Antisemitism Awareness Act passes the House

[Anonymous]

I think it’s dangerous they are using criticism of Israel as criticism as synonymous to Jew hatred.

People criticize Iran and Saudi Arabia all the time here. It doesn’t mean it’s Islamophobia.

We can criticize our own President or someone running for president but can’t criticize Israel?

Why the special privileges? Congress can suddenly get bipartisan and get to work when it comes to Israel. They can’t do this for Americans

[Anonymous]

Schumer wanted to fast track the passage of this bill, but that got tabled. Looks like the Senate will be taking it up next week.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/2988631/senate-moves-antisemitism-bill-campus-protests/

[Anonymous]

It’s so interesting that progressives - who insist on protections for all their pet groups - would be outraged at protections for Jewish people.

I wonder why that could be. Think think think.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It’s so interesting that progressives - who insist on protections for all their pet groups - would be outraged at protections for Jewish people.

I wonder why that could be. Think think think.

I don't think anyone other than right-wing anti-Semites like those who marched through Charlottesville is against protecting the Jewish people. The complaints about this bill are about protections for Israel which is a country, not a people. Bills like this further the perception that Jews and Israel are one and the same. I assume that many Jews are not thrilled with that aspect of it. Literally, according to this bill, criticizing an attack on Palestinian civilians that was conducted by Israeli Druze soldiers would be anti-Semtic even though no Jews were involved unless you also criticized all other attacks by other armies on civilians. It is beyond absurd.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so interesting that progressives - who insist on protections for all their pet groups - would be outraged at protections for Jewish people.

I wonder why that could be. Think think think.

I don't think anyone other than right-wing anti-Semites like those who marched through Charlottesville is against protecting the Jewish people. The complaints about this bill are about protections for Israel which is a country, not a people. Bills like this further the perception that Jews and Israel are one and the same. I assume that many Jews are not thrilled with that aspect of it. Literally, according to this bill, criticizing an attack on Palestinian civilians that was conducted by Israeli Druze soldiers would be anti-Semtic even though no Jews were involved unless you also criticized all other attacks by other armies on civilians. It is beyond absurd.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schumer wanted to fast track the passage of this bill, but that got tabled. Looks like the Senate will be taking it up next week.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/2988631/senate-moves-antisemitism-bill-campus-protests/

Your “elected officials” are just Netanyahu’s staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

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 anti-Semitic. 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 during World War II (the Holocaust).
-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.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does NOT extend its protections based on religion. This is the source of the problems.

Religious discrimination is supposed to be covered by the 1st Amendment, but it's a much bigger hill to get a 1st Amendment investigation undertaken by DoJ. Whereas Dept of Ed must undertake a Civil Right Act investigation when an allegation filed.

The right thing for Congress to do is re-open the Civil Rights Act and amend Title VI to cover religious discrimination.

Where do we draw the line with protections for religious practices? Should we be required to allow people to take days off of work or classes because they it is against their religion to work on specific days? What about when someones religious beliefs conflict with a course content (Eg. Evolution)? Do parents have the right to refuse live-saving medical treatments for their children because it is against their religion? I don't know what the answer is, but I am concerned that amending the Civil Rights Act to strengthen protections for religious practices could have negative consequences for society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schumer wanted to fast track the passage of this bill, but that got tabled. Looks like the Senate will be taking it up next week.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/2988631/senate-moves-antisemitism-bill-campus-protests/

Your “elected officials” are just Netanyahu’s staff.

35,000 slaughtered nothing. ICC indictments for crimes against humanity the US will blow up your world!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blatantly unconstitutional. Our lawmakers have taken an oath for crying out loud. Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.

And because I need to say it, married to a Jew and not an antisemite. I can see the difference between hating people for their religion and disapproving of a foreign government committing genocide against a repressed and effectively powerless people.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blatantly unconstitutional. Our lawmakers have taken an oath for crying out loud. Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.

And because I need to say it, married to a Jew and not an antisemite. I can see the difference between hating people for their religion and disapproving of a foreign government committing genocide against a repressed and effectively powerless people.

