This is beyond stupid and is an unthinking, emotional knee-jerk reaction to the asswipe muslim demonstrators. No way will this hold up to a legal challenge.
7:08p, 5/1/24
In reply to Im Gipper
Are you dense?
1. The bill says the definition of antisemitism is the IHRA definition.
2. The IHRA definition can reasonably be used to justify the NT as an antisemitic text.
3. Now all it takes is a book ban on antisemitic texts, and poof your book is under that category.
1. The bill says the definition of antisemitism is the IHRA definition.
2. The IHRA definition can reasonably be used to justify the NT as an antisemitic text.
3. Now all it takes is a book ban on antisemitic texts, and poof your book is under that category.
7:10p, 5/1/24
In reply to AggieCVQ
Sorry, you are making things up.
You here Christians that believe in the right of Israel to exist. Your own words show that!
I'm Gipper
You here Christians that believe in the right of Israel to exist. Your own words show that!
I'm Gipper
7:10p, 5/1/24
Catholic Jew here, and unabashed supporter of Israel.
This bill is awful and anti-American.
This bill is awful and anti-American.
7:12p, 5/1/24
In reply to Velvet Jones
Im with you. It's a dumb bill!
You know what it doesn't do though? Criminalize reading the New Testament.
I'm Gipper
Velvet Jones said:
Catholic Jew here, and unabashed supporter of Israel.
This bill is awful and anti-American.
Im with you. It's a dumb bill!
You know what it doesn't do though? Criminalize reading the New Testament.
I'm Gipper
7:17p, 5/1/24
In reply to AggieCVQ
4 years later - bible study group says jews killed Jesus.
DOE: "well, the 'contemporary examples' says Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews, and this group clearly just said jews are responsible for a real or imagined wrongdoing. violation. even brittanica says so! ("Historically, the release of Barabbas at the crowd's behest, and their subsequent demands to crucify Jesus, have been used to justify anti-Semitism. Many have placed blame for Christ's death on the Jews, commonly citing Matthew 27:25, in which the crowd shouts, "His blood be on us and on our children!") https://www.britannica.com/topic/Barabbas-biblical-figure
This admin labels parents complaining about to school districts as terrorists. Not sure how deep one's head has to be in the sand to see that this is a very obvious real possibility.
edit: i don't think it 'criminalizes reading the new testament.' But yes, DOE violations based on groups saying the above - very real possibility.
exactly - 'hey DOE, use this 'working definition, including contemporary examples' to determine if there has been a violation.' definition: https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htmAggieCVQ said:
Are you dense?
1. The bill says the definition of antisemitism is the IHRA definition.
2. The IHRA definition can reasonably be used to justify the NT as an antisemitic text.
3. Now all it takes is a book ban on antisemitic texts, and poof your book is under that category.
4 years later - bible study group says jews killed Jesus.
DOE: "well, the 'contemporary examples' says Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews, and this group clearly just said jews are responsible for a real or imagined wrongdoing. violation. even brittanica says so! ("Historically, the release of Barabbas at the crowd's behest, and their subsequent demands to crucify Jesus, have been used to justify anti-Semitism. Many have placed blame for Christ's death on the Jews, commonly citing Matthew 27:25, in which the crowd shouts, "His blood be on us and on our children!") https://www.britannica.com/topic/Barabbas-biblical-figure
This admin labels parents complaining about to school districts as terrorists. Not sure how deep one's head has to be in the sand to see that this is a very obvious real possibility.
edit: i don't think it 'criminalizes reading the new testament.' But yes, DOE violations based on groups saying the above - very real possibility.
7:19p, 5/1/24
In reply to Im Gipper
They will solely be using the IHRA per the bill. The IHRA defines antisemitism as the following. I had to use an archive of the page since the main website is down.
https://archive.is/BEs6f
There it is, directly from the IHRA, which is referenced in the actual bill. Why are you trying to lie about this?
Im Gipper said:
You again keep shoring tweets claiming things this Bill doesn't say.
Why are you so afraid to just show us in the bill where you can be prosecuted for reading the New Testament?
