There are examples of this everywhere. Here in Indiana, our prior Speaker of the House--a lawyer who surely knew better--courted the right wing of his party by opening sessions with very specifically Christian prayer, despite clear Supreme Court precedent disallowing that practice. When a court ruled (predictably) that he couldn't continue doing so, he claimed the decision was an aberration by an "activist" judge.

Many years ago, when I was in City Hall, I was asked to testify to a council committee that was considering an ordinance to ban rock concerts in the city's parks. The ordinance was fervidly supported by a south-side minister who believed such music was sinful. He was in attendance, and when I explained that the government could not favor some messages/musical genres over others, he stood up and yelled "My bible is more important than your constitution!" I've never forgotten that incident, because it was revealing in so many ways. It was his bible. He owned God, righteousness, whatever. It was my constitution, not his.

At the end of the day, too many of these conflicts are not good-faith arguments over constitutional interpretation, "original intent" "strict construction" or judicial "activism." They are revealing snapshots of our different priorities. For some of us, citizenship means an obligation to accept the "rules of the road," to live within the constitutional framework. For others, those rules are merely a roadblock, to be evaded or changed when they conflict with--or inconvenience--promotion of their specific religious beliefs or practices.

It's a matter of priorities. In the fundamentalist's value structure, their bibles are more important than our constitution. They don't misread the Bill of Rights. They disregard it.