Anti-semites don't hate Jews for their religion.
"Religion" has been mentioned a dozen times in this thread, which just goes to show that none of you get it.

And for what it's worth, Israelis are the most secular Jews in the world. A large percentage of them don't know a thing about the Jewish religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

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 anti-Semitic. 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 during World War II (the Holocaust).
-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.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does NOT extend its protections based on religion. This is the source of the problems.

Religious discrimination is supposed to be covered by the 1st Amendment, but it's a much bigger hill to get a 1st Amendment investigation undertaken by DoJ. Whereas Dept of Ed must undertake a Civil Right Act investigation when an allegation filed.

The right thing for Congress to do is re-open the Civil Rights Act and amend Title VI to cover religious discrimination.

Where do we draw the line with protections for religious practices? Should we be required to allow people to take days off of work or classes because they it is against their religion to work on specific days? What about when someones religious beliefs conflict with a course content (Eg. Evolution)? Do parents have the right to refuse live-saving medical treatments for their children because it is against their religion? I don't know what the answer is, but I am concerned that amending the Civil Rights Act to strengthen protections for religious practices could have negative consequences for society.

Sounds like you don't appreciate diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

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 anti-Semitic. 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 during World War II (the Holocaust).
-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.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does NOT extend its protections based on religion. This is the source of the problems.

Religious discrimination is supposed to be covered by the 1st Amendment, but it's a much bigger hill to get a 1st Amendment investigation undertaken by DoJ. Whereas Dept of Ed must undertake a Civil Right Act investigation when an allegation filed.

The right thing for Congress to do is re-open the Civil Rights Act and amend Title VI to cover religious discrimination.

So a private religious school will not be able to deny admission to a child who is not a member of the said religion?

Maybe the federal government should get out of business with subsidizing religious schools?

I'm OK with that.

Tell the supreme court- the government has to subsidize religious schools if they subsidize private schools

The flip-side of this is that non-religious private schools could discriminate against applicants who are of certain religious groups. For example, GW University - which is non-religious - could ban all non-atheists.

Not sure why religious schools should get special protections here. The federal government really ought to get out of bed with religious institutions.

+1,000. You either protect all religions (including atheism), or you protect none. Otherwise, you are violating the Constitution.

For what it’s worth, if you find that people keep equating your behavior with that of a fascist regime that nearly wiped your people out, that should be your sign that some self-introspection is in order. Not a law forbidding the speech. Hate to say it, but banning and punishing certain speech is a decidedly Nazi thing to do.

This has some truth to it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize."

- Orwell

Very prescient

This gives me the chills. What would Orwell think of the world today?

[Anonymous]

You cannot muzzle people. It never works in the long run. Jewish people should not support this nonsense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

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 anti-Semitic. 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 during World War II (the Holocaust).
-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.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does NOT extend its protections based on religion. This is the source of the problems.

Religious discrimination is supposed to be covered by the 1st Amendment, but it's a much bigger hill to get a 1st Amendment investigation undertaken by DoJ. Whereas Dept of Ed must undertake a Civil Right Act investigation when an allegation filed.

The right thing for Congress to do is re-open the Civil Rights Act and amend Title VI to cover religious discrimination.

Where do we draw the line with protections for religious practices? Should we be required to allow people to take days off of work or classes because they it is against their religion to work on specific days? What about when someones religious beliefs conflict with a course content (Eg. Evolution)? Do parents have the right to refuse live-saving medical treatments for their children because it is against their religion? I don't know what the answer is, but I am concerned that amending the Civil Rights Act to strengthen protections for religious practices could have negative consequences for society.

Sounds like you don't appreciate diversity.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I think you need to draw the line somewhere because it will cause significant disruptions in society if religious beliefs enable people to opt out of laws or rules that everyone else has to follow. I'm worried we are going to end up with situations where a pharmacist is allowed to refuse to fill a prescription because it is against their personal religious beliefs or a grocery stores refuses to sell LGBT+ food because their religion disagrees with their lifestyle.