A Tennessee lawmaker has filed a bill that would require public schools to include the Bible in classroom instruction and provide a daily period for prayer and reading religious texts.

The proposal, titled the Protecting Religious Liberty and Expression in Public Schools Act, would mandate Bible instruction for all students unless a parent, guardian, or adult student submits a written request to be excused. Instruction would be framed as literature and would cover topics such as Israel’s history, the Old and New Testaments, Jesus, the early Christian church, and the Bible’s influence on Western civilization.

The bill includes language prohibiting schools from teaching the Bible as religious doctrine, from coercing belief in the Bible’s divine inspiration, and from instructing in any way that would contravene the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Schools would also be required to provide a designated period each school day for prayer and reading religious texts for students and staff.

The measure would create a legal remedy for individuals who allege a school failed to follow the bill or who challenge enforcement of the separation of church and state, entitling successful claimants to declaratory and injunctive relief, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees. The bill also allows parties who sue to enforce the Establishment Clause to be held liable for the prevailing party’s court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

The bill is sponsored by State Representative Gino Bulso of Brentwood, who has introduced other bills this legislative session addressing recognition of same-sex marriages and the legal definition of personhood.

Original article (brentwood) (tennessee) (bible) (israel) (jesus) (prayer) (secularism) (outrage) (controversy)

Actionable information: The article reports a proposed Tennessee bill that would require Bible instruction and a daily period for prayer and religious reading in public schools. It does not provide practical steps for a reader to act on right now. There are no instructions for parents, students, educators, or community members about how to respond if the bill passes, how to file the required “excuse” paperwork, how to legally challenge the law, or how schools would implement the changes. References to remedies and litigation rights are summarized but give no procedural detail, deadlines, forms, or contacts that a reader could use immediately. In short, the piece informs about a legislative proposal but offers no direct, usable guidance for ordinary people who want to respond or prepare.

Educational depth: The article stays at the level of summary. It names the bill, its sponsor, and the main provisions, and it notes some limits the bill would try to impose (for example, prohibiting teaching the Bible as doctrine and requiring compliance with Supreme Court interpretations of the Establishment Clause). It does not explain the legal background in any depth, such as how current First Amendment case law has governed religion in public schools, how courts have treated similar laws in other states, or what standards a court would apply in an Establishment Clause challenge. It does not analyze likely constitutional issues, past precedent, or the mechanics of how “literature” framing has been used in classroom settings. No data, statistics, timelines, or explanatory charts are provided. The result is informative about the bill’s content but shallow about causes, legal reasoning, or potential outcomes.

Personal relevance: The relevance depends heavily on the reader. For parents, students, teachers, and school administrators in Tennessee the subject is potentially important and could affect daily school life, rights, and responsibilities. For readers outside Tennessee or those not connected to public schools, the relevance is limited. The article does not help Tennessee residents understand whether they are likely to be affected, what steps to take to be excused from instruction, or how to track the bill’s progress. It fails to connect the legislative summary to concrete consequences for individuals’ safety, finances, health, or immediate legal obligations.

Public service function: The article performs the basic public-service function of informing readers that a legislative proposal exists and what it would require. However, it does not provide practical warnings, timelines, contact information for legislators, instructions for how to voice opinions to lawmakers, or guidance on where to file legal complaints if needed. It does not offer safety guidance or explain rights and options for religious minorities, nonreligious families, or staff who might be affected. As a public-service piece it is limited: it informs but does not empower action.

Practical advice: There is little to none. The article mentions that parents, guardians, or adult students can submit a written request to be excused, but it does not say what form that request would take, what language would be acceptable, whether a school could probe motives, or any procedures for disputes. It notes remedies for enforcement failures and reciprocal fee-shifting in lawsuits, but it gives no guidance about how to find counsel, the likely expense, or when such suits could be filed. Any reader attempting to follow advice from the text would be left without clear next steps.

Long-term impact: The article outlines a change that could produce long-term effects if enacted, such as daily religious exercises in public schools and mandated Bible instruction. But it does not analyze long-term legal, social, or educational implications, such as how schools might restructure schedules, how teacher training or curricula would change, or how courts might respond. Readers get awareness of potential long-term change but not the tools to plan for or adapt to those changes.

Emotional and psychological impact: The article is largely factual and measured; it does not use sensational language. However, by reporting a contentious proposal without offering guidance, it may leave affected readers uncertain, anxious, or frustrated because they lack information about how to act or what protections exist. The piece does not provide calming context, resources, or steps that might reduce worry.

Clickbait or sensationalism: The article does not appear to rely on dramatic headlines or exaggeration in the content you provided. It sticks to a description of the bill and the sponsor’s background without overpromising or using inflated claims. It focuses on the bill’s provisions rather than emotional framing.

Missed chances to teach or guide: The piece misses several opportunities to help readers. It could have explained how to submit an excusal request if people will need to do so, how to contact local school boards and legislators with concerns, how to find existing legal analyses of school prayer and religious instruction, or what precedent exists from other states. It could have suggested practical steps parents or school staff can take now to learn more or prepare for possible implementation. It could also have summarized the likely constitutional arguments for and against the measure and what judicial tests (such as Lemon, endorsement, coercion, or historical approaches) might be applied.

Concrete, practical guidance the article failed to provide

If you are a parent, student, teacher, or staff member in Tennessee and want to prepare or respond, start by identifying your immediate stake: whether your child attends a public school in the district affected and whether you already have strong feelings about participation in religious instruction or daily prayer periods. Locate your school district’s main contact information and the district calendar so you know how and when policies would be implemented. If you might want your child excused from instruction, prepare a brief written statement that names the student, the school, and the request to be excused on religious or conscientious grounds; keep a dated copy. Even before any law takes effect, this document can be adapted for whatever form the district requires.

Find your elected representatives’ contact details: your state representative, state senator, and local school board members. Draft a concise email or script for a phone call stating whether you support or oppose the bill, why it matters to you, and what outcome you want. Sending a calm, fact-focused message is more likely to be read than an emotional one. If you want to organize with others, reach out to other parents at your school to share concerns and agree on common talking points before contacting officials.

If you are worried about legal rights, keep records: note dates of any incidents, save written school communications, and document any interactions about religious instruction or coercion. These records are essential if you later need to consult an attorney or bring a complaint. Contact local civil-rights organizations or bar associations to get referrals to attorneys experienced in education and First Amendment law; an initial consultation will help you understand whether a legal challenge is realistic.

To evaluate news and claims about this or similar bills in the future, compare multiple independent sources and look for direct links to the bill text, legislative tracking pages, or official statements from school districts. Reading the actual bill text (often available on the state legislature’s website) is the most reliable way to confirm precise requirements, deadlines, and enforcement mechanisms. When you read commentary or summaries, check whether they cite the bill section numbers or quote the statute verbatim.

If your concern is personal wellbeing or that of children, talk with them in age‑appropriate terms about changes at school and encourage questions. Keeping communication open reduces anxiety and lets you gauge how any classroom changes are affecting them.

These practical steps do not require special expertise or external research beyond contacting officials, saving records, and preparing simple written requests. They help you act responsibly and prepare to protect rights and interests whether or not the bill ultimately becomes law.

"would require public schools to include the Bible in classroom instruction and provide a daily period for prayer and reading religious texts." This sentence shows a religious bias because it frames the bill as mandating religion in public schools. It helps people who want public religious practice and hides the neutral or secular view of public education. The wording presents the change as a simple rule, which makes it sound normal rather than controversial. It gives weight to religion as part of official school routine.

"Instruction would be framed as literature and would cover topics such as Israel’s history, the Old and New Testaments, Jesus, the early Christian church, and the Bible’s influence on Western civilization." Saying instruction will be "framed as literature" softens the fact that the subject is religious, which is a word trick that makes it seem academic instead of devotional. It favors Christian content by listing Christian topics and "Israel’s history" without showing other religions. The choice of topics highlights Christian and Western perspectives and hides broader religious or secular viewpoints. This promotes cultural/religious bias toward Christianity and Western civilization.

"The bill includes language prohibiting schools from teaching the Bible as religious doctrine, from coercing belief in the Bible’s divine inspiration, and from instructing in any way that would contravene the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause." This sentence uses reassuring language that downplays concerns by promising limits ("prohibiting," "coercing") which can be virtue signaling to appear careful about church–state separation. It frames compliance as simple and lawful, which may hide practical enforcement problems or pressure on teachers. Mentioning the Supreme Court makes it sound legally safe, steering readers to trust legality rather than examine practical effects. The tone favors proponents by reducing perceived conflict.

"Schools would also be required to provide a designated period each school day for prayer and reading religious texts for students and staff." This phrase normalizes daily public prayer in schools, which signals preference for public religious exercise and imposes religion into routine school life. It omits any detail about opt-outs or safeguards, which hides how non-participating students or staff would be protected. The wording assumes a shared acceptance of prayer at school, favoring religious groups and minimizing secular concerns. It is biased toward making religious practice an institutional norm.

"The measure would create a legal remedy for individuals who allege a school failed to follow the bill or who challenge enforcement of the separation of church and state, entitling successful claimants to declaratory and injunctive relief, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees." This line frames enforcement as balanced by offering remedies, which is a softening tactic that suggests fairness and legal recourse. It favors those who support the law by promising enforceability, and it may deter challenges by creating legal costs—this helps the bill’s backers. The language focuses on remedy mechanics without noting who might be disadvantaged by enforcement, hiding impacts on dissenting groups. It biases in favor of legal enforcement rather than discussing social consequences.

