Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 04:33:10 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: the Republican anti-anti-Semitism on college campuses bill Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <20240502174315.00006c52@example.com> Content-Language: en-US From: trotsky In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 117 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 09:33:10 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 6746 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17cc3f5499b4321c$231968$197378$4ed50460@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 7142 On 5/3/24 11:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote: > Rhino wrote: >> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC) >> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >> >>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the >>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of >>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has >>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education >>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be >>> disriminating. >>> >>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which >>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel >>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth, >>> is possibly a reasonable one. >>> >>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic, >>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and >>> violence have occurred. >>> >>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or >>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that >>> the speech also included threats and intimidation? >>> >>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on >>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or >>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law >>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing >>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified >>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence >>> against Jews over the centuries. >>> >> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the >> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely >> limited here. >> >> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but >> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own >> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without >> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own >> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes, >> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say >> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But >> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum >> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod >> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish >> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most >> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of >> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic. >> >> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime >> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the >> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an >> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember >> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus - >> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a >> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and >> tortured into denouncing Jesus? >> >> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's >> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of >> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but >> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her >> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt >> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to >> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms. >> >>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on >>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor. >>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand >>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it >>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing. >>> >> Bravo to Lawler for his wit! >> >>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does >>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The >>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an >>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an >>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic >>> without making a death threat. >>> >>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by >>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to >>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be >>> stifled. >>> >> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any >> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from >> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be. >> >>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high >>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled. >>> >> A worthy goal! >> >>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by >>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the >>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that >>> the rest of us might speak freely. >> >> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed >> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of >> advocates. > > Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute inability of > Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up: > > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s > > There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the > ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America. Does "supporting things" whilst being an anonyshit carry a lot of weight then?