Separation of Church and State: The Lemon Test

Pre-amble

As I mentioned in my previous entry, most of my posts from now until the end of the semester will be me (who else?) contemplating and trying out ideas for essays.  Basically, I’m apologizing in advance for what might end up as “rambling”.  For my philosophy of law paper I’m thinking of doing something about interpretation of the 1st Amendment clause concerning establishment of religion.  Originally, I thought I’d focus on this issue in relation to attempts to get creationism into the science curriculum but I fear that the content will be too heavily weighted towards legal interpretation rather than philosophical analysis.  Anyhow, I’m thinking about looking at the philosophical issues surrounding why the establishment clause was originally written into the Bill of Rights, the different ways it is interpreted, and the philosophical implications of each interpretation, and which interpretation best accomplishes the philosophical aims of the clause.



Also something went crazy with the layout so I apologize for that.


Intro the First Amendment Regarding Establishment of Religion


The First Amendment (in the context of religion) is often referred to as the establishment clause because it prohibits Congress congress from making any law respecting the establishment of any religion and impeding free exercise of religion.  (Note, it has been extended to laws at the state level since 1925).


Before we put on our philosopher beards, lets look at the actual law: 


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 


religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (then some 


shit about free speech, freedom of the press, assembly, 


blah, blah, blah).


So, what’s the point of the law?  It seems it’s to make it so 


government neither promotes one religion over another or 


interferes in anyone’s ability to practix their religion of choice, and 


maybe to secure freedom from being coerced into a particular 


religion.  


The clauses work together in that if government were to enact 


policy that gave preference to one religion (or branch of a 


religion), it would be a hop, skip, and a jump away from 


interfering others’ ability to practix their own religion.   


Conversely, by interfering in someone’s/some group’s ability to 


practix religion, they’d be tacitly endorsing others.  


There are lots of instances where the manner in which this law 


should be applied is pretty clear, and we never hear about those 


because they never make it to court.  There are however other 


instances where it’s not so clear how or if the establishment clause 


applies.  


Two Interpretations


There are 2 basic interpretations of the law: the separationist and 


the accommodationist.  Obviously, the separationist view is that 


there should be a strict separation of Church and State.  The 


modern separationist interpretation (the standard one) was first 


invoked in 1971 in Lemon v. Kurtzman.  In this case private 


religious-based schools were axing for money to supplement


teachers’ salaries who taught secular content.  Out of this case 


arose what is called the Lemon test.  The purpose of the test is to 


determine whether a proposed piece of legislation constitutes the 


establishment of religion, thereby violating the establishment 


clause. 


The Lemon Test


Here it is–check it!

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; third, the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”


Regarding the first section, it is noted that a law can also have 


religious motivations and still be constitutional, but it’s primary 


purpose must be secular.   The second section is self-explanatory.  


The third has faced the most criticism and has been interpreted 


various ways.  


One interpretation of the third part is that it is only the effects of 


the proposed law that cannot bring about Church-State 


entanglement.  For example, most “Church” charities are actually 


largely funded by the government.  Because government doesn’t 


administrate or regulate the charities (possible problem?) these 


types of policies have not been interpreted as “excessively” 


entangling gov’t with religion. 


Another consideration in interpreting the third section of the 


Lemon test is the purpose of the law.  Hospitals and universities 


are institutions considered to have secular purposes, for this 


reason, a law which approves funding to such institutions even if 


they have religious affiliations can be (and has been) considered 


permissible.  


Accommodationists 
One can make the argument that accommodationists are “less 


concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned 


to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities.”  


Basically, as I mentioned before, if you give an advantage to one 


religious group it is very easy for smaller groups to be prejudiced 


against and not be able to compete for souls on a level playing 


field.  Er’body knows that whatever religion ends up with the most 


souls wins.  It’s unfair for gov’t to help one team while not helping 


others.  


The accommodationist position is best summarized by the opinion 


of Justice Douglas in Zorach v. Clauson: “Accommodationists read 


the establishment clause as prohibiting Congress from declaring a 


national religion or preferring one to another, but laws do not have 


to be shorn of morality and history to be declared constitutional”. 


They apply Lemon only selectively because “[w]e are a religious 


people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being”. 



Oy! Where to begin!  For my paper I’m going to attack the clause 


“do not have to be shorn of morality and history” because a) the 


(absurd) implication is that the is no morality without religion (or 


that our moral values are derived from religion) and b) that this is 


what the writers of the constitution intended and/or that this 


interpretation is implied by the historical circumstances at the time 


of the writing.  It seems Justice Douglas is taking liberties with his 


psycho-analysis of James Madison.  


Obviously, the claim that the US gov’t institutions presuppose a 


Supreme Being is also pretty loony.  Suppose it is true.  What does 


that tell us about our sexual preference?  Exactly, it’s irrelevant.  


Someone please tell me how the existence or non-existence of a 


Supreme being is relevant to EPA legislation.  
  
Arguments for Interpretation


I should add that the separationists, to support their position, 


appeal to one of Jefferson’s letters in which he uses the phrase and 


advocates the view of “separation of church and state”.  Also in 


1879 Chief Justice Waite consulted with historian G. Bancroft to 


discuss Madison’s (author of the 1st Amendment) “Memorial and 


Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”.  In that petition 


Madison proposes there should be “a great barrier” between 


Church and State.


This brings up the issue of how interpretation is done in 


constitutional law:  do you strictly interpret the letter of the law in 


the way it would have been understood in its era?  Or do you make 


allowances with the understanding that what made sense in one era 


might not now, and that law-makers can’t foresee all future 


circumstances.  


Maybe you argue for interpretation based on intent, but how do 


you know the authors intent?  Do you have a time-travel machine 


and a mind reading machine?  It is almost certain that our own 


biases will be read into how we “interpret” the intent of a 


lawmaker.  

Anyway, I think this is a productive start.  I think I’ll go though 



some of the major trials and read judges opinions and go from 


there.  I welcome any comments or suggestions.  Thanks for 


putting up for the scattered writing…



G’nite!


By the by, if you’re interested in reading G. Madison’s “Memorial 


and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”  here’s the link 


(it’s not very long):

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s