Which of the following would meet the Lemon Test and would be legal under the First Amendment?
(1 point)
• Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students.
• Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
• Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay the salary of a youth minister.
• Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities used for religious meetings during instructional time.
Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
To determine which of the options would meet the Lemon Test and be legal under the First Amendment, we need to evaluate each option based on the criteria established by the Supreme Court in the Lemon v. Kurtzman case. The Lemon Test has three parts:
1. The purpose of the government action must be secular (non-religious).
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.
Now let's analyze each option:
Option 1: Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students.
This option does not meet the Lemon Test. The purpose of furnishing Bibles is religious, and therefore not secular.
Option 2: Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
This option may meet the Lemon Test since the primary purpose is to provide transportation services, which is a secular purpose. There would not be a direct advancement or inhibition of religion in this case.
Option 3: Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay the salary of a youth minister.
This option does not meet the Lemon Test. The purpose is explicitly religious, as the money is going towards the salary of a youth minister.
Option 4: Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities used for religious meetings during instructional time.
This option does not meet the Lemon Test. It involves public funds being used to support religious activities during instructional time, which would likely advance religion and potentially create excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Based on the analysis, Option 2 (Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver) would likely meet the Lemon Test and be legal under the First Amendment.
To determine which of the given options would meet the Lemon Test and be legal under the First Amendment, we first need to understand what the Lemon Test is.
The Lemon Test is a three-part test established by the Supreme Court in 1971 in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. It is used to evaluate whether a law or government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing or promoting a specific religion. The three prongs of the Lemon Test are as follows:
1. The government action must have a secular (non-religious) 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.
Now, let's analyze each option in light of the Lemon Test:
1. Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students.
This option would likely fail the Lemon Test since furnishing Bibles to all students in a private religious school would have a clear religious purpose and would likely advance religion rather than being secular in nature.
2. Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
This option would likely pass the Lemon Test as it has a secular purpose of ensuring the safe transportation of students. The primary effect of paying the salary of a school bus driver does not advance or inhibit religion, and it does not involve excessive entanglement between government and religion.
3. Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay the salary of a youth minister.
This option would likely fail the Lemon Test as it involves using taxpayer money specifically to pay the salary of a youth minister in a public school, which would advance religion. It does not have a secular purpose and could result in excessive entanglement between government and religion.
4. Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities used for religious meetings during instructional time.
This option would likely fail the Lemon Test as well. Using taxpayer money to fund facilities for religious meetings during instructional time in a public school would have a primary effect of advancing religion, which violates the Establishment Clause.
Based on the analysis above, option 2 (Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver) is the most likely to meet the Lemon Test and be legal under the First Amendment.