Re: the Republican anti-anti-Semitism on college campuses bill

On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> 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.

--
Rhino