capitol
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
FL House PreK-12 Innovation
Subcommittee
308 House Office Building
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
Committee
221 The Capitol
402 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
Hon. Kathleen Passidomo
Maj. Leader of the FL Senate
330 Senate Building
404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
Committee
404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
FL Senate Judiciary Committee
404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
FL Senate Rules Committees
404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100

Re: The Constitutionality of Proposed Bible Courses and Moments of Silence

My name is A.J. Hernandez and I am an attorney admitted in the State of Florida. I am also
a constituent of Florida Representative Jason Fischer, District 16, and Florida Senator Aaron Bean,
District 4, both of whom are copied on this letter. This letter serves as an analysis of the
constitutionality of proposed bills Florida HB 341/SB 746 (“the Bible Bill”), and Florida HB
737/SB 946 (“the Moment of Silence Bill”) addressed to the relevant Florida House and Senate
committees in which they currently sit. Florida Senator Dennis Baxley, and Representative
Kimberly Daniels have sponsored the Moment of Silence Bill. Sen. Baxley, and Rep. Daniels have
also sponsored the Bible Bill, along with Representatives Mike Hill, and Anthony Sabatini
(collectively “Sponsors”).

The Bible Bill would amend FLA. STAT. § 1003.45 to require all Florida public school
districts to offer an elective course for “an objective study” of the Bible and religion to all high
school students. The Moment of Silence Bill would amend the statute to require all of Florida’s
public schools to set aside time at the beginning of the day where all students would be required
to partake in a moment of silence for “reflection,” or “meditation.”

Below, I will explain why the proposed bills would violate the United States Constitution
and the Florida Constitution.
 I. THE BIBLE BILL VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION

Despite its lore, the United States of America was neither founded on the Bible nor on the
Judeo-Christian faith traditions. Not only does the United States Constitution not attribute itself
to, nor make any mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, or Christianity, but the First Amendment gives
lie to the notion that the United States was founded on any religion whatsoever.

The First Amendment’s establishment clause “was intended to erect a wall of separation
between Church and State,” which precludes any government, federal or state, from enacting laws
“which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Everson v. Ewing
Township, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947).1 The religious freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment rest
“upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if
each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.” McCollum v. Board of Education, 333
U.S. 203, 212 (1948). In fact, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution directly
contradicts the first commandment of the Old Testament.

Florida’s Constitution goes even further. “No revenue of the state or any political
subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in
aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.” FL. CONST.
art. 1 § 3. See also Bush v. Holmes, 886 So. 2d 340, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). A law violates the
“no-aid provision” of the Florida Constitution if the program is used to promote religion, is
significantly sectarian in nature, or encourages the preference of one religion over another. Council
for Secular Humanism, Inc. v. McNeil, 44 So. 3d 112, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). It is unthinkable
that Florida’s “public school system or its property could be employed in the permanent promotion
of any [religion].” Southside Estates Baptist Church v. Board of Trustees, 115 So. 2d 697, 700
(Fla. 1959).

The Sponsors should resist their urges to use the tools of government to require public
schools to teach the scriptures of their preferred religion before fully considering the consequences.
As I will explain below, these bills would violate both the federal and state Constitutions and
would diminish the value of the Bible in American culture.

A. THE BIBLE BILL WOULD VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

It is unconstitutional for a state to use its compulsory public-school machinery to facilitate

the dissemination of religious doctrines to a captive audience of school children. McCollum v.
Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 212 (1948). To withstand its inevitable constitutional scrutiny,
the Bill must have a “secular legislative purpose” a “primary effect that neither advances nor
inhibits religion” and must avoid “excessive entanglement between government and religion.”
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971); see also Abington Township v. Schempp, 374
U.S. 203, 222 (1963).2 An avowed secular purpose alone, like the one currently in the Bill,

1
See Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01). “Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists,” U.S. Library of Congress.
2
See also eg., Meltzer v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Fla., 548 F. 2d 559, 573-79 (5th Cir. 1977)
(holding as unconstitutional a Florida law requiring Bible reading, prayer, and teachers to instruct students on Christian
virtue) (affirmed in rehearing en banc see Meltzer, 577 F. 2d 311, 312 (5th Cir. 1978)).

2
however, is insufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S.
39, 41-42 (1980).

Organized attempts to chip away at the wall between church and state have been ongoing
for generations. Each time lawmakers have attempted to wedge their preferred faith through the
cracks they perceive in the wall and test the limits of the First Amendment on school children, they
invariably make it taller and more impenetrable. In fact, framing the mandatory Bible courses as
“objective,” “historical,” “secular,” or “elective” ones would not insulate it from constitutional
scrutiny. See Wiley v. Franklin, 468 F. Supp. 133, 151 (E.D. Tenn. 1979).

In Wiley, the court held that a Tennessee law that required schools to offer elective Bible
courses, in a manner nearly identical to the Bible Bill, violated the Establishment Clause. 468 F.
Supp. at 139. Like the proposed Bible Bill, students were not provided with Bibles nor required to
study from a specific version or translation, and the Bible would be studied “for its literary,
historic, and sociological qualities.” Id. at 140. Despite the intent stated in the law, however, the
court found “Biblical story-telling by a teacher in her own style and manner appear[ed] to be the
hallmark of classroom instruction.” Id. at 141. The Wiley court cut through the noise and realized
the issue was not whether the courses were facially described as being electives, secular, or
nondenominational. Id. at 151. “[T]he Constitutional issue presented in teaching the Bible study
courses in the public schools is not the Bible itself, but rather the selectivity, emphasis, objectivity,
and interpretative manner, or lack thereof, with which the Bible is taught.” Id. at 150.

Similarly, the issue here will be the form the required Bible courses take on if enacted in
Florida. Curiously, however, the Bill makes no effort to outline how the courses shall go about
“maintaining religious neutrality, and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and
perspectives of all students in the school.” There are no guidelines as to whether the instructors
could be clergy, nor whether they would be screened for bias or sectarian agendas. While the
hands-off approach may be initially aesthetic, it nonetheless invites constitutional violations.

1. The Bible Bill Violates the Establishment Clause on its Face because it Advances
Religion

On its face, the Bill mandates a preference for the Christian religion because it is the only
one that uses both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as its scripture. The Old Testament,
when combined with the New Testament and read or taught in the “literal manner . . . form the
nucleus and basis of the Christian religious faith.” Wiley, 468 F. Supp. at 149.3

The Bible Bill would not be saved by the elective nature of the Bible courses. The United
States Supreme Court has been clear that a public school violates the establishment clause even if
student participation in school sponsored religious activities is entirely voluntary, “for that fact
furnishes no defense to a claim of unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause.” Schempp,
at 224-25; see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 596 (1992).

3
See also, McCollum, 333 U.S. at 208-08 (finding that although the law allowed for Jewish religion courses none had
been held for years before the suit).

3
 The Sponsors should consider the impact the law would have on Florida’s students
determined to study the Bible at school when they realize their instructor is teaching from a
different version, comprised of more or fewer books, or a translation that differs, from the one they
have at home and read at their church. Designing a course that would shake off the subtle
influences of denominationalism would be a task of Sisyphean proportions. After all, even “non-
denominational” Christianity is itself a denomination of Christianity since, it accepts the basic
tenets of the Christian faith, rather than reject them, but distinguishes itself from other
denominations on fine points of doctrine, exactly like every other Christian denomination.

Florida is one of the most populous states and boasts a wide range of ethnic, racial, and
religious diversity. Growing up and going to school in Florida, students are likely to interact with
Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and nonbelievers. History shows, though,
that when a government is seen to endorse a religion, intolerance and often violence soon follow.
See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53-54 (1985). For instance, the Philadelphia Bible riots of
1844, which began over nationalist tensions and religious disputes about which version of the
Bible would be used in schools, left dozens killed and injured and several churches and homes
burned to the ground.4

Perceiving their schools as the Church of State would have a demoralizing and divisive
impact on those Florida students who practice a faith other than the one the state prefers. “[I]t does
constitute concrete harm where the ‘psychological consequence’ is produced by government
condemnation of one's own religion or endorsement of another's in one's own community.”
Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1052
(9th Cir. 2010). The State of Florida must be aware that upon passage of this Bill every single
Florida taxpayer will have the legal standing to challenge the law as violative of the Establishment
Clause. Dept. of Admin. v. Horne, 269 So. 2d 659, 662-63 (Fla. 1972). Yet, this could all be avoided
with a simple exercise in empathy, which would enable the Sponsors to imagine a scenario in
which Florida required every school to teach from the holy book of a religion other than their own.5

2. The Bible Bill Would Violate the Establishment Clause as Applied

There is a fine line between teaching religion and teaching about religion because of the
very nature of religious beliefs. While claims about religions are verifiable historical claims,
religious claims, on the other hand, are not objectively verifiable. The objective studies of history,
math, and science are wholly different from the study of the religion in the Bible. For example,
while there are over 33,000 distinct Christian denominations in the world hardly any notable
schisms have formed over the principles of basic arithmetic and the scientific method. Some
Christian denominations reject the idea of the trinity while others embrace it, but no such chasm
exists with respect to the belief that a number multiplied by two will always be its double. Even

4
The Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1844, Contest Over the Rights of Citizens, Amanda Beyer-Purvis, PhD. US Legal
History, University of Florida, Published by Penn State University Press 2016.
5
“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may
establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority
which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may
force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” James Madison, Memorial and
Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785.

4
the Bible taught as history is an “inherently religious instruction, rather than objective, secular
education, since much of the Bible is not capable of historic verification (such as divine creation,
the “pre-existence” of Jesus, Jesus' miracles, and the resurrection), and can only be accepted as a
matter of faith and religious belief.” Herdahl v. Pontotoc Cty. School Dist., 933 F. Supp. 582, 596
(N.D. Miss. 1996).

A similar Bible course program in Texas, designed to promote Biblical literacy, was
reviewed by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund (TFN) and found to have “crossed the
constitutional line by promoting certain religious perspectives over others and religion over non-
religion.” For example, in its report, Reading, Writing & Religion II: Texas Public School Bible
Courses in 2011-2012, TFN found some courses taught the Bible, including its miracle claims, as
straightforward, unproblematic history. Id. at 35. At least one course taught the resurrection as “an
event that occurred in time and space – that it was, in reality, historical and not mythological” and
assigned students Christian apologetics defending the truth of the resurrection as supplemental
reading. Id. at 37. Other courses taught traditional, and sometimes controversial, Christian
theological interpretations of scripture as unchallenged normative readings of the Bible. Id. at 34.
Even worse, some courses promoted and taught as fact the pseudoscience of Creationism and the
incestuous Noachian origins of racial diversity. Id. at 52.6 7

Here, the Bill offers little, if any, guidance on how the Bible courses it mandates should be
taught to avoid violating the constitutional rights of students. Surely, an “objective study of the
Bible” would include a survey of pre-Judaism Mesopotamian religious literature that influenced
the authors of the Bible. After all, if a student could not appreciate the works of Shakespeare
without studying the Bible then a student could not appreciate the story of Noah without studying
the Epic of Gilgamesh written some 1,400 years before Genesis.8 Students could not fully
appreciate Noah’s heroic flood story without understanding how it improved on those of his
mythological predecessors like Utnapishtin in Babylon,9 Xisuthrus in Chaldea,10 Atrahasis in
Akkad,11 and Ziusudra in Sumer.12

Similarly, students should read pre-Christian Greek epics to fully appreciate their
influences on the New Testament. For example, Florida’s new mandatory Bible courses could
explore the literary parallels between the book of Acts and Homer’s Odyssey. Some students
would certainly be fascinated by surveying Dr. Dennis MacDonald’s various works exploring the
literary parallels between Paul and Odysseus. The students could enter a lively debate over whether

6
https://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2013/12/TFNEF_ReadingWritingReligionII.pdf
7
“How Should We Teach the Bible in Public Schools?” https://www.smu.edu/News/2014/mark-chancey-14jan2014
8
The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, Heidel, Alexander, 102-106, Univ, of Chicago Press, 1949.
9
The Epic of Gilgamesh, Sandars, N. K. (transl.)., Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmondsworth, England, 1972.
10
The Chaldean Account of the Deluge, Smith, George, 1873.
11
Myths from Mesopotamia, Dalley, Stephanie, 23-35, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.
12
Some Observations on the Assyro-Babylonian and Sumerian Flood Stories, Hammerly-Dupuy, Daniel, 1968.

