115th CONGRESS

2nd Session
S. 666

To regulate Assault Religions, to ensure that the right to establish religion or the
exercise thereof, is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 28, 2018

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Cardin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Franken,
Mr. Schatz, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. Booker, Mr. Van
Hollen, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Harris, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Sanders)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary

__________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To regulate Assault Religions, to ensure that the right to establish religion or the
exercise thereof, is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Assault Religion Ban of 2018.”

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.-- Section 2000bb-1 of Title 42 of the United States Code, is

amended--
(1) by inserting after paragraph (a) the following:

“(1) The term “assault” means any threat of imminent harmful or offensive
contact with a person, or a threat to do so, and includes and is not limited to any
threat of any “offensive touching.”
 (2) “Offensive touching” when the person:

(i) Intentionally threatens to touch another person either with a

member of his or her body or with any instrument, knowing that the
threatened touching is likely to or has the potential to cause offense or
alarm to such other person; or

(2) Intentionally threatens to strike another person with saliva, urine,

feces or any other bodily fluid, object, or missile of any composition
knowing that the person is thereby likely to or has the potential to
cause offense or alarm to such other person.

(3) The term “religion” means “any belief system in and worship of a
“superhuman controlling power,” said “superhuman controlling power” including but
not limited to a government, political system, economic system, God(s), god(s), diety
or dieties, an avatar, a Messiah, a messenger or Prophet, a manifestation of a diety,
a really freaking smart artificial intelligence(s), human or semi-human individuals or
groups which elicit worship or unnatural adulation from any group of people, systems
of philosophy that have nothing to do with religion, and, of course, groups of
passionate fascists that quaintly pretend that they are rallying against fascism.

(4) The term “religion” shall not include pastafarianism, which is

acknowledged not to be a religion and looks to be pretty damn fun.

(5) The phrase “assault religion” includes any religion that has the capacity
to accept
a believer believing any 1 of the following:
“(i) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes slaying
Unbelievers “wherever ye find them,”
(ii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes driving
Unbelievers “out of the places whence they drove you out,”
(iii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes fighting
Unbelievers until there are no more Unbelievers.
(iv) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes fighting in the
name of the religion.
(v) That the religion, directly or indirectly, establishes that violence can
be virtuous.
(vi) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes casting terror into
the hearts of the Unbelievers.
(vii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, shall bestow a reward upon
a believer who is killed battling for the religion, whether the believer be
slain or be victorious.
(viii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes to “take not
friends” from the ranks of Unbelievers.
(ix) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes a preference for
those believers who “strive hard and fight with their lives” over those
who sit at home.
(x) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes believers to “be
not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy”.
 (xi) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes punishment of
Unbelievers who oppose the religion including, but not limited to, that
“they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet
should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned”.
(xii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes, for any reason,
striking off of the heads of Unbelievers
(xiii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes, for any reason,
striking off of every fingertip of Unbelievers.
(xiv) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that believers are
to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”
(xv) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that believers are
to take Unbelievers captive.
(xvi) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that believers are
to “besiege” Unbelievers and lie in wait for them in every ambush.
(xvii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that believers
are to fight against Unbelievers so that the superhuman controlling
power “will punish them by your hands.”
(xviii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes Unbelievers pay
to the believers a tax for breathing with willing submission so as to feel
themselves subdued.
(xviv) That the religion, directly or indirectly, condones burning
believers alive inside their homes if they had not left their houses for
prayer at the appointed time(s).
(xvv) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that “killing
Unbelievers is a small matter to us".
(xvi) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that “Men are in
charge of women”
(xvii) That the religion, directly or indirectly, prescribes that “good
women” are obedient and that, if women are not obedient, it is ok to
beat them until they obey you.

