EMAIL COMMENTS FROM READER TIGER:

Re: U.S. MARINES WIN CLASS PROTECTION FROM SHO....

Seawitch,

Much as I like the decision made to grant religious exemption, it is a painful thought to me that a decision such as this should not arise from Natural Law and the Nuremberg Code. The Constitution has yet to acknowledge the Nuremberg Accords as being a right of American citizens, including the right NOT to participate in experimental drugs, and forbidding any such request to anyone to participate unless there is free and full Disclosure. I believe a person, and especially a Citizen of the Republic of the US, should have this right regardless of religious affiliation. I think of course it is a sort of religion to believe in human rights, external to the belief without proof in a supreme being to which mankind is subservient; however, in the absence of an organized religion, I think there would be a denial by the Military or other authority that this satisfies the requirement for "religion". I disbelieve that citizens should have to prove religious affiliation to claim their rights as Human Beings.

As a consequence I think we need a reform, among others, that incorporates in the Constitution the rights of individuals as recognized in the Nuremberg Code. We need specific language that cannot be misinterpreted or re-interpreted, and that cannot be set aside due to some claimed emergency. In fact, we need a specific passage that states that no Constitutional right can EVER be set aside based on emergencies or mandates.

If anyone does not know this yet, I wrote a book on this and other specific post-Disclosure reforms free at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-Tr36PKKnTXPkxe8Wm3QuhtOx5nFbEcB/view.

*****************************************************************