"The bill also allows parties who sue to enforce the Establishment Clause to be held liable for the prevailing party’s court costs and reasonable attorney fees." This clause creates a legal risk for challengers, which is a pressure tactic embedded in neutral-sounding legal language. It favors the law’s supporters by discouraging lawsuits that could block the policy, benefiting those in power. The wording hides the chilling effect on free-speech or civil-rights litigation by presenting cost-shifting as neutral. It biases legal balance toward defenders of the bill.

"The bill is sponsored by State Representative Gino Bulso of Brentwood, who has introduced other bills this legislative session addressing recognition of same-sex marriages and the legal definition of personhood." Mentioning the sponsor’s other bills links this proposal to broader conservative social-policy goals, which signals political bias by association. It frames the sponsor as aligned with certain positions, helping readers infer ideology without saying it plainly. This can push readers to view the bill as part of a political agenda, which colors perception of motive. The placement uses association to create a political framing that may bias readers against or for the bill.

The text expresses a range of emotions, both direct and implied, that shape how a reader may respond. Confidence appears through the bill’s clear mandates and legal mechanisms; phrases such as “would require,” “mandate,” and the detailed list of topics to be taught convey certainty and purpose. This confidence is moderately strong because the language outlines specific actions and remedies, giving the proposal an air of authority and seriousness. Its purpose is to present the measure as deliberate and enforceable, which can build trust in its sponsors and persuade readers that the proposal is substantial rather than vague. Concern or worry is implied by the inclusion of legal remedies and the clause allowing plaintiffs to recover court costs and attorney fees; the presence of both enforcement tools and counter-liability for those who sue to enforce the Establishment Clause signals that disputes are expected and could be costly. This worry is moderate to strong because the text details potential litigation pathways and financial consequences, and it functions to alert readers that the bill could provoke legal conflict and personal stakes. A sense of protection or defensiveness is present in the title “Protecting Religious Liberty and Expression in Public Schools Act” and in language that forbids teaching the Bible as doctrine or coercing belief. The emotional tone here is protective and measured; its strength is moderate because the text balances mandate with restrictions meant to avoid overreach. The purpose is to reassure readers that the bill aims to defend religious expression while claiming to respect constitutional limits, which can calm concerns and frame the bill as reasonable. There is an undercurrent of inclusion and enforcement of religious practice expressed by the requirement for a daily period for prayer and reading religious texts; this evokes belonging or affirmation for those who value public religious expression. The feeling is moderately positive for supporters because the measure institutionalizes daily religious activity, and it serves to inspire or encourage action and approval among like-minded readers by showing tangible, daily recognition of religion in schools. Conversely, the same details can evoke anger or alarm for readers who prioritize separation of church and state; the mandatory nature of Bible instruction unless excused and the daily prayer period may register as intrusive. This anger is implicit and variable depending on the reader’s stance, but its presence is notable because the text frames obligations that affect students and staff, which can mobilize opposition or protest. The description of curriculum topics—“Israel’s history, the Old and New Testaments, Jesus, the early Christian church, and the Bible’s influence on Western civilization”—carries a reverent and reverberating tone toward Christian tradition. That tone is mildly admiring and functions to legitimize the educational value of the Bible by emphasizing historical and cultural relevance. Its strength is moderate; it is meant to shift the reader’s view of the Bible from solely a religious text to a component of literary and historical education, thereby broadening appeal. Neutrality and legal caution are also emotions conveyed through repetitive references to constitutional limits—phrases like “would contravene the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause”—which inject a cautious, law-conscious feeling. This caution is moderate and serves to temper potential criticism by signaling constitutional awareness, guiding readers toward seeing the bill as mindful of legal boundaries rather than an unrestrained religious imposition. Persuasive effects arise from how the text mixes these emotional tones. Confidence and protection aim to build trust in the bill’s intent; inclusion and cultural framing seek to inspire support by presenting the Bible as educationally legitimate; legal remedies and constitutional language introduce caution and gravity, which can legitimize the measure while also warning of conflict. The result is a layered emotional appeal designed to reassure supporters, warn opponents of legal stakes, and present the proposal as both principled and enforceable. The writer uses specific word choices and structural tools to amplify emotion and persuasion. Imperative verbs such as “require” and “mandate” make the proposal sound decisive rather than optional, increasing the sense of authority. The bill’s title functions as a framing device that casts the measure in protective, rights-based language, steering readers to view it through the lens of safeguarding liberties. Repetition appears in the dual emphasis on both what must be taught and what must not be done (mandating instruction while forbidding doctrinal teaching), which reinforces the message that the bill balances religious expression with constitutional limits; this repetition increases the perceived reasonableness of the proposal. Categorical lists of curriculum topics and enumerated legal consequences make the plan look concrete and thorough, which heightens feelings of seriousness and legitimacy. Legalistic phrasing and references to the Supreme Court and court remedies inject authority and caution, giving readers the impression that the proposal has been crafted with constitutional concerns in mind. Overall, these linguistic tools shift a reader’s attention from abstract debate to concrete implementation and legal enforceability, thereby strengthening the emotional impact and directing opinion toward seeing the bill as purposeful, protective, and legally considered.