United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252

Here are some comments offered by Justice Burger, with my comments bracketed:

Because the payment of the taxes or receipt of benefits violates Amish religious beliefs, compulsory participation in the social security system interferes with their free exercise rights.

• [Sounds simple enough...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...]

The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.

To maintain an organized society that guarantees religious freedom to a great variety of faiths requires that some religious practices yield to the common good.

• [You mean it's not as simple as the First Amendment says...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...?]

The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.

• [Unless we moved to the FairTax plan, where only those who choose to purchase goods would be contributing their money to the tax coffers.]
• [Not to mention, Justice Burger confuses tax revenues with government spending. It sounds simple enough to me, any individuals who choose not to pay in also have made the decision to declare themselves ineligible for any benefits.]
  

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.

• [So how does a man of faith feed his family if he can't "enter into commercial activity" while simultaneously declining to contribute revenue for government programs contrary to his faith?]