Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Congress BANS Israel Criticism With New 'Hate Speech' Law

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,667
Location: Long Island, New York

05 May 2024, 4:53 am

naturalplastic wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The government does not have endless money so it constantly is making decisions on who gets funded. Already it is mandatory that open discrimination does not get funded. This law expands the definition of discrimination to include saying Jews do not have a right to a state. Police and courts do not decide if the law has been broken and enforce this law, bureaucrats do.

The opponents of the law say it chills speech just as if a court sentenced you to prison or fined you for saying Jews do not have a right to self determination. Yes it does, that is the whole point of the law. If we accept this, we on a slippery slope to who knows what. Probably true.

The purpose of this post is to note that this law is not going into completely unchartered territory. If a owner of a company said it is too bad Hitler did finish not the job there would no controversy about defunding that company.

As far as the Christian Right agreeing with a lot of liberal zionist Jews, politics does make for strange bedfellows, often for nefarious reasons. Nothing new.

you're missing your own point.

Its not "the Christian Right agrees with zionist Jews who may or may not be liberal".

Its that anti Semites are allied to Jews...to support Zionism.

Which is an even a stranger alliance.

Though that actually isnt exactly "new" either. In the early days when Hitler was struggling to achieve power he was often allied to Zionist Jews too (they wanted to move out of Europe, and he and his Nazi follwers wanted Jews out of Europe too).

The Christian Right largely supports zionism because of the belief Jews need to be in Israel for the rapture to occur. The rapture idea is as antisemitic as you can get. For different reasons both agree that Jews need to be in Israel. The zionist Jews go along with it because they don’t believe the rapture will happen and the money and political support is useful.

The Haavara Agreement between the Nazis and zionists had been largely been buried. Since the idea that Israel is the current version of Nazi Germany has become popular the Haavara Agreement has often been used as proof of how evil Jews are.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,305
Location: temperate zone

05 May 2024, 7:43 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The government does not have endless money so it constantly is making decisions on who gets funded. Already it is mandatory that open discrimination does not get funded. This law expands the definition of discrimination to include saying Jews do not have a right to a state. Police and courts do not decide if the law has been broken and enforce this law, bureaucrats do.

The opponents of the law say it chills speech just as if a court sentenced you to prison or fined you for saying Jews do not have a right to self determination. Yes it does, that is the whole point of the law. If we accept this, we on a slippery slope to who knows what. Probably true.

The purpose of this post is to note that this law is not going into completely unchartered territory. If a owner of a company said it is too bad Hitler did finish not the job there would no controversy about defunding that company.

As far as the Christian Right agreeing with a lot of liberal zionist Jews, politics does make for strange bedfellows, often for nefarious reasons. Nothing new.

you're missing your own point.

Its not "the Christian Right agrees with zionist Jews who may or may not be liberal".

Its that anti Semites are allied to Jews...to support Zionism.

Which is an even a stranger alliance.

Though that actually isnt exactly "new" either. In the early days when Hitler was struggling to achieve power he was often allied to Zionist Jews too (they wanted to move out of Europe, and he and his Nazi follwers wanted Jews out of Europe too).

The Christian Right largely supports zionism because of the belief Jews need to be in Israel for the rapture to occur. The rapture idea is as antisemitic as you can get. For different reasons both agree that Jews need to be in Israel. The zionist Jews go along with it because they don’t believe the rapture will happen and the money and political support is useful.


Exactly.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,423
Location: Outter Quadrant

05 May 2024, 11:20 am

This reminds me for a moment... US corporate citizens ( All Citizens) in the USA are not subject to the Laws of Israel
We here are not the Israeli people ....It appears that. a thinking person would consider such things as treasonous.
Given the Laws that the United State or the Constitution was founded for ..passing such a law , would imply that
in essence , now the USA is a puppet Government of Israel now . Do not think the founding Fathers of the USA
or all thise people whom diedin. the War from Independance from England, would look favourable on such a Law.

