Psychic Science and Civil Rights

There is a lot of talk these days about Psychic Science and the problems that arise from its overuse. There are people who condemn it as a form of black witchcraft, claiming that it contaminates both religion and science. If only this were true! I’d like to show you how Psychic Science operates and what it can do for mankind.

Cosmos Disclosure Ascension Center Education Spiritual Science Psychic  Mediums | TJ Morris ET Radio | Podcasts on Audible | Audible.com

The first amendment of the constitution contains a statement that states that no tax or royalty shall be levied against any individual or institution for the practice of religion, nor shall any power or jurisdiction be conferred upon them by any public law. Religious observances, practices, teachings and symbols are all within the free exercise clause of the first amendment. This means that the religious institutions cannot be restricted from practicing their spiritual beliefs nor from teaching their members about those beliefs. This is the chief commotion concerning Psychic Science and its potential to violate the rights of others in the name of pursuing a communicative element in our lives.

One of the primary reasons for this contention is that the mere recognition of a belief system, without the associated ceremonies or worship, does not infringe on the free exercise of religion tam linh la gi. That the framers of the constitution saw fit to include a reference to “the right to worship” in the constitution is irrelevant here. A similar argument could be made regarding laws against discrimination due to race, disability, origin, or status, or even age or sex. All of these are examples of communicative elements, which go against the first amendment.

In order to make this same argument valid, it would need to be demonstrated that a restriction on speech, even in the form of a zoning ordinance, is necessary to protect the “right to worship.” California, like many other states, has a very broad definition of the word “worship,” and the fact that many local jurisdictions have been able to uphold a wide-ranging regulation against hate speech is not evidence that the California constitution protects the expression of hate. And even if it were needed to show that a regulation is compelled speech under the first amendment, the ordinance passed by voters in June does not meet this test. A regulation may burden speech, but that is not true if the burden is required by law as a necessary consequence of a given law, like the requirement that corporations maintain a board of directors.

The argument advanced by the opponents of the ordinance in its second reading in the state bar of California is that a reading of the second proposition in the California statute as a license to worship could lead to the suppression of religious views. But the drafters of the California constitution recognized the strong Constitutional protections of the freedom of speech and religion. To sustain a law requiring the submission of detailed disclaimer statements not contained in the disbursement statement, the opponents of the ordinance argue that it would require the submission of false ideas and beliefs, which would result in the distortion of First Amendment values. It is beyond the power of the State to limit expression in the marketplace, they further claim, unless it can demonstrate that the disbursement statement serves a significant interest in advancing valid state interests.

Although the second proposition has been ruled unconstitutionally void by the state court, the city of Anaheim has appealed the decision to the state supreme court. If the court agrees with the city’s argument, California will join a list of states that have attempted to define marriage as something other than a union between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court has also refused to recognize a relationship between God and the institution of marriage, thereby upholding the validity of the California legislature’s attempts to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. While the court has refused to review the challenged ordinances, the court did order a stay of the original ruling pending appeal. The decision in this case is expected to be announced soon. If you want to protect your rights under both federal and California law, it is important to seek legal counsel from an attorney skilled in this area of the Civil Rights Act.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *