The State Department [U.S.] has taken the groundbreaking step of identifying some virulent criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, as it warns that anti-Jewish attitudes and incidents are on the rise worldwide.


"Anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon," the report said. "New forms of anti-Semitism have evolved. They often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism. However, the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that — whether intentionally or unintentionally — has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character."


"All too often, legitimate criticism of the state of Israel can veer into naked anti-Semitism characterized by vile hate speech," said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Van Nuys), the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. "When hate speech arises, we should call it what it is — and do what can be done to stop it."

The 94-page report deals at length with Holocaust denial as a vehicle for anti-Semitism, focusing particularly on the role Iran's government has taken in its propagation. It also targets the United Nations system, saying the double standards some of its constituent bodies display toward Israel promote a hostile environment for Jews.

"Regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the U.N. against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism," it says.

From: "State Department: Israel-bashing can be classified as anti-Semitism," by Ron Kampeas. The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California. Friday April 11, 2008.

Some virulent criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism or anti-all descendants of Jacob. That's true. The Real Liberal Christian Church stands firmly opposed to all anti-Israelite attitudes, statements, and actions. All people self-identifying as Jews are not the same. They can not rightly be lumped together when criticizing the policies or practices of the current nation-state (government) of Israel.

To be a racists or an ethnic bigot would be akin to hating all Germans for what the Nazis did or hating all Afrikaners for what happened in South Africa or hating all Anglo-Saxons for what happened in India or the American Deep South regarding slavery. Frankly, it would be to hate all humanity as being unworthy of existence since there is no ethnic group that hasn't had members who have erred. In fact, each individual alive has erred.

That's why Jesus preached non-coercion. If the proper and best standard were to use coercion, then where would one draw the line on who deserves or doesn't deserve extermination. Move the line far enough and no one but the perfect God would deserve to exist. God is perfect by definition. If we are measured by God against God's perfection and found lacking and unworthy of continued existence and opportunity for growth and enlightenment, then we are all doomed and dead already. Anyone who thinks all Jews or Germans or Anglo-Saxons or Nigerians or Iraqis or Iranians or Venezuelans or any other whole people are fit for extermination or that anyone should exterminate anyone else under any circumstances had better prepare to meet Satan face to face and be tortured beyond endurance without prospect of deliverance before being completely broken into infinitesimally small pieces.

Let us rather take to the higher standard of universal repentance and forgiveness and brotherhood and sisterhood of all humanity under the real God who is the spirit (emotion) of total peace, love, truth, harmony, and all the rest of the good.

Jesus was a direct descendant of Jacob. Let no one forget that.

What would be totally wrong is for this position of the State Department to lead to mundane laws forbidding truth-telling regarding barbaric and unprincipled spirits. Part of why many Israelis and Jews in the U.S. and elsewhere are feeling particularly nervous is because people see the huge hypocrisy of having suffered under Nazis only to make Palestinians suffer. It stands out after all like a huge, throbbing, sore thumb.

The South Africans were subject to intense heat. They underwent some transformation. There is no Afrikaner separate state that resulted. The Zulus and the other tribes didn't break up the country by transferring the Afrikaners off their traditional lands.

Now, let me say this very clearly. The following is flat error. "...the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that — whether intentionally or unintentionally — has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews."

"[C]riticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that — whether intentionally or unintentionally — has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews" does not and never will constitute anti-Semitism, per se. It is a logical fallacy. Ask any professor of logic to analyze and report back to the State Department concerning the statement.

In addition, criticism of so-called Zionism [the current usage is in error, as real Zion is peace and nothing but] and of Israeli policy accompanied by clear statements condemning racism and ethnic bigotry, the fact that racists and ethnic bigots will ignore those qualifying clarifications doesn't negate the inescapable fact that criticism of Zionism and Israeli policy does not necessarily constitute anti-Semitism. Also, such qualifying and clarifying statements completely relieve the speaker or writer of any and all responsibility for so-called "unintentional" promotion of prejudice against all Jews.

Do you understand that, or are you being intentionally dimwitted?

This move by the State Department is leading toward the evil of censorship of free speech, as "free speech" is traditionally understood under the U.S. Constitution. There are those who want to outlaw all criticism of Zionism. They want it all labeled anti-Semitism [a misnomer since Palestinians are Semites as are all descendants of Shem.] They want it all labeled "hate speech." Well, it is hate speech of course, but it most often falls under the banner of hating barbarism and not hating all Jews in the sense of promoting coercion against them.

What the certain (only certain) Jews did in moving back into Palestine and then taking land and homes and killing and terrorizing Palestinians into fleeing was barbaric and can not be condoned under any circumstances. Absolutely nothing excuses it. What the Nazis did doesn't excuse it. What the Old Testament says doesn't excuse it. What the U.S. State Department says (Condi Rice) can't excuse it. It was flat out wrong and should never have happened. It was no more right than any of the other atrocities done down through the ages by Jews and non-Jews.

I for one will not be silenced regardless of any mundane laws that may be passed supposedly outlawing truth-telling concerning the evils of the terrorists who are now called the founding fathers of Israel. I won't be silenced about the evils of the neocons in taking the U.S. to war against Iraq. I won't be silenced about the evils of Hitler in his drive for "living room" under his ambitions for an unrivaled German Empire.

The State Department has blurred lines that ought not to be blurred. It has fallen prey to people with ulterior motives to excuse blatant ethnic bigotry on their own part in the name of anti-bigotry against the Jews. It talks of double-standards when it employs them in attempting to score points.

The State Departments report is fatally flawed. It is built upon faulty premises. It needs to be scrapped for the falsehood it promotes.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.