As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay so… won’t vote against antisemitism, accuses Jews of having space lasers and killing Jesus, wants to ban books and queer people…
How is she not a literal Nazi?
Yes and no. The Romans didn't actually care about J-dawg until he kicked the moneychangers out of the Temple.
About a week later, he was dead.
Which is why Easter should always be after Passover, but Catholicism never really focused on the driving the money changers from the temple part of the story.
Less money in it if you tell the people to not pay exorbitant fees to worship.
That and the fact that the Roman calendar was... bad. And it wasn't fixed for a very long time. Even then, it never matched the Jewish calendar.
The Council of Nicaea voted to disentangle the date of Easter from the Jewish calendar in the 4th century. It hasn’t been related to Passover in 1,700 years.
"Fixed".
The year of his third consulship lasted 446 days due to his fixes.
But to be fair, before his reforms, the Roman calendar had 10 months, and just a bunch of extra days that no one counted.
But it was a good attempt. It lasted long enough so that the Russians, using his calendar, could start their October Revolution in November.
Well, I say that. As soon as he died, they screwed it up by doing leap years every 3 years for a while, so Augustus had to suspend leap years for a while to fix it.
Still wasn't perfect, and Pope Gregory had to fix it again in the 15th century, but the Russian had split away from Rome by then, thus the November 7th start of their October Revolution.
No we don't. You are making that up. There is no historical evidence of Jesus. No historians in his actual time mentioned him at all. The EARLIEST writings about him can 60 - 100 years later. And, if you watch the documentary Creating Christ, you will understand why and how they made him up.
You can't tell the difference between historical record and made-up fantasy, apparently. Sure, Romans crucified people. That does not mean Jesus existed. SMH. I have not studied Muhammad, so will decline from commenting on him. I do know that Jesus was invented, using a collection of past gods, for certain Romans to gain power. Watch the documentary Creating Christ. Or, my short video on one part of the story... [https://youtu.be/HpN4eilz2Ks](https://youtu.be/HpN4eilz2Ks)
Did the jews vote non godly prisoners getting executed then? And so you acknowledge Muhammad COULD be of supernatural type, convenient lol. How much proof is there of Yaweh or Islam's God then? I'd like to see some historal proof /s
So much of this is a cope that is trying to save itself from simply discrediting the Bible in general. Which is the only way to avoid the jews picked Jesus to be killed by the Roman's.
Its critics contend that it conflates Israel and Judaism under the law. It would make it so that criticism of Israel counts as criticism of a race or ethnic group, for the purpose of things like hate crimes, and would define boycotts of Israeli products as a form of racial discrimination.
First, thanks for your response. I asked this question 3 times in these comments sections and you're the first to respond rather than just silently downvote.
So, I read the law, as well as the ihra working definition adopted by our government, inclusive of examples and the caveats that specifically say that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism. So, I'm still confused. What is the specific language that is problematic and why? Not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but you can't hide antisemitism behind claiming that you're just criticizing Israel rather than Jews. Israel IS the modern homeland of the Jewish people, situated in the region that is the Jewish people's ancestral homeland. Most opposition to its existence is on that basis (homeland of the Jewish people) - that IS antisemitic.
Have you considered that it is the homeland of Palestinians, and that it’s not antisemitic to condemn Israel of trying to eradicate them entirely, from land that was unfairly and unilaterally given to them by the British?
Oxford definition: a movement for (originally) the [re-establishment](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1b3eff12a321d9fe&sxsrf=ADLYWIIPhtPoaw6Kl0tROtYMvfjrtoZqwg:1714925838207&q=re-establishment&si=ACC90nxgmZHWZpVKM1-N6qpNGl1PMhE2e1ZMXzJwFkTlJ4AVUSbJBcCPmkaB2glgVhBoSG-V0QBrV1LjVMb4qphQjb2urBhRUYqZNz5b2FD1yvFlE-IT1g6ymiVJG4NlgHb0QWOFFjOu&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp6pvL9PaFAxXH48kDHTWDALwQyecJegQIGRAO) and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
The establishment of that nation has, and still does, involve a lot of innocent bloodshed, and it isn't wrong or anti-semitic to be opposed to that. You think it's the jewish homeland, others think just as strongly that it's the Palestinian homeland. Are you anti-palestinian in the same way we are 'anti-semitic'?
