Oh, Jack won't like this:

In another test of America's frayed relations with France, Russia and other allies, the US Congress has ordered the State Department to start rating governments throughout the world on their treatment of Jewish citizens.

The proposed law [scil., S. 2292 Global anti-Semitism Review Act] was passed by the House of Representatives on Monday, in response to what its sponsors called an alarming surge in anti-Semitism, especially in Europe. It has already been passed by the Senate.

France, Russia, Malaysia, Egypt, Canada and Australia were singled out by congressional sponsors of the law as countries that had witnessed disturbing outbreaks of discrimination against Jews in the past year.

[Tom Lantos, a California Democrat and Holocaust survivor who was one of the bill sponsors] said the objections from diplomats overlooked existing offices at the State Department dedicated to promoting religious freedom, women's rights, and Tibetan rights.

He did not touch directly on the risk of offending French or other allied sensibilities.

Lynne Weil, his communications director, said: "It's unclear why anyone would be offended by this.

"If a government takes offence at this, that government should be offended by the acts of its own citizens, if they are hateful."

How come when ever a congressman is proven to not even have a glancing familiarity with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, said congress person always has a little (d) next to it's name?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

These are ideals we hold our own government to. They should be ten times as much dear when being applied to our affairs with foreign countries.

How about a law making it a requirement of any federal candidate, that they have passed a constitution reading for comprehension test. That would be something I can get behind.

PT,

S. 2292 is co-sponsored by Christopher H. Smith (R), Fourth Congressional District of New Jersey.

Mr. Lantos is a pompous jackass with or without S. 2292.

But I'm missing your point. I don't see the passing of S. 2292 in conflict with the establishment clause. Please clue me.

Regards,
DGB

DGB

It is strange to me that you don't see a bill confering special protections to Jews specificly, as a violation of the establishment clause.
Is it an act of Congress? Yes.
Does it respect the establishment of a religion,
Specificly the Jewish religion? Yes.
Further does it imply some sort of Government action to disuade foreign national's (not even our own people!) expression of their bigotry, denying them their freedom of expression? Yes.

I think so called "hate crimes" legislation is the most direct attack on Constitutional freedoms in our country today. Expanding the scope of the flawed notion that you can legislate people's thought processes to an international level is to say the least, arrogance.

PT,

There is a not unreasonable distinction between that which goes to the "establishment" of a religion and that which is a "protection" of the practice of a religion. S. 2292 speaks to the latter and does nothing to promote or advance the Jewish religion.

In "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" the First Amendment certainly suggests an obligation of the government to protect the practice of religion. Anti-Semitism as an action is criminal in that seeks to limit the practice of religion.

The intent of the bill is innoucuous enough:

(1) the United States Government should continue to strongly support efforts to combat anti-Semitism worldwide through bilateral relationships and interaction with international organizations such as the OSCE, the European Union, and the United Nations; and

(2) the Department of State should thoroughly document acts of anti-Semitism that occur around the world

The Congress through various committees and the Department of State are already provisioned for collecting this sort of information. The United States in materially supporting the UN organization in effect underwrites several similar reports and pronouncements that speak to anti-Semitism.

The bill's only executive directive is the establishment of an Office to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism. This is nothing more than a bureaucratic departmentalizing of functions already performed by the Department of State, the Congress and various government commissions, e.g., U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The bill is not provisioned for rememdying anyone's private attitudes toward Jews. People remain free to stew in their hates, the bill will just remark if they take them to the barricades.

As for "hate" legislation, such legislation establishes another dimension to already prohibited criminality. Such laws distinguish between, say, mere murder (a bad thing) and murder with a poor disposition to diversity (a really awful thing). "Hate" legislation, like "harrassment", legislation leaves it to a court on appeal to define the "hate", or "harrassment", component of a crime, which is to say it is badly written law that doesn't bother clearly defining the offense it purports to condemn. This was not an oversight, it was done to skate around the government codifying "thought" crimes.

Of course, here you see, I am in complete agreement with you. Junk law is bad law.

Regards,
DGB

These are ideals we hold our own government to.

Do we? So then Judge Moore is Congress, and the 10 commandments statue was an establishment of religion?

ugg

You both got me. I know this much. That the civil rights law as written makes ACLU attacks on religion a for profit endeaver. As long as the Government is required to pick up the court costs and lawyers fees by law, regardless of the dubious nature of the charge (like for instance barring a boy scout troop from using a San Diego park because they won't allow gay men to be scout leaders, which resulted in a 2 1/2 million reward to the ACLU {not for profit in a pigs eye}), the ACLU will continue its lucrative attacks.

The civil rights act was written for the purpose of allowing poor blackmen who were discriminated against while looking for a job, the government funded backing to seek resolution of their greivances, even if they couldn't afford a lawyer.
The ACLU uses the vage wording of the law to make a tiny cross in the city seal of Los Angeles into a violation of civil rights, and a guaranteed pay day for their "volunteer lawyers". The ACLU actually runs wantads in newspapers offering reward money ($ 500) to people if they spot, say an angel ornament on a city square christmas tree.

You ever get the urge to hurt somebody?

Often. In fact, it's a Pavlovian response to the initialism "ACLU".

Anti-Christian Litigation Unit...Makes you flash to the A-Team.