Am not writing this from a position of this side good or that side bad,, but rather ,Why are we being subject to such. influences from other Countries ....based merely on political favour ?

Just venting on incongruencies that I am reading here . :roll:
Free the United States !
From corporate control aswell supporting the interests of our #1 buyers from our Industrial Military complex


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Last edited by Jakki on 05 May 2024, 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,843
Location: wales

05 May 2024, 11:26 am

I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep out of religious crap altogether.

If they carry on much longer and people feel pressured to pick a side, then violence might erupt here and I'll honestly be OK with it so long as people are fighting for neutrality.

"You're either with us or against us" logic from mobs only results in well deserved ass kickings.



Last edited by Nades on 05 May 2024, 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,423
Location: Outter Quadrant

05 May 2024, 12:00 pm

Nades wrote:
I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep put of religious crap altogether.

If they carry on much longer are people feel pressured to pick a side, then violence might erupt here and I'll honestly be OK with it so long as people are fighting for neutrality.

"You're either with us or against us" logic from mobs only results in well deserved ass kickings.


Had considered this then realizing this was put forth by. the Republicans...the obvious idea here is to divide and conquer
by causing this degree of irritation, noone will feel that are current government high officials..Are worthy of their elected positions , so perhaps giving the Repulicans an edge in the War for the office of the Presidency ...And the effect of supporting your own government in helping to facilitate a On going genocide . Obviously noone wants alignment with that government ....IMHO .....does not take a genius to figure out their actions vs their long term goals . Snd to make bad side effects to cast other Gov. officials in a bad light .


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,843
Location: wales

05 May 2024, 12:11 pm

Jakki wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep put of religious crap altogether.

If they carry on much longer are people feel pressured to pick a side, then violence might erupt here and I'll honestly be OK with it so long as people are fighting for neutrality.

"You're either with us or against us" logic from mobs only results in well deserved ass kickings.


Had considered this then realizing this was put forth by. the Republicans...the obvious idea here is to divide and conquer
by causing this degree of irritation, noone will feel that are current government high officials..Are worthy of their elected positions , so perhaps giving the Repulicans an edge in the War for the office of the Presidency ...And the effect of supporting your own government in helping to facilitate a On going genocide . Obviously noone wants alignment with that government ....IMHO .....does not take a genius to figure out their actions vs their long term goals . Snd to make bad side effects to cast other Gov. officials in a bad light .


It doesn't bother me what goes on in that part of the world. They can carry on arguing and killing each other over 1000 year old tit for tats all they like so long as a population on the other side if the planet isn't intimidated or pressured into picking a side (which is what seems to be happening)

A ban was long overdue.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,854
Location: Right over your left shoulder

05 May 2024, 12:16 pm

Nades wrote:
I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep out of religious crap altogether.


Competing nationalisms is the main grievance, not religion.


_________________
"The Big Lie about Gaza is that the Palestinians have been the aggressors..." —Norman Finkelstein
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
GOP Predators


Nades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jan 2017
Age: 1933
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,843
Location: wales

05 May 2024, 12:17 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep out of religious crap altogether.


Competing nationalisms is the main grievance, not religion.



I don't see it that way at all.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,854
Location: Right over your left shoulder

05 May 2024, 1:01 pm

Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep out of religious crap altogether.


Competing nationalisms is the main grievance, not religion.



I don't see it that way at all.


Then you're not paying adequate attention. Palestinians, whether Christian or Muslim or non-religious want a state for themselves; likewise their opponents, whether Jewish or non-religious feel entitled to create a state on that same land.

On the Palestinian side you have radical, secular group like Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine and you have group that are strictly Islamist like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Trying to frame their cause as strictly religious requires a lot of handwaving and ignoring of basic facts about the groups involved.

Likewise, the Israeli side isn't exclusively hyper-devout Jews who solely use religious arguments for why Israel should exist. Instead there's a lot of ethno-nationalists who rely heavily on secular arguments for why Israel should exist and is entitled to keep taking more.