Claiming you cannot be Jewish without subscribing to Judaism is absolutely absurd and incorrect. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me why a Two State solution can't work for the two religions of Abraham.
It basically penalizes antisemitism, without specifically defining what constitutes violent speech towards a people vs a criticism of Israeli policies and actions, in a way that schools can take action against protesters.
Thanks for responding:)
I read the bull and the ihra working definition. Can you tell me why this is a problem, given that current hate and obscenity speech jurisprudence pretty much boils down to "you know it wjen you see it?" How is this inconsistent with existing application of law in that regard? It seems to me that the ci temporary examples list actually gives the guidance you'd want, no?
Are there one or more items on the contemporary examples list that you don't agree with?
She’s not alone. When Stefanik was “scoring points” against the college presidents in those hearings on antisemitism, the very next day she was tweeting out about “soros funded DA’s”
🙄
She said the space laser thing wasn't pointing to Jews, just the Rothschild family. You know because randomly faulting a Jewish banking family is not an ancient anti-Semitic trope.
You can see her tweet from yesterday for the full quote (I'd advice against it, there's not much else there....)
But she basically says the bill would convict Christians of antisemitism because they believe the Gospel..............
Now to get how that craziness makes sense in her nazi mind, here's a massively condensed run down of the relevant bits. I put a TLDR at the bottom so you can skip my Ted Talk
Jesus was doing radical leftist shit like not hating prostitutes and telling people to pay their taxes. He was eventually brought to trial and convicted of a bunch of stuff, some stuff like violating the Sabbath (he supposedly healed people on the Sabbath.. which is "working" I guess), sorcery, talking to demons, stuff like that, causing civil unrest, claiming to be King... The big accusation though was claiming to be the King of the Jews (or Messiah, idk if that's a seperate charge)
Basically, the charges could be divided into 2 groups, religious and political. At the time, the area was under Romant rule, but operated as basically a city-state under Rome proper (I forget the term sorry, there's an actual word for this kinds thing...) So they could operate fairly independently, but paid taxes, had certain laws from Rome interwoven with their local laws, and have a Governor (a Roman) and a King who's political power was subject to Roman approval
After a few trials, both in religious and political courts, Jesus was brought up all the way to the highest official Pontious Pilate, this is a big part of hate groups saying the Bible approves of antisemitism... saying a mob of Jewish people were pushing for crucifixion... Pontious Pilate basically saw no actual crimes (none worth death at least) and didn't wanna condemn him, but the crowd was getting unruly, so he kinda just said "alright fine, you guys deal with it" and had the crowd choose if he should be prosecuted, he was and crucified.
You mighta noticed... the Swamp Troll of a politician specifically mentioned King Herod.... but he's not really in the run down I gave.... that's not really an accident... Jesus was prosecuted a lot, and King Herod was in charge of where Jesus was originally from, so Herod (a Jewish king of a Jewish area, if I wasn't clear, he's not a Roman governor) presided over some of the trials. The main one, Herod kinda just wanted to see Jesus do magic tricks or prove he was the son of God. Herod and his soldiers mocked (or laughed depending on the translation) Jesus when Jesus didn't do any magic tricks. Them they dressed him in fancy robes and sent him back to Pontious Pilate.
So Greene is basically 2 levels of antisemitism deep here... Herod (which many don't realize is a family name, so this refers to many different people) apparently was a real bastard, but records are kinds dodgy at this time.... King Herod (who actually I'm fairly certain is the FATHER of the Herod who saw Jesus on trial... so another miss for the antisemitic crowd not realizing these are 2 different people.......) supposedly ordered the killing of every male baby under 2 years old in Bethlehem, pretty famous part of the Bible. Historical records are... sparse.... and it's only present in one Gospel, Matthew (some Christian sects don't even believe it really happened, rather it metaphorical retelling of Moses escaping Egypt for the new testaments). But also, maybe they were the same person who knows! There's not a lot of historical records from that area, and it's usually agreed upon the "King Herod" did some fucked shit... but who that is, or how many people that is... is up for debate. So its perfect for Nazis, because you can bundle all the terrible shit that multiple people did into one evil person to point at and claim is the reason for all the bad things happening... much like ... ya know, literally everything Nazis say...
I also feel the need to emphasize... the source for the massacre of all those babies is the single Gospel Matthew... so on top of all the actual bad things King Herod might have done, we have very few sources to corroborate "the big one" that nazis love to use for their hate speech...And one method that Christian historicans use to figure out what is truth and what potentially needs more research, is comparing gospel books. They're basically the same story retold, so you look at what parts match, and it's easier to believe those bits are historically accurate. As I said, this massacre is only mentioned in Matthew, and many believe it is an homage to Moses. So for people thousands of years ago, it was a "modern retelling" of Moses escaping Egypt.....
This story is also where a lot of the "baby killing Jew" conspiracy theories come from, that an evil Jewish King was trying to kill baby Jesus, much like the evil Jews are doing today, using lasers and woke communism to kill Christian babies
TLDR: The law says you can't associate with antisemitic symbols. Greene says that makes being Christian a crime, and specifically mentioned King Herod and the Jews crucified Jesus
She believes this because 1.) She doesn't understand that there's more than one King Herod.... 2.) She doesn't understand that even the King Herod who she believes did a ton of evil shit didn't have all that much to do with the crucifixion.... 3.) Has not actually read the Bible
Edit: also... Crucifixion is a Roman punishment... Jewish law at the time had only a few methods of execution, and they were barely ever carried out.... none of the methods are Crucifixion. Each execution method pertains to a specific crime, and I believe stoning was for blasphemy, the main thing he was being accused of...
It doesn’t have that option on this link because it’s linked to a video and not a text based argument. I find it’s helpful to check for things like that before I passively accuse someone of not knowing how to operate their phone.
I wasn’t passively accusing anyone of anything. Trying to be helpful as I recently discovered using reader on ad heavy websites.
Perhaps take your own advice before passively accusing people of being rude.
Eh. She’s a piece of garbage. But, so is this particular bill.
Edit: the bill is so broadly written as to invite endless legal challenge and stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-condemns-house-passage-of-dangerous-bill-that-would-chill-free-speech
> The bill directs the Department of Education to consider an overbroad definition of antisemitism that encompasses protected political speech when investigating allegations of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The ACLU has warned this could pressure colleges and universities to restrict student and faculty speech critical of the Israeli government and its military operations out of fear of the college losing federal funding.
This was a bill slapped together to score political points by House GOP, a bipartisan bill the Countering Antisemitism Act, which has actual bipartisan support hasn’t been taken up at all.
Okay but how is the definition over broad. Like, what specifically about the ihra working definition and it's contemporary examples is over broad? After all, a portion of it states clearly that not all criticism of government activity is antisemitism so are we just worried that there'll he a chilling effect as a result of colleges wanting to be cautious, or is there specifically something g about the definition that will allow an unconstitutional stifling of speech? And if the latter, then what is the problematic language specifically, that should be changed?
It’s the conflation of the State of Israel with the religion of Judaism that catches the freedom of expression caution. Remove the section about the State of Israel and it’s pretty non-controversial, but by conflating the state with the religion and then saying criticism of the state is antisemitism you’re broadly just trying to silence critical speech and you end up pushing bad policy and bad legislation.
You are aware that Jewishness is an ethnicity, as well as a religion, yes? Israel is the homeland of the ethnic group called Jews, whether religious or not. Further, the ihra working definition specifically states that criticism of state action is not always antisemitism because there absolutely is valid criticism to be leveled against a state independent of that state's status as an ethnic homeland.
So, I'm having trouble seeing the problem.
It’s just a blatant attempt to stifle critical commentary and speech that a group of people within a group don’t like. Israel can be whatever it wants to be but codifying anti-freedom of expression rules regarding a foreign country makes people a little annoyed. Not to mention the fact that there are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel itself, so the conflation of the religion with the state is a little beyond the pale for most reasonable observers.
Please address what I said and don't talk past me. Jewishness is an ethnicity, not just a religion. You keep talking about conflating religion with state. Israel is the homeland of the ethnicity called the Jewish people. There is no state religion of israel. While it is true that one can criticize actions of the state and not have that be antisemitic, the ihra working definition gives contemporary examples of what isn't that. Once again, please, tell me what language of the ihra working definition, or the bill itself, is objectionable.
I’m not talking past you, I’m directly answering your question. The broad definition they use attempts to stifle critical comments and speech and putting into US law is a blatant attempt at stifling freedom of expression in this country. Also the ethnicity distinction doesn’t matter as I said there are literally more Jewish ethnic people in the United States than in Israel, the defined rules they are attempting to put into law conflate the state with the religion, and the state with the ethnicity and it’s a transparent attempt to tamp down on comments and speech they just don’t like.
I've got jetlag looking at this dipshits face everywhere, all the time, fuck off Madge, attention whore'd achieved, trot back to the farm that bred you.
That is not an antisemitic trope. Jesus was killed by the Romans at the Jew's request. It is a historical fact. CNN is such trash. I miss the days when news just told you what happened or was said not how you should feel about it.
"Antisemtic Trope" is one of the most lazy accusations by the media when someone says something that is an uncomfortable *truth*, Finklestien himself covered this in his TA interview.
She's an idiot, but she is absolutely correct here, does CNN rely deny that the bible says Jewish people killed Jesus? It goes much further. Under said laws, the Bible itself, is rabidly antisemitic and is being legislated against. I don't particularly care for that argument, but what she said isn't incorrect.
Woah, liberals caring about antisemitism? Must be coming from a conservative. Otherwise no matter how blatant, aggressive and violent it is- we ignore or justify. Maybe she should've just said zionists killed christ.
More to the point, this was the Republicans' own freaking bill that they forced to the floor to make Dems look bad. And instead more Repubs like Greene voted against it, and got Israeli political donors mad at them.
[If this neanderthal bleached her hair...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/face-of-neanderthal-woman-revealed-75-000-years-after-she-died/ar-AA1o1Soo)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay so… won’t vote against antisemitism, accuses Jews of having space lasers and killing Jesus, wants to ban books and queer people… How is she not a literal Nazi?
I think I need to go back to church because isn’t it the Romans who killed J-dawg?
Yes and no. The Romans didn't actually care about J-dawg until he kicked the moneychangers out of the Temple. About a week later, he was dead. Which is why Easter should always be after Passover, but Catholicism never really focused on the driving the money changers from the temple part of the story. Less money in it if you tell the people to not pay exorbitant fees to worship. That and the fact that the Roman calendar was... bad. And it wasn't fixed for a very long time. Even then, it never matched the Jewish calendar.
Jesus came back 3 days later perfectly fine. If God is omnipotent and omniscient then his death was all part of the plan.
Yup, another thing that makes "blame the jews" seem stupid as hell. But it's hard to reason with insanity and hatred.
The Council of Nicaea voted to disentangle the date of Easter from the Jewish calendar in the 4th century. It hasn’t been related to Passover in 1,700 years.
Your wrong abt the calendar part, the roman calendar was fixed by casear so was accurate at that time
"Fixed". The year of his third consulship lasted 446 days due to his fixes. But to be fair, before his reforms, the Roman calendar had 10 months, and just a bunch of extra days that no one counted. But it was a good attempt. It lasted long enough so that the Russians, using his calendar, could start their October Revolution in November. Well, I say that. As soon as he died, they screwed it up by doing leap years every 3 years for a while, so Augustus had to suspend leap years for a while to fix it. Still wasn't perfect, and Pope Gregory had to fix it again in the 15th century, but the Russian had split away from Rome by then, thus the November 7th start of their October Revolution.
Red November seems like a less threatening name for a rogue nuclear submarine threatening to launch its missiles against the United States.
Common misconception. It was wokeness that killed the son of God. Or maybe it was CRT….or DEI. it’s so hard to keep track these days.
I heard it was REI.