(5) The phrase “assault religion” shall include any religion that is associated
with, directly or indirectly, any 1 of the following, whether or not other
believers profess any 1 or more of the following to be isolated actions of
individuals that should not properly be imputed to the whole of the religion or
to the whole of believers of the religion:
(i) Conducts a bombing in the name of or for the religion.
(ii) Launches a coordinated bombing in the name of or for the religion.
(iii) Bombs or attacks an embassy or persons in the embassy in the
name of or for the religion.
(iv) Bombs or attacks a military installation or persons in the military
installation in the name of or for the religion.
(v) Bombs or attacks a concert or persons attending the concert in the
name of or for the religion.
(vi) Bombs or attacks a school or persons within the school, whether in
the United States or in another country, such as Russia, in the name of
or for the religion.
(vii) Hijacks an airplane, train, bus or other conveyance of passengers
in the name of or for the religion.
 (viii) Attacks an airplane, train, bus or other conveyance of tourists in
the name of or for the religion.
(ix) Weaponizes an airplane, train, bus or other conveyance of tourists
in the name of or for the religion.
(x) Perpetrates an arson attack in the name of or for the religion.
(xi) Conducts a suicide bombing in the name of or for the religion.
(xii) Plants an explosive device on an airplane or other conveyance of
passengers in the name of or for the religion.
(xiii) Makes a car or truck bomb in the name of or for the religion.
(xiv) Activates a car or truck bomb in the name of or for the religion.
(xv) Uses a vehicle to kill people in the name of or for the religion.
(xvi) Attacks people with a bladed weapon or bludgeon in the name of
or for the religion.
(xvii) Kills people using a bladed weapon or bludgeon in the name of or
for the religion.
(xviii) Kidnaps journalists, tourists, workers or Unbelievers in the name
of or for the religion.
(xix) Kills journalists, tourists, workers or Unbeliever in the name of or
for the religion.
(xx) Launch coordinated attacks using firearms and/or explosives in the
name of or for the religion.
(xxi) Launch an improvised attack using a firearm, an explosive, a
bladed weapon, or a bludgeon in the name of or for the religion.
(xxii) Publicly lies in the name of or for the religion to deceive the
public, whether or not such lying to Unbelievers is expressly permitted
by the religion.
(xxiii) Enslaves Unbelievers.
(xiv) Tortures Unbelievers.
(xxv) Traffics in female Unbelievers.
(xxvi) Kidnaps Unbelievers to convert them into believers.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT RELIGIONS AND LARGE CAPACITY

HOUSES OF RELIGION.

(a) In General.-- Section 2000bb-1 of Title 42 of the United States Code is

amended--
(1) by inserting after subsection (a)(5) the following:

“(b) It shall be unlawful for a person, organization or entity to import, sell,

befriend, talk to, communicate with, transfer, possess, or introduce into
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, an assault religion or a
believer of an assault religion.
(1) Paragraph (b) shall not apply to any assault religion or a believer
of an assault religion that, by the date of enactment, has been
rendered permanently inoperable; or

(2) The Attorney General shall establish and maintain, in a timely manner,
a record of the name, address, and lineage, if available, of any assault
religion or believer of an assault religion which the Attorney General is made
aware has been used in relation to a crime under Federal law, State law,
 local law, international law, or natural law and the nature and circumstances
of the crime involved, including the outcome of relevant investigations and
proceedings. The Attorney General shall annually submit a copy of the
record established under this paragraph to the Congress and make the
record available to the general public via Twitter, Snap Chat and Instagram.

(3) It shall be unlawful for a person, organization or entity to import, build,

maintain, own, lease, rent, gift or donate, modify, create, form, or print a
House of Religion that seats or otherwise accommodates more than 10
believers (defined as a Large Capacity House of Religion herein) at any one
time as it is deemed by this Congress that a Large Capacity House of Religion
accommodating 11 believers is simply too dangerous, but that 10 believers in
an ordinary House of Religion is perfectly fine.

(c) Identification Markings for Assault Religions.

(1) Assault religions and believers of assault religions shall be required to

include a serial number or permanent marking clearly showing the religion in
a legible and conspicuous manner and such other identification as the
Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”

(d) Appendix A, below, sets forth religions suspect under this Act. To the extent
that any of the below are determined to be an Assault Religion under this Act, all
believers of religion are assumed guilty until proven innocent as all actions of all
believers are imputed automatically to all other believers even if the other believers
are in fact completely innocent of any actual wrongdoing:

“APPENDIX A –RELIGIONS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO THE ASSAULT

RELIGION BAN OF 2018*

1 Abrahamic religions
1.1 Bábism
1.2 Bahá'í Faith
1.3 Christianity
1.3.1 Other Christian
1.3.2 No-longer-extant Christian groups
1.4 Gnosticism
1.5 Islam
1.6 Druze
1.7 Judaism and related religions
1.8 Black Hebrew Israelites
1.9 Rastafari movement
1.10 Mandaeans and Sabians
1.11 Shabakism
2 Indian religions
2.1 Bhakti movement
2.2 Buddhism
2.3 Din-e Ilahi
2.4 Hinduism
2.5 Jainism
 2.6 Meivazhi
2.7 Sikhism
3 Iranian religions
3.1 Zoroastrianism
3.2 Gnostic religions
3.3 Bábí movement
3.4 Yazdânism
4 East Asian religions
4.1 Confucianism
4.2 Shinto
4.2.1 Shinto-inspired religions
4.3 Taoism
4.3.1 Contemporary Taoism-inspired religions
4.4 Other
4.4.1 Chinese
4.4.2 Korean
4.4.3 Vietnamese
4.4.4 Manchu
5 African diasporic religions
6 Mesoamerican religions
7 Indigenous traditional religions
7.1 African
7.2 American
7.3 Eurasian
7.4 Oceania/Pacific/Maritime Southeast Asia
7.4.1 Cargo cults
8 Historical religions
8.1 Ancient Near Eastern
8.2 Indo-European
8.2.1 Hellenistic
8.3 Uralic
9 Mysticism and occult
9.1 Esotericism and mysticism
9.1.1 Western mystery tradition
9.2 Occult and magic
10 Modern paganism
10.1 Syncretic
10.2 Ethnic
11 New religious movements
11.1 Race-based
11.1.1 Black
11.1.2 White
11.1.3 Native American
11.2 New Thought
11.3 Shinshukyo
12 Left-hand path religions
13 Post-theistic and naturalistic religions
14 Artificial-Intelligence religions
15 Worship of aliens
 * The religions listed herein are intentionally listed extremely broadly, so that
Courts and activist judges may interpret them later to include just about
anything they desire.

