Page:Johnson v. State.pdf/5

480 something resembling or suggesting a rag or rags and considered of little worth or service;—used contemptuously, jocularly, or ironically as of a flag, newspaper, etc." We think appellant's statement clearly evinces contempt for the flag within the terms of the statute in question.

The Supreme Court of the United States in Minersvale School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375, 27 A.L.R. 1419, recently said: "The flag is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences, however large, within the framework of the Constitution. This court has had occasion to say that ' the flag is the symbol of the Nation's power, the emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense ; it signifies government resting on the consent of the governed; liberty regulated by law; the protection of the weak against the strong; security against the exercise of arbitrary power; and absolute safety for free institutions against foreign aggression.' Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34, 51 L.Ed. 696, 27 S.Ct. 419, 10 Ann. Cas. 525.

"The religious liberty which the Constitution protects has never excluded legislation of general scope not directed against doctrinal loyalties of particular sects. Judicial nullification of legislation cannot be justified by attributing to the framers of the Bill of Rights views for which there is no historic warrant. Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities "

It is our view on the testimony presented that appellant has violated the plain terms of the statute in question and the jury was warranted in finding him guilty as charged. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed. 