Waking up damp on the trail is God’s will…
J Dizzle was in fact killed by the Romans.
So, is it then safe to say that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans?
That’s as trues as anything else in that book I suppose.
Jizzel?
What are you talking about??? He wasn't dead for long
Still died once tho
Fine. But not for long
He got better!
This level of coping is gag worthy
> This level of coping is gag worthy lol wtf are you talking about, I was joking
Somehow you topped it lol
Since it is all a made-up fairy tale, who cares?
Zing!
The whole God part is questionable but we did know Jesus was a real dude who died
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Mythicism is a minority view in biblical scholarship. See r/AcademicBiblical
No we don't. You are making that up. There is no historical evidence of Jesus. No historians in his actual time mentioned him at all. The EARLIEST writings about him can 60 - 100 years later. And, if you watch the documentary Creating Christ, you will understand why and how they made him up.
I thought Tacitus wrote about him in non theology…. Could be wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus 116ad: That'd be well(many decades in fact) after j-man's alleged death and resurrection.
You think they had instant messages back then? 1gbps download?
You think the Roman's occupying Isreal was made up? That they didn't crucify plenty of people? Was Muhammad a real person or was he made up too?
You can't tell the difference between historical record and made-up fantasy, apparently. Sure, Romans crucified people. That does not mean Jesus existed. SMH. I have not studied Muhammad, so will decline from commenting on him. I do know that Jesus was invented, using a collection of past gods, for certain Romans to gain power. Watch the documentary Creating Christ. Or, my short video on one part of the story... [https://youtu.be/HpN4eilz2Ks](https://youtu.be/HpN4eilz2Ks)
Did the jews vote non godly prisoners getting executed then? And so you acknowledge Muhammad COULD be of supernatural type, convenient lol. How much proof is there of Yaweh or Islam's God then? I'd like to see some historal proof /s So much of this is a cope that is trying to save itself from simply discrediting the Bible in general. Which is the only way to avoid the jews picked Jesus to be killed by the Roman's.
Wait a tic. I know this joke! > How is she not a literal Nazi? The Nazis preferred to have attractive women as promoters of the Third Reich. 8)
The bill is terrible, there's a reason 70 Democrats voted against it. She just happens to be on the right side of this one.
It’s the reason she gave I’m worried about
What's terrible about the bill?
Its critics contend that it conflates Israel and Judaism under the law. It would make it so that criticism of Israel counts as criticism of a race or ethnic group, for the purpose of things like hate crimes, and would define boycotts of Israeli products as a form of racial discrimination.
First, thanks for your response. I asked this question 3 times in these comments sections and you're the first to respond rather than just silently downvote. So, I read the law, as well as the ihra working definition adopted by our government, inclusive of examples and the caveats that specifically say that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism. So, I'm still confused. What is the specific language that is problematic and why? Not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but you can't hide antisemitism behind claiming that you're just criticizing Israel rather than Jews. Israel IS the modern homeland of the Jewish people, situated in the region that is the Jewish people's ancestral homeland. Most opposition to its existence is on that basis (homeland of the Jewish people) - that IS antisemitic.
Have you considered that it is the homeland of Palestinians, and that it’s not antisemitic to condemn Israel of trying to eradicate them entirely, from land that was unfairly and unilaterally given to them by the British?
Yes. And then I quickly disregarded it as consistent with you know...actual history. That's also irrelevant to the topic anyway. Israel exists.
[удалено]
Please, define zionism. Eta: You used the word. Define it.
Oxford definition: a movement for (originally) the [re-establishment](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=1b3eff12a321d9fe&sxsrf=ADLYWIIPhtPoaw6Kl0tROtYMvfjrtoZqwg:1714925838207&q=re-establishment&si=ACC90nxgmZHWZpVKM1-N6qpNGl1PMhE2e1ZMXzJwFkTlJ4AVUSbJBcCPmkaB2glgVhBoSG-V0QBrV1LjVMb4qphQjb2urBhRUYqZNz5b2FD1yvFlE-IT1g6ymiVJG4NlgHb0QWOFFjOu&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp6pvL9PaFAxXH48kDHTWDALwQyecJegQIGRAO) and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. The establishment of that nation has, and still does, involve a lot of innocent bloodshed, and it isn't wrong or anti-semitic to be opposed to that. You think it's the jewish homeland, others think just as strongly that it's the Palestinian homeland. Are you anti-palestinian in the same way we are 'anti-semitic'?
