Started By
Message

Is HR6090 a direct threat to the 1st amendment and the Bible?

Posted on 5/7/24 at 5:34 am
Posted by Mike da Tigah
Bravo Romeo Lima Alpha
Member since Feb 2005
58953 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 5:34 am
Republicans Voting for Bill That Could Make 'Bible Illegal' Outrages MAGA


quote:

Congress on Wednesday passed the bill, which would require the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws. It comes as colleges across the United States have seen pro-Palestinian protests that critics say at times have allegedly veered into antisemitism.


quote:

While the definition in the bill does classify the idea that Jewish people were involved in killing Jesus as antisemitic, it does not make the Bible illegal.

The bill's text states that it would require the Education Department to "take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department's assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent" when investigating allegedly antisemitic discrimination at colleges.

quote:

Some conservatives are taking issue with the bill over the IHRA definition of antisemitism including "claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel," arguing that it could mean that parts of the Bible would now become "illegal."





The question I have is does this take something all Christians can agree is morally intolerable in anti-semitism, and use a law to ban certain parts of the New Testament from being quoted that “THEY” or “WHOEVER” views as being anti-Semitic, such as the written account of the Jews getting the Romans to kill Jesus?

Posted by GoAwayImBaitn
On an island in the marsh
Member since Jul 2018
2159 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 5:47 am to
When BLM declared open season on whitey, no law was made to stop that act of racism but hey, its just par for the course here
Posted by Goldbondage
Member since Mar 2020
698 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 5:52 am to
So Jews feel guilty/responsible for something that happened 2000 years ago? I don’t understand how this is remotely antisemitic.

Do we not hire Indian bridge engineers because their people 2000 years ago made rope bridges?
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
31004 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 6:00 am to
The whole bill is un-american.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99127 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 6:31 am to
Yes
Posted by Prodigal Son
Member since May 2023
709 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 7:26 am to
Acts 5:29 (NASB95): But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Posted by CitizenK
BR
Member since Aug 2019
9631 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 7:37 am to
Read the phucking bill before buying into nutter crap
Posted by THog
Member since Dec 2021
2252 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 7:42 am to
Agree. The bill literally ends with a disclaimer that it doesnt negate the 1st ammenment, because the bill is negating the 1st ammendment.

The definition of antisemitism is wide open and includes perceived speech. Definition is from another non-binding act. Holocaust rememberance act i think.
This post was edited on 5/7/24 at 7:45 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram