Posted originally on May 7, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

The internet is in an uproar after the House of Representatives passed an antisemitism bill that outlaws a few common Christian beliefs based on verses found in the New Testament. No – the New Testament has not been banned. However, the ban is a new attack on both freedom of religion and free speech that may particularly target the Christian community. The Christians are merely the first in line, as this bill is the precursor for future legislation that simply outlaws numerous widely held religious beliefs.

Now the bill, passing 320-91 in the House, was presented as a means to prevent antisemitism in the wake of the University pro-Hamas protests. This particular law expands what is considered antisemitism, as there are already laws in place preventing individuals and businesses from targeting citizens based on their religious affiliations. “Right now, without a clear definition of antisemitism, the Department of Education and college administrators are having trouble discerning whether conduct is antisemitic or not, whether the activity we’re seeing crosses the line into antisemitic harassment,” Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y. stated. This bill has been primarily supported by Republicans, which some have found surprising (besides those who understand AIPAC lobbying) due to certain clauses within the bill.

“From the River to the Sea” and other phrases that call for the eradication of Israel will be prohibited. Cosplaying as Hamas or a terrorist organization should already be grounds for threatening harassment. Imagine if people were dressing up as ISIS and parading around on college campuses after 9/11? Absolutely despicable behavior.

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause forbids the government from creating legislation that prohibits the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment also protects our right to free speech, but we cannot threaten or cause harm to others simply because of their race, gender, or religion as reaffirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. States are required by the Fourteenth Amendment to abide by the Equal Protection Clause and prevent blatant discrimination, but there are loopholes that do not protect religious practices that could be seen as criminal, such as polygamy.

So where does Christianity come into play amid this bill? Afterall, Jews and Christians share the Old Testament story as do other Abrahamic religions. Jesus himself was a Jew, descendant of former and shared prophets, who worshipped in the Synagogues. The Christians believe Jesus came as the final prophet, Son of Man, so that those who seek him may find eternal life, while the Jews are still waiting on their final messiah. The problem many are finding within this bill is that it prohibits anyone from claiming that Jews were responsible for killing Jesus.

Pontious Pilate, King Herod, and the Roman authority responded to the pharisee’s repeated warnings that a mortal was claiming to be the Son of God, disturbing the peace, speaking blasphemy, and, most important to Rome, creating a following and potentially civil unrest. The pilot asked the crowd, primarily Jews, whether he should spare Jesus or a criminal named Barabbas. Jesus was crucified with the phrase “King of the Jews” above his head.

Would this new bill prohibit the verses found on this incident from publication? While that is unlikely, there are deeper implications. For you see, this has nothing to do with the Jews or any religious protections. The Republicans would not be championing this bill or ostracizing their Christian voter base if that were the case. This bill is a means for the government to usurp power by preventing religion from superseding government authority. If they pass this measure, what’s to say they won’t outlaw religions or religious texts that criticize homosexuality, for example, or questioning the government as a secondary authority.

America was once unified as a primarily Christian nation. As a relatively new nation, we were unable to keep that shared moral value. Governments have a long history of wiping out religion to usurp control. China for example only allows five religious groups to register with the CCP, and we know where Mao stood. The former Soviet government confiscated churches and banned all religion – the government was to be the highest power.

Marx called religion the “opium of the masses,” and governments have had a long and treacherous road with religion as a rivaling authority. We know Klaus Schwab has a bust of Lenin in his office, and simply put, the new world order cannot occur with religion in the way. It is too divisive and does not abide by the agenda to create the few haves and a mass of have-nots. The governments would love to tax religious institutions and prevent people from paying any form of a tithe. The entire woke agenda goes against absolutely every prominent religion, but it is easiest for government to paint the majority, the Christians, as intolerant.

Church and state were designated to be separate entities. Yet the government may always override the church or religion. In this case, the government is slowly making provisions that enable them to prevent religious ideas from threatening their authority. Every time the government is permitted to take a bit of power, they continue pulling that rope until they override any potential threats.