The Lemon Test : Case Lemon Vs. Kurtzman

An examination of the First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student turns in an essay and the displaying of religious nature for an assignment will provide insight into how the First Amendment applies to classroom assignments. Each reason will provide important insight, information, and court cases to better help in giving a view of the first amendment in regards to religion and education.

Under the Establishment Clause, “The government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization and the government may not discriminate among persons on the basis of their religious beliefs.” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburg Chapter, 492 U.S 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106. L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). The Endorsement test applies to cases that involve government officials and religious beliefs at school-sponsored events. Id at 592. This could be seen if officials promote or favor religion. Id. Courts have found that if prayer being delivered at public school events, organized and supervised by school officials, regardless of the event being outside the classroom and after hours, the government is endorsing religion. Lee, 505 U.S at 604. Additionally, if the government merely pressures participates to attend a religious activity, such as an opening prayer, the government is indirectly endorsing religion. Id (Holding that school officials endorsed religion when students attended “football games” in which opening prayers were given). On the other hand, to avoid favoring religion, public officials must either embrace any religious faith or embrace none at all. Id at 609. State officials favor religion if these officials recognize one religious belief, but they do not acknowledge a dissimilar one. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S at 616. (Holding that the government did not endorse religion by recognizing two different beliefs). Thus, the Endorsement Test is satisfied if either the school board promotes religious activities or if the board’s punishment of Mr. Pitstick is in favor of a religious

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The Establishment Clause guarantees the separation of church and government. Christian Theism is the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear , it was believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion. The Supreme Court established various tests to assess the constitutionality of laws that happened before it. The Lemon Test, has three parts addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be used only for a secular purpose; cannot promote neither prohibit a specific religion. As well as to not substantially involve government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

The Lemon Test, which was created in a case called Lemon V. Kurtzman, consists of three “prongs” (Speich 275). They are that “governmental action be supported by a secular purpose, that it not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and that it ‘not foster “an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.”’” (qtd. in Conkle). In other words, the first “prong” requires the court to question the intent of the government or group in charge of creating the policy; the second prong asks the court to determine the result of the policy and its effects on religion, and the last “prong” asks the court to not complicate the dynamic of the church and the state (Speich 275). The Endorsement test is used after the first two prongs of the lemon test have been verified. First occurring in Lynch V. Donnelly, the Endorsement test states that the “government cannot endorse, favor, promote, or prefer any religious belief or practice” (Speich 277). The test asks the judges if the policy in question merely looks like it endorses religion. The Coercion test, which is sometimes used instead of the lemon test such as in Lee v. Weisman case, asks if the policy tricks members of the minority or “dissenting” religion into participating (Schweitzer; Speich 278).

Case: In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.

In concurrence with King, requiring professors in Christian Charter schools to refrain from wearing non-Christian articles of faith is not a reasonable infringement of Section 2(a) of the Charter. The Oakes test was conducted to deduce that the Charter infringement is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The first step of the Oakes test is to determine if the infringement is “prescribed by law”. A common law rule or regulation, in addition to legislation can constitute a limit “prescribed by law” (Sharpe & Roach, 2013, p66).

The 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard requires any religiously-related instruction to have ?a clear secular purpose? [482 U.S. 578]. The legislation addressed in this case?the Creationism

Due to the United States’ Supreme Court reviewing religious cases, on average, more than once a year since 1962, the Establishment Clause and Free exercise Clause have taken on a whole new meaning in public schools. Now, the two clauses are disjoined. The Establishment Clause has become the more favored one of the two, compared to the Free Exercise Clause, which is almost obsolete. Today, students

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

In doing so, California is safeguarding concerns of religious groups, and those worried about civil liberties. California is not singling out money for one religious order, instead any student that qualifies for aid is eligible. This shows that the state is not favoring one religion, but rather the state is working in the interest of the students. In addition, the State can show the breadth of the law makes it neutral considering it effectively applies to every individual who requests grant money. The neutrality of the law ensures that it is not endorsing one religion over another, and both Mitchell v Helms and Zelman v Simmons-Harris set a precedent in neutrality. Thus, using the Sherbert Test, Mitchell v. Helms, and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris government assistance is constitutional when offered equitably to students attending both public and private religious schools. However, those were merely counterarguments, and California contends current precedent is dictated using the Smith test established in Employment Division v.

Schempp 374 US 203 (1963), 2015). The Schempp family were Unitarians, so they objected to some ideas in the Bible. They had the option to excuse their children from the Bible reading, but then their children would have missed out on some of the morning announcements. (Supreme Court Cases, 2015) So as to not hinder their children?s learning opportunities, the Schempp family brought their issue to the State appeals court. Later, the State appeals court took the side of the Schempp family and stated the Abington School District violated the Establishment Clause, which is a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a religion. (Supreme Court Cases, 2015) When the issue was brought to the Supreme Court in 1963, the question was simple, did the Pennsylvania law and Abington 's policy violate the religious freedom of their students that is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015)?

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

The debate on religion in the public school is complicated by the fact that there are two clauses dealing with religion in the First Amendment (Warnick, 2012). The Establishment Clause, which disallows the establishment by the government of any particular religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits the state from proscribing the practice of religion, are a source of