A snapshot of religious liberty in the face of the current illiberal nation we live in

The famous flag salute case was written by Justice Robert Jackson, who later wrote an influential concurrence involving presidential power. 

The author of a book discussing this concurrence referenced the lower court opinions in the original flag salute case. They can be found online. The Supreme Court opinions in Minersville School District v. Gobitis are also worthwhile. 

The caption shows that the school district lost below. Both lower court opinions held that religious liberty won out. There was not a strong enough threat to the public welfare to require schoolchildren to pledge allegiance. The opinions protected some degree of religious action along with belief.

Justice Frankfurter's majority opinion voiced the importance of teaching patriotism and how the flag salute helped to unite us. The Supreme Court soon reversed itself. 

Three justices foreshadowed the result by admitting they made a mistake. The school district lost again below in West Virginia v. Barnette, the lower court somewhat dubiously predicting (if correctly) the Supreme Court would reverse itself.  Two new justices helped lead to a final 6-3 vote.

Frankfurter began with a strong statement on religious liberty. He later was a strong believer in the separation of church and state, including dissenting in a case involving funding bus fares to religious schools. Note the broad language of what is at stake:

Certainly, the affirmative pursuit of one's convictions about the ultimate mystery of the universe and man's relation to it is placed beyond the reach of law. Government may not interfere with organized or individual expression of belief or disbelief. 

Propagation of belief -- or even of disbelief -- in the supernatural is protected, whether in church or chapel, mosque or synagogue, tabernacle or meetinghouse. 

Likewise, the Constitution assures generous immunity to the individual from imposition of penalties for offending, in the course of his own religious activities, the religious views of others, be they a minority or those who are dominant in government.

[Paragraph breaks added.]

One justice dissented, if the person who was soon to be the new Chief Justice. His dissent provided some of the themes found in the ultimate Barnette case. Note, by the way, that both captions mispelled the families' names. 

Without recourse to such compulsion, the state is free to compel attendance at school and require teaching by instruction and study of all in our history and in the structure and organization of our government, including the guaranties of civil liberty which tend to inspire patriotism and love of country. I cannot say that government here is deprived of any interest or function which it is entitled to maintain at the expense of the protection of civil liberties by requiring it to resort to the alternatives which do not coerce an affirmation of belief.

The importance of education to teach and instill principles of "civil liberty" led people throughout our history to support public education. Education is a means. Knowledge and republican values, along with such things as learning how to live with each other with empathy and respect, are ends.  

These flag salute cases were decided during World War II. I'm reading a book about the final days of the European war, after Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide. Those days provide some perspective on our own reality. 

We are not doing too well. One analysis provides evidence that we are an "illiberal democracy." Another states the state of the republic is "grim." It (rather convincingly) argues that if the forces of liberty can regain power, we should not try to simply fix our broken constitutional system. 

Maybe this buries the lede in a post that is mainly about a historical event of interest. Perhaps not. The cases involved school children being persecuted for practicing their religion. 

After the first opinion, children and adults were physically attacked. It was a dark time, in the middle of a world war. The Supreme Court responded, on Flag Day, with a paean to constitutional liberty. 

The current Administration is an illegitimate criminal conspiracy. It is fundamental to speak the truth. 

Our ancestors spoke of a tyrant in 1776. I am not exaggerating by saying that in various respects, George III was a piker next to the Trump Administration. 

I can toss in the Supreme Court, including stripping abortion rights. How dare they. The protections of the rights of some schoolchildren, with beliefs many of us oppose (even when they don't bother us by ringing our bells -- do they still do that? They did it when I was a child), are a type of fixed star to honor and remember while we fight the best we can.

I don't know what the future will bring. The big and necessary changes seem impossible on some level. Do they not always until they do occur? What did people think in 1775 or 1941? Or the early 1950s regarding racial equality?

History provides perspective, as we continue to live it. History is my jam. I studied it. I write about it. I find it interesting. I think it can teach some lessons. 

It's sometimes uncomfortable being a part of it.