# The Constitution does not forbid religious symobls on government property **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973 "2009-01-12T20:51:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/1 "2009-01-12T20:51:28Z")
In a recent thread a poster insists that Christians “despite the fact that the constitution clearly forbids it, continue to put religious symbols and statements onto our money, into the pledge of allegiance, and frequently into town halls, schools, etc.” Actually the Constitution does not forbid any such thing. In fact, the Constitution mentions religion only twice, and both times to defend freedom of religious belief and expression, rather than to forbid it. The first time, from Article 6, says “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So nothing there forbids what our poster says it forbids. The second time, from the first amendment, says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again nothing there says what our poster claims it says. An establishment of religion means something like the Church of England, which in the 18th century restricted certain legal privileges exclusively to its members. For instance, only members of the Church of England could vote, hold office, attend universities, and serve as lawyers. Moreover, the English government had often imposed on religious freedom by force, particularly in the conquest of Scotland. For this reason, the Church of England was widely disliked by many of the religious refugees who had fled to America over the years. The first amendment was written to ensure that there would never be a Church of the United States. In other words, it guaranteed that the various state governments could continue to uphold their religious viewpoints. And what were those viewpoints? Varied. Some states, such as Massachusetts had official churches, established, funded, and sanctioned by the state government and supported by tax money. Other states distributed money to churches of various denominations without a preference for any particular one. Other states provided no government funding for any church. The authors of the Constitution approved of all these arrangements, and made no effort to stamp out any of them. As one would expect, different founders had different opinions. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association expressing personal disapproval of state-funded religion, but he never said that it was unconstitutional. Nor did the authors of the Constitution have any disapproval of religious activity endorsed by the federal government. The first Congress had a clergyman present to give invocations. And of course they had a habit of saying things like this: > [@](#): > > Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor - and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” > Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation (from George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1789.) So to summarize, nothing in the Constitution forbids religious symbols on money, or the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, or anything of that sort. Nowhere does it say that taxpayer money cannot be used for religious observance. In fact, it says the opposite. It says that Americans have the right to hold what religious beliefs they choose, and express them in the manner that they choose, without having to get the federal government’s permission first, and it makes no exception for public school students, teachers, or government employees. ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/2 "2009-01-12T20:59:55Z")
I agree. The government shouldn’t be able to \*require \*people to believe a certain thing, but I don’t think demonstrating the religious belief of the members of the government crosses any lines. This should always, of course, be answerable to the people, i.e. if the people demand through referenda or elections that the symbols be removed, then it should be done. Valete, Vox Imperatoris ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/3 "2009-01-12T21:09:36Z")
> [@Vox\_Imperatoris](#): > > I agree. The government shouldn’t be able to \*require \*people to believe a certain thing, but I don’t think demonstrating the religious belief of the members of the government crosses any lines. This should always, of course, be answerable to the people, i.e. if the people demand through referenda or elections that the symbols be removed, then it should be done. > > Valete, > Vox Imperatoris Demonstrating the religious belief of the members of the government does not cross any lines, and has never crossed any lines. The President is free to include in a speech “God Bless America.” That does not create a constitutional problem. What does, however, is demonstrating a religious belief of the government. That’s a very different thing, and that is establishment of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/4 "2009-01-12T21:16:19Z")
If we want to try and read the Constitution that tightly, then we can go further. The Amendment says [QUOTE=United States Constituion] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances [/QUOTE] If you want to argue that it is only saying that congress can not make laws establishing religion, then what can they do? Can they make atheism illegal, since it is not a religion? Can the President create a Church of the United States via executive order, or at least one limiting the ability of non-Christians to receive federal benefits or protections? The Constitution only prevents religious test for public office. More directly on point, the intent of the framers is not as clear cut as you make it seem. From [FindLaw](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html#3): > [@](#): > > Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ‘‘The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.’’ 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ‘‘Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.’’ 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ‘‘Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .’’ 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ‘‘respecting’’ phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Jettboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@Jettboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jettboy)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/5 "2009-01-12T21:27:21Z")
I think it’s all about how you interpret it. _“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”_ Allowing religious symbolism in government buildings, on coinage, on stamps, etc. could easily be seen as de facto establishment of religion, or, at the very least, acceptance and promotion of one religion over all of the others…not necessarily against the _letter_ of the Constitution, but almost certainly against it’s spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/6 "2009-01-12T21:28:13Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Demonstrating the religious belief of the members of the government does not cross any lines, and has never crossed any lines. The President is free to include in a speech “God Bless America.” That does not create a constitutional problem. What does, however, is demonstrating a religious belief of the government. That’s a very different thing, and that is establishment of religion. I agree with this. Think of this way: If we elected a Jewish President it would not violate the Constitution for him to wear a yarmulke or a visible Star of David pendant. But if he had the U.S. Mint put a Star of David on the dollar, that would be the U.S. Government endorsing Judaism. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/7 "2009-01-12T21:28:32Z")
Well, the courts would seem to disagree with the OP. First you have the Lemon Test from _Lemon v. Kurtzman_: > [@](#): > > In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” > > SOURCE: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602) Displaying religious symbols on government property seems to me to violate the test above pretty clearly. Although the SCOTUS refused the case we had the issue of Judge Roy Moore a few years back who plopped a huge statue of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama supreme court building. He was ordered to remove it and all appeals failed (and he was eventually removed for refusing to abide by the court’s ruling). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/8 "2009-01-12T21:38:25Z")
As an aside, while _Lemon_ is still good law, it is horrible, and its inconsistency and incoherence are responsible for a lot of the problems in establishment law. It keeps getting chipped away at, and who knows what they will replace it with. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/9 "2009-01-12T22:17:30Z")
I notice the Constitution doesn’t mention LSD, either. Damnable document. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/10 "2009-01-12T22:29:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In a recent thread a poster insists that Christians “despite the fact that the constitution clearly forbids it, continue to put religious symbols and statements onto our money, into the pledge of allegiance, and frequently into town halls, schools, etc.” Actually the Constitution does not forbid any such thing. In fact, the Constitution mentions religion only twice, and both times to defend freedom of religious belief and expression, rather than to forbid it. > > The first time, from Article 6, says “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” So nothing there forbids what our poster says it forbids. > > The second time, from the first amendment, says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again nothing there says what our poster claims it says. An establishment of religion means something like the Church of England, which in the 18th century restricted certain legal privileges exclusively to its members. For instance, only members of the Church of England could vote, hold office, attend universities, and serve as lawyers. Moreover, the English government had often imposed on religious freedom by force, particularly in the conquest of Scotland. For this reason, the Church of England was widely disliked by many of the religious refugees who had fled to America over the years. The first amendment was written to ensure that there would never be a Church of the United States. In other words, it guaranteed that the various state governments could continue to uphold their religious viewpoints. > > And what were those viewpoints? Varied. Some states, such as Massachusetts had official churches, established, funded, and sanctioned by the state government and supported by tax money. Other states distributed money to churches of various denominations without a preference for any particular one. Other states provided no government funding for any church. The authors of the Constitution approved of all these arrangements, and made no effort to stamp out any of them. As one would expect, different founders had different opinions. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association expressing personal disapproval of state-funded religion, but he never said that it was unconstitutional. > > Nor did the authors of the Constitution have any disapproval of religious activity endorsed by the federal government. The first Congress had a clergyman present to give invocations. And of course they had a habit of saying things like this: > (from George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1789.) > > So to summarize, nothing in the Constitution forbids religious symbols on money, or the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, or anything of that sort. Nowhere does it say that taxpayer money cannot be used for religious observance. In fact, it says the opposite. It says that Americans have the right to hold what religious beliefs they choose, and express them in the manner that they choose, without having to get the federal government’s permission first, and it makes no exception for public school students, teachers, or government employees. Nope, wrong again. Putting a religious symbol of a public building is an endorsement of said religion and creates the impression that followers of it have an advantage. You may enjoy seeing your savior’s homoerotic bondage scene at the front of your church, but please keep it off the courthouse. It’s pathetic how far you have to dredge to get your “_christianity is perfect and atheism is ebilllllll!!_” bi-weekly thread ideas. Maybe you should do one on how the inquisition was a laugh riot? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/11 "2009-01-12T22:44:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Nope, wrong again. > > Putting a religious symbol of a public building is an endorsement of said religion and creates the impression that followers of it have an advantage. You may enjoy seeing your savior’s homoerotic bondage scene at the front of your church, but please keep it off the courthouse. This is more of a devil’s advocate comment than an argument I’m prepared to defend tooth-and-nail, but: According to you, I gather, the law (First and Fourteenth Amendments) forbid placing a religious symbol on the front of a building. Now, the First Amendment was passed in 1789. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. So it seems safe to say that the people that actually wrote those laws didn’t agree with your view – that is, there was no real sense that placing a religious symbol on public property was violative of the constitution in, say 1880. Right? So why is it definitively the correct interpretation now? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/12 "2009-01-12T22:49:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Maybe you should do one on how the inquisition was a laugh riot? He can’t. Everybody’s expecting that. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/13 "2009-01-12T23:05:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is more of a devil’s advocate comment than an argument I’m prepared to defend tooth-and-nail, but: > > According to you, I gather, the law (First and Fourteenth Amendments) forbid placing a religious symbol on the front of a building. > > Now, the First Amendment was passed in 1789. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. > > So it seems safe to say that the people that actually wrote those laws didn’t agree with your view – that is, there was no real sense that placing a religious symbol on public property was violative of the constitution in, say 1880. > > Right? > > So why is it definitively the correct interpretation now? Well I’d have to know a couple of things. One, how much religious nuttery was on the walls in the 1860s? Two, was society at a point where calling for the removal of religious nuttery a realistic thing to do? What if 99.9 of society was a christian and unwilling to “make waves” by bringing up a complaint? I can certainly see some civil servant in 1870 deciding that it was godly and appropriate to put up a ten commandments plaque and mosaic in the city courthouse. Who exactly would speak against him? If everyone in the town thinks it’s okay who complains? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/14 "2009-01-12T23:09:50Z")
> [@villa](#): > > As an aside, while _Lemon_ is still good law, it is horrible, and its inconsistency and incoherence are responsible for a lot of the problems in establishment law. It keeps getting chipped away at, and who knows what they will replace it with. I’d be interested in an expansion of this position. The _Lemon_ test (as set forth on Wikipedia): > [@](#): > > 1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; > 2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; > 3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. This seems to me pretty much as coherent as any constitutional test gets. I see nothing to object to in any of the three parts. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/15 "2009-01-12T23:15:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is more of a devil’s advocate comment than an argument I’m prepared to defend tooth-and-nail, but: > > According to you, I gather, the law (First and Fourteenth Amendments) forbid placing a religious symbol on the front of a building. > > Now, the First Amendment was passed in 1789. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. > > So it seems safe to say that the people that actually wrote those laws didn’t agree with your view – that is, there was no real sense that placing a religious symbol on public property was violative of the constitution in, say 1880. > > Right? > > So why is it definitively the correct interpretation now? I think the big difference is the society in which it occurs. In 1880 it may have been perfectly acceptable to put up a generic Christian symbol, but not a Catholic or Anglican, or even Jewish one. The underlying base assumption was that only Christians counted. Atheists and non-Christians weren’t really a consideration to the PTB. If we assume that everyone in the country is some type of Christian, and there are no other possibilities, then a generic Christian symbol does not endorse any specific religion, just the default culture of the land. Just as making ballots English only would not discriminate in a place where only English is spoken. Jonathan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/16 "2009-01-12T23:16:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Well I’d have to know a couple of things. One, how much religious nuttery was on the walls in the 1860s? If by “religious nuttery” you mean plaques with the Ten Commandments, I’d say there was probably a fair supply. > [@](#): > > Two, was society at a point where calling for the removal of religious nuttery a realistic thing to do? What if 99.9 of society was a christian and unwilling to “make waves” by bringing up a complaint? Not sure what your point is here. Certainly there were challenges – the very court decision that gave us “separation of church and state” was one that rejected Mormons’ challenges to laws against bigamy as violative of the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/17 "2009-01-12T23:17:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So why is it definitively the correct interpretation now? I’d argue it is because the First Amendment, like much of the Bill of Rights, was written in deliberately fluid terms, such that what is protected is a concept that society could expand on as it changed. Hence the Amendment did not say “Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion” or even “respecting the establishment of a religion.” Instead it is laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” I’d argue this was intended to allow the definition of what constituted “an establishment” to expand as societal views altered, while still keeping a bedrock base of prohibition there. It’s a similar reason to the inclusion of a ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” rather than listing punishments that could not be imposed. I’d also think that the choice of “religion” rather than “a religion” is rather important too. On another point, the whole Ceremonail Deism argument always amazed me. Why do people fight so hard to keep “under God” in the Pledge, or “In God we Trust” on the currency if it is meaningless? If it isn’t there to praise God, then isn’t it rather insulting to the Christian faith to use it that way? And if it is there to praise God, isn’t it an endorsement? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/18 "2009-01-12T23:20:18Z")
_Re Lemon:_ > [@acsenray](#): > > This seems to me pretty much as coherent as any constitutional test gets. I see nothing to object to in any of the three parts. It’s a balancing test. Having fundamental constitutional rights determined by whether they “excessively” entangle the government gives so much leeway that inconsistent decisions can and do happen. I’d need to dig up my old notes, but there are a LOT of circuit splits as a result of application of _Lemon_; one that springs to mind is use of state owned materials by parochial schools. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/19 "2009-01-12T23:28:25Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > An establishment of religion means something like the Church of England, which in the 18th century restricted certain legal privileges exclusively to its members. And that right there is the crux of the problem. Even a constitutional textualist will have to provide an interpretation of what “_establishment of religion_” means; in both MHO and the current legal view, you are incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973/20 "2009-01-12T23:47:59Z")
Established religions were state sponsored. The Church of England is (or was) the Established religion of England. Some states continued to have established religions for a few decades after the constitution was ratified. Since then, we have the \*Lemon \*test: 1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. No judicial test is worthy of that name unless it has at least 3 parts. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-constitution-does-not-forbid-religious-symobls-on-government-property/480973.md?page=2)