- There is no official definition by the Supreme Court. The closest we get is Seeger.

- U.S. v. Seeger: In construing “religious belief” in the Selective Service Act, SC has perhaps suggested a constitutional definition: The belief must occupy a place in the believer’s life parallel to that occupied by orthodox religious beliefs. Such a belief may be internally derived, but it must be something beyond a merely political or philosophical view. 

(i) Not compel anyone to adopt a particular belief;

(ii) Not specifically target religious conduct (action or inaction).

Note: Usually government action regulating general conduct is valid-even if it interferes w/ religious conduct and makes no exception for religious conduct.  

 (i)Have a secular purpose;

(ii)Have a principal effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; AND

(iii)Not foster excessive government entanglement w/ religion. 

Strict separation advocates that there should be little or no interaction b/t religion and govt; (but - there can be some (fire, police protection, etc.).

- Lemon Test: If a law is non-discriminatory, SC ruled the 3 part test should be applied.

If a law (or other govt action) raises issues under the Establishment Clause but doesn’t involve the preference of one religious denomination over another, SC doesn’t judge the validity of the law or act under S.S. Instead, SC usually employs a test requiring that, to be valid, the law or action must:

(1) Have a secular purpose;

(2) Have a secular effect – principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; AND

(3) Avoids excessive entanglement b/t govt and religion. 

(Lemon v. Kurtzman)

The Neutrality Theory advocates that the govt must be neutral on religion; govt cannot favor religion over secularism or one religion over others

- O'Connor Endorsement Test

- Divisiveness Test

- Establishment forbids government action that would be religiously “divisive”

- Ask: Does the reasonable person feel excluded? Does someone feel ostracized? Does this cause religious tensions? - This falls somewhere between N and strict separationist 

- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris

Would a reas observer perceive the govt as endorsing one religion over another, or religion over non-religion?

Modifies the Lemon test; to be valid, the law or action must:

(1) Secular Purpose – reas observer POV

(2) Secular effect – reas observer POV

(3) No excessive entanglement 

- County of Allegheny v. ACLU: A govt's act is unconst under EC if, being evaluated in its context, the act has the effect of endorsing religion or could be understood by viewers to be an endorsement of religion

Advocates of the Accomodation Tests are comfortable w/ a significant amount of govt interaction.

- Coercion Test

- History & Tradition Test

Traditional governmental recognitions of religion are permitted.

- Have we allowed this type of gov't interaction in the past? if yes, it is allowed.

- Marsh v. Chambers

- Majority in Van Orden

The govt may not coerce religious belief or practice.

Lee v. Wiseman