Can Christianity Become Illegal Due to HR 6090?

[Carborendum]

So, the Antisemitism Bill (HR 6090) that just passed "apparently" has verbiage that makes belief in the New Testament illegal.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 on X: "Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews. Read the bill text and… https://t.co/Y0eeOiVfnw" / X (twitter.com)

It's not just her, but 70 D and 21 R (total) voted against it.

But those who passed it (both R and D) are crying out how ridiculous it is that anyone would interpret the bill that way.  There's nothing to worry about.

Uh-huh.

Text - H.R.6090 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The texts gives two statements about what constitutes Anti-Semitism.

1. Definition

The definition seems sufficiently vague as to give you the gist of what Anti-Semitism is.  And I think that most people would understand that.  But the broad definition is also one that is easily left up to interpretation.  This is the same problem as other "hate speech laws."

2. Contemporary Examples

Quote

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

A big problem is that such verbiage is not included in the bill itself. It incorporates them by reference only. This means that many won't actually look at the definition and examples.  They just want to pass the bill anyway... because no one wants to be seen as anti-semitic.

[Phoenix_person]

These are my biggest takeaways from the bill text.

The IHRA defines antisemitism as follows:

The IHRA goes on to list several examples of antisemitism under this definition. Link

There's also this section in the bill text. 3b in particular seems very relevant.

My gut reactions:

1. I trust MTG's constitutional expertise less than I trust my cat with an unsupervised plate of bacon. And I certainly wouldn't hold her up as a voice against antisemitism

2. The language in the bill doesn't seem to leave any room for prosecuting people who believe that biblical jews were responsible for the death of Christ. It seems pretty clear that the intent of the text is to prevent modern Jews from being blamed, stigmatized, and persecuted for something that happened 2000 years ago, and I see nothing wrong with that. No one blames modern Catholics for the Inquisition, or modern Mongolians for the ancient conquest and general terrorizing of their Asian neighbors, Those are things that we learn about in history class without an expectation that we will hate Catholics and Mongolians for it. I think there's plenty of room to treat the crucifixion of Christ in a similar fashion.

[zil2]

10 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

This is so vague and meaningless as to be absurd.  Under this definition, me feeding my cat could be argued a form of antisemitism (since nothing and no one is excluded from it - it's a boundless "definition").

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

This is so vague and meaningless as to be absurd.  Under this definition, me feeding my cat could be argued a form of antisemitism (since nothing and no one is excluded from it - it's a boundless "definition").

Sorry to laugh at a serious subject, but I can picture your cat on the phone to ADL saying “Cancel @zil2! My food is twenty minutes late and she’s making comments about my religion!”

[Vort]

So under this bill, Holocaust denial becomes a crime? Yeah, I'm not on board with that level of goodthink.

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

So under this bill, Holocaust denial becomes a crime? Yeah, I'm not on board with that level of goodthink.

No, I’m not either.

Classic case of “I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” 

[SilentOne]

I'm also concerned about "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." Especially when combined with the part of the definition that says, "...are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

So if one American Jewish person advocates for something that helps Israel while harming the US, saying anything about it could be anti-Semitism and thus illegal?

Edited May 4 by SilentOne

[SilentOne]

I looked a bit more closely about what exactly this new law is supposed to do, which is apparently to provide a clear definition of antisemitism to help decide if antisemitism motivated actions/decisions, and thus whether the Civil Rights Act applies. And I think for that purpose, the wording of the referenced documents is too easy to manipulate.

Edited May 4 by SilentOne
grammar fix

[LDSGator]

I don’t think we have to worry about Christianity being illegal at this time. When that time comes, and I think it will, it’ll be through a much more vulgar display of power.