I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education may
be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
disriminating.

Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel that
tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth, is
possibly a reasonable one.

The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic, along
with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and violence
have occurred.

Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
the speech also included threats and intimidation?

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on religious
grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or anything at all?
She wrote that she would not vote for the law because it "could convict
Christians of antisemitism for believing the gospel that says Jesus was
handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." This has been used as
justification for violence against Jews over the centuries.

I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor. He
explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand what
anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it taking
place. I couldn't stop laughing.

The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does not
thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
without making a death threat.

These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
stifled.

Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.

Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
the rest of us might speak freely.

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

> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
> disriminating.
>
> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
> is possibly a reasonable one.
>
> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
> violence have occurred.
>
> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>
> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
> against Jews over the centuries.
>
I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
limited here.

I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.

Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
tortured into denouncing Jesus?

I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.

> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>
Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
> without making a death threat.
>
> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
> stifled.
>
Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>
A worthy goal!
> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
> the rest of us might speak freely.

That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
advocates.

--
Rhino

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

>>. . .

>>Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>against Jews over the centuries.

>I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>limited here.

My knowledge of Bible stories in the New Testament and Gospels is
limited to the movies, which may not properly interpret the Bible.

>>. . .

On Thu, 2 May 2024 22:05:00 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
> ><ahk@chinet.com>:
>
> >>. . .
>
> >>Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
> >>religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
> >>anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
> >>because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
> >>the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
> >>by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
> >>against Jews over the centuries.
>
> >I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
> >details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
> >limited here.
>
> My knowledge of Bible stories in the New Testament and Gospels is
> limited to the movies, which may not properly interpret the Bible.
>
> >>. . .

That's perfectly fair. I wouldn't expect you to give me chapter and
verse on the Christian perspective but maybe you can give me the Jewish
perspective?

How was Jesus regarded by Jews? How was his betrayal regarded: as a
good thing because he was causing unrest or a very bad thing because
Jesus was a fellow Jew? I really have no idea on any of this beyond
understanding that most Jews regarded him as no more than another
prophet and certainly not the Messiah.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>. . .

>How was Jesus regarded by Jews?

First-born Jewish son whose mother treated him like a divine entity

The straight line you provided is 2000 years old.

>How was his betrayal regarded: as a
>good thing because he was causing unrest or a very bad thing because
>Jesus was a fellow Jew? I really have no idea on any of this beyond
>understanding that most Jews regarded him as no more than another
>prophet and certainly not the Messiah.

It's just not our story, and the religion had changed completely from
what it was at the time.

The early Christians came out of the movement that led to the writing
of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was a break-away from Judaism that had
attempted to Hellenize (what with the huge temple) and prosyletize.

We got it very very wrong. We're not supposed to convert the masses and
we're not supposed to prove that our God is bigger than your God based
on who has the bigger temple.

Sermon on the Mount? Not for us. We're supposed to be small time, except
for parts of New York.

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

>
>Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on religious
>grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or anything at all?
>She wrote that she would not vote for the law because it "could convict
>Christians of antisemitism for believing the gospel that says Jesus was
>handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." This has been used as
>justification for violence against Jews over the centuries.

Really? The way I remember it once Jesus got to Pilate everything that
subsequently happened (e.g. trial and execution) was done by the
Romans.

I'm pretty sure that spear in his side wasn't wielded by a Rabbi...

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>>I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>>House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>>Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>>failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>>may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>>disriminating.

>>>Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>>includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>>that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>>is possibly a reasonable one.

>>>The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>>along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>>violence have occurred.

>>>Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>>punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>>the speech also included threats and intimidation?

>>>. . .

>>>The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>>not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>>anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>>expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>>attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>>without making a death threat.

>>>These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>>Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>>concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>>stifled.

>>Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>>new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>>being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.

>>>Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>>ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.

>>A worthy goal!

>>>Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>>David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>>olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>>the rest of us might speak freely.

>>That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>>beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>>advocates.

>Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute inability of
>Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s

I watched the entire video. He persuaded me.

>There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
>ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.

I had no idea that this organization had governmental members till he
explained who they were.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>> disriminating.
>>
>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>
>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>> violence have occurred.
>>
>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>
>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>
> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
> limited here.
>
> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>
> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>
> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>
>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>
> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>
>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>> without making a death threat.
>>
>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>> stifled.
>>
> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>
>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>
> A worthy goal!
>
>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>
> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
> advocates.

Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute inability of
Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s

There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.

On 5/3/24 12:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>> disriminating.
>>>
>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>
>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>> violence have occurred.
>>>
>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>
>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>
>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>> limited here.
>>
>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>
>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>
>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>
>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>
>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>
>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>> without making a death threat.
>>>
>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>> stifled.
>>>
>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>
>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>
>> A worthy goal!
>>
>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>
>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>> advocates.
>
> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts

<snip irrelevancies>

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 5/4/24 3:36 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 5/3/24 12:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>>> disriminating.
>>>>
>>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>>
>>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>>> violence have occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>>
>>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>>
>>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>>> limited here.
>>>
>>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
>>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
>>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
>>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
>>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>>
>>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>>
>>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
>>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
>>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
>>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
>>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>>
>>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>>
>>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>>> without making a death threat.
>>>>
>>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>>> stifled.
>>>>
>>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>>
>>> A worthy goal!
>>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>>
>>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>>> advocates.
>>
>> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts
>
> <snip irrelevancies>

Why is it when he says "my thoughts" I think of Trump "ace-ing" his
cognitive test?

On 5/3/24 11:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>> disriminating.
>>>
>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>
>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>> violence have occurred.
>>>
>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>
>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>
>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>> limited here.
>>
>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>
>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>
>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>
>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>
>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>
>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>> without making a death threat.
>>>
>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>> stifled.
>>>
>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>
>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>
>> A worthy goal!
>>
>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>
>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>> advocates.
>
> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute inability of
> Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:
>
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s
>
> There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
> ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.

Does "supporting things" whilst being an anonyshit carry a lot of weight
then?

On 5/4/24 5:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/3/24 11:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>>> disriminating.
>>>>
>>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>>
>>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>>> violence have occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>>
>>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>>
>>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>>> limited here.
>>>
>>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
>>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
>>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
>>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
>>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>>
>>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>>
>>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
>>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
>>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
>>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
>>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>>
>>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>>
>>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>>> without making a death threat.
>>>>
>>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>>> stifled.
>>>>
>>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>>
>>> A worthy goal!
>>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>>
>>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>>> advocates.
>>
>> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute
>> inability of
>> Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:
>>
>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s
>>
>> There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
>> ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.
>
>
> Does "supporting things" whilst being an anonyshit carry a lot of weight
> then?

Again, Thanny cites another right wing fanatic MAGA troll. This time
Matt Walsh.

Who is Matt Walsh that Thanny wants to cite? This fucking guy!

On cartoons and anime:
> “It’s really popular amongst teens and young adults. I think it’s all satanic,” he declared before noting he had no evidence to back up that assertion.
> “I have no argument for it. I have no argument for why it’s satanic,” Walsh added. “It just seems that way to me. All anime to me seems weird—just like bizarre, creepy.”
>
> The Daily Wire provocateur and apparently self-appointed self-help guru wrapped up by declaring that adults should never watch animated movies or series.
> “In general, I don’t think that adults should be—whether it’s anime or any other kind of cartoon, with rare exception—adults really shouldn’t be watching cartoons in general, I would say,” he stated.

So cartoons are now "satanic".

Matt Walsh is nothing more than a homophobic troll. So, naturally, he's
Thanny's go-to guy.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

> On 5/3/24 11:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>>> disriminating.
>>>>
>>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>>
>>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>>> violence have occurred.
>>>>
>>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>>
>>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>>
>>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>>> limited here.
>>>
>>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
>>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
>>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
>>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
>>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>>
>>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>>
>>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
>>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
>>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
>>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
>>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>>
>>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>>
>>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>>> without making a death threat.
>>>>
>>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>>> stifled.
>>>>
>>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>>
>>> A worthy goal!
>>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>>
>>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>>> advocates.
>>
>> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts...

Nothing that comes out of Matt Walsh could be marginally described as a
"thought".

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 5/4/24 10:00 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 5/4/24 5:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 11:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
>>>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>>>> disriminating.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>>>
>>>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>>>> violence have occurred.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
>>>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>>>
>>>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>>>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>>>> limited here.
>>>>
>>>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King but
>>>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>>>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed without
>>>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>>>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>>>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much say
>>>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>>>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>>>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>>>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>>>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if most
>>>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>>>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>>>
>>>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>>>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>>>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>>>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>>>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>>>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>>>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>>>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>>>
>>>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on Greene's
>>>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>>>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media, but
>>>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains her
>>>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the doubt
>>>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>>>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>>>
>>>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>>>
>>>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
>>>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>>>> without making a death threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>>>> stifled.
>>>>>
>>>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
>>>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
>>>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>>>
>>>> A worthy goal!
>>>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
>>>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>>>
>>>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>>>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>>>> advocates.
>>>
>>> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute
>>> inability of
>>> Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:
>>>
>>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s
>>>
>>> There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
>>> ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.
>>
>>
>> Does "supporting things" whilst being an anonyshit carry a lot of
>> weight then?
>
>
> Again, Thanny cites another right wing fanatic MAGA troll.  This time
> Matt Walsh.
>
> Who is Matt Walsh that Thanny wants to cite?  This fucking guy!
>
>
> On cartoons and anime:
>> “It’s really popular amongst teens and young adults. I think it’s all
>> satanic,” he declared before noting he had no evidence to back up that
>> assertion.
>> “I have no argument for it. I have no argument for why it’s satanic,”
>> Walsh added. “It just seems that way to me. All anime to me seems
>> weird—just like bizarre, creepy.”
>>
>> The Daily Wire provocateur and apparently self-appointed self-help
>> guru wrapped up by declaring that adults should never watch animated
>> movies or series.
>> “In general, I don’t think that adults should be—whether it’s anime or
>> any other kind of cartoon, with rare exception—adults really shouldn’t
>> be watching cartoons in general, I would say,” he stated.
>
> So cartoons are now "satanic".
>
> Matt Walsh is nothing more than a homophobic troll.  So, naturally, he's
> Thanny's go-to guy.

And do you find the right wing homophobes the ones most likely to be
gay? I do.

