ACT OF 1993



"Beware the greeks bearing gifts"

[June 10, 1994-Revised October, 1997]

          There is an old adage: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." In God's infinite wisdom He reminds us over and over, "Be ye not deceived." Yet Christians stumble along blind and deceived as they are led by blind and deceived "leaders." The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is merely one of many deceptions successfully fostered off to unperceptive and unknowing Christian Americans. Ironically, Mitchell A. Tyners, associate general counsel for the Seventh-Day Adventists world headquarters and legal advisor to LIBERTY magazine, writing for the March/April 1994 issue, states: "It took a three-year campaign by a coalition of religious and civil rights groups, including everybody from Jerry Falwell to the ACLU, to get the job done!" Presumably, Tyner meant to get Congress to illegally and unConstitutionally "amend" the United States Constitution with a severe restriction of the free exercise of religion by enacting the misnamed and latest Trojan Horse from the New World Order know as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993!

          Right up front, the Christian community should view with immediate concern and suspicion anything supported by the ACLU. Why? Because the ACLU was founded by prominent members of the Council on Foreign Relations (the domestic organization of New World Order advocates), and the Communist Party of America. In his book, The Invisible Government. Dan Smoot tells us that the American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 "by Felix Frankfurter1, a member of the CFR; William Z. Foster, then head of the US Communist Party; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a top Communist Party official; Dr. Harry F. Ward of Union Theological Seminary, a notorious Communist fronter, and Roger Baldwin." Even a casual review of ACLU activities discloses their consistent advancing of the New World Order anti-Christian agenda. It is the ACLU that leaves no stone unturned to remove Christian prayer, the cross of Jesus Christ, the Christmas Nativity, the Ten Commandments2, and all other visible signs of Christianity from every aspect of American life. What a strange bed-fellow for the Christian Right.

          Using the Hegelian strategy3 (create the problem, arouse the opposition to it, demand a compromise / accommodation / resolution; and then, supply the solution which, like a baited trap, advances the intended hidden agenda) the New World Order puppets set the trap by a controlled Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith4. Upset by this ruling some Christian "leaders" took the bait and joined ranks with the enemies of Christianity to bring about Congressional action (signed into "law" by Clinton, another anti-Christian) which unconstitutionally amends5 the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

          To understand this, first, requires a modicum of research into the CFR agenda so the New World Order objectives can be documented. Secondly, with regard to the matter of the so-called "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993", one has to at least read the Act6 thoroughly. With regard to the first, it turns out that one of the major objectives is to subvert, undermine and otherwise negate the contract currently existing between the government of the United States and the citizens thereof, i.e. the Constitution of the United States. In fact, so successful have the CFR fronts been in doing this over the years (while the majority of Christians accommodated them by accepting the lie regarding "separation of Church and State," remaining asleep and uninvolved), that there are now many who conclude that since our Constitution has been so extensively ignored, it should be trashed anyway. Not quite so, since the Bill of Rights continues to rankle the New World Order crowd by continuing to be the basis for most court action on behalf of freedom of speech, religion and bearing arms. This is a formidable obstacle to the New World Order objective of eliminating American independence and sovereignty and making Americans the subjects of an all-powerful, dictatorship, One World Government (cleverly launched in the 1950's as the United Nations). So much of an obstacle is the US Constitution (and the 200 years of Dictum arising therefrom) to the New World Order advocates that they have vowed to replace the entire document with a new one that substitutes "privileges granted by the state"7 for the Bill of Rights, and thereby eradicate all precedents. The major strategic thrust to accomplish this is via an open Constitutional Convention8 being vigorously and deceptively promoted for various fronted purposes, such as getting a balanced budget amendment, prayer in the schools amendment, a pro-life amendment, a term limits amendment, and lots of other things that have "good sounding rings" to them. Who could oppose such an opportunity to accomplish these marvelous things? BEWARE, this is another baited trap into which a number of Christian "intellectuals" (more theory than practical knowledge) and "leaders" have already fallen. Sadly, they are being advised and deceived by "agents of influence"9 of the New World Order who have intentionally invaded the ranks of Christian groups, waving their "credentials" as constitutional lawyers, college professors, and Christian icons. You can be certain that with more than three new constitutions already written and waiting in the wings for the opening gavel of a Con-Con, should this transpire, America and its people would never be the same again.