Quote:
Congress finds the following:
(1) Antisemitism is on the rise in the United States and is impacting Jewish students in K12 schools, colleges, and universities.
(2) The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in this Act as the "IHRA") Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism.
(3) On December 11, 2019, Executive Order 13899 extended protections against discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to individuals subjected to antisemitism on college and university campuses and tasked Federal agencies to consider the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism when enforcing title VI of such Act.
(4) Since 2018, the Department of Education has used the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism when investigating violations of that title VI.
(5) The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism.
(6) The White House released the first-ever United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism on May 25, 2023, making clear that the fight against this hate is a national, bipartisan priority that must be successfully conducted through a whole-of-government-and-society approach.
They will solely be using the IHRA per the bill. The IHRA defines antisemitism as the following. I had to use an archive of the page since the main website is down.
https://archive.is/BEs6f
Quote:
Bucharest, 26 May 2016 In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: "With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils" the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism. On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to: To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices.
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
There it is, directly from the IHRA, which is referenced in the actual bill. Why are you trying to lie about this?
7:24p, 5/1/24
In reply to Nanomachines son
He doesn't understand subtext or consequential thinking. Give him 30 years or so and he'll understand the hard way unfortunately.
7:24p, 5/1/24
In reply to Nanomachines son
Not a single word about prosecuting for reading the New Testament
Take the L. Be honest. You were duped by a tweet.
I'm Gipper
Take the L. Be honest. You were duped by a tweet.
I'm Gipper
7:25p, 5/1/24
In reply to AggieCVQ
I understand words and non-Christian haters of Israel just fine.
I'm Gipper
AggieCVQ said:
He doesn't understand subtext or consequential thinking. Give him 30 years or so and he'll understand.
I understand words and non-Christian haters of Israel just fine.
I'm Gipper
7:25p, 5/1/24
In reply to Nanomachines son
Wanna know how I know this country is lost, will never recover and is doomed? This kind of ***** We are being represented by idiots. There is not a single person in the federal government I trust anymore.Nanomachines son said:The vast majority of Republicans just voted for a bill to criminalize criticisms of the Israeli government. If the bill passes you will be guilty of hate speech if you “apply double standards” to the government of Israel or accuse it of genocide. This is honestly one of the most… https://t.co/5SPRT0I0jk pic.twitter.com/2k6n9A3hiY
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) May 1, 2024
Someone please tell me how this does not violate the 1st amendment? This basically means we can't even read the New Testament without doing something illegal. I can't wait to read antisemitic warnings on the front of every Bible soon.
If this is just one of those "toothless" bills then why did we even waste our time with this?
7:28p, 5/1/24
Weird how a certain poster only shows up in F16 from premium to make posts agsinst the Jews. Why is that?
I'm Gipper
I'm Gipper
7:39p, 5/1/24
In reply to Nanomachines son
They're virtue signaling. They don't expect it to actually pass and become law.
8:01p, 5/1/24
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton
This steaming pile of scheisse passed the House 320-91. Do you honestly expect it to be defeated in the Senate?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
They're virtue signaling. They don't expect it to actually pass and become law.
This steaming pile of scheisse passed the House 320-91. Do you honestly expect it to be defeated in the Senate?
The flames of the Imperium burn brightly in the hearts of men repulsed by degenerate modernity. Souls aflame with love of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, and order.
8:08p, 5/1/24
It's crap like this that makes me realize that it doesn't matter who I vote for, neither party represents my strict constitutionalist and fiscal conservative views.
8:35p, 5/1/24
In reply to RebelE Infantry
Correct.RebelE Infantry said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
They're virtue signaling. They don't expect it to actually pass and become law.
This steaming pile of scheisse passed the House 320-91. Do you honestly expect it to be defeated in the Senate?
8:37p, 5/1/24
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton
Interesting. I don't see how that happens but I suppose it's feasible.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Correct.RebelE Infantry said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
They're virtue signaling. They don't expect it to actually pass and become law.
