The Court rejected this explanation, as the state had recognized the inherent religious nature of the practice by only using religious texts and by permitting students to opt out of the readings. The state of Pennsylvania claimed that the daily Bible readings served the secular purpose of promoting general moral values, meaning that it should pass the Court’s test. This test anticipated the more elaborate “Lemon test” that would later emerge from Lemon v. The Court argued that the Establishment Clause did not exist solely to prevent government preference for one religion over another, but also to prevent the promotion of religion in general. A law that is intended to advance or inhibit religion, or whose primary effects advance or inhibit religion, is unconstitutional. A law passes this test if its purpose and primary effects are secular. The Court ruled in favor of Schempp, in the process expressing a new constitutionality test. Edward Schempp sued the Abington school district, contending that the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Participation was not required of students, but the exercises were mandated to take place. A Pennsylvania state law required public schools to host a reading of the Bible and the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each school day. This test captured and formalized the reasoning of prior decisions like Engel v. Schempp the Supreme Court provided its first explicit test for identifying violations of the Establishment Clause. In School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |