HR 3222: Freedom of religion in danger with Democrat House majority

On Nov. 16, 1993, then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that “ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected” into law, with an almost-unanimous approval by Congress. Every House member approved of the bill; only three senators voted no.

Incredibly, both the House and Senate versions of RFRA were sponsored by Democrats: Rep. Chuck Shumer (NY) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA).

Then is then, and now is now.

The Democrat Party that spearheaded RFRA has become the hate-America, hate-God Demonrat Party that now is bent on the all-but-in-name repeal of the same law it once championed.

In an op/ed for the Washington Examiner, November 14, 2018, former Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), who now teaches political science at Utah Valley University, reports that even before the Nov. 6 election, 50 House Democrats had co-sponsored H.R. 3222, a bill to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). With a majority of Demonrats now in control of the House of Representatives after the recent mid-term elections, there are now 172 House Democrats who support H.R. 3222, as their party takes control of the House.

H.R. 3222, sanctimoniously and deceptively titled the Do No Harm Act, is sponsored by Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and co-sponsored by 170 other House members, all Demonrats, one of whom is the anticipated incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), 71. That committee would be in charge of approving the undoing of RFRA.

H.R. 3222’s companion Senate bill (S. 2918) is authored by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 28 other Demonrat senators.

Instead of a head-on repeal of RFRA, H.R. 3222 and S. 2918 take a sly approach by creating a long itemized list of exemptions from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, thereby diminishing and undermining RFRA’s protection of religious freedom. The exemptions include sexual orientation, gender identity, and abortion. In effect, our Constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of religion would be declared less important than other claims never mentioned in the Constitution and often not even legislated by elected officials.

Groups endorsing HR 3222 and S 2918 are the usual leftwing suspects and promoters of evil: the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, Lambda Legal, NAACP, NARAL, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Organization of Women, and Planned Parenthood.

Istook writes:

H.R. 3222 would declare that religious freedoms must yield when they run counter to the LGBTQ agenda or to other progressive causes such as abortion rights. Pushing this are progressive groups which claim that religious beliefs are just a cover for discrimination, bigotry, and hate….

The turnaround [since RFRA] dramatizes how culture and politics have changed in 25 years. Secular values have been given priority and religious freedoms have been narrowed.

Istook warns that HR 3222 and S 2918 will also reverse the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop decisions. State-level versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are also being attacked. Those were enacted in 21 states after the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that RFRA protects only against intrusive laws on the federal level.

And although the GOP-majority Senate is very unlikely to approve S. 2918 or any legislation gutting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, those who oppose RFRA will be emboldened by HR 3222, and they will keep trying.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

16
Leave a Reply

avatar
12 Comment authors
SATAN INCARNATEThe Angry AtheistHawkmoona3Kevin J Lankford Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Jim Campbell
Guest

Remember that was an opinion piece. The Democrats have no power to mess with religion, it’s protected under the First Amendment. Even if it wasn’t want to see the American Electorate rise up and squash progressive Democrats for what they are? Useless Bugs !

Enough is enough of these assholes.

Lana
Guest
Lana

I actually got through to this page this time- mostly getting blank white pages when I click the links.

This is absolutely disgusting and disheartening. I just shudder about our future if these reptiles continue in their victories. A Pox on them all. With much continuance of this evil and perversion this is going to look like Sodom and Gomorrah pretty soon.

Steven Broiles
Member

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion….” Therefor, regardless of then-President Clinton’s “good intentions,” it would seem to me that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act itself is the origin of the problem, namely, that this law, which may, indeed, mean well, has a text and a context which can be (and is) attacked and altered. Now we have actors who will enforce by law the official tolerance of sexual perversion by religious organizations who have traditionally been against it. Without the RFRA, they would still be able to sponsor, support… Read more »

Kevin Lankford
Member
Kevin Lankford

I will all ways maintain that our founders considered “Christianity” as the established religion of our new nation, and only intended that the government would not allow the church to wield power over the people or allow government to intrude or impose on the church. The founders were well aware of the incompatibilities of other religious factions, or ideologies, such as islam, which was a curse on many nations even at their time. Also, they knew of the ashkenazis (the fake Jews) who only saw and still see Christians as suckers to be exploited, because of their belief in Jesus,… Read more »

Steven Broiles
Member

I would maintain (as I have said before, in criticism of Sarah Palin) that the United States may have a Christian society, given the large number of Christians in it, but the nation itself is a masonic republic: Many of the Founding Fathers WERE NOT Christian. (John Adams is on the record as stating his denial of belief of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, is one example). To the best of my knowledge (from reading it here on FOTM), one signer of the Declaration of Independence was a Catholic, Charles Carroll of Maryland (which had been, at one time, a… Read more »

Kevin Lankford
Member
Kevin Lankford

For sure I am not well read enough to actually dispute any one one the true beliefs and religious back grounds of any of our founders, though it is my understanding that George Washington, and others were known to practice prayer to the All Mighty, in private and during sessions of Congress. Apparently they did hold to the same moral and legal principles as established by the “Ten Commandments” and laws of behavior as set forth by the books of Moses. That is why I believe that they had no intention of our Constitution being a protection for the exercise… Read more »

The Angry Atheist
Guest
The Angry Atheist

Here are TWO problems with how our government has (and continues to) violated the first amendment. 1. “under god” was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954, as a looming fear of the threat of communism… they figured they’d see the communists quickly, as they wouldn’t utter that part. Fools… communists are smarter than that, it’s just words. 2. “in god we trust” was made our US Motto in 1955, and added to the money in 1956, for the same reasons as the pledge…. fear of communism… they figured that if it had “god” on the money, communists wouldn’t… Read more »

Dan
Guest
Dan

Not just religious freedom, but freedom of speech is being subjected to curtailment and punishment, as Dr E points out. The bill reads, “the [act] should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes meaningful harm, including dignitary harm, on a third party.” This idea of “dignitary harm” would subject ALL rights to the court of hurt feelings. There is obviously nothing even remotely like a constitutional right to the sanctity of one’s feelings. There would be NO other application of this doctrine of “dignitary harm” beyond curtailing every expression of Christian sexual morality, and… Read more »

DCG
Admin

The bill states, “provide for access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.”

No wonder PP is involved. Gotta keep the abortion gods happy…

a3
Guest
a3

The term is FREEDOM OF CHRISTIANITY. This does NOT exist anymore and NEVER EVER EVER will again in Europe or North America, MARK MY WORD. Christianity and even its branch of conservatism is criminally outlawed by all the powers of the west which are now ALL controlled by frothing Antichrist atheists who are no different than the sodomite mob who wanted to break down Lot’s door to rape the angels who visited him. Only war and WIPING OUT millions of these vile people has the possibility of restoring freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of disassociation, freedom to refuse,… Read more »

Hawkmoon
Guest
Hawkmoon
SATAN INCARNATE
Guest
SATAN INCARNATE

Leviticus 24:16

I’m an atheist… do you want to kill me because I say “fuck you and your god”?