Conclusion
The trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the defendant did not violate the plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the establishment clause because the Quran etchings had a secular purpose and does not have the primary or principle effect of enhancing religion.
Main Rule
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (USCA CONST Amend. I-Religion). “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.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L. Ed. 2d 745 (1971). Therefore, the Lemon test was created to combat the three evils against the Establishment Clause and for the purpose of ensuring that no law establishes a religion or denies the free exercise of religion. Id. at 612.
The government can take action when there is a violation of the Establishment Clause. A violation is created when a situation in question fails the Lemon test. Id. The Lemon test consists of three prongs. When courts use the three prong lemon test, “[f]irst, [they must consider whether the etching] must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, finally, the statute [etching] must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion. Id. If any of these prongs are violated the government action is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, in the present case, the court certifies not that not all parts of the test are applicable here. Only the first and second prong is at issue. J.A. at 72. Therefore, only those two prongs need to be satisfied to establish that the Quranic etching were not in violation.
Sub Issue A:
Conclusion:
The court properly held that the defendants’ did not violate the secular prong from the three part lemon test because
The first issue the court will address is whether the Quranic quotation etching had a secular purpose under the Lemon test. Under this prong “a secular purpose, [has] a heightened requirement [meaning] that the secular purpose [has to] predominate over any purpose to advance religion.” McCreary County v ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 901. “The Court has invalidated legislation or governmental action on the ground that a secular purpose was lacking, but only when it has concluded there was no question that the statute or activity was motivated wholly by religious considerations.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680 (1984). Lastly, “[t]he secular purpose has to be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 864.
Sub Issue B:
Conclusion:
The court will find that the county of Rue implementation of the verse of the Holy Quran on the courthouse wall did not establish a primary purpose to endorsement of a religion because of the surrounding circumstances.
The writing on the courthouse wall “must have a principal or primary
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” Newdow v. U.S. Cong., 292 F.3d 597
(9th Cir. 2002). “The controlling question is what a reasonable observer might fairly understand to be the primary message of a symbol as displayed in its particular setting.” State v. Freedom from Religion Foundation 898 P. 2d. 1013, 1026 (1995). “The primary way in which courts have determined the effect of the government action is by focusing on the content of the display and the context in which the questioned object appears” Id