The Lemon Test

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).

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

The Lemon test refers to the case Lemon vs. Kurtzman, which took place in 1971. The case was heard with two other cases involving religion and education, with the main issue being financial support for teacher salaries that were part of parochial schools. State financial aid was being awarded to non-public schools that were teaching religion, which created unsettlement (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89.) The establishment clause was intended to prevent government involvement or support of religion.

Louisiana legislators established the Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act. The Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution and the theory of “creation science” in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by the instruction of the theory other. The Act defines the theories as the scientific evidence for creation or evolution and inferences from those scientific evidence. The lower courts established that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it lacked a clear secular purpose.

Through the 1920s, conflicts regarding the teachings of religious values versus Evolution, along with the increasing fight for women’s independence, caused a great deal of tension within America. Prior to the ‘20s schools taught the Bible and Christianity’s principles were stressed. It was in 1925 when Clarence Darrow defended John Scopes, a biology teacher, who was put on trial in the court for teaching the theory of Evolution (Doc C). This document illustrates the dialogue of

The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness

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 Tinker v. Des Moines case had lots of impacts; including the Tinker family’s lives over the years. Mary Beth continued in activist movements such as peace, anti-war, and civil rights efforts. John Tinker continued his anti-war movements in college. He even ended up majoring in protest. In addition, only 2 years after the ruling, leading attorney for the Tinkers, Dan Johnston, was invited to Roosevelt High School to be their commencement speaker (Anker). Secondly, to mark the 50th anniversary of the case, On December 15, 2015, Mary Beth and John Tinker visited Roosevelt High School and discussed students’ rights. Besides the effects of the people involved in the case, many subsequent cases have also been affected from the Tinker v. Des Moines case. For example, a subsequent case similar to the Tinker case would be Epperson v. Arkansas. In this case, a teacher, in a public school, sued the school for prohibiting her from teaching human evolution. The Supreme Court, with Justice Abe Fortas writing the opinion, concluded that "The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment” (qtd. in “Epperson v.

Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first legal test of intelligent design as a scientific theory, with the plaintiffs arguing that it is a thinly veiled form of creationism. Even President Bush, at the time, had thrown his support on intelligent design, saying that both sides should be evenly discussed. During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problems–the type that arise in any flourishing scientific field. Arguments were made that if the school board could pass policies about Intelligent Design, what else could they do to promote a certain religion. All the opposing side had to prove was that the school board was either promoting religion or highly motivated by

“In 1925, Tennessee outlawed teaching the theory of human evolution in public schools.” This ban of evolution was taken to court and was named the Scopes Monkey Trial, since the Tennessee teacher John Scopes was the defendant in the case. However, as Ronald Numbers states in his book, Galileo Goes to Jail: and other myths about science and religion, this was a response “to the invitation of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the statute on free-speech grounds, [so] town leaders in Dayton, Tennessee, decided to test the new statute in court by arranging a friendly indictment of a local science teacher named John Scopes.” In this trial many celebrities in politics and law presided over this trial, in the end it was more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Yet for many years, this trial was believed to be entirely about how the very Christian based community of Tennessee didn’t agree with the teachings of evolution. This event was misconstrued so much that it was even printed in school books that give examples of Sciences fight against the tyranny of Christianity. Newspapers printed headlines about this trial for years to come and it lead the public to believe that this was not just about publicity but about the actual fight of science vs

The three prongs of the Lemon Test are first, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose (the Purpose Prong); second, the statute’s primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (the Effect Prong); and third, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion (the Entanglement Prong). These prongs formed a comprehensive standard that potentially could be applied to all establishment clause disputes. (Con Law Textbook, pg.

Starting with the Scopes Trial, many more cases have occurred concerning the teaching of evolution. “By 1928 every southern state except Virginia had debated or was considering legislation banning the teaching of evolution in the

In the 1984 case Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court reviewed an injunction prohibiting a city from including a crèche in its annual holiday display. The Court reversed this judgement, reasoning that It was the concurring opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner in this case that first proposed the Endorsement Test, which asks whether the particular government action constitutes an endorsement of religion. She elucidates the central concern of the test as a determination of whether the particular government action conveys This test is often applied in 8 It so happens that many of the issues relating to the Establishment Clause in public schools, such as prayer in graduation ceremonies, religious displays in classrooms,

I believe that the state should not tell people what to believe. Everyone has their own mind and they have the right to believe what they want to believe. I see nothing wrong with teachers teaching about Darwinism or Creationism. I think that everyone should be educated on both matters. There is nothing wrong with knowing information about both subjects, and believing or not believing in them. It is the job of teachers to educate the students on people’s ideas and findings from their research. Once a teacher is telling students what they should or shouldn't do then it is a problem. In the movie, Inherit the Wind, there are many instances where I believe that Bert Cates should not have been found guilty for educating his students on the

On March 13, 1925 the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act. This law prohibited teaching the Theory of Evolution in Tennessee public schools. Any teacher who taught a theory that denied the story of the Divine Creation would be punished by a fine. The American Civil Liberties Union offered legal defense to any Tennessee teacher who would break the law and fight it in court. John Thomas Scopes was a teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, and he intentionally taught his class about the theory of evolution, which led to his arrest and trial.