Jesus, Jews, Free Speech, and Nutcases

Who dunnit?

These not-exactly-new assertions display more evidence of splintered thinking. One walk-through of the Gospels makes them irrelevant.

First, Jesus the Christ’s earthly lineage is Jewish; “The Lion of the tribe of Judah.'‘

Second, Jesus the Christ was on direct assignment from his Father: to be the sacrificial Lamb whose death would absolve the sins of all people choosing to acknowledge that paid debt. His goal was to die

Third, when the Pharisees came to arrest Jesus, Peter cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. As a result, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away because he (Jesus) could call his father and have 12 legions of angels at his disposal if he wanted to.

That’s a lot of supernatural beings; one probably would have handled the job.

Fourth, though the Pharisees and the mob of Judeans who called for Jesus’ execution were willing to have the guilt of his death be upon themselves and their progeny, Jesus counteracted this by praying that these people be held innocent of his death.

Therefore, none of them are guilty.

In short, Jesus let himself be crucified.  No other human being made this happen.

Fifth, if one is not a Christian - that is, if one does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God sent to be the Messiah - then it doesn’t matter who had him executed.   

Either one believes these things or one doesn’t. So what are these people arguing about? I don’t think they know.

But I know: it’s a method of demonizing the Hebrews/Isrealites/Jews and the crazy thing is that anyone who would hold the Jews and their progeny - or the Romans and theirs, for that matter -  liable for the execution of Jesus is implicitly denying that he is the Messiah.   

They are negating their own assertion.  

Of course, this dustup is in response to the proposed Antisemitism Awareness Act and there are a great many reasons to oppose this bill.  

These are the best, however.

1. It violates the First Amendment

2. People need to know who hates them

In 1977, a neo-NAZI group wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois - a town with many Holocaust survivors - and most residents wanted the city to prevent it and it did. But the ACLU defended the NAZIs’ free expression rights in a case that went to the Supreme Court. This is because the ACLU understood reason #1 stated above.

Central to the ACLU’s mission is the understanding that if the government can prevent lawful speech because it is offensive and hateful, then it can prevent any speech that it dislikes. 

– David Goldberger (name ironic), former ACLU lawyer who helped defend the neo-NAZIs’ right to march    

(Spoiler: the NAZIs ended up marching in Chicago.)

But I think reason #2 is just as important. Allowing one’s enemies to hide and whisper in back rooms or members-only online forums is self-defeating. Doing so allows enemies to surprise their targets. This is never a good thing.

One huge problem exists: people hate those who hate them and this is a recipe for violence, especially for those who operate purely on emotion. 

(I laugh at people who hate me for who I am and use them for blog post fodder.)

More later on how splintered thinking has further affected how we read and comprehend the Bible. Read this first.