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

5 (100%) 4 votes

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:


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

Please follow and like us:

16 responses to “HR 3222: Freedom of religion in danger with Democrat House majority

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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

      Thank you, Lana, for your persistence.The blank pages are because FOTM continues to be attacked by hundreds of thousands of malicious hits (Dedicated Denial of Service attacks). Our hosting server said they’d already boosted FOTM’s memory to the max. Eventually, the evildoers will tire of the DDOS bot attacks. We just have to wait them out.

      To our readers: When you get a blank page, just keep refreshing the page.

  3. 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 or write their legislation, but they would not have an RFRA to subvert. In other words, their action would not be able to be concealed or enabled by any initial legislation, which certainly seems to be the case here.

    In other words, we do not have any laws against cannibalism (to my knowledge!), but we do have laws against murder and homicide. What is next—laws prohibiting child ritual sacrifice? This is no laughing matter: Any such law prohibiting child ritual sacrifice would, given enough time, be perverted and corrupted by other agents with their own legislation.
    In other words, I look at it this way: I was targeted for arrest for a misdemeanor assault I DID NOT COMMIT. Now let us assume that professional drivers would have their own special protection in some new NYC law. Drivers would cheer, but I would not, for this reason: Exceptions to such a law would inevitably come up, namely, “except when the professional driver voices an opinion disapproving of certain sexual or lifestyle choices.” We have to remember that 1) the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and, 2) any legislation can always be attacked or whittled away with the thin end of an ideological wedge.

    The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” and had then-president Clinton stuck to an interpretation of the Constitution “as written,” problems years later would have to present themselves on their own, without a law, an interpretation or a prenumbra.

    • 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, their own Messiah whom they rejected.

      I doubt any one could identify true Hebrews now, though there must be many still in the middle east that did accept Jesus through the efforts of John the Baptist, and Jesus himself, and Paul who would preach to Jew and Gentile both, even though he was the Apostle of the Gentiles.

      Any how, I just don’t believe our founders meant to proclaim this new Nation free range for any one worshiping any conceivable nonsense that could not be held to the principles of our ruling document, “The Constitution of The United States of America.

      • 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 Catholic state or territory).

        To maintain, as Sarah Palin used to that “the Founders were Christian” is, by and large, false: Many simply were not, for their status as Freemasons (those Founders who were) would negate their Christian status, whether they knew it or not. This is not to downgrade Masons as persons: Many of them are fine people who have no idea of the real agenda of Masonry (as is the same with many Catholics who have no idea of how Masonry infiltrated the Vatican with the election of John XXIII in 1958).

        Be this as it may, it is one thing to maintain religious liberty and allow people to worship (or not) as they will. But the one error (according to Catholic doctrine) that the Masonic Founders made in the founding of this Republic (and the Bill of Rights) was one of religious indifferentism, that idea that one creed is just as good as another, which, according to my upbringing as a traditional Catholic, is, simply, false.

        • 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 of any ritual that one might declare a religion, unless its practices would not contradict our Constitution or violate its principles or restrictions.

    • 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 use it. Fools… communists are smarter than that, it’s just words.

      HOWEVER… both of those acts have violated the first amendment, as the government has endorsed a religion.

  4. 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 yet it goes much further than that inasmuch as no real harm need be involved at all, just some court’s finding of “dignitary harm.” In the wedding cake case, the lesbians weren’t inconvenienced—they had their cake made elsewhere—but went after that fellow with no purpose in mind but seeing him ruined.

    This is what the left today is about and always was about, punishing and not merely stifling Christians. This new law is about PUNISHMENT, period. In the French Revolution the Catholic Vendee was punished in ways beyond Satanic, as children, for example, were cremated live in baking ovens in front of their parents. The ‘Bolsheviks’ made that fiendish punishment of Christians seem like child’s play, as The Black Book of Communism documents in quite grisly detail.

    The idea it can’t happen here given the left’s invariable persecution of Christians once power in consolidated, as well as the increasingly violent threats from the Dems, is a serious mistake. This sham democracy in America should no longer concern us since survival is now at stake.

  5. 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…

  6. 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, freedom from tyranny from the atheist and Islamic Antichrist devil worshipers (allah IS the devil).


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.