There have been many occasions when religious freedom and free speech concerns have coincided. While speech can never be protected as much as belief, which is absolute, it generally receives more protection than physical actions, which the state must regulate to some degree in order to preserve social peace and order. The two cases described on the next page raise many questions. Not only do they demonstrate how quickly the Court can change its mind, they also address the question of how religious speech receives Constitutional protection.
Moreover, they raise a question about symbolic speech —- speech that involves actions such as the burning of the American flag. Should that kind of speech receive the same protection as verbal speech? Finally, these two cases are not situations of prohibiting something, but require an individual to perform some affirmative act that violates their freedom of conscience. In America the emphasis of most laws is generally about prohibiting people from doing something -— they usually do not require a person to perform some duty. There are exceptions, such as the duty to serve in the military or on a jury when called upon. However, these cases go further. It is one thing to prohibit speech, but can government compel you to advocate a position you do not hold?
