It does not need to be targeted to a synagogue. The use of the symbol towards a jewish or non-jewish person OR places like synagogues also elevates it to a "hate crime." Line 95 and 96 cover this.
This type of language actually stokes anti-israeli propaganda more than it inhibits it. The law should not have specific carve outs like this. If you want to make acts of religious hate additional crimes, then do so equally, and absolutely avoid mentioning any one specific religion.
Easy to avoid while still accomplishing the same goals.
Yes, and a stance like yours doesn't mean you advocate for doing any of that.
I understand why these people are doing it, and it stems directly from this behavior. It's something to show off to friends, it makes them "famous", it gives them entertainment when the media rolls over back and forth on how awful it is.
But vandalism is also wrong, so that shouldn't be done.
I prefer to treat people with respect when they deserve it, and I have long stood against the muh Jews sentiment, although I have participated in offensive jokes specifically because it gets a rise out of people.
Normal folk just want to see equality, not equity.
I agree and was going to post similar after reading the bill. There is nothing against having or distributing Bibles in that bill. You just can't go onto private property and harass.
I made an account to day this but I've lurked a long time.
While True it only serves as a modifier it is a dangerous precedent to let stand as it legally acknowledges the Bible as anti-semetic.
It's reminds me of gun registration, "we don't want to bam guns, but we would like a detailed list of every gun, also please put a check box beside them."
DeSantis is doing a great job in Florida don't try to misinterpret what he's doing. Hate mongers do those things. The best thing that ever happened to me was when my family and I moved to Florida and nothing anybody says is going to make me change my mind
In their own words, they stated this. "But the chief priests (pharisees) and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." -- Matt. 27:20.
"Then answered all the people (a pharisee Edomite majority), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -- Matt. 27:25.
One cannot erase what is written or add verses not in Scripture.
In their own words, they stated this. "But the chief priests (pharisees) and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." -- Matt. 27:20.
"Then answered all the people (a pharisee Edomite majority), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -- Matt. 27:25.
One cannot erase what is written or add verses not in Scripture.
FYI. The chief priests were Sadducees appointed by the Romans - an illegal chief priesthood since they were not from the priestly line of Zadok. The people knew it and they knew it. The people hated them. Most of the later conflicts between the Apostles were with the Sadducees who did not believe in resurrection and were corrupt. They controlled the Temple by permission of the Romans and were the ones ripping the people off. The year that Jesus died, the Pharisees were essentially kicked out of the Temple proper area where the Sanhedrin previously met adjacent to the Temple - a place called the chamber of hewn stone. They were relegated to the outer court area with the rest of the people.
The Sadducean high priesthood, with a very small number of Pharisee collaborators, orchestrated a kangaroo illegal court to interrogate Jesus. They were looking for a crime to give them reason to have him tried by Pilate on charges of sedition. It was not a full Sanhedrin which did not have the authority to pass sentence on a capital case. No capital cases were allowed to be heard during the the entire month of Nisan - the season of Passover. There were many reasons why this was an illegal court which did not have the authority to pass a death sentence - which the Romans barred them from administering as well. Therefore, the Sadducees had to get Rome to do their dirty work.
The "multitude" present at Pilate's tribunal were preselected agitators - the very same thing that happens today. There is nothing new under the sun. This was NOT the same large group of worshippers that welcomed Jesus into the city just a week prior that mostly consisted of fellow Galileans that had followed Jesus' ministry for three years. Matt. 27.25 must be understood in the context of the crowd of agitators assembled at the praetorium. Most of the people in the city were getting ready for the Passover holiday and were clueless about what was taking place at the praetorium. Pilgrims that were just arriving in the city for the holiday also did not know what was taking place until they were told later. Everyone was focused on the holiday and the Sabbath.
They could not fit a huge number of people in the courtyard of Pilate's praetorium where Jesus was on trial. The praetorium was part of Herod the Great's former palace located on the western hill above the the upper city. Herod Antipas also shared this same complex with Pilate on the opposite side of the palace grounds. This was Antipas's residence when he was in Jerusalem. His normal capital residence was in Tiberius.
Pilate and Antipas' close proximity is what allowed Jesus to be shuttled back and forth between the two without alerting the rest of the city. Jesus had a huge number of supporters and the last thing the Sadducees wanted was for the people to find out that their beloved rabbi was being railroaded by the high priests.
The common people did not have access to this area in order for the Roman guard to maintain control. Only family members and supporters for the accused would have been allowed at the praetorium when Pilate was seeing prisoners. The Sadducees had placed their agitators posing as supporters of Jesus. It was too early in the morning for the disciples to have rallied the troops before the tribune to petition Pilate on Jesus' behalf. By the time they arrived, Jesus had already been convicted and was being led off to execution. Those that took the curse of blood were only those present at the tribunal - not the entire city nor the entirety of the people. John was the only one that stayed close - but from a distance. The rest had fled and were in hiding after Jesus was arrested. Therefore, the rest of the people did not know what was taking place until it was too late.
