On February 25, 2004, the United States Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the Locke v. Davey case. Even though the current Court continues to display confused reasoning in its rejection of public tax money for support of religion (in this case a ministerial student), two accomodationist organizations which routinely misrepresent the Free Exercise Clause continue to display outright ignorance in respect to the wording of the First Amendment. The ACLJ and the FAC both promote the Free Exercise Clause as if it were an unlimited guarantee for the exercise of religion. They are wrong.
America is a nation of law. Not one word of the Constitution authorizes lawlessness. The Free Exercise Clause is not a license for anarchy, and any assertion to the contrary is an unacceptable perversion of the Constitutionšs provisions regarding religion freedom.
The First Amendment word, which controls understanding of the constitutional right to "free exercise" of religion, is "prohibiting," which means totally. The exercise of religion is not included with the constitutional right given to speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition and are to be understood constitutionally by "abridging," which means reducing. Congress shall make "no law...prohibiting,˛ which means totally, the exercise of religion; but, in respect to speech, press, peaceable assembly, petition, Congress shall make "no law...abridging," which means reducing.
The words "prohibiting" and "abridging" have different meanings, and a proper constitutional understanding of what the Constitution commands is determined by its words; otherwise, it is nothing more than a blank piece of paper and makes a mockery out of the supremacy or rule of written law.
Just as the misleading words "church and state" are not in the Constitution, neither is the word "conscience." It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress, and it is the "exercise" of religion which shall not be totally prohibited. The American idea of total religion freedom relates to opinion only, not to action, regardless of conscience. An American may believe whatever he or she chooses, but no person has a right to do whatever he or she chooses in terms of actions, regardless of religion opinion.
This issue was settled correctly by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1879 (Reynolds v. U.S.) and 1890 (Davis v. Beason), which cases made clear Americans do not have a right, regardless of religion opinion or the dictates of conscience, to practice their faith totally free of government control, as the FAC asserts. Uncontrollable evils would be unleashed in American society by the ACLJ and the FAC mistaken understanding of constitutional "free exercise."
In 1947 the United States Supreme Court (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. at 15) unanimously agreed that "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion." It is unfortunate the 2004 Court did not repeat the words of the Everson decision and did not point out the fact that in Everson public tax money, for public transportation of students from a public township (which did not have a public high school) to parochial schools, stopped at the public street curb. Though the four dissenters in Everson agreed completely with the majority regarding the above "no tax in any amount" statement, they objected to use of tax money, for transporting parochial students, even to the public street curb. Public money is for public services and public institutions. In America religion institutions are to be supported voluntarily, not by coercive government or coerced tax money. The 2004 Court, if not constitutionally clear, ruled correctly in Locke v. Davey.