_________________
"The Big Lie about Gaza is that the Palestinians have been the aggressors..." —Norman Finkelstein
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
GOP Predators


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,423
Location: Outter Quadrant

05 May 2024, 1:14 pm

Nades wrote:
Jakki wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think it should cut both ways. I'm tired of medevil religious grievances from a small area of land on the other side of the planet traveling all the way to the West, causing tensions in secular populatuons
that want to keep put of religious crap altogether.

If they carry on much longer are people feel pressured to pick a side, then violence might erupt here and I'll honestly be OK with it so long as people are fighting for neutrality.

"You're either with us or against us" logic from mobs only results in well deserved ass kickings.


Had considered this then realizing this was put forth by. the Republicans...the obvious idea here is to divide and conquer
by causing this degree of irritation, noone will feel that are current government high officials..Are worthy of their elected positions , so perhaps giving the Repulicans an edge in the War for the office of the Presidency ...And the effect of supporting your own government in helping to facilitate a On going genocide . Obviously noone wants alignment with that government ....IMHO .....does not take a genius to figure out their actions vs their long term goals . Snd to make bad side effects to cast other Gov. officials in a bad light .


It doesn't bother me what goes on in that part of the world. They can carry on arguing and killing each other over 1000 year old tit for tats all they like so long as a population on the other side if the planet isn't intimidated or pressured into picking a side (which is what seems to be happening)

A ban was long overdue.


One might presume by having such a ban , the USA would be picking one side over another . .......
And the confluence of this may reflect on memebers of the Jewish faith , Not Just Isaelis ..


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,305
Location: temperate zone

05 May 2024, 1:17 pm

Thats true. Both sides were secular. The state of Israel was founded by secular Jews influenced by the nationalism sweeping all of the ethnic subgroups of Europe in the 19th century, and many were influenced by socialist and Marxist ideals. The Orthodox religious considered modern Zionism to be a blasphemy, and the state of Israel to be a blasphemy. Finally most Orthodox accepted Israel as a defacto thing...and ironically now are its most powerful political faction. But there as still splinter orthodox groups who oppose Zionism.

The PLO was a secular political nationalist group with a 28 percent Christian membership. More influenced by Russia than by Mecca. Only in the 21st century did it get serious competition from Jihadist Islamist groups like HAMAS.

Actually...thats interesting how both sides were founded by secular nationalists more influenced by Marx than by ancient prophets. But now both Palestinian and Israeli society seem to be drifting from the secular to the religiously fanatic.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,320
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 May 2024, 2:01 pm

As I understand it, this is a resolution. There's no new law being enacted. I don't think it matters whether or not the President signs it. How I interpret it, is that Congress had agreed that calling for the destruction of Israel, just like calling for the destruction of any sovereign state based on ethnicity, religion, etc., is racist, and I happen to agree with it, as it would seem do most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I believe its purpose is to guide discourse on the floor of Congress going forward. Level-setting as it were. Too bad if it gives some self-righteous people the heebie-jeebies.


_________________
My WP story


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,423
Location: Outter Quadrant

05 May 2024, 2:32 pm

MaxE wrote:
As I understand it, this is a resolution. There's no new law being enacted. I don't think it matters whether or not the President signs it. How I interpret it, is that Congress had agreed that calling for the destruction of Israel, just like calling for the destruction of any sovereign state based on ethnicity, religion, etc., is racist, and I happen to agree with it, as it would seem do most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I believe its purpose is to guide discourse on the floor of Congress going forward. Level-setting as it were. Too bad if it gives some self-righteous people the heebie-jeebies.



