Which statement best analyzes how Lemon v. Kurtzman clarified the meaning of the First Amendment?(1 point)
Responses
It decided that the Establishment Clause enabled the government to give funding to all religious organizations equally.
It decided that the Establishment Clause enabled the government to give funding to all religious organizations equally.
It set the standard for what it meant for government to violate the Establishment Clause.
It set the standard for what it meant for government to violate the Establishment Clause.
It determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes.
It determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes.
It introduced the idea that religion should be separate from government.
It introduced the idea that religion should be separate from government.
It determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes.
The correct statement is:
It set the standard for what it meant for government to violate the Establishment Clause.
The correct answer is:
It determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes.
To analyze how Lemon v. Kurtzman clarified the meaning of the First Amendment, we need to understand the context of the case. Lemon v. Kurtzman was a Supreme Court case decided in 1971 that dealt with government funding of religious schools. The court established a three-pronged test, known as the Lemon test, to determine whether a government action violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The three prongs of the Lemon test are as follows:
1. The government action must have a secular purpose.
2. The primary effect of the government action must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
3. The government action must not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion.
In this case, the court determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes. This means that as long as the government funding went toward non-religious aspects of the schools, such as textbooks or teacher salaries, it did not violate the Constitution.
Therefore, the statement "It determined that the Establishment Clause was not violated if funding was used for secular purposes" is the best analysis of how Lemon v. Kurtzman clarified the meaning of the First Amendment.