"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." EO instead, then.

[cnm]

If criticism of Israel and its policies were consider anti-Semitism, then every Israeli citizen would be a rabid anti-Semite.

The order defines examples of Israel criticism as such. Can you not read?

Combating Anti-Semitism 2019 Executive Order | Antisemitism | Discrimination

(i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "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"; and

(ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. ​

I remember the term 'self-hating Jew' coined by conservative Americans, I think, around the time of Dubya's invasion of Iraq.

 

[cnm]

That being said, singling out Israel for criticism while ignoring her neighbors or ascribing sinister motives to Israeli politics based on the ethnicity of the majority of its citizens, especially coming from people who have no connection with the region can very well come from an anti-Semitic place.

Or not.

 

[cnm]

It's not random that there are over 30 armed conflict happening around the world and the conflict between Israel and Palestine, despite being the lowest in intensity and casualties, generates ten times as much conversation as all the others combined.

First class 'whataboutism' there. But as a whimsical thought, perhaps because participants in the other conflicts don't steal our passports in order to execute their agendas.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No group or trait should have to be mentioned in the Constitution since it was meant for 'all'

Well, religion is specifically mentioned. So maybe lecture the people who wrote it?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No group or trait should have to be mentioned in the Constitution since it was meant for 'all'

Well, religion is specifically mentioned. So maybe lecture the people who wrote it?

And Hate Crime legislation thought up and enacted by progressives mentions specific groups. If you don't like setting precedents for further legislation that mentions specific groups then perhaps progressives shouldn't be setting precedents for the enactment of such type of legislation.

I personally don't see any reason for any of this legislation. The Jewish students should just sue the college for condoning and allowing discrimination if the college doesn't want to stop the abuse.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Questioner]

POLITICS
Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates
December 11, 20194:42 PM ET

LAUREL WAMSLEY

Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates
*******************************************************************************************

"Establishment of religion"

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. " - wikipedia
******************************************************************************************

Does not making a group a "protected group", based on their specific religion, violate this idea? Shall we also protect Sikhs? Wiccans? Muslims?

In practice, I'm not sure that this, as in any other 'right' is absolute.

The Common Law system which the states are subordinate to is indeed based off of "religious" principles and morality, such as the Golden Rule, having developed from older legal systems, including "religious" ones such as "Exodus".

And atheist, for instance, who doesn't believe there is anything wrong with rape or murder, will not be able to escape from a rape or murder charge simply by claiming that the state is forcing "religion" or "morality" on him, no.

Since, in practice, the entire "religious-secular" dichotomy is a myth to begin with; so-called "secular" systems incorporating "religious" principles, ideas, and concepts, and so-called "religious" systems serving "secular purposes", I'm thinking it might be better just to acknowledge this reality, give us a background and context on it, as well as acknowledge what "religion" actually is to begin with, in theory and practice, and see what the history of actual court rulings on the subject are in reality, as opposed to idle fantasy.

I'd argue that since history reveals that all systems are "religious", or founded on faith-based axioms to begin with, whether they purport to be "religious" or "secular" in name, we could use this as evidence to do away with the myth of the "secular-religious" dichotomy except in pure abstraction, and simply assert the reality that America, Britain and other Western nations do overtly favor certain religion, or at least certain aspects of religion over others, and for good reason.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And Hate Crime legislation thought up and enacted by progressives mentions specific groups.

Also irrelevant. Please stay on topic.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And Hate Crime legislation thought up and enacted by progressives mentions specific groups.

Also irrelevant. Please stay on topic.

It set a precedent for further legislation similar to it to be enacted so it is completely relevant to the topic at hand. Of course you're free to have the judicial system challenge the EO in court and see whether you can have it overturned or have all Hate Crime legislation removed from the books.

*****SMILE*****