{{{{{{ HEEBEE .....JEEBEEEZZ}}}}}}


Thought it was going to be Law ... :wtg: >>>>>>>> :roll:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,320
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 May 2024, 2:53 pm

Jakki wrote:
MaxE wrote:
As I understand it, this is a resolution. There's no new law being enacted. I don't think it matters whether or not the President signs it. How I interpret it, is that Congress had agreed that calling for the destruction of Israel, just like calling for the destruction of any sovereign state based on ethnicity, religion, etc., is racist, and I happen to agree with it, as it would seem do most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I believe its purpose is to guide discourse on the floor of Congress going forward. Level-setting as it were. Too bad if it gives some self-righteous people the heebie-jeebies.



{{{{{{ HEEBEE .....JEEBEEEZZ}}}}}}


Thought it was going to be Law ... :wtg: >>>>>>>> :roll:

Well I checked, and it apparently "codif(ies) the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".

So it's more than just a resolution, however I don't see how anybody could be adversely affected in their personal life, although I suppose if somebody is publicly calling for the literal destruction of the State of Israel, then this might put them in greater legal jeopardy, if somebody with any influence in the community objects.


_________________
My WP story


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,854
Location: Right over your left shoulder

05 May 2024, 3:37 pm

MaxE wrote:
Jakki wrote:
MaxE wrote:
As I understand it, this is a resolution. There's no new law being enacted. I don't think it matters whether or not the President signs it. How I interpret it, is that Congress had agreed that calling for the destruction of Israel, just like calling for the destruction of any sovereign state based on ethnicity, religion, etc., is racist, and I happen to agree with it, as it would seem do most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I believe its purpose is to guide discourse on the floor of Congress going forward. Level-setting as it were. Too bad if it gives some self-righteous people the heebie-jeebies.



{{{{{{ HEEBEE .....JEEBEEEZZ}}}}}}


Thought it was going to be Law ... :wtg: >>>>>>>> :roll:

Well I checked, and it apparently "codif(ies) the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".

So it's more than just a resolution, however I don't see how anybody could be adversely affected in their personal life, although I suppose if somebody is publicly calling for the literal destruction of the State of Israel, then this might put them in greater legal jeopardy, if somebody with any influence in the community objects.


I'm pretty sure that calling for the literal destruction of any state (including the US itself) is protected speech.


_________________
"The Big Lie about Gaza is that the Palestinians have been the aggressors..." —Norman Finkelstein
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
GOP Predators


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,320
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 May 2024, 4:45 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
MaxE wrote:
Jakki wrote:
MaxE wrote:
As I understand it, this is a resolution. There's no new law being enacted. I don't think it matters whether or not the President signs it. How I interpret it, is that Congress had agreed that calling for the destruction of Israel, just like calling for the destruction of any sovereign state based on ethnicity, religion, etc., is racist, and I happen to agree with it, as it would seem do most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I believe its purpose is to guide discourse on the floor of Congress going forward. Level-setting as it were. Too bad if it gives some self-righteous people the heebie-jeebies.



{{{{{{ HEEBEE .....JEEBEEEZZ}}}}}}


Thought it was going to be Law ... :wtg: >>>>>>>> :roll:

Well I checked, and it apparently "codif(ies) the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".

So it's more than just a resolution, however I don't see how anybody could be adversely affected in their personal life, although I suppose if somebody is publicly calling for the literal destruction of the State of Israel, then this might put them in greater legal jeopardy, if somebody with any influence in the community objects.


I'm pretty sure that calling for the literal destruction of any state (including the US itself) is protected speech.

In the US, a person seriously calling for the destruction of the US, whatever they mean by that, would be considered a seriously deranged person and would get plenty of attention from authorities. I don't think that, by itself, would get them locked up, but I wouldn't test it. Calling for the destruction of (for example) Albania, with the implied message that Albanians would be decimated and/or left stateless, would be considered quite boorish to most people. Even worse if you were to seriously suggest they deserve it. This resolution simply applies the same principle to Israel.

Ironic to suggest there's something sketchy about accepting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of Antisemitism. To me that's equivalent to having problems with the NAACP's definition of racism.


_________________
My WP story