5
the author of Luke, who being educated in Greek was most likely familiar with the Odyssey, drew
from Homer’s epic to construct a narrative familiar to his own Greek audience.

On the other hand, some Florida school districts may be compelled to teach historical
criticism of the Old Testament, which the statute could never preclude. For example, the class
could teach that despite the accounts in Exodus there is no evidence of Israelite slaves in Egypt
nor of their mass exodus and forty-year journey through the desert from Egypt to Canaan.13 In fact,
instructors could explore with their students the reasons why the modern scholarly consensus is
that Moses was a mythological character rather than a historical one.14

The classes could also explore whether those early Israelites in Canaan were henotheistic
rather than purely monotheistic, believing in the existence of multiple gods while worshipping
only one. Students could discuss the implication of verses throughout the Old Testament that
describe God as just one among many others. Genesis 31:19; Exodus 15:11; Exodus 18:9-11; Deut.
29:18, 26; Psalm 82:1; Psalm 86:8-9; Psalm 89:5-7; Psalm 95:3; Psalm 96:4; Psalm 97:9-10; Psalm
135:5; Psalm 136:2; Psalm 138:1, etc.

The school districts could also structure the courses toward a historical study of New
Testament stories. The courses could have students question the reliability of the gospels as having
been written generations after the purported events by anonymous authors sourced from each other
and varying oral traditions. The courses could teach students to read the New Testament in a
horizontal rather than linear fashion. Such a course could be designed to highlight the disparities
and contradictions between the gospels by having students read a story in one gospel followed
immediately by the corresponding story in the other gospels, while taking careful note of the
differences, as suggested by New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman and others.15 This approach
often raises tough questions, however. Did Mary Magdalene run-off from the tomb proclaiming to
have seen the resurrected Jesus, as described in John 20:18? Or did she flee from the tomb in such
fear that she told no one, as in Mark 16:8? She could not have told someone and told no one the
same thing, in the same sense. And if the women had told no one, then who told Mark?

The students could go home to tell their parents they learned of a contradiction between
the books of Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod who
ordered a slaughter of baby boys to kill Jesus, but Luke has him born during the census of
Quirinius, the Roman Governor of Syria, though we know Herod died years before Quirinius took
power and conducted his census. Those students would learn that there is no extra-biblical
evidence that Herod ordered the slaughter of Bethlehem’s baby boys as depicted only in Matthew.
Was Matthew simply rewriting the Passover story? They would also learn there is no evidence of
a census that required all Roman citizens to travel to their ancestral homelands, rather than register

13
See Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho, by Dr. Ze'ev Herzog, Israeli archeologist and professor of archaeology at
Tel Aviv University; http://www.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm, published in Ha'aretz, Oct. 9, 1999.
14
See Dever, William G. (1993). "What Remains of the House That Albright Built?” The Biblical Archaeologist.
University of Chicago Press. 56 (1): 25–35.
15
Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical
Jesus, the origins and development of early Christianity, and is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious
Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

6
where they were, as described in Luke 2:1-5. The students may ask: Where is the evidence that the
entire Roman Empire had been required to make the same voyage that brought Jesus to Bethlehem
in the book of Luke? And why is it that the two books describing Jesus’ birth have almost nothing
in common? The mandatory Bible courses the Sponsors propose could not be precluded from
pursuing such questions should their aim be objectivity.

