"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"
Constitution of the United States of America, 1st Amendment
December 15, 1791
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the State need not satisfy strict scrutiny as to a neutral, generally applicable law that happened to affect religious exercise. In response to the Smith decision, Congress passed RFRA, which requires that the government demonstrate a compelling interest and adopt the least restrictive means whenever it substantially burdens a person’s free exercise of religion.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."
Under RFRA, general laws burdening broadly defined religious exercises must be (1) supported by government’s compelling interests; and (2) furthered through least restrictive means.
In enacting RFRA, Congress reestablished the holding in Yoder and our constitutional order grounded in religious freedom.
O]nly those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. We can accept it as settled, therefore, that, however strong the State’s interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests. (Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Free Exercise vs the Public Health. The constitutional balance test first established in Jacobson v. Mass., is still determinative.
Setting aside industry's promotional materials for their new CRISPR gene modified products, Moderna's SEC 8k filing (where liability for fraud still exists) reveals the serious nature of the dangers unsuspecting test subjects confront.
According to Moderna's SEC 8K:
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. In certain countries, mRNA therapies have not yet been classified or any such classification is not known to us...mRNA drug development has substantial clinical development and regulatory risks due to the novel and unprecedented nature of this new category of medicines...As a potential new category of medicines, no mRNA medicines have been approved to date by the FDA or other regulatory agency... Gene therapies and mRNA based medicines may activate one or more immune responses against any and all components of the drug product (e.g., the mRNA or the delivery vehicle, such as a lipid nanoparticle) as well as against the encoded protein, giving rise to potential immune reaction related adverse events...Due to the novel nature of this technology and limited experience at larger scale production, we may encounter difficulties in manufacturing, product release, shelf life, testing, storage and supply chain management, or shipping. These difficulties could be due to any number of reasons including, but not limited to, complexities of producing batches at larger scale, equipment failure, choice and quality of raw materials and excipients, analytical testing technology, and product instability...The process to generate mRNA investigational medicines encapsulated in LNPs is complex and, if not developed and manufactured under well-controlled conditions, can adversely impact pharmacological activity...In addition to serious adverse events or side effects caused by any of our investigational medicines, the administration process or related procedures also can cause undesirable side effects...Our product and product intermediates are extremely temperature sensitive, and we may learn that any or all of our products are less stable than desired."
Applying these documented life threatening risks by the manufacturer (Expert) above, to the test set forth in Jacobson, it is beyond dispute that no synthetic and/or recombinant gene therapy (even if called a vaccine) can be constitutionally mandated.
He would have considered this testimony of experts in connection with the facts that for nearly a century most of the members of the medical profession have regarded vaccination, repeated after intervals, as a preventive of smallpox; that while they have recognized the possibility of injury to an individual from carelessness in the performance of it, or even in a conceivable case without carelessness, they generally have considered the risk of such an injury too small to be seriously weighed as against the benefits coming from the discreet and proper use of the preventive; and that not only the medical profession and the people generally have for a long time entertained these opinions, but legislatures and courts have acted upon them with general unanimity." (Jacobson).
While many law-farers will argue, that the free exercise of religion must yield to public health, what happens when "public health" is neither informed by law or science?
What happens when health policy is informed more by hope and belief than the scientific method?
"You can't spend your time figuring out is it going to work or not going to work, you just have to commit." AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot
What I propose for consideration (and what will be explored further) is that the balance is not between the free exercise of religion and the public health. What has emerged, instead, is a global contest between two competing religious visions for the future of humanity.