1964 Awake! - Theocratic Collector.com

Constitution Violated
The Constitution of the United States
guarantees Mrs. Jones the right to the free
exercise of her religion, whicH in her case
includes the right to do as the Bible states
at Acts chapter 15, verses 20 and 29, 'to
abstain from blood.' The court order forcing
blood upon her is a violation of the
First Amendment to the Constitution,
which amendment is part of the Bill of
Rights. The intent of this First Amendment
is clearly defined by a quotation from
the Virginia Bill of Rights, which states:
"All men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates
of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained
by the magistrates, unless, under
color of religion, any man disturb the
peace and happiness of society."
Not until society itself is threatened is
there any basis for denying an individual
the freedom of his conscience. Note the
words of the Virginia Statute for Religious
Freedom drafted by Thomas Jefferson, in
which its preamble defines religious freedom:
"To suffer the civil magistrate to
intrude his powers into the field of opinion
... is a dangerous fallacy, which at
once destroys all religious liberty." It adds:
"It is time enough for the rightful purposes
of civil government for its officers to
interfere when principles break out into
J ANU ARY 22, 1964
overt acts against peace and good order."
Mrs. Jones did not commit any act that
would disturb the peace and good order
of society. Hence, there was no legal basis
for official interference, because the public
interest was in no way threatened by her
actions. Her decision could affect only
herself.
A citizen's religious liberties are thus
protected by the Constitution except when
one's actions are a clear and present danger
to the public welfare.
Now it seems that we should add another
exception: A person's liberty is protected
except if his views dare to be in
conflict with the opinions of some doctors!
Are you willing to accept medical treatment
on those terms? Willing or not, you
may find that you are forced to submit.
If you disagree with the State, the Constitution
will protect you. If you disagree
with the federal government, the Constitution
will protect you. But according to
this court order, if you disagree with a
doctor or a hospital, then the Constitution
cannot protect your individual liberties!
However, there is nothing in the Constitution
of the United States that creates
such an exception just because a person
happens to disagree with the recommendation
of doctors.
The Bill of Rights is like a rock
of Gibraltar protecting the liberties
of the individual against majority
opinion, legislative opinion and even
judicial opinion. Why should a
woman now have her liberties
removed and her conscience and
body invaded because certain
medical men do not agree with
her views? Are they more powerful
than the Constitution?
The ill-advised decisions of the doctors
and judge were no doubt well meant, but,
as the late Mr. Justice Brandeis once stat-
13