Which of the following would meet the linen test and would be legal under the first amendment is it taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students or is it taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver or is it taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay the salary of a youth minister, and last is it taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities, used for religious meetings during instructional time
The only option that would likely meet the linen test and be legal under the First Amendment would be: taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
To determine which of the scenarios would meet the "linen test" and be legal under the First Amendment, we need to consider the principle of separation of church and state. The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another, a concept known as the establishment clause. It also protects the free exercise of religion.
To evaluate these scenarios, we can apply a test derived from a Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which established a three-pronged test known as the Lemon test. The key factors of this test are:
1. The government's action must have a secular (non-religious) purpose.
2. The primary effect of the action should neither advance nor inhibit religion.
3. The action must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.
Now let's examine each scenario and see if it meets the requirements of the Lemon test:
1. Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students.
This scenario does not have a secular purpose and would likely be deemed unconstitutional. Providing Bibles is a religious activity and would actively advance one particular religion, violating the establishment clause.
2. Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
In this case, the payment of a salary to a school bus driver at a private religious school can be viewed as having a secular purpose (providing transportation) and would not advance or inhibit religion. It would likely be legal and meet the requirements of the First Amendment.
3. Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay the salary of a youth minister.
Funding the salary of a religious youth minister at a public school would most likely violate the establishment clause as it actively advances a religious activity. The purpose of public schools is to provide secular education, and using taxpayer money to fund religious roles would be seen as government endorsement or preference of a particular religion.
4. Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities used for religious meetings during instructional time.
Using taxpayer money to fund facilities used exclusively for religious purposes within a public school during instructional time would likely violate the establishment clause. It would give the appearance of governmental endorsement or support for religious activities, thereby failing the Lemon test.
In summary, scenario 2 - taxpayer money going to a private religious school to pay the salary of a school bus driver - would likely be legal under the First Amendment. However, scenarios 1, 3, and 4 would likely be viewed as unconstitutional due to their violation of the establishment clause and the principles of separation of church and state.
To determine whether these scenarios would meet the linen test and be legal under the First Amendment, it would be helpful to understand the relevant legal principles.
The "Lemon test" is actually what you are referring to as the "linen test." The Lemon test is a three-pronged test that the Supreme Court developed in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to determine if a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. According to the Lemon test, a government action is constitutional if it meets the following criteria:
1. The action must have a secular purpose.
2. The primary effect of the action must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
3. The action must not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Based on these criteria, let's analyze each of the scenarios you provided:
1. Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students.
This scenario fails the Lemon test. Providing Bibles to all students in a private religious school would likely be seen as advancing religion, rather than having a secular purpose or effect. This would violate the Establishment Clause.
2. Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
This scenario passes the Lemon test. Paying the salary of a school bus driver in a private religious school would have a secular purpose and effect. It would not result in 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 scenario fails the Lemon test. Paying the salary of a youth minister in a public school would likely be seen as advancing religion, as the primary purpose of a youth minister is religious instruction. This would violate the Establishment Clause.
4. Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities used for religious meetings during instructional time.
This scenario fails the Lemon test. Using taxpayer money to fund facilities for religious meetings during instructional time in a public school would also likely be seen as advancing religion, rather than having a secular purpose or effect. This would violate the Establishment Clause.
In summary, scenarios 1 and 4 (private or public, furnishing Bibles or funding facilities for religious meetings) fail the Lemon test and would likely be found unconstitutional. Scenarios 2 and 3 (private or public, paying the salary of a school bus driver or youth minister) would likely meet the Lemon test and be considered legal under the First Amendment.