Religion- a definition and personal interpretation

What does Religion mean in the context of Freedom of Religion?

Definition and Interpretation of Religion

Various interpretations of religion exist, "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." or "a particular system of faith and worship.", but to me these definitions only partially cover the meaning of religion. Religion in it's truest sense is the devotion to moral rights and the study and obedience to the highest laws, being the laws of nature and of nature's God. This was written to define religion especially as it applies to the rights of the People, although inspired by the Vaccination Pandemic of January 2015, this interpretation serves to define religion in a broader sense.

Under what principles is religion to be defined?

Religion is a very individualistic idea that varies from one person to the next, but without a moral code backing such beliefs they could hardly be considered religious. Religious beliefs must therefore be backed by morals and doing what is right. Without a moral principle what purpose could religion serve? None that I can bare witness to. The second principle under which religion must be defined is an obedience to a higher authority, whether this be god, the creator, nature itself or just natural laws, in order for a belief to be religious it must be obedient to the highest laws. Third, religious beliefs must also be constant, one can't believe in a religion at his or her convenience, one must live by their conviction daily. Of course individual beliefs change and evolve over time and as such ones interpretation of religion is certainly subject to change. The three most important principles; are a moral principle, obedience to the highest law, and consistency. Without all three aspects it can be difficult to have a religion and in this process many of our natural born rights are sacrificed.

Freedom of Religion

I have been inspired to research and define my religion in the recent discovery that there have been several court cases that have stated that vaccination is not subject to vaccination and is purely to the decided at the whim of the state. But the State is a creature of the People and the people are the creator of the state. Thus the state knows not the laws of the most high and can not determine what is or is not a religious principle. Vaccinations are certainly subject to the religious beliefs of the individual people and not to be left to the interpretation of a state, government or even another person. What my religion means to me may not be what it means to you, and that is ok, we can both have our own moral standards. It is not ok however when ones religion, lack of religion or interpretation of religion subjects another to loss their rights secured by law. Some claim that not being vaccinated endangers the population as a whole, but this is not a legitimate concern. Although statutes exist, no law can ultimately govern the religious beliefs of one who does not get vaccinated, any more so than the state can say that three or more people may not gather on a sidewalk in a way that is annoying to others, as was decided by the supreme court in Coates v. City of Cincinnati. I know why it is not in my religion to get vaccinated and I need not explain why to anyone, my religion is my own private experience, and is to be shared at my discretion alone. To insinuate that a belief of religion can not exempt one from vaccination is to take away from the rights of another person, and this is one of the most high offenses one can commit.

All in all, a religion is a private experience, that may be shared, and is protected by an obedience to the highest laws and authority, back with a strong moral code that does not interfere with the rights of another, and is a constant part of ones everyday practices, although it may change over time. The government national or state can not serve to define or interpret religion any more than one person can interpret anthers religion.  An attempt to define or limit or impose your religion or lack of on another human is breaking the law of the most highs, and is subject to severe punishment, at the discretion of the violated.  You may chose to share your religious views or personal views with others, but you may not force someone to adopt the views you hold for any reason, although you may punish them if they have violated your rights in a court of law.

NY State Immunization Requirements and Exemptions

NY State Vaccination Exemption Law

A Review of the recent appellate court case regarding the mandatory immunization law of New York.

This video was made in response to a recent appellate court decision made on January 7th 2015, affirming that the mandatory vaccination law of New York State is constitutional. Although the law, which requires vaccines in children attending public schools, is "constitutional" New York goes above and beyond what is constitutional by allowing exemption of vaccinations based on religious grounds. In this video the case is reviewed and immunization exemption is clearly defined. Vaccination Exemption by religious rights is a basic human right that needs to be observed.

