Recently, a friend posted a link to a post about H. Res 894, saying it was an attempt to suppress Christianity and the Bible. And, like many, on first read, if you go by social media’s outrage, looks bad. In fact, my INITIAL impressions of the bill itself were that it specifically used language in it that looked to be an erosion of the First Amendment’s protections on Freedom of Speech. However, taking a few minutes of time, it proves to be a little murkier than that:
HR 894 cites recent examples of crimes against Jews as a rise in antisemitism, so, in this case, my friend was falling victim to the social media rage baiting. None of 894 should be objectionable or questionable; it merely lays out specific, recent events of violence aimed at Jewish individuals simply for being Jewish.
However, I think the real “outrage” that my friend felt was likely directed at HR 6090, which is a more thorough Bill and attempts to align the definition of antisemitism for enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws for the purposes of EDUCATION with those laid out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. This particular bill basically offers up two elements:
1. That it aims to align the definition of anti-semitism to that of the IHRA for these purposes. Said definition reads, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Ok, fine. Nothing questionable or unreasonable in that, right? I mean, the definition makes sense and you could simply change out the words “antisemitism” and “Jews” for any other ethnicity and/or faith and it would still be as impactful and applicable.
However, it’s the real world examples that cause some consternation:
2. That in so doing, this bill also aims to INCLUDE their "contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere..."
Those examples include the following:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Of the above, I think the only one statement that may be considered inflammatory is that of "Using the symbols of classic antisemitism..." based on the story of Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. If people seriously blame an entire religion or ethnicity for this betrayal, that's some seriously fucked up thinking.
One would think that institutions of learning would not need this guidance, guardrail, legislation, but what we’ve seen over the past 20 years in academia give pause to ask the question. The indoctrination that has become an integral part of post-secondary education has given rise to the levels of hate, contempt, distrust and disrespect that continue to erode American society, rather than enhance it, and are the impetus behind Bills like this.
In summary, I get the intention, but the construction of the bill is faulty. Through aligning government policy to a specific interest group without filter or clarification, leads opens it up to such criticism. However, I believe that its impact is minimal to the common American by its focus on education and was not intended to be used to suppress our Freedom of Speech. In fact, HR 6090 specifically states, "Constitutional Protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." By and large, it's a meaningless bill that IF it passes the Senate, will go through reconciliation in its final form that will likely strike some of that language.
Quite simply: Good intention. Poor Bill. Great rage bait.
Citations:
H. Res 894 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894/text?s=2&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22894%22%7D
H. Res 6090 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text?s=1&r=2&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%226090%22%7D
IHRA definition of antisemitism - https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism