"Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
news:10262$HOLYSMOKE{at}JamNNTPd:

 EH> Ross Sauer -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 RS>> "Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer"  wrote in
 RS>> news:10257$HOLYSMOKE{at}JamNNTPd:

 RS>>>> Most notably the "holier than thou" fake Christians.

 RS>>>> http://tinyurl.com/qbr2ux

 EH>>> Are you trying to say congressmen can't introduce bills for
 EH>   vote?

 RS>> Yes, they can, *UNLESS* those bills fail the "lemon" test,
 EH>   namely putting RS> Christianity as above all others.

 EH> There is no "lemon test" and it is up to the USSC to
decide whether a


The Lemon Test

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Research by Jim Allison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the
majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island
and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in
religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court
struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.
The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of
establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of
the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief
Justice Burger, the test has three parts:


First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its
principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits
religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government
entanglement with religion."
According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver
Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated
by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a
bona fide secular or civic purpose" (The Right to Religious Liberty, p. 3).
Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing
religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary'
effect" (p. 3). Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between
church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive" (p. 3).
Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to
invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice.
This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to
religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally
reckoned as a conservative on social issues.

We note also that the Lemon test is squarely grounded on the principles
articulated in Everson v. Board of Education. Accomodationist legal scholar
Stephen Monsma, for example, notes that Burger's opinion is:


Deeply embedded in...the sacred-secular distinction and the Supreme Court's
evaluation of the state's attempts to separate out the two and subsidize
only the latter. His opinion noted that at the trial-court level several
teachers had testified "they did not inject religion into their secular
classes." And the District Court found that religious values did not
necessarily affect the content of secular instruction. Burger agreed, but
made the additional, crucial observation that "the potential for
impermissible fostering of religion is present." He then went on to
conclude that under such circumstances state attempts to assure a strict
separation of the sacred and the secular would require continuing state
administrative supervision and surveillance, resulting in state
entanglement with religion (When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Non-
Profit Organizations and Public Money, pp. 32-33)
The Lemon test has not escaped criticism. Many scholars (including
separationists Leonard Levy and Donald Laycock) have argued that the test
is unduly subjective and internally consistent, and it's usefulness has
been questioned by a majority of the sitting Justices. Still, as noted by
Monsma,

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/eclause2.htm

....[the test] has not been formally overruled and the basic principles on
which it rests--no-aid- to-religion and the sacred-secular distinction--
still form the core of what is the dominant line of reasoning dealing with
public funds going to religious nonprofit organization.



You are a theocratic cultist.
And that congressjerk is full of it.

--- Xnews/5.04.25