In its 1952 decision which has been upheld many times since, the U.S. Supreme Court says in Zorach vs. Clauson:
          "The First Amendment does not provide that in every and all respects there shall be separation of Church and State. The people of the United States are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. Therefore, when the state encourages religious instruction and cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.... We find no Constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence."

SB 973 and HB 1209
       This bill codifies the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1952 Zorach Vs. Clauson decision regarding released time, a religious liberty for public school students. Released time (RT) allows public school students to leave school grounds during an elective part of the school day for religious-based moral instruction. This bill specifies some policies regarding community-proposed programs in order to clarify issues regarding RT implementation.
Sponsors: Rep. John DeBerry, Sen. Micheal Williams, Sen. Ron Ramsey

Reasons to support the codification of released time religious liberty
· Off-campus RT has been legal since 1962, yet many school boards are unaware of the legality and requirements far a legal program. This often delays the opportunity for students to participate in RT when it is requested by parents in the community.
· Issues such as which groups qualify for RT, whether school funding might be affected, the type of classes which can be substituted for RT, questions regarding school liability, and the proximity of RT locations to the school are unclear from the 1952 decision. Tennessee needs HB 1209/SB 973 RT law in order to clarify these issues.

Benefits of Released Time
1. The State of Tennessee encourages schools to promote community and parental involvement as a key to student success. RT significantly increases both community and parental involvement in the local school.
2. Nationwide, parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents report improved student attitudes and behavior, improved grades, and decreased incidents of student disciplinary problems for students participating in RT.
3. The community provider incurs all costs for the RT program, with none incurred by the school system. At a time when millions of dollars are being spent on efforts to reduce incidents of school violence and improve school safety, RT is a high yielding option with no state funding required.
4. Character education is now mandated by the state of Tennessee. Religious parents need the option of religious character education for their children.
5. Using the power of religious instruction, which would otherwise be prohibited without the RT option, RT addresses and attempts to change negative student behaviors such as school violence, lying; cheating; stealing; disrespect for parents, teachers, and other students.
6. RT provides positive peer pressure for students as they learn moral values alongside the people whose attitudes they value most, the friends they see on a daily basis at school.

What about separation of church and state?
       The Supreme Court decision allowing RT stated that RT was a good and important religious liberty which recognized the religious nature of our country. Today the school system has added many values- based courses to the required curriculum for Tennessee students. RT allows students the option of substituting religious-based values courses for those taught from a secular standpoint at school. The Supreme Court said that not allowing RT would be "to prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."