Respuesta :
I believe the answer is: Permissible only if it is secular in purpose, neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and does not lead to excessive entanglement with religion.
For example, when a certain religion advocate their followers to conduct harm towards other people.
In this case, the religion conducted an infringement for other people's right as a citizens and the government has proper ground to intervene.
For example, when a certain religion advocate their followers to conduct harm towards other people.
In this case, the religion conducted an infringement for other people's right as a citizens and the government has proper ground to intervene.
The Supreme Court concluded in Lemon v. Kurtzman that government activity toward religion is secular in nature, doesn't promote religion, and does not result in excessive entanglement with religion.
Option A is correct.
What is the case of lemon v. kurtzman?
Lemon v. kurtzman was a case that was heard by the United States Supreme Court.
The court found 8–1 that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act was unconstitutional, infringing the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
In this case, the religion infringed on the rights of others as citizens, therefore the government is justified in intervening.
Therefore, it is permissible only if it is secular in purpose, neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and does not lead to excessive entanglement with religion.
Learn more about lemon v. kurtzman, refer to:
https://brainly.com/question/9031401