Principles of Action

People are the original authors of their own manufactured laws. Law in its most general and comprehensive sense means “rules of human conduct.” Laws (other than natural law originating from God) are expressions of peoples’ will. Supremely people (as original and first authority of their own wills) hold this original power, right and authority to interpret and apply law—not their Agents. The original jurisdiction of human-made law came from and will always belong to people. It’s their unalienable sovereign-will which gives any government its power...including our own.

Law does not exclude this—anywhere. Agents can never surpass their Principals. It’s within peoples’ lawful right to evolve, contract and contribute to positive change. Innately, the CYNTHIA MILDRED MILES ESTATE (CES) succession of states represents the element of humankind most safeguarded by the United Nations Charter’s pre-amble. Intrinsically, the State is an important materialization of the peoples’ unalienable rights.

While it’s true when invaded rights and committed injuries are private no one except the injured and their advisers has a right to interfere; it’s also true when the injury is public anyone can intervene. So when others act by our authority and we stand by and allow them to act in our name it’s our authority that’s presumed. We’re the ones bound by those acts and if human rights aren’t being upheld—WE—as a species are liable! Conscience is Nature’s justice and it compels us to act even when binding duty has failed us.

The World Conference on Human Rights asked the international community to help relieve debt of developing countries. The Conference asked us—as Nations united—to help relieve debt for economic, social and cultural rights of people. Cynthia Mildred Miles heard this call.

There is a well-known merit of law “pacta sunt servanda” which means agreements must be kept! But if we as a species want to realize our human potential it’s up to us to see to it that the contracts we’ve agreed to are upheld. If our human rights treaties are not being performed no one is to blame but us humans. Our shared goals are universal in nature regardless of our different national realities!

A Special Message to the Intergovernmental Organizations:

From the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations of 21 March 1986, Article 27 Internal law of States, rules of international organizations and observance of treaties — ¶ 2. “An international organization party to a treaty may not invoke the rules of the organization as justification for its failure to perform the treaty...”

1 Samuel 17:47 KJV — And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD’S, and he will give you into our hands.

John 10:1-42 KJV — Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there.

Matthew 23:1-39 KJV — Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

U.S. Supreme Court

Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

[Emphasis added. Footnotes omitted.]

The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District’s principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State’s public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their “Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools,” saying: “We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program.”

Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents’ prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District’s regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution which commands that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—a command which was “made applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution.” The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents’ prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents’ objection. We granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York’s program of daily classroom invocation of God’s blessings as prescribed in the Regents’ prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious, none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found:

“The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson and has been concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme Court and State courts and administrative officials, including New York’s Commissioner of Education. A committee of the New York Legislature has agreed.

“The Board of Regents as amicus curiae, the respondents and intervenors all concede the religious nature of prayer, but seek to distinguish this prayer because it is based on our spiritual heritage. . . .”

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The Book of Common Prayer, which was created under governmental direction and which was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549, set out in minute detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax-supported Church of England. The controversies over the Book and what should be its content repeatedly threatened to disrupt the peace of that country as the accepted forms of prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular ruler that happened to be in control at the time. Powerful groups representing some of the varying religious views of the people struggled among themselves to impress their particular views upon the Government and obtain amendments of the Book more suitable to their respective notions of how religious services should be conducted in order that the official religious establishment would advance their particular religious beliefs. Other groups, lacking the necessary political power to influence the Government on the matter, decided to leave England and its established church and seek freedom in America from England’s governmentally ordained and supported religion.

It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies. Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five. But the successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law. This opposition crystallized rapidly into an effective political force in Virginia where the minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had gained such strength that the adherents to the established Episcopal Church were actually a minority themselves. In 1785-1786, those opposed to the established Church, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who, though themselves not members of any of these dissenting religious groups, opposed all religious establishments by law on grounds of principle, obtained the enactment of the famous “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty” by which all religious groups were placed on an equal footing so far as the State was concerned. Similar though less far-reaching legislation was being considered and passed in other States.

By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government’s placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services. They knew the anguish, hardship and bitter strife that could come when zealous religious groups struggled with one another to obtain the Government’s stamp of approval from each King, Queen, or Protector that came to temporary power. The Constitution was intended to avert a part of this danger by leaving the government of this country in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of any monarch. But this safeguard was not enough. Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say—that the people’s religious must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment’s prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.

There can be no doubt that New York’s state prayer program officially establishes the religious beliefs embodied in the Regents’ prayer. The respondents’ argument to the contrary, which is largely based upon the contention that the Regents’ prayer is “non-denominational” and the fact that the program, as modified and approved by state courts, does not require all pupils to recite the prayer but permits those who wish to do so to remain silent or be excused from the room, ignores the essential nature of the program’s constitutional defects. Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its “unhallowed perversion” by a civil magistrate. Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand. The Founders knew that only a few years after the Book of Common Prayer became the only accepted form of religious services in the established Church of England, an Act of Uniformity was passed to compel all Englishmen to attend those services and to make it a criminal offense to conduct or attend religious gatherings of any other kind—a law which was consistently flouted by dissenting religious groups in England and which contributed to widespread persecutions of people like John Bunyan who persisted in holding “unlawful [religious] meetings . . . to the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects of this kingdom . . . .” And they knew that similar persecutions had received the sanction of law in several of the colonies in this country soon after the establishment of official religions in those colonies. It was in large part to get completely away from this sort of systematic religious persecution that the Founders brought into being our Nation, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights with its prohibition against any governmental establishment of religion. The New York laws officially prescribing the Regents’ prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself.

It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of that history many people have devoutly believed that “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” It was doubtless largely due to men who believed this that there grew up a sentiment that caused men to leave the cross-currents of officially established state religions and religious persecution in Europe and come to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the language they chose. And there were men of this same faith in the power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here. These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men’s tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.

It is true that New York’s establishment of its Regents’ prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others—that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago. To those who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents’ official prayer is so brief and general there can be no danger to religious freedom in its governmental establishment, however, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:

“[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.

It is customary in deciding a constitutional question to treat it in its narrowest form. Yet at times the setting of the question gives it a form and content which no abstract treatment could give. The point for decision is whether the Government can constitutionally finance a religious exercise. Our system at the federal and state levels is presently honeycombed with such financing. Nevertheless, I think it is an unconstitutional undertaking whatever form it takes.

First, a word as to what this case does not involve.

Plainly, our Bill of Rights would not permit a State or the Federal Government to adopt an official prayer and penalize anyone who would not utter it. This, however, is not that case, for there is no element of compulsion or coercion in New York’s regulation requiring that public schools be opened each day with the following prayer:

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”

The prayer is said upon the commencement of the school day, immediately following the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The prayer is said aloud in the presence of a teacher, who either leads the recitation or selects a student to do so. No student, however, is compelled to take part. The respondents have adopted a regulation which provides that “Neither teachers nor any school authority shall comment on participation or non-participation. . . nor suggest or request that any posture or language be used or dress be worn or be not used or not worn.” Provision is also made for excusing children, upon written request of a parent or guardian, from the saying of the prayer or from the room in which the prayer is said. A letter implementing and explaining this regulation has been sent to each taxpayer and parent in the school district. As I read this regulation, a child is free to stand or not stand, to recite or not recite, without fear of reprisal or even comment by the teacher or any other school official.

In short, the only one who need utter the prayer is the teacher; and no teacher is complaining of it. Students can stand mute or even leave the classroom, if they desire.

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U. S. 203, does not decide this case. It involved the use of public school facilities for religious education of students. Students either had to attend religious instruction or “go to some other place in the school building for pursuit of their secular studies. . . . Reports of their presence or absence were to be made to their secular teachers.” Id., at 209. The influence of the teaching staff was therefore brought to bear on the student body, to support the instilling of religious principles. In the present case, school facilities are used to say the prayer and the teaching staff is employed to lead the pupils in it. There is, however, no effort at indoctrination and no attempt at exposition. Prayers of course may be so long and of such a character as to amount to an attempt at the religious instruction that was denied the public schools by the McCollum case. But New York’s prayer is of a character that does not involve any element of proselytizing as in the McCollum case.

The question presented by this case is therefore an extremely narrow one. It is whether New York oversteps the bounds when it finances a religious exercise.

What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what we do when we open court. Our Crier has from the beginning announced the convening of the Court and then added “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” That utterance is a supplication, a prayer in which we, the judges, are free to join, but which we need not recite any more than the students need recite the New York prayer.

