ect of the exercise for the other children. After a lengthy opinion, Justice Frankfurter does uphold the requirement placed by the Minersville school district, stating strongly its necessity for national cohesion.
In his opinion Stone states, "here we have such a small minority entertaining in good faith a religious belief, which is such a departure from the usual course of human conduct, that most persons are disposed to regard it with little toleration or concern" (Braden, G.D., In Search for . . ., 1999).
Finding legal agreement with Justice Frankfurter is no easy task, considering that his decision was completely overturned three years later in Virginia v. Barnette. The Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith demonstrated a break with most past free exercise theory, holding enforceable laws not intended to burden religious activity but nevertheless placing a substantial burden on the free exercise of an individual's religion (494 U.S. 872. 1990). This decision was voiced by Justice Stevens (485 U.S. 660, 1988).
The First Amendment, in what is called the Establishment Clause, guarantees the separation of religion from the government and in the Free Exercise Clause, prohibits the government from interfering with individuals' right to worship as they choose. Together, these principles protect our freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all.
Over the parents' due process and free exercise objections, the district court found the parent's conduct not constitutionally protected (Jehovah's Witnesses, 390 U.S. 598). The King County decision, like the decision in Prince, placed limitations upon parental free exercise rights, both holding that "these rights do not include a right to endanger seriously a child's physical health or safety."