This post has been read 47 times!

December 26, 2025- by Steven Greer

I have been monitoring chemtrails over my house. I will track the actual jets and their flight numbers. Florida is one of the few states to make it illegal, although it’s not being enforced because this is a vast government operation.

Yesterday, on Christmas, and today, we had rare blue skies with no chemtrails. I assumed the government had taken a break. However, I learned that, over the Northeast, the government-paid NGOs had crisscrossed the skies with chemtrails and then that area got more snow than expected.

My legal hunch is that this is the government playing God, and that violates the constitution.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I interacted with Grok and came up with this interesting theory.

I do believe there’s a good argument that these cloud seeding programs, because they are so broad and the humans don’t have any idea what the consequences are, are indeed acting like God. That’s illegal.

Grok

Risk of unintended consequences: Interventions with poorly understood effects could harm God’s creation or people, violating stewardship (Genesis 2:15 calls humans to “work and keep” the garden). Some argue that large-scale geoengineering (e.g., altering global climate) risks disrupting the natural order God established (Genesis 8:22 promises ongoing seasons).

– Hubris and lack of humility: Attempting to control weather on a massive scale can reflect a failure to trust God’s providence (Psalm 46:10; Matthew 6:25-34 urges not to worry about daily provisions). This echoes biblical warnings against human arrogance (e.g., the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11).

– Ethical priorities: If programs prioritize military advantage or profit over human welfare, they could conflict with loving one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:39) or caring for the vulnerable.

Assuming geoengineering and cloud seeding are indeed reckless efforts to interfere with domains reserved for God—rather than legitimate stewardship like farming or infrastructure—one could argue this violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses. The

First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Here’s how the assumption might frame a constitutional violation, though note that no U.S. court has upheld such claims in this context, and they remain speculative or politically charged rather than legally established.

### A) Violation of the Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions that endorse, favor, or entangle itself with religion. By engaging in weather manipulation that “plays God,” the government could be seen as adopting a secular, humanistic stance that implicitly denies divine sovereignty over creation. This positions the state as a quasi-divine authority, effectively establishing irreligion or scientism as a preferred “faith.”

– Under the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971), government actions must have a secular purpose, not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and avoid excessive entanglement. If geoengineering is reckless hubris against God’s order (per the assumption), it lacks a neutral secular purpose and inhibits religious beliefs by asserting human control over what Scripture attributes to God (e.g., Job 37:6-13; Psalm 135:6-7). Critics argue this “playing God” objection highlights a theological overreach, turning state policy into an anti-religious statement.

– The Endorsement Test (Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984) asks if a reasonable observer would see the action as endorsing religion or non-religion. Funding or conducting such programs might signal endorsement of a worldview where humans supplant God, alienating believers and violating neutrality (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947).

### B) Violation of the Free Exercise Clause

This clause protects individuals from government burdens on religious practice without compelling justification. If geoengineering is assumed to be reckless interference with God’s domain, it could burden free exercise by:

– Forcing complicity: Taxpayer funding for such programs might compel religious individuals to support actions they view as sinful hubris (e.g., akin to the Tower of Babel). In Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Employment Division v. Smith (1990), courts protect against substantial burdens unless narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Here, the “compelling interest” in weather mod (e.g., drought relief) might fail if it’s deemed reckless, not essential.

– Interfering with religious life: If modifications cause environmental harm conflicting with faith-based stewardship duties (Genesis 2:15), or disrupt practices tied to natural cycles (e.g., agricultural rituals in some faiths), it imposes a burden. Though not directly litigated for geoengineering, analogous cases like Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. (1988) show courts scrutinize government actions affecting sacred sites or practices—extending this, altering God’s “natural order” could be similar.

In practice, these arguments have fueled state bans and federal bills, often tied to “playing God” rhetoric, but courts require concrete harm, not abstract theological offense. Success would depend on proving the assumption in litigation, perhaps via RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) claims against federal actions.