To determine which of the listed options would meet the Lemon Test and be legal under the First Amendment, we should first briefly outline the Lemon Test itself. Established in the Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the test has three prongs:
- The government action must have a secular legislative purpose.
- The primary effect must be neither to advance nor to inhibit religion.
- The action must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.
Now let's evaluate each of the responses:
-
Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to furnish Bibles to all students.
- This would not meet the Lemon Test, as it clearly promotes a specific religion.
-
Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
- This may be more acceptable depending on the context, especially if the bus service is provided for all students (religious and secular); however, it might still raise issues concerning the entanglement with religion.
-
Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay the salary of a youth minister.
- This would likely violate the Lemon Test, as it primarily serves a religious purpose.
-
Taxpayer money goes to a public school in order to pay for facilities used for religious meetings during instructional time.
- This also would likely violate the Lemon Test, as it uses public funds for religious purposes during a time when religious activities are occurring in a public school setting.
Given this evaluation, the most acceptable option according to the Lemon Test would likely be:
Taxpayer money goes to a private religious school in order to pay the salary of a school bus driver.
However, it's important to note that the legality could vary based on specific circumstances and judicial interpretation. Courts may allow funding for transportation as long as it is provided uniformly to all students and does not promote religious indoctrination directly.