E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1 page 7 (c) A secular bureaucracy may be indifferent towards the needs of religious communities, or indeed ignorant of them; (d) Legislators may not be aware of the existence and importance of minority groups in the field of religion or belief, so that they do not make any exemptions for them. They may also be influenced by interest groups campaigning for laws without any exemptions for any group in the field of religion or belief, for various reasons (hostility towards religion or certain religious teachings and principles, purely economic interests, etc.). 16. Certain individuals expressed the view that “the biggest problem is the basic pervasiveness of regulations in all aspects of our lives, and in the widespread expectation that everyone will comply with secular norms. Everyone has to comply with the same regulatory rule as everybody else. What the Church is asking for is not religious liberty at all. What the Church is asking for is special privilege”. 17. Non-governmental representatives in favour of the decision in the Smith case explained that without that decision, the great variety of religions in the United States would mean that there would be a considerable number of requests for exemptions and the situation would become impracticable. 2. “Non-establishment” of religion 18. The Supreme Court has interpreted the “non-establishment” clause of the First Amendment to prohibit official sponsorship of, support of, or active involvement in religious activity. This clause should promote religious freedom by limiting the influence of federal, state and local governments on religious thought and practice. It recognizes the right of an individual or group to be free from laws and governmental decisions which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another (Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 US 664 (1970); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947)). The clause serves to prevent both religious control over Government and political control over religion. 19. In Lemon v. Kutzman, 403 US 602 (1971), the Supreme Court put forth a three-part test for determining whether a law or decision violates the “non-establishment” clause: the statute or decision must have a secular non-religious purpose, the principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and the statute or decision must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. 20. The interpretation of the “non-establishment” clause is often the subject of debate and has undergone a certain evolution, in particular with respect to the following issues: (a) Direct public aid to parochial schools. This issue involved the opposing responsibilities of Government to allow parents “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions” while respecting the “non-establishment” clause. It is proposed that Government can authorize the provision of public benefits to parochial and secular schools alike without involving itself in the practices advocated by the parochial schools;