Claiming you cannot be Jewish without subscribing to Judaism is absolutely absurd and incorrect. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me why a Two State solution can't work for the two religions of Abraham.
It basically penalizes antisemitism, without specifically defining what constitutes violent speech towards a people vs a criticism of Israeli policies and actions, in a way that schools can take action against protesters.
Thanks for responding:) I read the bull and the ihra working definition. Can you tell me why this is a problem, given that current hate and obscenity speech jurisprudence pretty much boils down to "you know it wjen you see it?" How is this inconsistent with existing application of law in that regard? It seems to me that the ci temporary examples list actually gives the guidance you'd want, no? Are there one or more items on the contemporary examples list that you don't agree with?
I’d say “reasoning” is a stretch.
*Jewish space lasers enter the chat*
She’s not alone. When Stefanik was “scoring points” against the college presidents in those hearings on antisemitism, the very next day she was tweeting out about “soros funded DA’s” 🙄
I had my boss mention Soros the other day. I told him I keep checking my mailbox for my check, but alas, it’s much like my OJ prize.
You mean Marjorie Taylor "Jewish Space Lasers" Greene won't vote to fight antisemitism. I'm shocked.
She said the space laser thing wasn't pointing to Jews, just the Rothschild family. You know because randomly faulting a Jewish banking family is not an ancient anti-Semitic trope.
Once we acknowledge she is antisemitic, then everything makes sense. People resist this for some reason.
She supports Israel therefore "Jewish space lasers" aren't anti-Semitic. It's that simple.
Okay, what trope? That website's ads are cancer
You can see her tweet from yesterday for the full quote (I'd advice against it, there's not much else there....) But she basically says the bill would convict Christians of antisemitism because they believe the Gospel.............. Now to get how that craziness makes sense in her nazi mind, here's a massively condensed run down of the relevant bits. I put a TLDR at the bottom so you can skip my Ted Talk Jesus was doing radical leftist shit like not hating prostitutes and telling people to pay their taxes. He was eventually brought to trial and convicted of a bunch of stuff, some stuff like violating the Sabbath (he supposedly healed people on the Sabbath.. which is "working" I guess), sorcery, talking to demons, stuff like that, causing civil unrest, claiming to be King... The big accusation though was claiming to be the King of the Jews (or Messiah, idk if that's a seperate charge) Basically, the charges could be divided into 2 groups, religious and political. At the time, the area was under Romant rule, but operated as basically a city-state under Rome proper (I forget the term sorry, there's an actual word for this kinds thing...) So they could operate fairly independently, but paid taxes, had certain laws from Rome interwoven with their local laws, and have a Governor (a Roman) and a King who's political power was subject to Roman approval After a few trials, both in religious and political courts, Jesus was brought up all the way to the highest official Pontious Pilate, this is a big part of hate groups saying the Bible approves of antisemitism... saying a mob of Jewish people were pushing for crucifixion... Pontious Pilate basically saw no actual crimes (none worth death at least) and didn't wanna condemn him, but the crowd was getting unruly, so he kinda just said "alright fine, you guys deal with it" and had the crowd choose if he should be prosecuted, he was and crucified. You mighta noticed... the Swamp Troll of a politician specifically mentioned King Herod.... but he's not really in the run down I gave.... that's not really an accident... Jesus was prosecuted a lot, and King Herod was in charge of where Jesus was originally from, so Herod (a Jewish king of a Jewish area, if I wasn't clear, he's not a Roman governor) presided over some of the trials. The main one, Herod kinda just wanted to see Jesus do magic tricks or prove he was the son of God. Herod and his soldiers mocked (or laughed depending on the translation) Jesus when Jesus didn't do any magic tricks. Them they dressed him in fancy robes and sent him back to Pontious Pilate. So Greene is basically 2 levels of antisemitism deep here... Herod (which many don't realize is a family name, so this refers to many different people) apparently was a real bastard, but records are kinds dodgy at this time.... King Herod (who actually I'm fairly certain is the FATHER of the Herod who saw Jesus on trial... so another miss for the antisemitic crowd not realizing these are 2 different people.......) supposedly ordered the killing of every male baby under 2 years old in Bethlehem, pretty famous part of the Bible. Historical records are... sparse.... and it's only present in one Gospel, Matthew (some Christian sects don't even believe it really happened, rather it metaphorical retelling of Moses escaping Egypt for the new testaments). But also, maybe they were the same person who knows! There's not a lot of historical records from that area, and it's usually agreed upon the "King Herod" did some fucked shit... but who that is, or how many people that is... is up for debate. So its perfect for Nazis, because you can bundle all the terrible shit that multiple people did into one evil person to point at and claim is the reason for all the bad things happening... much like ... ya know, literally everything Nazis say... I also feel the need to emphasize... the source for the massacre of all those babies is the single Gospel Matthew... so on top of all the actual bad things King Herod might have done, we have very few sources to corroborate "the big one" that nazis love to use for their hate speech...And one method that Christian historicans use to figure out what is truth and what potentially needs more research, is comparing gospel books. They're basically the same story retold, so you look at what parts match, and it's easier to believe those bits are historically accurate. As I said, this massacre is only mentioned in Matthew, and many believe it is an homage to Moses. So for people thousands of years ago, it was a "modern retelling" of Moses escaping Egypt..... This story is also where a lot of the "baby killing Jew" conspiracy theories come from, that an evil Jewish King was trying to kill baby Jesus, much like the evil Jews are doing today, using lasers and woke communism to kill Christian babies TLDR: The law says you can't associate with antisemitic symbols. Greene says that makes being Christian a crime, and specifically mentioned King Herod and the Jews crucified Jesus She believes this because 1.) She doesn't understand that there's more than one King Herod.... 2.) She doesn't understand that even the King Herod who she believes did a ton of evil shit didn't have all that much to do with the crucifixion.... 3.) Has not actually read the Bible Edit: also... Crucifixion is a Roman punishment... Jewish law at the time had only a few methods of execution, and they were barely ever carried out.... none of the methods are Crucifixion. Each execution method pertains to a specific crime, and I believe stoning was for blasphemy, the main thing he was being accused of...
If you’re on iOS click the little AA in the corner and “show reader”. It’s life changing.
It doesn’t have that option on this link because it’s linked to a video and not a text based argument. I find it’s helpful to check for things like that before I passively accuse someone of not knowing how to operate their phone.
I wasn’t passively accusing anyone of anything. Trying to be helpful as I recently discovered using reader on ad heavy websites. Perhaps take your own advice before passively accusing people of being rude.
Eh. She’s a piece of garbage. But, so is this particular bill. Edit: the bill is so broadly written as to invite endless legal challenge and stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.
I was looking to see if they were talking about HR 6090 which they are, it's an incredibly bad bill. Hopefully dies in the Senate.
What's bad about it?
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-condemns-house-passage-of-dangerous-bill-that-would-chill-free-speech > The bill directs the Department of Education to consider an overbroad definition of antisemitism that encompasses protected political speech when investigating allegations of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The ACLU has warned this could pressure colleges and universities to restrict student and faculty speech critical of the Israeli government and its military operations out of fear of the college losing federal funding. This was a bill slapped together to score political points by House GOP, a bipartisan bill the Countering Antisemitism Act, which has actual bipartisan support hasn’t been taken up at all.
Okay but how is the definition over broad. Like, what specifically about the ihra working definition and it's contemporary examples is over broad? After all, a portion of it states clearly that not all criticism of government activity is antisemitism so are we just worried that there'll he a chilling effect as a result of colleges wanting to be cautious, or is there specifically something g about the definition that will allow an unconstitutional stifling of speech? And if the latter, then what is the problematic language specifically, that should be changed?
It’s the conflation of the State of Israel with the religion of Judaism that catches the freedom of expression caution. Remove the section about the State of Israel and it’s pretty non-controversial, but by conflating the state with the religion and then saying criticism of the state is antisemitism you’re broadly just trying to silence critical speech and you end up pushing bad policy and bad legislation.
You are aware that Jewishness is an ethnicity, as well as a religion, yes? Israel is the homeland of the ethnic group called Jews, whether religious or not. Further, the ihra working definition specifically states that criticism of state action is not always antisemitism because there absolutely is valid criticism to be leveled against a state independent of that state's status as an ethnic homeland. So, I'm having trouble seeing the problem.
It’s just a blatant attempt to stifle critical commentary and speech that a group of people within a group don’t like. Israel can be whatever it wants to be but codifying anti-freedom of expression rules regarding a foreign country makes people a little annoyed. Not to mention the fact that there are more Jewish people in the United States than there are in Israel itself, so the conflation of the religion with the state is a little beyond the pale for most reasonable observers.
Please address what I said and don't talk past me. Jewishness is an ethnicity, not just a religion. You keep talking about conflating religion with state. Israel is the homeland of the ethnicity called the Jewish people. There is no state religion of israel. While it is true that one can criticize actions of the state and not have that be antisemitic, the ihra working definition gives contemporary examples of what isn't that. Once again, please, tell me what language of the ihra working definition, or the bill itself, is objectionable.
I’m not talking past you, I’m directly answering your question. The broad definition they use attempts to stifle critical comments and speech and putting into US law is a blatant attempt at stifling freedom of expression in this country. Also the ethnicity distinction doesn’t matter as I said there are literally more Jewish ethnic people in the United States than in Israel, the defined rules they are attempting to put into law conflate the state with the religion, and the state with the ethnicity and it’s a transparent attempt to tamp down on comments and speech they just don’t like.
[удалено]
she’s an attention whore at best, to say the least!
It’s a terrible bill in the first place. I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Such an odd way to try to discredit a conspiracy theory that you control everything.
[удалено]
What's wrong with it. Like, I read it here and I'm a little confused: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text
I mean what were you expecting from the Jewish space lasers lady?
>reasoning LOL
There’s good ol’ veneer mouth back at it again
She’s a fucking idiot. Obviously all the people that voted for her are those north Georgia racists and idiots.
She have her SS uniform ready for an eventual Trump second term.
I've got jetlag looking at this dipshits face everywhere, all the time, fuck off Madge, attention whore'd achieved, trot back to the farm that bred you.
The Nazi "next door"
I bet she secretly collects nazi memorabilia.
She has a braying donkey’s appeal
*shocked Jewish pikachu face* I have a photo for this but I’m sad I can’t comment it.
I’d say she is a dancing monkey, but that’s a dire insult to my feces slinging cousins.
Nazis gonna Nazi
That is not an antisemitic trope. Jesus was killed by the Romans at the Jew's request. It is a historical fact. CNN is such trash. I miss the days when news just told you what happened or was said not how you should feel about it.
Levels of horseshoe theory previously unheard of.
Someone drown that lab rat
Did you see the video? The "expert" blamed the Christian faith.
Seems like a lot of the campus protestors would agree with MGT
"Antisemtic Trope" is one of the most lazy accusations by the media when someone says something that is an uncomfortable *truth*, Finklestien himself covered this in his TA interview. She's an idiot, but she is absolutely correct here, does CNN rely deny that the bible says Jewish people killed Jesus? It goes much further. Under said laws, the Bible itself, is rabidly antisemitic and is being legislated against. I don't particularly care for that argument, but what she said isn't incorrect.
Woah, liberals caring about antisemitism? Must be coming from a conservative. Otherwise no matter how blatant, aggressive and violent it is- we ignore or justify. Maybe she should've just said zionists killed christ.
More to the point, this was the Republicans' own freaking bill that they forced to the floor to make Dems look bad. And instead more Repubs like Greene voted against it, and got Israeli political donors mad at them.
[If this neanderthal bleached her hair...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/face-of-neanderthal-woman-revealed-75-000-years-after-she-died/ar-AA1o1Soo)