What New York does on the opening of its public schools is what each House of Congress does at the opening of each day’s business. Reverend Frederick B. Harris is Chaplain of the Senate; Reverend Bernard Braskamp is Chaplain of the House. Guest chaplains of various denominations also officiate.

In New York the teacher who leads in prayer is on the public payroll; and the time she takes seems minuscule as compared with the salaries appropriated by state legislatures and Congress for chaplains to conduct prayers in the legislative halls. Only a bare fraction of the teacher’s time is given to reciting this short 22-word prayer, about the same amount of time that our Crier spends announcing the opening of our sessions and offering a prayer for this Court. Yet for me the principle is the same, no matter how briefly the prayer is said, for in each of the instances given the person praying is a public official on the public payroll, performing a religious exercise in a governmental institution. It is said that the element of coercion is inherent in the giving of this prayer. If that is true here, it is also true of the prayer with which this Court is convened, and of those that open the Congress. Few adults, let alone children, would leave our courtroom or the Senate or the House while those prayers are being given. Every such audience is in a sense a “captive” audience.

At the same time I cannot say that to authorize this prayer is to establish a religion in the strictly historic meaning of those words. A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads. Yet once government finances a religious exercise it inserts a divisive influence into our communities. The New York Court said that the prayer given does not conform to all of the tenets of the Jewish, Unitarian, and Ethical Culture groups. One of the petitioners is an agnostic.

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 313. Under our Bill of Rights free play is given for making religion an active force in our lives. But “if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 563 (dissenting opinion). By reason of the First Amendment government is commanded “to have no interest in theology or ritual” (id., at 564), for on those matters “government must be neutral.” Ibid. The First Amendment leaves the Government in a position not of hostility to religion but of neutrality. The philosophy is that the atheist or agnostic—the nonbeliever—is entitled to go his own way. The philosophy is that if government interferes in matters spiritual, it will be a divisive force. The First Amendment teaches that a government neutral in the field of religion better serves all religious interests.

My problem today would be uncomplicated but for Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 17, which allowed taxpayers’ money to be used to pay “the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which” the fares of pupils attending public and other schools were also paid. The Everson case seems in retrospect to be out of line with the First Amendment. Its result is appealing, as it allows aid to be given to needy children. Yet by the same token, public funds could be used to satisfy other needs of children in parochial schools—lunches, books, and tuition being obvious examples. Mr. Justice Rutledge stated in dissent what I think is durable First Amendment philosophy:

“The reasons underlying the Amendment’s policy have not vanished with time or diminished in force. Now as when it was adopted the price of religious freedom is double. It is that the church and religion shall live both within and upon that freedom. There cannot be freedom of religion, safeguarded by the state, and intervention by the church or its agencies in the state’s domain or dependency on its largesse. Madison’s Remonstrance, Par. 6, 8. The great condition of religious liberty is that it be maintained free from sustenance, as also from other interferences, by the state. For when it comes to rest upon that secular foundation it vanishes with the resting. Id., Par. 7, 8. Public money devoted to payment of religious costs, educational or other, brings the quest for more. It brings too the struggle of sect against sect for the larger share or for any. Here one by numbers alone will benefit most, there another. That is precisely the history of societies which have had an established religion and dissident groups. Id., Par. 8, 11. It is the very thing Jefferson and Madison experienced and sought to guard against, whether in its blunt or in its more screened forms. Ibid. The end of such strife cannot be other than to destroy the cherished liberty. The dominating group will achieve the dominant benefit; or all will embroil the state in their dissensions. Id., Par. 11.” Id., pp. 53-54.

What New York does with this prayer is a break with that tradition. I therefore join the Court in reversing the judgment below.

The CYNTHIA MILDRED MILES ESTATE in all of our actions uphold the following 22 multilateral treaties: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

PLEASE NOTE: We provide you with links to internal pages containing each Treaty's text. All linked pages open in "new" windows. We've done this because all people have a right to read them...no matter what language they speak. (We're still working on it—English PDF's are available in the meantime.) However there may be errors in translations after the page loads in your language. Nonetheless, we love you, and you're family. We'd rather give you something without perfection than give you nothing at all. To obtain certified copies go here. We've also provided you links at the United Nations website so you can find out which countries are active Parties to each Treaty. You'll notice the CYNTHIA MILDRED MILES ESTATE (CES) is not listed. This is because of death threats against our Sovereign. We are a small country with no military. To avoid an onslaught of unwanted press we've asked our United Nations family to "help us help them" by firmly upholding rights to publicity.