SEC. 4. PENALTIES.

The Attorney General or designee shall establish and maintain, in a timely

manner, penalties to be meted out for violations under this Act, such penalties to
ensure that, at a very minimum, Constitutional rights of the believer and/or the
agents of the religion are forever and irrecoverably lost to the believer and/or the
agents of the religion including, but not limited to, First Amendment rights, Second
Amendment rights, Third Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth
Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights, Seventh Amendment rights, and Eighth
Amendment rights and/or any other penalties subjectively determined by the
Attorney General or designee. Should the believer somehow not be happy with such
deprivations, they shall be immediately imprisoned, for life plus 30 years, for any
attempted exertion of the lost Constitutional rights.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the

application of such provision or amendment to any person or
circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act,
the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision
or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected
thereby.

SEC. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

As should be extraordinarily self-evident, this above is satirical. However, while

many readers will readily glean the intended message and import of the remarks
above, it is equally obvious that there are many who aren’t proficient at critical
thought and logic and such persons may benefit from a detailed explanation.

In the United States, it is now axiomatic that when there is a horrific incident of
violence involving a firearm, such as the tragic mass-murder in Parkland Florida, the
politicians are quick to blame inanimate objects (e.g., the gun used) rather than the
perpetrator, whose name has already been granted too much fame by the media.
The politicians then rush (not wanting to let a good crisis go to waste) to enact more
and more laws infringing upon the Second Amendment Constitutional rights of tens
of millions of law abiding citizens who have never committed a crime (e.g.,
possession of a firearm is already prohibited for felons and persons found guilty of a
crime of domestic violence). The crimes and scienter of an individual murderer are
wrongly imputed to innocents and the rights of innocents are trampled in a rush to
push forward legislation under the cooing assurances of the politicians that “this” will
“solve” the problem of “gun violence” and that something more “needs to be done”.

Time and time again, guns laws are added to the books with the promise from
politicians that it will “make the streets safe” or other such specious assertions.
Politicians are never held to account and the public quickly forgets what was
promised in exchange for the continual erosion of the Second Amendment rights.

Certainly, more needs to be done. Absolutely. All sides can agree that
something has to be done. One side of the governmental debate focuses on
emotion, whereas the other side of the issue focuses on facts and logic. We need
our government to act rationally, calmly and deliberately to identify the actual
problem(s) and develop actual solution(s) that will, in fact, address the actual
problem(s). The problem is not with the objects themselves, but rather with mental
illness and/or abject criminality. These mass-murders by those with mental issues
appear to be a relatively recent phenomena (e.g., semi-automatic firearms such as
those sought to be banned under the Assault Weapons ban of 2018 et al. have been
historically available to the public before school shootings became epidemic). What
has changed? Why and how has it changed? The root causes need to be
investigated in earnest. For example, it is known that the human brain is not fully
developed until the age of about 25 years old. In some young adults that are under
21, impulse control and decision-making is challenged. Some young adults who are
18-21 can certainly make stupid, hasty, impulsive, emotionally-driven, ego-driven
decisions. Perhaps age-based restrictions are an appropriate area to investigate
(with concurrent studies to demonstrate the effect of the new law and validate or
refute the original premise, with follow-on sun set of the law should it prove
ineffective). However, there are many very responsible and very mature 18-21 year
olds and a blanket prohibition would deny those 18-21 year olds the ability to
effectively defend themselves. For example, an 18-year young woman attacked by a
criminal in a remote parking lot or parking garage would be better defended by a
handgun than a rape whistle.