          The second step in furthering one's understanding, is the answer to the question: How does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act aid the agenda to negate and undermine the United States Constitution? Note well Section 3 of the Act (known also as Public Law 103-141, 103rd Congress) and you will see the hidden agenda manifested. Entitled deceptively (of course, the accomplishment of evil purposes requires deception, half truths and lies10) "Section 3. Free Exercise of Religion Protected," this section provides exactly the opposite. It provides an exception to the "free exercise of religion" - there are no exceptions to this in our Constitution - by stating that "Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion . . . if it demonstrates . . . that such substantial burden . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest." In this day and age of rampant "Executive Orders" in total disregard of our Constitutional rights, and a US Supreme Court that is stacked with New World Order "agents of influence", it should be obvious that "a compelling government interest" will be anything that serves the purposes of the New World Order establishment elite. Are you now beginning to understand why agents and organizations spawned by the CFR and the Communist Party of America would support this legislation?

          Attorney Tyner provides further insight when he states in his article: "thus even if a plaintiff files an action under both the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause11, a court will reach the constitutional argument only if RFRA does not offer the desired relief. And if the religious claim does not prevail under RFRA, it will not under the Free Exercise Clause using strict scrutiny or any other imaginable standard either." Here we have the objective of the CFR agenda, i.e. the substitution of a new and uncertain statement of the legislative branch for a two hundred year old Constitutional guarantee. With the stroke of CFR - agent - Clinton's pen, two and a half pages of untested and untried legislative rhetoric have been substituted and given legal priority over an indisputable contractual right that has stood since 1791. Tyner admits that "Unfortunately, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is so technical that it's hard to explain without a lot of legalese." What a hey-day the ACLU and other fronts can now have with this new weapon to ensnare the unsuspecting "Religious Right" in endless and costly court battles over the meaning and legislative intent of the Act while escaping the bounds of the Constitutional contract itself. Once again12 the Christian cause has suffered a defeat.

          It is incredible (but to be expected) that this restriction of religious freedom by furtherance of "compelling governmental interest" is extended in Section 6 of the act to "all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this act." Even now the EEOC is pointing to this Act in establishing clarifying rules prohibiting "religious harassment" in the workplace . . . thus seeking to prohibit any form of Christian proselytizing, visual or audible. Heed well this WARNING, my friend: there is no place in the New World Order for Christianity. For those who know their Bible, the drum beats of Hell should become ever more recognizable as the pagan Humanists13 usher in the New World Order.

          What could be clearer, what could be less subject to distorted and subverted legal manipulation than the constitutional words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? There are no exceptions here, no mitigating circumstances, no confusing conditionalities. In the light of such leagal clarity one should ask, "why then do we need a Religious Freedom Resoration Act"? Why do we have to "restore" something that already exists? The obvious answer is, we don't! One is led to say, "let's just enforce the contract already in existence." It's certainly clear enough. But doing the obvious would not, of course, accomplish the hidden agenda of the New World Order advocates, i.e. to destroy (if they could) Christianity and Biblical values. We are called by Christ to Christ; and He said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." [Matthew 24:35]

          No, my friends, the RFRA is not a victory for the so-called "Religious Right." It is a Trojan Horse; and once again the deceitfulness of the clever strategy of psychopolitics14 has succeeded in outsmarting and hoodwinking those who should know better. Somehow in the rush to "open the gates" to receive this Trojan Horse, it has been overlooked that it takes an act of congress, ratified by 75% of the States to amend the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution . . . hardly something that could go by without considerable public scrutiny. On the other hand, legislative amendments to legislative enactments can occur anytime Congress convenes and what has been offered in one session can be withdrawn in the next and frequently without public awareness. Note that the current Act is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which as with other such descriptions presumes further similar enactments/improvements/modifications of the future . . . of 1994, 1995, 1996 etc. Whenever Congress shall determine. First the nose and then the hump and the rump and before one knows it, the whole monster is in the tent! Will Christian America wake up before it's too late?

          Yet the law of our land still provides (if anyone is interested in seeing it enforced) that neither Congress (without subsequent ratification by 75% of the States) nor the Supreme Court, nor the Executive Brance has the authority to amend the Constitution. Thus, RFRA is in violation of Article V of the Constitution. Hence, the RFRA is actually unConstitutional (as is the decision in Smith) and both should be challenged. But who is alert or courageous enough to bring this challenge? And to whom, at this late hour of the New World Order, can such a challenge be brought? Our enemies are solidly entrenched, in the courts, the legislatures, and the executive branches of governments throughout the land. Only an informed constituency, the citizenry, the masses, could achieve a restoration.

