Talk:Lemon v. Kurtzman

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stryker (Talk | contribs) at 16:17, 13 August 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

"Liberal bias"

Andy, I failed to see any liberal bias in the original entry. All you did was insert excessive conservative bias. --transResident Transfanform! 23:57, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Question with recent change

If Lemon v. Kurtzman only dealt with the use of federal funds Catholic or other parochial schools, then how come it was used in the case to deny the teaching of Intelligent Design in a secular school system? It appears your rewrite may have eliminated the scope of the case. Learn together 12:41, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Back in AP Government and Politics in High School Lemon v Kurtzman was one of the cases we studied in depth, and I specifically remember the case dealing with the appropriation of funds to parochial schools. You may read the written opinion for yourself at this source: , or a different one if you have a preference. I am very aware that the "Lemon test" may be applied in general towards legislation which deals with religion, but the initial scope of the case was not so broad and it should be mentioned as such.
As for why the Lemon test was applied in Kitzmiller v Dover, the answer is simple. In his conclusion, Jones stated this: "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause." The explanation goes like this: The Dover school board is responsible for a publicly funded institution - the Dover area public schools. Since the institution is publicly funded, the institution's (i.e. the government's) actions are subject to the Lemon test. Judge Jones states this about ID: "We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Thus, if the school board promotes ID, they are unnecessarily entangling government with religion (the crux of the Kitzmiller case was that ID is nothing more than re-packaged creationism; the court ruled that it wasn't science). Furthermore, by promoting ID, the government in this instance is actually, in the eyes of the court, promoting or advancing religion.
I hope I've cleared everything up; If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please reply, but leave me a note on my Talk page so that I know about it. Also, I would appreciate a revert back to my edits - I don't believe there was anything controversial about them. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 17:17, 13 August 2007 (EDT)