Perhaps, the Sponsors are most excited by the prospect that Florida students would learn
what impact the Bible had on our founding fathers. By law, students would be permitted to follow
along with a copy of Thomas Jefferson’s version of the New Testament, The Life and Morals of
Jesus of Nazareth, which omits Jesus’ miracles, claims of divinity, and resurrection. Those classes
could also discuss how the Bible influenced the constitution and which Christian principles the
founders specifically rejected. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of
religion and provides for the free exercise of the right to worship any or no gods at all, whereas
the first commandment requires the worship of the Jewish God at the explicit exclusion of all
others. Similarly, the constitution prohibits the “Corruption of Blood,” which is the means by
which Adam’s original sin made Jesus’ offer of salvation necessary in the Christian faith. U.S.
CONST. art. III § 3; Genesis 3; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

While studying the Old Testament, students can discuss the Mosaic laws that established a
different set of rules for women sold into slavery than for male slaves. Exodus 21:7-11. Likewise,
the class could debate whether the New Testament verses commanding women to be silent in the
Church inspired the founders to initially deny American women the right to vote. 1 Corinthians
14:34.

In the same light, students may encounter some of the verses proponents of American
slavery recited to defend the piety of owning other human beings as property to be used, sold,
beaten, and subjected to torture. Ephesians 6:5-8; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Matthew 18:34. The impact
this would have on students, especially African American students, cannot be understated. Even
worse would be a zealous instructor, like Dennis Prager, who would defend Biblical slavery as a
form less egregious than the one practiced in America.16 That defense would fail, as it always does,
to quell the disputes that would ensue in classrooms. Our modern society has greatly improved
upon Biblical morality. For the owning of another human being for the exploitation of the value
of their labor and beating them nearly to death does not suddenly become justifiable if it is called
something other than chattel slavery. And if it had been moral to own a slave in Biblical times but
is now immoral, then Biblical morality is relative to the time and place of its authors, rather than
objective moral truths of a religion. The simplest questions would be whether the forms of slavery
presented in the Bible, like the ones in Jesus’ parables, would be lawful in America after the 13th
Amendment was ratified, and whether they are consistent with the American principle that all men
are born equal and have the natural right of liberty. 17 The answers, of course, would always be:
No, because it is slavery.

The above are just some of the topics covered in objective Bible courses in universities
throughout the United States and in the State of Florida. Likewise, these are the topics the Bill

16
See The Rational Bible, Exodus: God, Slavery, and Freedom, Dennis Prager.
17
Matthew 18:21-35; Matthew 24:36-51; Luke 15:11-31; Luke 19:11-26.

7
would need to teach to be objective and avoid the proselytization and religious instruction that
would violate students’ constitutional rights.

Of course, Florida’s high-school Bible courses could be designed to steer clear of the above
fascinating, yet controversial, topics. But what then would be left in the objective study of the
Bible and the religion within it? As we know, almost none of the Pentateuch can be taught as
verifiable historical events. The Genesis creation narrative cannot be taught without a discussion
of its scientific errors, or the literary contribution from creation myths of older religions. Textual
interpretations would need to be avoided. So, instructors would have no choice but to use a plain
reading and leave some of the most thoughtful student questions unanswered. We know the
Gospels must be read critically because to read them as literally true would violate the constitution.
Therefore, an objective study of the Christian Bible must include its inconsistencies,
contradictions, and the disputes causing its sectarian fissures. An objective study of the Biblical
principles having an impact upon the founders must include a review of which ideas our founders
rejected, and those that inspired and were used to defend some of America’s darkest and most
shameful acts. However, I suspect this is not the “objective study” of the Bible and religion the
Sponsors have in mind.

An objective study of the Bible cannot be a classroom rendition of the cherry-picked stories
told at churches minus a prayer, the eating of the Eucharist, or a call to the alter before the next
bell. Such attempts to bring religion “back” into public schools are unconstitutional, as is this Bill.

B. THE BIBLE BILL WILL DEGRADE CHRISTIANITY

The Sponsors should rest assured that the wall between church and state is not meant only
to protect the state from the church, but also to protect the church from the state, because history
has shown one never fails to corrupt the other. Schempp, 374 U.S. 225-226. For that reason, the
founders constructed the wall with its “first and most immediate purpose rest[ing] on the belief
that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.”
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962). Our founders believed “that religion is too personal, too
sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by [the state].” See Id. at 431-32 n.15 (1962)
(citing Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, II Writings of Madison, at
187). “In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of
neutrality.” Schempp, at 226.

“The Framers did not set up a system of government in which important, discretionary
governmental powers would be delegated to or shared with religious institutions.” Larkin v.
Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 127 (1982). It is our wall between church and state that has
allowed the United States to maintain its religiosity. If we look across the pond to the United
Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, where there is no separation of church and state, we see
a diminished religious culture.18 In those countries, the union of church and state has made the
former far less important. More than two-thirds of Americans would say religion is an important
part of their daily lives, compared to less than a third in the United Kingdom. They do not share

18
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/01/with-high-levels-of-prayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-
nations/

8
our rich religious culture. Those countries have diluted their religion and made it boring, just
another government PSA.

Christians should be weary whenever the state seeks to teach the Bible in public schools.
The Constitution prohibits teaching the miraculous events in the Bible, like the immaculate
conception of Jesus, his turning water to wine, walking on water, raising of the dead, and offer of
salvation, as historical truth. Teaching the Bible within its constitutional restraints would require
it be taught the same way the stories of other ancient religions are taught to American school
children: as myth.

Myths are those traditional stories of gods and other supernatural beings that, though once
believed to be true, are now appreciated for their cultural, literary, and historical significance rather
than for their truth values as religious beliefs. The courses would be required to filter out claims
of Jesus’ divinity, his resurrection, and his teachings regarding the coming of God’s kingdom,
which would only dull the religious message behind the Bible. The Bill would cause a sanitized
version of the Bible be taught in the realm of the tested, the questioned, and the critically examined.
Since the U.S. Constitution prohibits teaching the Bible as unquestionable truth it would have to
be read like the stories of the other gods students learn about in school. The Bill would force the
State of Florida to place the Bible within a breeding ground for skepticism, our schools. Eventually,
the God of the Bible will become academically indistinguishable from other mythological
anthropomorphic gods like Zeus, Aries, Hermes, or Poseidon. Separated from their truth claims,
God and Jesus will simply become another father-son pair among the pantheons of ancient dead
gods, like Zeus and his sons Perseus, Dionysus, and Heracles.

The Sponsors ought to more thoroughly consider the consequences of their Bible Bill. The
Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida would prohibit the Bible from being
taught as objectively true. And surely, the Sponsors do not intend to enact unconstitutional
programs. In what manner then do the Sponsors expect the Bible to be taught in Florida’s public
schools, as untrue? The Sponsors are setting the Bible upon a course to devolve in our culture to
the status of mythology.

II. THE MOMENT OF SILENCE BILL VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION

It was settled decades ago that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from endorsing or
requiring school-led or school-sponsored prayer. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 599 (1992);
Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60-61; Engel, 370 U.S. at 436. Since then a fervent political movement, which
thrives on misinformation and misconceptions about our religious freedoms, was launched to bring
God, the Bible, and prayer back into public schools. And that movement has gained significant
support with more than two-thirds of Americans in favor of daily prayers in public schools. This
puts lawmakers, like the Sponsors, between a rock and a hard place. Lawmakers must either
implement an unconstitutional program of prayer in the schools or “face the wrath of their
constituents.” See Duffy v. Las Cruces Public Schools, 557 F. Supp. 1013, 1016 (D. NM 1983).
The lawmakers that are pressured to choose the former often attempt to get prayer back in school,
and over the wall between church and state, under the guise of neutrality with words like
“reflection,” “meditation,” “contemplation,” and “moment of silence.” See Id. at 1015. For some

9
reason, lawmakers have not learned that the more they attempt to push God back into public
schools, the more the constitution pushes God back out.

In Duffy, the court held that a New Mexico statute authorizing public schools to begin the
day with a voluntary moment of silence for “prayer,” “meditation,” or “contemplation,” violated
the Establishment Clause. Id. at 1023. The court found the arguments that the moment of silence
was neutral and had educational benefits were merely pretextual. Id. at 1019. “The inclusion of the
words ‘contemplation’ and ‘meditation’ indicates that the legislature knowingly set out to
denigrate the right to freedom of religion, and then sought to conceal the result by including these
so-called alternatives to prayer.” Id. It does not matter whether a moment of silence would be
considered a prayer to clergy, “the [constitutional] ill lies in the public’s perception of the moment
of silence as a devotional exercise.” Id.

Here, the distinction between compulsory prayer and compulsory silent meditation or
reflection is one without a difference. “It cannot be seriously argued and certainly cannot be
assumed that school children can discern the nice distinctions concerning the meanings of
‘meditation,’ ‘contemplation’ and ‘prayer.’” Id. at 1016. Even the United States Supreme Court
has recognized that: “[i]ndeed, for some persons meditation itself may be a form of prayer.”
Wallace, 472 U.S. at 59 n.47 (citing B. Larson, Larson's Book of Cults 62–65 (1982); C. Whittier,
Silent Prayer and Meditation in World Religions 1–7 (Congressional Research Service 1982)).

The threshold question here would be whether the Bill has a legitimate secular purpose,
which could be determined by considering what the amendment would add or take from the rights
the law currently protects. Here, the Bill has no secular purpose because it adds no
accommodations not already available to Florida students who wish to use a few moments for
silent prayer or meditation. Like in Duffy, “[f]ar from being an accommodation of religion, it is an
establishment of religion with the added element of being compulsory.” 557 F. Supp. at 1020.
Certainly, not all Florida students would willingly participate in a meditation regiment they find
spiritual and ritualistic. It should be obvious that organized compulsory silent prayers in public
schools do not suddenly become constitutional if labeled as organized compulsory moments of
silence. The effect is the same.

“The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different
from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate
moment of silence during the school day.” Wallace, at 59. Like the statute in Wallace, the Moment
of Silence Bill has no secular purpose because the current version of the statute “already protect[s]
that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during
[two] silent minute[s] of meditation.” Id. at 60. It is axiomatic that the First Amendment protects
the individual’s freedom to embrace any faith he or she chooses, or none at all, by preventing the
government from requiring or prohibiting either. Id. at 53-54. Therefore, the Moment of Silence
Bill would unconstitutionally compel the participation of those who would otherwise choose not
to take part in ritualistic moments of silence, perceived by some to be akin to prayer. It is simply
unconstitutional for a government to require prayer, even under the mask of meditation.

The next question would be whether the Bill advances religion. To answer it, the
committees should consider whether those constituents who support state-sponsored prayer in

10
Florida’s public schools would feel those aims were satisfied by the passage of the Moment of
Silence Bill. For if the public perceives the Moment of Silence Bill as the return of prayer to public
schools, then the fact that the law unconstitutionally advances religion becomes irrefutable.

The Sponsors should have the courage to educate their constituents as to the Constitutions
they swore to defend and uphold, rather than test the limits of their protections of one of our most
precious liberties. They should explain to their constituents how the wall between church and state
protects the purity and sanctity of their faiths. The Sponsors should remind those constituents who
argue that prohibiting school prayer is to indicate a hostility toward religion or prayer that “nothing,
of course, could be more wrong.” Engel, at 433-34; see also Schempp, at 225-26. Floridians should
understand the wall protects their religions from being watered-down, undermined, and corrupted
by the Church of State.

III. CONCLUSION

Florida’s resources would be better spent on requiring civics, home economics, personal
finance management, or career planning courses. If the intent is to increase knowledge of religion,
the Sponsors should edit the Bible Bill to require every Florida school district to offer an elective
course for the objective study of the major world religions. Such a course would achieve the goal
of preparing more well-rounded and knowledgeable students to better interact in the religiously
diverse communities in which they live.

The Sponsors should withdraw their Bills and focus on more practical improvements to
Florida public schools and curriculum, instead of rushing headlong into the wall between Church
and State. I humbly remind the committees that “[i]t is no defense to urge that the religious
practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment.” Schempp, at 225.
“The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent
and, in the words of Madison, ‘it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.’”
Id.

I am sounding the alarm and I will continue to sound the alarm upon each of these attempts
to experiment on our religious liberties. These Bills should die in their committees.

Sincerely,

A.J. Hernandez, Esq.

Cc: Gov. Ron DeSantis; Rep. Jason Fischer; Sen. Aaron Bean; Sen. Dennis Baxley; Rep. Kimberly Daniels;
Rep. Mike Hill; Rep. Anthony Sabatini.

11