All right, I've been coming here a month or two and, from time to time, struggled to keep up with some of you science types, and some of you religious types, when the conversation veered into a technical direction. Finally, I've got a topic square in
my field of expertise.
The First Amendment states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." As the Supreme Court has intepreted this clause since 1947, it means that neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church or pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. More recently, in 1973, the Court articulated a three-part test, called the
Lemon test, after the case in which the Court laid it out. Under the
Lemon test, governmental action runs afoul of the First Amendment if it has a primary purpose or effect of advancing religion, or if it results in excessive governmental entanglement in religion.
It's possible that the legislature included the statement that the law is constitutional in an effort to forestall an argument that their purpose was to advance religion. Such a statement is considered as evidence by a court in any challenge to the statute, but it is not conclusive. Of more value would be a statement of a clear non-secular purpose. The concern of "lawmakers" expressed in the quote from the OP that "children and losing their grasp on one of Western civilization's most influential texts" strongly suggests to me, however, that the real purpose here is to advance a particular religion.
The second question is whether the law has an effect of advancing religion. Obviously, generally bible study courses have an effect of advancing religion, that's why churches have them. However, it's conceivable that the state could structure the course in a way, as others have suggested, so that the courses are instructing rather than preaching. However, given that the law by its terms only provides funding for bible studies, it's hard to see how the state can argue that the statute doesn't aid one religion over another.
There is also a substantial entanglement issue. There are many different christian denominations. Each of them has different takes on different portions of the bible. Exactly which interpretation will the state present? Or which version of the bible will be used? Certainly it's forseeable that the state could find itself entangled in a number of different religious problems in developing a curriculum.
These are a few thoughts that occur to me immediately. If I had to guess, I would guess that this statute will fall. However, Justice Scalia has consistently expressed dissatisfaction with the
Lemon test. Justice Thomas is, in the vast majority of cases, a clone of Scalia. I don't know what Chief Justice Roberts's and Jusitice Alito's views are on the Establishment Clause. This case would give them a perfect opportunity to take the Court's analysis in a different direction if they wanted to.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin