Assistance

· Religious Clauses: Establishment Clause & the Free Exercise Clause is concerned to right to believe is greater. (generally strict scrutiny, but see Peyote case)

· Establishment clause: “wall of separation between church & state” (but how high a wall?)

· In evaluating establishment clause cases, several different tests have been used:

· The Lemon test: (3 prongs, p734-5, 1st part important)

· To be valid, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose

· Its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion

· The statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion”

· The Endorsement test: (especially used for governmental displays)

· Any endorsement of religion is invalid

· Whether the government’s use of an object with religious meaning has the effect of endorsing religion – what viewers may fairly understand to be the purpose of the displays

· Government may not endorse a particular religion when the endorsement is determined by the context of the use of religious symbol

· The Coercion test

· The Lemon test applications (good test but should look at the whole test, not just the 1st part)

· Lemon v. Kurtzman

· Wallace v. Jaffree

· 1 minute meditation of silence in public schools (children could pray if they wanted) then another law authorized a period of silence for meditation/voluntary prayer

· court struck down 2nd law b/c legislative interest wasn’t completely secular

· the purpose is about secularism, but it wasn’t here

· 2nd law violated 1st amendment b/c no secularism

· McCullom & Zorach (released time)

· Stone, Epperson, Edwards (secular purpose)

· Mergens (see emerging principles of neutrality/accommodation)

· The Endorsement test

· Urged by O’Connor’s concurrence

· Allegheny County v. ACLU (what would a non-observant think of governmental displays?)

· Whether manger scene was religious/secular when surrounded by other secular things

· Look at each symbol

· Does the establishment clause discriminate against the dominant faith?

· The display was okay against the endorsement test

· If general public was aware of the religion, it violated the clause; but if not, it didn’t.

· Emerging principles of neutrality/accommodation/rejecting hostility

· Mergens

· Mitchell v. Helms

· Public schools taken over by state voucher system could be used in all schools to give parents choice of where they wanted to send their children

· Money given to parents, indirect benefit didn’t violate establishment clause b/c it was just for education

· Choice that parents had to send children doesn’t violate establishment clause

· Court shifts from trying not to offend religious toward dominant religious groups should not feel hostility toward them

· Everson case enunciated things the state cannot do

· Endorsement test: whether its reasonable for the nonadherents

· No direct funding to religious organizations when involving government funding.

Must answer These questins;

1) Does the corporation have the right of Freedom of Religion?

2) Discuss the different tests of establishment and which one we think the court should embrace or discuss the problems with the free exercise of jurisprudence.