You can go ahead and piece together whatever narrative you wish based upon interpretation not grounded or rooted in the original languages, culture, and historical records. The historical and archeological evidence paints a much different picture for anyone that takes an unbiased look at the evidence according to the historical record, from multiple sources, and let it speak for itself.
As far as my original statement - it still stands. If we are to believe that Jesus died for us to save us, then we are the reason for his death - no matter who was the instrument used by the Father to give us such a precious gift. To shift blame somewhere else, is to cheapen and negate what Jesus accomplished. We are the reason for his death. Otherwise, his resurrection is meaningless.
"The chief priests were Sadducees appointed by the Romans - an illegal chief priesthood since they were not from the priestly line of Zadok."
First, disregard the "(pharisee)" in parentheses next to the chief priests. Copy/paste error. Albeit, the Pharisees enjoyed the popularity of the vast public.
" And, "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace obsequious to them, (but) the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." (Ref. Jose. "Antiquities of the Jews," Whiston, pg. 281).
The fact of the matter was the people favored the Pharisees, while the rich and powerful (i.e., the slave owners) favored the Sadducees.
King Alexander 1 Janneus feared the very end of the Hasmonean dynasty. Before his death, he confided in his wife the idea that he had hoped would preserve it. His wife was not to let on that he had died when he did, but instead return back to the city as if in victory over their enemies and then call the leaders of the Pharisees in so as to make a deal with them. And this was that they (the Pharisees) agree to let her remain as regent (Queen) and leave the Hasmonean dynasty to exist; and in exchange, she granted them all power over the government. Salome Alexandra (Regent), then continued to rule after the death of her husband Alexander 1 from 79 to 70/69 BCE. One of the focal points in the war occurred upon the death of Salome Alexandra, as that is apparently what led to a great civil battle within the war as a whole.
Whereupon she served as a figurehead and whether reluctant or not, supporter of the Pharisees. Her son, then after her, likewise served the same purpose. He was John Hyrcanus II. He ruled from the time of his mother's death in 70 BCE till 40 BCE, and he was finally put to death by King Herod in 31 BCE. Even though the Pharisees were in great power in Judea, the Romans and rulers elsewhere were still in opposition and the fighting continued. Nevertheless, the Hasmonian dynasty ended ignominiously at the hands of a slave named Herod who rose up and exterminated the family and reigned in their stead. In addition, if that was not enough, he took the name of the Hasmoneans for himself. As the Hasmoneans lost their influence, it fulfillment of the verse: “The stranger among you will ascend higher and higher, while you will descend lower and lower” (Deuteronomy 28:43). The majority of the populace was Edomite.
“When, years before, John Hyrcanus had forced Judaism on the Idumeans [Edomites] he evidently conjectured that the new, though unwilling, converts could learn to identify their own destiny with that of his people”, The Jews, their History, Culture, and Religion, pg. 121
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147.
“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants”, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966), pg. 594, also in the The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589.
Herod was an Edomite and the priesthood answered to King Herod, who in turn was a vassal king friendly to Rome. The temple was referred to as Herod's temple because Herod recognized it as a lodestar of Jerusalem and greatly contributed to its riches. During his reign, he rebuilt the Temple. The Pharisees were discontented because Herod disregarded many of their demands with respect to the Temple's construction. The Sadducees, who were closely associated with priestly responsibilities in the Temple, opposed Herod because he replaced their high priests with outsiders from Babylonia and Alexandria, in an effort to gain support from the multitude. Herod's outreach efforts gained him little, and at the end of his reign anger and dissatisfaction were common amongst the people. Herod was in his decline at this time, and it was a decline into madness. Josephus records that he suffered from various sicknesses and suffered from hallucinations. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem the thought of another claimant to the throne of a sick and unpredictable monarch was unthinkable. Herod immediately went to the chief priests and scribes of the people. These were all men whom he had appointed. There was only one chief priest, but Herod had appointed and then deposed so many in his reign that no doubt we have here a reference to the fact that not only the incumbent high priest but also those who had been deposed were brought together.
However, it is well recognized the Pharisees held sway in In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground.
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis.
"How to praise him now that the temple was gone?"
The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.
Hence, they were NOT a people of the book before this time.
The Talmud was compiled as a result of the absolute destruction of Herod’s temple, in which every stone was carried away leaving no trace of it’s existence. Thus, Christianity is arguably an older religion than Judaism (not Hebraism).