This steaming pile of scheisse passed the House 320-91. Do you honestly expect it to be defeated in the Senate?
Interesting. I don't see how that happens but I suppose it's feasible.
The flames of the Imperium burn brightly in the hearts of men repulsed by degenerate modernity. Souls aflame with love of goodness, truth, beauty, justice, and order.
9:07p, 5/1/24
Free speech is so important it must be defended at all costs. Especially speech I don't agree with. I view the world from a conservative lens; I invite liberals to agree with me and staunchly support the same.
This law, or anything like it that attempts to define something as "hate speech" with penalties is BS and needs to be struck down hard. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
This law, or anything like it that attempts to define something as "hate speech" with penalties is BS and needs to be struck down hard. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
9:20p, 5/1/24
****ing Republicans just can't help from shooting themselves in the foot. Every. ****ing. Time.
9:34p, 5/1/24
This feels like the patriot act.
How many of our national political leaders hold duel citizenship? And with what other country? Would that make them immune from criticism too?
Hmmm. Freedom of speech is dead.
How many of our national political leaders hold duel citizenship? And with what other country? Would that make them immune from criticism too?
Hmmm. Freedom of speech is dead.
10:43p, 5/1/24
Apply double standards to Israel that you don't to others?
Say Israel should not be a country?
Say Israel should not be a country?
11:54p, 5/1/24
In reply to Funky Winkerbean
Exactly. We are represented by a bunch of out of touch morons.
Funky Winkerbean said:
What about the economy and the border? Not important?
Exactly. We are represented by a bunch of out of touch morons.
6:42a, 5/2/24
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton
A similar Bill in the Senate has 30 sponsors. You think it's not going to pass?
I'm Gipper
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Correct.RebelE Infantry said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
They're virtue signaling. They don't expect it to actually pass and become law.
This steaming pile of scheisse passed the House 320-91. Do you honestly expect it to be defeated in the Senate?
A similar Bill in the Senate has 30 sponsors. You think it's not going to pass?
I'm Gipper
6:47a, 5/2/24
Banning the speech with law is stupid and unamerican. Banning behaviors would be fine, I.e. violence and discrimination. But I want the idiots to speak so I know who they are and how many.
7:01a, 5/2/24
In reply to MouthBQ98
This bill does not ban speech. It has to do with what to consider when determining if discrimination has occurred
Your post is more pro-bill than anti-bill
Your post is more pro-bill than anti-bill
8:01a, 5/2/24
By the IHRA definition, these are now illegal passages from the Bible:
Acts 2:22-24
Acts 3:13-15
Acts 5:29-31
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
We are no longer allowed to read these verses because they are now antisemitic. How soon until we have disclaimers in all of our Bibles?
Acts 2:22-24
Quote:
22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Acts 3:13-15
Quote:
13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. 14 But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses
Acts 5:29-31
Quote:
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
1 Thessalonians 2:14-15
Quote:
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are [d]contrary to all men
We are no longer allowed to read these verses because they are now antisemitic. How soon until we have disclaimers in all of our Bibles?
8:09a, 5/2/24
In reply to MouthBQ98
This.
The best thing about freedom of speech is that it leaves no doubt who the idiots of our society are.
As for those behaviors (violence and discrimination, etc.) I see nothing wrong with banning those behaviors.
MouthBQ98 said:
Banning the speech with law is stupid and unamerican. Banning behaviors would be fine, I.e. violence and discrimination. But I want the idiots to speak so I know who they are and how many.
This.
The best thing about freedom of speech is that it leaves no doubt who the idiots of our society are.
As for those behaviors (violence and discrimination, etc.) I see nothing wrong with banning those behaviors.
8:09a, 5/2/24
In reply to AggieCVQ
He's being obtuse on purpose. Let the troll go.AggieCVQ said:
Are you dense?
1. The bill says the definition of antisemitism is the IHRA definition.
2. The IHRA definition can reasonably be used to justify the NT as an antisemitic text.
3. Now all it takes is a book ban on antisemitic texts, and poof your book is under that category.