1. Succession: Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 26 December 1933

This Treaty's Depositary is not the United Nations (see Article 16). CES initially deposited its Notification of Succession with Depositary Luis Almagro Lemes, Secretary-General, Organization of American States, General Secretariat Building, 1889 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. However since the State was already a Signatory to this Treaty CES (after its initial deposit) also deposited an original Notification of Succession with the original Depositary who is the Ministry Of Foreign Affairs Of Uruguay (Original Instrument) General Secretariat, OAS (Ratifications).

This Treaty entered into force on 26 December 1934. With CES there are 17 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the Organization of American States website.

2. Accession: International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973

This Treaty entered into force on 18 July 1976. There are 110 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

3. Succession: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984

This Treaty entered into force on 26 June 1987. There are 162 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

4. Accession: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966

This Treaty entered into force on 3 January 1976. There are 166 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

5. Succession: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966

This Treaty entered into force on 23 March 1976. There are 170 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

6. Accession: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979

This Treaty entered into force on 3 September 1981. There are 190 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

7. Accession: Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties of 23 August 1978

This Treaty entered into force on 6 November 1996. There are 23 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

8. Accession: Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts of 8 April 1983

This Treaty is not yet in force as it requires 15 Parties before entering force. So far there are currently 8 Parties (including CES) to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

9. Accession: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations of 21 March 1986

This Treaty is not yet in force though some conditions are met. There are currently 44 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

10. Succession: Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 13 February 1946

This Treaty entered into force on 17 September 1946. There are 163 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

11. Succession: Charter of the United Nations of 26 June 1945

By the Charter’s Articles 110 and 111 in addition to depositing with the United Nations Secretariat (deposited with the United Nations Secretariat on 42nd Street and moved to their Treaty Section on Madison Avenue for official deposit) CES Notification of Succession also deposited with the original Depositary who is the United States of America Government. Notification is thus also deposited at the Office of Treaty Affairs for the Charter of the United Nations Depositary at the United States Department of State.

This Treaty entered into force on 24 October 1945. There are 50 Parties to this Convention which includes inter alia CES (see Articles 110 and 111 and notation above). The United Nations General Assembly has admitted an additional 144 Member States in accordance with the Charter's Article 4.To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

12. Accession: Revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 28 April 1949

This Treaty entered into force on 20 September 1950. There are 9 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

13. Succession: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969

This Treaty entered into force on 27 January 1980. There are 115 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

14. Succession: Convention on the Political Rights of Women of 31 March 1953

This Treaty entered into force on 7 July 1954. There are 124 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

15. Succession: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948

This Treaty entered into force on 12 January 1951. There are 148 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

16. Succession: International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966

This Treaty entered into force on 4 January 1969. There are 179 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

17. Accession: Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character of 14 March 1975

There are 35 Parties to this Convention. CES was the thirty-fifth State to become a Party to this Treaty. Thus this Treaty entered into force on thirteenth day after CES deposited its Notification of Accession—25 December 2016. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

18. Accession: Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of 21 November 1947

This Treaty entered into force on 2 December 1948. There are 129 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

19. Succession: Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund in force 27 December 1945

This Treaty's Depository is the Government of the United States of America. By Article 31, § 2, ¶ (a), the CES Notification of Succession of States was deposited with this Depository. It was also deposited with the International Monetary Fund's Managing Director and Special Representative .

This Treaty was adopted at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, on 22 July 1944. It entered into force on 27 December 1945. There are 190 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website or go here at the IMF website.

20. Accession: Convention on special missions of 8 December 1969

This Treaty entered into force on 21 June 1985. There are 39 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

21. Succession: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963

This Treaty entered into force on 19 March 1967. There are 180 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

22. Succession: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961

This Treaty entered into force on 24 April 1964. There are 192 Parties to this Convention. To find out who they are visit this Treaty's Status Page at the United Nations website.

While the CYNTHIA MILDRED MILES ESTATE is in process of considering more treaties it agreed to contribute financially to help fulfil the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015 prior to its Accession.