On 5/5/24 5:59 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 5/4/24 10:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 5/4/24 5:33 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 5/3/24 11:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
>>>>>> House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the
>>>>>> Department of
>>>>>> Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
>>>>>> failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education
>>>>>> may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
>>>>>> disriminating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
>>>>>> includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel
>>>>>> that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth,
>>>>>> is possibly a reasonable one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic,
>>>>>> along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and
>>>>>> violence have occurred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
>>>>>> punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the speech also included threats and intimidation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on
>>>>>> religious grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or
>>>>>> anything at all? She wrote that she would not vote for the law
>>>>>> because it "could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing
>>>>>> the gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified
>>>>>> by the Jews." This has been used as justification for violence
>>>>>> against Jews over the centuries.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I could really benefit from some facts here. My knowledge of the
>>>>> details from either a Christian or Jewish perspective is extremely
>>>>> limited here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that Jesus was crucified at Herod's behest. Herod was a King
>>>>> but
>>>>> did he actually have the power to order the execution on his own
>>>>> initiative or was he simply doing as the Roman emperor directed
>>>>> without
>>>>> any realistic possibility of dissenting? And what was Herod's own
>>>>> religion? Was he Jewish? Was he a popular leader among the Jews? (Yes,
>>>>> I know that is a silly question given that very few people had much
>>>>> say
>>>>> over who was going to be their king: it's not like he was elected! But
>>>>> kings, however they can be get that job, can be anywhere on a spectrum
>>>>> from widely loved to massively despised. I'm just curious where Herod
>>>>> was among the people he ruled.) What were the sentiments of the Jewish
>>>>> community about Jesus? I knew Jesus was Jewish but I don't know if
>>>>> most
>>>>> Jews thought well of him or if they thought he was some kind of
>>>>> harmless weirdo or dangerous heretic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, how did Jesus come to be in Herod's custody? What actual crime
>>>>> did he commit? Who arrested him? Was his crime seen by agents of the
>>>>> King (the equivalent to today's police) or was he turned in by an
>>>>> informer? I know Judas is supposed to have a part in this - I remember
>>>>> something about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver to denounce Jesus -
>>>>> but again, I don't remember details. Did Judas actually slink into a
>>>>> police station-equivalent and rat out Jesus? Or was he rounded up and
>>>>> tortured into denouncing Jesus?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I need to know all this in order to form an opinion on
>>>>> Greene's
>>>>> concerns. I should point out that I've heard accusations of
>>>>> wing-nuttery against Greene, especially by the "progressive" media,
>>>>> but
>>>>> I've never heard a single clip directly from her where she explains
>>>>> her
>>>>> views about anything so I'm trying to give her the benefit of the
>>>>> doubt
>>>>> initially, even though I utterly loathe the idea that she's trying to
>>>>> protect a justification for launching anti-Jewish pogroms.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
>>>>>> C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor.
>>>>>> He explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand
>>>>>> what anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it
>>>>>> taking place. I couldn't stop laughing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bravo to Lawler for his wit!
>>>>>> The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does
>>>>>> not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
>>>>>> anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could
>>>>>> be an
>>>>>> expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
>>>>>> attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
>>>>>> without making a death threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
>>>>>> Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
>>>>>> concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
>>>>>> stifled.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if
>>>>> any
>>>>> new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students
>>>>> from
>>>>> being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.
>>>>>> Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
>>>>>> ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A worthy goal!
>>>>>> Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
>>>>>> David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
>>>>>> olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the rest of us might speak freely.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
>>>>> beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
>>>>> advocates.
>>>>
>>>> Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute
>>>> inability of
>>>> Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:
>>>>
>>>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s
>>>>
>>>> There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
>>>> ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does "supporting things" whilst being an anonyshit carry a lot of
>>> weight then?
>>
>>
>> Again, Thanny cites another right wing fanatic MAGA troll.  This time
>> Matt Walsh.
>>
>> Who is Matt Walsh that Thanny wants to cite?  This fucking guy!
>>
>>
>> On cartoons and anime:
>>> “It’s really popular amongst teens and young adults. I think it’s all
>>> satanic,” he declared before noting he had no evidence to back up
>>> that assertion.
>>> “I have no argument for it. I have no argument for why it’s satanic,”
>>> Walsh added. “It just seems that way to me. All anime to me seems
>>> weird—just like bizarre, creepy.”
>>>
>>> The Daily Wire provocateur and apparently self-appointed self-help
>>> guru wrapped up by declaring that adults should never watch animated
>>> movies or series.
>>> “In general, I don’t think that adults should be—whether it’s anime
>>> or any other kind of cartoon, with rare exception—adults really
>>> shouldn’t be watching cartoons in general, I would say,” he stated.
>>
>> So cartoons are now "satanic".
>>
>> Matt Walsh is nothing more than a homophobic troll.  So, naturally,
>> he's Thanny's go-to guy.
>
>
> And do you find the right wing homophobes the ones most likely to be
> gay?  I do.
>