          What is needed to restore and protect our Constitutional rights, already clearly in place contracturally, is not substitutional legislative deceitfulness, but a President, Congress and Supreme Court that uphold them. We do not need a Court that acts as a Constitutional Convention in itself to re-write our Constitution in the name of "political correctness," the New World Order, Humanism or anything else. Our government, those who are elected to it and are appointed to serve it, are to be "bound down by the chains of the United States Constitution"15 as was intended by those who framed it in the name of Justice under Law in the American Republic. Once again, it is up to the people of America to demand it. The time is now for aggressive and continuing confrontation and challenge to an orchestrated Supreme Court, an elitist controlled Congress and a Presidency that defies the Constitution of the United States, while deceitfully taking oaths to defend and uphold it, to serve the unConstitutional, illegal, and un-American agenda of the New World Order Advocates and those "useful idiots" (as the Communist Nicolai Lenin called them) who through ignorance, blindness, or self-protectionism aid and abet them. TOMORROW WILL BE TOO LATE!



                                            SIX TO THREE DECISION ON JULY 25, 1997.


THIS ARTICLE PREPARED BY BERTRAM F. COLLINS IN SERVICE TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Encouragement and permission is hereby given for this commentary to be published, copied, distributed, read,
or quoted in whole, or in part, as long as no change is made in text or context; and with appropriate credit being given to LEX REX.                                                                                                        Copyright 1997

1 Later becoming a left-oriented Justice of the US Supreme Court
2 It is the ACLU that seeks to force Judge Moore to remove the Ten Commandments from his Alabama courtroom.
3 See the article, "THE 'NEW' ABSOLUTE: NO ABSOLUTES!" at
4 494 U.S. 872 1990
5 Article V of the US Constitution provides that amendments are made solely by Constitutional Convention or by Acts of Congress ratified by three-quarters of the States.
6 The Act is included with this article in the Appendix.
7 The constitutions of Marxist/Communist countries establish the supreme "state" as granting "privileges" to the people. The People of these countries have no "unalienable rights granted by their creator" as do Americans.
8 See "The Constitutional Convention 'Con' Game" at
9 See "Some Weapons of Modern Warfare (Used in the War Called Peace)" at
10 See "What Is Being Taught In The Government Schools - HUMANISM" at
11 The First Amendment of the United States Constitution
12 The same coalition of Christian leaders naively hailed the Supreme Court decision in the Webster abortion issue case as another "victory" for their cause when in actuality it was a serious defeat when the battle was thrown out of a single national arena into endless skirmishes on fifty-one fronts. The pro-life movement has yet to recover.
13 See "What Is Being Taught In The Government Schools - Humanism" at
14 See "Some Weapons of Modern Warfare (Used in the War Called Peace)" at
15 As stated by Thomas Jefferson



Public Law 103-141-- NOV. 16, 1993

To protect the free exercise of religion

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


        This Act may be cited as the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993". 


        (a) FINDINGS.---The Congress finds--- 
        (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of
religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First 
Amendment to the Constitution; 
        (2) laws "neutral" toward religion may burden religious exercise 
as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; 
        (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise
without compelling justification; 
        (4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme
Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify 
burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and 
        (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court
rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious
liberty and competing prior governmental interests. 
        (b) PURPOSES.---The purposes of this Act are--- 
        (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert
v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) 
and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of 
religion is substantially burdened; and 
        (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious 
exercise is substantially burdened by government. 
        (a) IN GENERAL.---Government shall not substantially burden a 
person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of 
general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). 
        (b) EXCEPTION.---Government may substantially burden a person's 
exercise of religion only if it determines that application of the burden 
to the person--- 
        (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and 
        (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling 
governmental interest. 
        (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.---A person whose religious exercise has been 
burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim
or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against
a government.  Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section 
shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the 
        (a) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.---Section 722 of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting "the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993," before "or title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964". 
        (b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.---Section 504(b)(1)(C) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--- 
        (1) by striking "and" at the end of clause (ii); 
        (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii) and 
inserting ";and"; and 
        (3) by inserting "(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
" after clause (iii). 
        As used in this Act--- 
        (1) the term "government includes a branch, department, agency, 
instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law)of
the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State; 
        (2) the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the 
United States; 
        (3) the term "demonstrates" means meets the burden of going forward
with the evidence and of persuasion; and 
        (4) the term "exercise of religion" means exercise of religion under
the First Amendment to the Constitution. 

        (a) IN GENERAL.---This Act applies to all Federal and State law, and
the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether 
adopted before or after the enactment of the Act. 
        (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.---Federal statutory law adopted after the
date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law 
explicitly excludes such application by reference to this Act. 
        (c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.---Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. 

        Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in
any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws 
respecting the establishment of religion (referred to in this section as
the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government funding, benefits, or 
exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment, shall not constitute a violation of this Act.  As usedin 
this section, the term "granting", used with respect to government funding, 
benefits, or exemptions, does not include a denial of government funding, 
benefits, or exemptions. 

Approved November 16, 1993.

 Click here to return to the Reading Room