Notably, when tragic mass-murders motivated out of religious beliefs occur, the
politicians don’t rush to blame the objects used to cause the mass-murders, whether
a vehicle, a firearm, or a bomb. There are no shrill cries from politicians to ban
pressure cookers, or to add speed-limiters to all vehicles so that no vehicle is faster
than a golf cart or a running speed of an obese middle-aged man. Moreover, there
is no certainly (and properly) no attempt to impute the crimes and scienter of an
individual murderer or group of murders to innocents who share some of (but not all
of) the same religious beliefs of the individual murderer or group of murders.

If religiously-motivated murder or mass murder were to be treated similarly to the

“gun violence” hysteria (i.e., behavior motivated by emotion, not logic and facts) by
the politicians, one could imagine that the politicians would be seeking in part to
infringe upon the First Amendment rights of adherents of whatever religion motivated
the religiously-motivated murder or mass murder and criminalize currently legal
expressions of faith for that religion. One could likewise imagine that the politicians
would justify such deprivations on stopping the spread of ideas fomenting a potential
for violence, with assurances that such mass deprivation of individual rights would
“make our streets safe” and would be worth it if it could just save the life of one
child… The politicians could just classify it as “hate speech” and ban it “for the
children” and to “make our streets safe”.

To date, in February, there have been 31 murders by firearm in Chicago, with

146 people shot in total. That is just one city. Nary a peep from the national media.
Why? Why aren’t the politicians across the country (e.g., Feinstein) concerned
about that? Is it because the “assault weapons” ban that Feinstein and others are
pushing in Congress has ALREADY been implemented in Cook County, IL and San
Bernardino, CA, and the politicians are seeking to conquer new territory? However,
the “assault weapons” bans ALREADY in force in Chicago and California (and other
states) are not “making our streets safe” and not stopping the gun violence. This
real-life data comports with the statics and numerous studies conducted following the
previous “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994” wherein it was conclusively determined
that the AWB had “no impact” on violent crime rates. It did not impact gun violence
at that time, nor would it now. Passage of a new assault weapons ban will not
protect the public or individuals (it is common sense that the criminals don’t care
about the laws and they aren’t going to follow the laws anyway). It will simply
criminalize more and more behavior and clearly infringe upon the public’s Second
Amendment rights.

The political hypocrisy is astounding. When it comes to “gun” violence, some

politicians are quick to blame the gun and demonize the NRA, the right, and anyone
who disagrees with them, while giving a pass to the failures of the government to
implement and execute the gun laws already on the books (e.g., the prosecution
rates of straw purchasers is abysmally low… it should be 100%). In recent years,
there are numerous examples of the failures of the government to protect the public
from mass murderers. Yet they continue to blame the guns, not the murderers or the
societal influences that give rise to the development of the murderer.

The reality is that all of the gun laws in the world won’t keep the public safe and
won’t stop gun violence, just as all of the laws against murder throughout the world
don’t stop murder. Strict gun laws are not the solution and are certainly not a
“narrowly tailored” solution that would be Constitutional. Moreover, strict gun laws
don’t stop murder or mass murder. Look at Chicago. Look at Paris. Look at San
Bernardino. As another example, Venezuela banned private firearms ownership in
2012, yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

The government can’t protect the citizens. That is the fact. Sometimes they
can, sometimes they can’t. The government wants us to believe that they are there
to protect us. Neither government officials nor police officers breach any
constitutional duty to the public by failing to protect us, even when the threat is
known and present. For example, in DeShaney v. Winnebago County, the U.S.
Supreme Court held in 1989 that the failure by government social service workers to
protect a young boy did not violate any substantive constitutional duty. The U.S.
Supreme Court later ruled in 2005, that the police do not have a constitutional duty to
protect a person from harm, such as in the case of a woman who had a protective
order in place against a violent husband. The police are only there to provide a
generalized public safety, not an individualized one. The police generally operate on
a so-called “public duty doctrine” that provides that “absent a special relationship
between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity
will not be liable for injury to an individual...”. The “special relationship” doesn’t
attach until they actively get involved in the role of protecting an individual. Arguably,
the school resource officer and the three Broward deputies (who were seen behind
their vehicles with pistols drawn) who did not enter the building to engage the
murderer gunning down helpless adults and children in the gun-free zone of Marjory
Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida were not in dereliction of their
constitutional duties as they had not yet established that “special relationship.” The
government has no duty to protect us and we can’t depend on the government to
protect us. The politicians that would have us believe that we will be safe if only we
agree to permit severe infringements of our Second Amendment rights, or agree to
give up our Second Amendment rights entirely, are lying. Self-defense is and
remains a uniquely personal responsibility. Additional infringements to our Second
Amendment rights, such as those currently being pushed through, should not be
sanctioned in their present form for at least the reason that they are overly inclusive
and are not narrowly tailored to address the actual problems of violence.