2 New York Vaccination Exemptions

Immunization Exemption Law

Vaccination Law in New York State

Recently in New York there has been some controversy of the immunization and vaccination exemption laws of the state. I heard several people say that there is a new law in New York that bans religious exemptions to vaccines. The controversy of this issue stemmed from a court case that was decided on January 7th of 2015. The Appeals court upheld a lower courts decision that:

“New York could constitutionally require that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school,” 

Some people took this to mean that New York state does not allow Immunization exemption for children in public schools, by any means. To clear up the controversy I have been doing some research on the facts regarding the laws on New York state and Vaccination or immunization laws, I also read and reviewed the appeals court opinion. Both my research into the statutory law of New York and the review of the courts opinion confirmed my belief that, no new laws have passed and that religious exemptions of vaccinations is very much allowed in New York.

Statutory law in New York clearly allows for vaccination exemption on 2 grounds.  The first is for health related issues, a health exemption requires a certificate from a certified physician.  The second allowable exemption is exemption by religious beliefs, in the excerpt below, from the Public Health code we can clearly see vaccination exemption is allowed for religious reasons;

This section shall not apply to children whose parent, parents, or guardian hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required, and no certificate shall be required as a prerequisite to such children being admitted or received into school or attending school.                        -N.Y.S.  Public Health Code Section 2164,  9 

The state law makers had the clear intention and purpose that children would not be required to get immunizations.  That clearly understood that it could easily be against an individuals religious beliefs to get immunization for their children,  they made sure that it was clear that religious rights would not be infringed on.  According to the appeals court case and several Supreme Court cases, it is not required to provide a religious exemption on constitutional grounds.  Although I find that hard to agree with as no one can define religious beliefs but the one accountable for them. 

After reviewing the appealed decision I must agree with the courts. Mrs. Check failed to challenge the courts finding that her religious beliefs regarding vaccines were sincere and instead that she desired exemption on health related grounds, which her doctor had denied her.  If the appellant had simply stood her grounds on the religious issue her rights would have been defended, but instead she became too strung out and attempted to make 4 other claims against the state.  For my complete review on the case please watch the video below.  

This video was made in response to a recent appellate court decision made on January 7th 2015, affirming that the mandatory vaccination law of New York State is constitutional. Although the law, which requires vaccines in children attending public schools, is "constitutional" New York goes above and beyond what is constitutional by allowing exemption of vaccinations based on religious grounds. In this video the case is reviewed and immunization exemption is clearly defined.

For the NYS Public health law, in regards to immunization exemptions visit;

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO:

More information on Immunization Exemptions available here:

http://thinktwice.com/laws.htm

Coates v. City of Cincinnati

Case Review of Coates v. City of Cincinnati

A case on the laws of Assembly, and the Rights of People

Case Name: Coates v.  City of Cincinnati

Court Title:

Supreme Court of the US

Appealed from the 
Supreme Court of Ohio

Decided on: June 1st, 1971

For full transcript please find  the link at the base of this post.

Introduction-

The Ohio Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of the following ordinance by the City of Cincinnati, OH. 

"It shall be unlawful for three or more persons to assemble, except at a public meeting of citizens, on any of the sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots or mouths of alleys, and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by, or occupants of adjacent buildings....

Section 901-L6, Code of Ordinances of the City of Cincinnati (1956).

The appellants were convicted of violating the ordinance. The position of the appellants was that the ordinance "on it's face" violated the 1st and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

This claim was first dejected by the Supreme Court of Ohio, the court wrote:

"The ordinance prohibits, inter alia, `conduct . . . annoying to persons passing by.' The word `annoying' is a widely used and well understood word; it is not necessary to guess its meaning. `Annoying' is the present participle of the transitive verb `annoy' which means to trouble, to vex, to impede, to incommode, to provoke, to harass or to irritate.

"We conclude, as did the Supreme Court of the United States in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611, 616, in which the issue of the vagueness of a statute was presented, that the ordinance `clearly and precisely delineates its reach in words of common understanding. It is a "precise and narrowly drawn regulatory statute [ordinance] evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be . . . proscribed." ' " 21 Ohio St. 2d, at 69, 255 N. E. 2d, at 249.