"I know the blasphemies of them, which say they are Judahites, and are not, but are from the synagogue of Satan". - Rev. 2:9.
"As far as my original statement - it still stands. If we are to believe that Jesus died for us to save us, then we are the reason for his death - no matter who was the instrument used by the Father to give us such a precious gift. To shift blame somewhere else, is to cheapen and negate what Jesus accomplished."
You seem to be conflating the bearing of false witness by those priests resulting in Jesus death with the purpose of His Divine sacrifice. To claim I or other Christians bore false witness against Jesus causing his death is misplaced and simply untrue. To claim we all killed Jesus is as false of a deduction as saying -- Mary is the mother of Jesus and then claiming her as the 'mother of God'. It's a false deduction.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
"Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power, ..."
I'll reprint from my earlier post -- "and in exchange,she (queen Salome Alexandra) granted them (read the pharisees) all power over the government.
The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do."
Not quite. Again, I'll reprint:
"And, "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace obsequious (i.e. kowtowing; servile) to them, (but) the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." (Ref. Jose. "Antiquities of the Jews," Whiston, pg. 281).
The fact of the matter was the people favored the Pharisees, while the rich and powerful (i.e., the slave owners) favored the Sadducees.
Simply stated, the Pharisees and Essenes were at variance with the Sadducees (and the Romans) on the issue of slavery. As to the Pharisees, Josephus says; *"...they follow the conduct of reason..." Meaning a) ethics, and b) that the leaders of the Pharisees were not 'religious', as in following after 'beliefs' over practicality, and c) "...they also pay respect to such (as) that are in years..." (i.e., they honored and respected their elders). And furthermore, "...they do not take away the freedom from men..." Which indeed means that they were adverse to the idea of slavery. (Ref. Josephus, Whiston translation, page 376-377).
"Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically."
This is absolutely nonsensical. Seemingly, you have no idea to what the Pharisees believed in. Pharisaism ended Hebrewism and after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD, it was directed to confront Christianity.
Titus razed Herod's massive temple to the ground. From the Haggadah, we read:
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.
(Hence, they were NOT a people of the book (the Hebrew Bible) before this time.)
One thing remains certain: the Talmud, and the Haggadah along with it, was a response to a catastrophe so great it threatened to destroy a people. The first extant version of the Haggadah was ... unearthed in a manuscript of a siddur (prayer book) compiled by Saadia Goan in the 10th century.
*"The Jewish religion, as it is today, traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of their literature; the study which is essential for a real understanding of Pharisaism." --Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, page 474.
Stephen S. Wise, deceased, and formerly Chief Rabbi of the United States stated, "The return from Babylon and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."
The Babylonian Talmud was originally called - "The Tradition of the Elders" (laws of men). The Jews confirm this when talking to Christ in Matthew 15: 2, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread." Christ answered in the next verse "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15: 9, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines, the commandments of men."
More than 90% of Judaism today is Pharisaism. Every law in the Bible is diametrically opposed by the Talmud. In the 23rd chapter of Matthew, Christ identifies them by calling them Pharisees, not once but nine times. He heaps upon them the most scathing. denunciation ever recorded, calling them thieves, liars, hypocrites, murderers, etc., even responsible for all who have been killed upon this earth including the righteous Abel. Christ could not make this statement if the they were not descendants of Satan through Cain.
I'll quote from the 23rd chapter of Matthew starting with verse 13:
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither permit them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour your widow's houses, and for a pretense make long prayers; therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him, twofold more the child of hell then yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, who say, 'whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind; for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, whosoever shall swear by the altar it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is bound. Ye fools and blind; for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whosoever, therefore, shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things on it. And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him who sitteth on it. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faith; these ought ye to have done not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the seputchers of the righteous, and say 'if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore ye are witnesses against yourselves, that ye are the sons of them who killed the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation (race) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation (this race)."
It's so very clear Jesus rejected the scribes and Pharisees.....
The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds.
Your statement doesn't seem to recognize that the vast majority of Israelites never returned to Judea, nor lived there. There was only the small community of Israelites in Galilee, in which Jesus came from. Jerusalem was very multicultural trade center and dominated by the Edomite majority. As a reward for being an ally of Nebachednezzar, the Edomites received the spoils of war including the vacant homes, businesses, farms, and orchards vacated by the conquered Israelites, who were carried away in captivity (slavery) to Babylon. The Greeks later conquered this region and named it 'Idumaea', meaning the land of Edomites. Obviously, they were the predominant population there. Further, We read --
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”*, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147. Also, "Edom is in modern Jewry". The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, Page 41, and/or vol 4, page 25. Finally, "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew'". - The 1980 Jewish Almanac's first chapter, p. 3 entitled "Identity Crisis."
