Kurtzman. In this case, the Court identified three “tests” which a statute must pass in order to be considered within the boundaries of the Establishment Clause. The first test, appropriately called the “purpose test,” mandated that a “statute must have a secular purpose.” The second test required that a statute’s “principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” The third and final test held that a statute “must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Collectively, these three tests comprise the individual “prongs” of the Lemon Test (Wallace 56). Failing meet any of these three criteria renders a statute
Kurtzman. In this case, the Court identified three “tests” which a statute must pass in order to be considered within the boundaries of the Establishment Clause. The first test, appropriately called the “purpose test,” mandated that a “statute must have a secular purpose.” The second test required that a statute’s “principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” The third and final test held that a statute “must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Collectively, these three tests comprise the individual “prongs” of the Lemon Test (Wallace 56). Failing meet any of these three criteria renders a statute