Summary

Byron White Lemon v. Kurtzman — Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

It is enough for me that the States and the Federal Government are financing a separable secular function of overriding importance in order to sustain the legislation here challenged. That religion and private interests other than education may substantially benefit does not convert these laws into impermissible establishments of religion.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Lemon v. Kurtzman — Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

Having recognized the value of educated citizens and assumed the task of educating them, the States now before us assert a right to provide for the secular education of children whether they attend public schools or choose to enter private institutions, even when those institutions are church-related. The Federal Government also asserts that it is entitled, where requested, to contribute to the cost of secular education by furnishing buildings and facilities to all institutions of higher learning, public and private alike.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Lemon v. Kurtzman — Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

There is no specific allegation in the complaint that sectarian teaching does or would invade secular classes supported by state funds. That the schools are operated to promote a particular religion is quite consistent with the view that secular teaching devoid of religious instruction can successfully be maintained, for good secular instruction is, as Judge Coffin wrote for the District Court in the Rhode Island case, essential to the success of the religious mission of the parochial school.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature