We Believe Trial Judges Confronted

When The Power, Prestige And Financial Support Of Government Is Placed Behind A Particular Religious Belief, The Indirect Coercive Pressure Upon Religious Minorities To Conform To The Prevailing Officially Approved Religion Is Plain.

What Finally Emerges From The 'clear And Present Danger' Cases Is A Working Principle That The Substantive Evil Must Be Extremely Serious And The Degree Of Imminence Extremely High Before Utterances Can Be Punished...it Must Be Taken As A Command Of The Broadest Scope That Explicit Language, Read In The Context Of A Liberty-loving Society, Will Allow.

The Public Welfare Demands That Constitutional Cases Must Be Decided According To The Terms Of The Constitution Itself, And Not According To Judges Views Of Fairness, Reasonableness, Or Justice. I Have No Fear Of Constitutional Amendments Properly Adopted, But I Do Fear The Rewriting Of The Constitution By Judges Under The Guise Of Interpretation.

The "establishment Of Religion" Clause Of The First Amendment Means At Least This: Neither A State Nor The Federal Government Can Set Up A Church. Neither Can Pass Laws Which Aid One Religion, Aid All Religions, Or Prefer One Religion Over Another. Neither Can Force Nor Influence A Person To Go To Or To Remain Away From Church Against His Will Or Force Him To Profess A Belief Or Disbelief In Any Religion.

The Interest Of The People Lies In Being Able To Join Organizations, Advocate Causes, And Make Political "mistakes" Without Being Subjected To Governmental Penalties.