Psychic Science is a fascinating field, but like all interesting professions, it has its critics. Science has always been controversial, and in the US particularly the controversy over psychic ability has been a hot topic of late. Is Psychic Science a religion? Can it be regulated? Is it truly an original belief? These are just some of the issues that arise when you discuss the fascinating world of Psychic Science with a scientist who is an expert in his or her own right.
A very intriguing aspect of Psychic Science is the separation between science and religion. Historically speaking, religion has always been the main part of spirituality, to varying extents. Many Spiritualists consider psychic science to be a form of idolatry, or as someone trying to profit from their beliefs. On the other side of the spectrum, there are many scientists who consider psychic science as pure fact. Here, we will look at what separates psychic science from other, more secular forms of scientific thought.
First, the First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly indicates the separation between religion and government, as set forth in the United States Bill of Rights than so hoc. This includes a reference to the right of the people to worship according to their own choice, including both the freedom of speech and the right to exercise religion in public. It also clearly sets forth the guarantee of equal rights under the law to all citizens, regardless of faith or belief. Thus, the First Amendment clearly establishes the separation between the various types of belief and religion, including psychic science.
Second, California’s civil code contains several provisions with reference to the application of the First Amendment. The most notable of these provisions is the passage of auries within the first amendment. According to this provision, no bill of attainder or ex gratia can be passed or laws dictating belief in the divinity of the cosmos or nature be enacted. Similarly, a similar provision is incorporated within the 14th Amendment of the constitution protecting the right of any person to worship freely according to his own belief. Thus, when it comes to a comparison between the ordinance and the first and 14th amendments to the constitution, the difference is less dramatic than would have been the case had the first amendment was interpreted to prohibit all religious applications of the constitution.
Third, the application of the First Amendment and the rest of the US Constitutions to the application of the California Civil Code is not altogether relevant. The courts in California have held that the First Amendment protects against the application of a regulation to the free speech or press rights of a non-custodial state. The courts have also held that the framers of the constitution intended the First Amendment to protect religious organizations from governmental regulation. Thus, it is not inconsistent with the view that the application of the First Amendment to the application of the California Civil Code is not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of democracy, a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and press.
Although there are a few issues of infringement on the rights of speech and press associated with the application of the First Amendment to the regulation of private speech and press in California, the arguments concerning the validity of the ordinance are not strong. This is especially true where there is no chance of future evolution in California law as is required by the Supreme Court. And, while the argument that the ordinance violates the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment does have some validity, the equal protection analysis is somewhat obscure and there is no support from the California Supreme Court which seems to have followed a different standard with respect to the holding of a jury trial on a facial challenge to a California statute. Finally, a strong argument can be made that the ordinance has an unconstitutionality defect because the drafters of the bill clearly intended the words “noise” to be added to the existing language of the bill itself and did not take any steps to protect against the application of the word “noise” to include non-noise generated by businesses operating within the meaning of the California Constitution. We advise the readers of this article to seek the counsel of an attorney experienced in dealing with the issues of validity and constitutionality with respect to local, county, and federal regulations and laws.