Papal Immunity

This case, should it make it to the high court, should be a true test of the highly debated Lemon Test, derived from the landmark case Lemon v. Kurtzman. Does the recognition of the Holy See as a political state, and allowing for all the advantages that comes along with that title, violate the Establishment Clause?

My personal opinion is no. Despite the fact that the Holy See is a religious state, and is governed based on religious principles, I don't see how the offering of diplomatic immunity advances or inhibits religion. Now if the Holy See were the only political state that received such a benefit, there could be a valid argument. However, since equal opportunity is given for the same type of immunity to all heads of state, no matter what the government is based upon, I fail to see the validity of Mr. Shea's allegation that such an act establishes a state religion.

I also fail to see where the other two prongs of the Lemon Test are being violated in terms of this case. The offer of immunity definitely has a "secular legislative purpose", as to not offer it would be contrary to current foreign policy tenets. Nor does the act "foster an excesive entanglement with religion". The act of immunity is not one that is based upon religious principles, or one that is provided as a means to gain "divine favor". It is a benefit afforded to heads of state, and the decision, at least on it's face, is made under the color of diplomacy rather than religion.

While there is no clear question here for us to debate, it appears this is a duplicate of this topic: Pope Benedict XVI Requests Immunity from Bush.