Appeal and Superior Court Decision-

The decision was then appealed the the US Supreme Court, who saw probable jurisdiction under, 28 U. S. C. § 1257. Mr. Justice Stewart introduced the opinion of the court. The US Supreme Court stated that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague as it holds the right to assembly to an unattainable standard stating:

'In our opinion this ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard, and unconstitutionally broad because it authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct.'

And continues to refer to  Connally v. General Construction Co. quoting "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning."

However, the court does go on to state that the ordinance does broadly prohibit actions that are within it's constitutional power.  And refers to the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision  stating:

'... The city is free to prevent people from blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, or engaging in countless other forms of antisocial conduct.'

and goes on to say that the ordinances of the city needed to be made with "reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited," and cannot constitutionally do so with an ordinance whose violation "may entirely depend upon whether or not a policeman is annoyed."

The case goes on in further detail stating as to why the ordinance was unconstitutional and refers to several more cases, and ends stating;

The ordinance before us makes a crime out of what under the Constitution cannot be a crime. It is aimed directly at activity protected by the Constitution. We need not lament that we do not have before us the details of the conduct found to be annoying. It is the ordinance on its face that sets the standard of conduct and warns against transgression. The details of the offense could no more serve to validate this ordinance than could the details of an offense charged under an ordinance suspending unconditionally the right of assembly and free speech. The judgement is reversed. 

Mr. Justice Black agreed and reaffirmed the judgement with his own twist, stating that the actions of the appellant may have been criminal, but the record failed to describe what actions they had made.  

Mr. Justice White in concert with The Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Blackmun wrote a dissenting opinion and affirmed the judgement of the Supreme Court of Ohio. They state that the ordinance was prohibiting crimes within the cities jurisdiction, but the language of the law itself was vague, but this does not mean that the appellant was not guilty of a crime. Once again non of the justices were supplied with the actions of the appellants and could, therefore not reach a conclusion as to if their individual actions were criminal, or if the city acted unconstitutionally. 

This is an edited brief on 

Coates v. Cincinnati 

for a full transcript,

 click the link. 

I reviewed this case in a course of research, for discovery of the defining bounds of an assembly and when an assembly becomes a 'protest', as well as the differences between the two, please stay tuned as I dive into this issue and bring forth information to assist in the proper and reasonable forms of assembly in which we are lawfully allotted to take, instead of protests which often end in the arrest of otherwise law abiding people engaged in an action which often has an unclear focus of a pursuable objective. 

Corporations Are Citizens, but Neither are People.

The Legal Position of Corporations, and Why Corporations are Citizens and Why Neither of them are People in the Eyes of the Law

Are Corporations People?

Why is a corporation a people or citizen?

Response to "10 Supreme Court Rulings—Before Hobby Lobby—That Turned Corporations Into People"

For a better informed point of view on this Response. 

Please read before continuing:

Corporations Are Citizens, but Neither are People

BEGIN:

In the eyes of US Law corporations and businesses for that matter are considered citizens.  This idea was given life in the early 1800's when it was decided that corporations were considered citizens of the state in which they reside.  I find it amusing that this fact seems to rile people up and get them so upset.  If we look at the wording of the cases in which corporations are considered citizens, we see that they are not granted the rights of the People, as only the People can have actual rights and not citizens.  It is important to note that even a 'person' is typically a legal term used to refer to a citizen. 

So while corporations are fighting for their rights as citizens, as the People have granted them permission to do, many 'persons' are getting upset about these things.  I must declare that instead of getting upset about what privileges companies are working towards having as citizens, it is more important for each of the People to stand up and recognize their own rights as People, and not lower themselves to citizen status.  Our rights as People are currently alive and active, but should we forget to give them breath and instead give our breath to the privileges of corporations, they will be lost in the pages of musty history books.

As amused as I am by the anger and frustration expressed at the decisions to call corporations citizens and to grant them 'rights', I am also saddened at knowing that many people do not recognize that citizens are recognized as corporations with privileges, and these 'citizens' (the ones that really are people) bicker amongst themselves regarding the supreme court decisions, they are trading in their rights as People, for privileges as citizens by lowering themselves to the level of a corporation, even though they feel that the corporation is being raised up to their level. 

Do some research into Supreme Court law and you will find that in nearly all circumstances the Right's of the People are held above all other law and statutes issued by and for the citizens.  Even many cases are held in favor of people that believe they are citizens when fundamental rights are at stake.  Throughout my site and the internet itself you will find oodles of law that has been passed from the Supreme Court for the protection of the people and people believing they are citizens.  

The Supreme Court and most systems of law are not out enemy, they are tools used for good and bad like everything else.  Don't be deceived by those who's hearts are filled with hate and minds full of ignorance. Educate yourself on the issues of law and the people's rights my site is an infinitesimally small example of what kind of information is available for the People to use. 

This article was written in response to the claims of the article linked below and the commentary of those who posted there. The article does have some very valuable information and indeed taught me some new things, however the title is misleading and so are some of the points made.  

http://www.motherjones.com/

Theory of Law I - Natural Law in Secular Court

Upholding Natural Law in a Secular Court

A look at Natural Law and how it apples in Secular Court 

Most of what I portray on this site is law theory, don't take anything I say as a fact, do your own research and draw your own conclusions. I am simply pointing out some commonly overlooked facts of law and government, but I may never be able to say how they will apply in your jurisprudence (theory or philosophy of law).  When I am applying my theory that is when it becomes law, until then it is nothing but an idea.  The only person that can give you legal advice is an attorney, simply because the definition of Legal advice is advice given by an attorney.  I focus on law and jurisprudence, I am only giving you an idea of what to look for and do not claim this to be the highest truth, you must find that on your own, no one not even a lawyer can show you that. 

The best way to avoid trouble with the law is to not break the law.  Natural and Universal law are self enforcing, if your break the law of the universe it may take some time but you will be punished eventually in some means or another, this is known as Karma or balance.  If you are of the natural law then written law may not come against you, to quote the Aramaic Translation of the Bible "But if you are led by The Spirit, you are not under The Written Law.". If they should come against you, you will acquire the information to overcome them. To be of the spirit one must always live by universal law, these laws in addition to not infringing on others rights,  would also include not eating flesh and not using or harming the earths oil (blood).  It takes years to transform from a life of bad deeds and lies into a righteous life.  Although it takes time as long as you take steps toward progress your actions are sure to be rewarded, and as such you will be protected.  But it is important to always remain humble to the natural law and this means to be humble to others even when they attempt to take your personal liberties.

All of my Law must first stem from natural law and grow into my own right, I am nothing without the authority of natural law.  In the secular court I must declare my status as a People (one who owns the government) and not a citizen (one subject to the government). As a People I am recognized as sovereign by the authorities of the supreme court, which should carry weight in a lesser court if proposed in the right manner.  In my upcoming article "Owning Your Court" I will be discussing one way to apply case law in an authoritative manner.  As a defendant of lets say a traffic violation, it typically does no good to quote a case or higher law,  the plaintiff is the one declaring the law and your have entered his court, he is not expected to accept your law.  You must enter the position of the sovereign plaintiff in your own supreme court to decree your own law.

“The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.”

     [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co]

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Case Review of Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Sovereignty and the Limitation of Government Control Case Name: YICK WO v. HOPKINS, SHERIFF.

WO LEE

v.

HOPKINS, SHERIFF.

Court Title:

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided on: Decided May 10, 1886.

Key focus in relation to Sovereignty, Limitation of Government, Government, and Limitation of Power-

"When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men." For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."                                                                        

          -18 US 356, 370

         
Full Transcript Available HERE