This ought to be over-turned because of it violates the First Amendment and censors Religious Rights to worship and to evangelize. The Bible is clear that the word "Jew" is used from the English translation as early as the 1600s AD. Christians have been accustomed to the use of Jew for over 500 years. It would be an outright attack on Christianity if this law somehow stands.
Despite this it was the Pharisees and their predominant Edomite following that called for Jesus to be crucified, not Israelites.
You will know who is controlling things by who you cannot use free speech against! The Zionist Jews, firstly, are not Jews at all...they are all half-breeds and the synagogue of satan (as opposed to just your average, working, Israeli who calls themselves Jewish for whatever reason). Second, the Hebrew nation ceased to exist in 70AD at the hands of God Almighty because they were (according to God) a stubborn and stiff necked people...they murdered all their own prophets God sent to warn them to stop practicing satanism...but they wouldn't stop. Then God sent His own Son and they (THE JEWS...the real JEWS...the Hebrews) killed Him as well. This action (the rejection of their Messiah) sealed their fate.
In 70AD God used the Romans to annihilate the Hebrew/Jewish nation in a most horrific way never to be seen on earth again. The Hebrews were never to return again. What we see in Israel now isn't real Israel, but a satanically created, Rothchild funded FAKE nation.
The current FAKE Israel is a result of the Balfour Declaration, and phony banker bucks...NOT Biblical prophecy fulfilled! Unfortunately most modern Scofield deceived Christians don't understand or accept this to their own detriment and the continued hinderance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ taking over the world.
But the blinders are being removed and God's true church are beginning to see the truth about the fake state of Israel. Until modern Christians wake up and understand that not only are there no longer any "real" Hebrews as they were scattered to the four winds or murdered in 70AD and that the "Jews" are no longer God's chosen people...we as a nation will continue to be the major part of the problem in the setting up of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ here on earth.
By that logic, Jesus's statement in Mark 9:31 contradicts Jesus's statement in John 10:8. But there's no contradiction. Both are true and are not mutually exclusive.
Jesus said NOBODY takes His life but He lays down His own life for us. It wasn't the "Jews" that killed Jesus, it was Satan swaying man to destroy the Creator and he used the Jews and the Roman's to do it. Little did he know that he was doing God's will that was planned from the foundation of the world. Our sins are what killed Jesus and only by His blood are we saved from our sins. You want to see who killed Jesus, look in the mirror.
If you bring that line of scripture up, write out the whole thing. Its the ones that worship with child sacrifice falsely calling themselvss jews in order to operate in the open.
Revelation 2:9-10 KJV
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. [10] Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
They can’t legislate speech right someone tell me I’m right….also wtf are these little carve outs all over for special groups how bout the same rules apply across the board
Does anyone have the link to "defining antisemitism"? Is that from a florida website? Its important to have that link to have defining context. Thanks! Trying to refill a brother
he signed sp 2006 giving the FL Surgeon General authority to JAB people in a pandemic against their will, yea right, see how that goes. which is why the false flags continue so we are disarmed like Europe.
and Jeb bush also signed a vaxxx bill as well, still on the books.
birds of a feather, but, put him in a debate with Geotus, see what happens.
I'm not trying to start anything, just an honest question that came into my mind. If it's already illegal to graffiti private property, why the need to modify?
If I follow correctly, the antiemetic language is a modifier to property damage/defacement/graffiti type activity.
If you are upset that you can no longer spray paint "mah joos killed jesus" on a synagogue, I'm having a hard time siding with you.
Would it be okay if I spray painted a synagogue with, "I love you!" or would that also be considered damage/defacement/graffiti type activity?
To find out who is hiding behind the curtain, in control of the government, observe who you're not allowed to criticise.
Leaving it open to discussion for now, but I'm reading the bill here:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/269/BillText/Filed/PDF
If I follow correctly, the antiemetic language is a modifier to property damage/defacement/graffiti type activity.
If you are upset that you can no longer spray paint "mah joos killed jesus" on a synagogue, I'm having a hard time siding with you.
Please keep things civil, reasonable, and factual, or it will be treated as forum sliding.
It does not need to be targeted to a synagogue. The use of the symbol towards a jewish or non-jewish person OR places like synagogues also elevates it to a "hate crime." Line 95 and 96 cover this.
This type of language actually stokes anti-israeli propaganda more than it inhibits it. The law should not have specific carve outs like this. If you want to make acts of religious hate additional crimes, then do so equally, and absolutely avoid mentioning any one specific religion.
Easy to avoid while still accomplishing the same goals.
Yes, and a stance like yours doesn't mean you advocate for doing any of that.
I understand why these people are doing it, and it stems directly from this behavior. It's something to show off to friends, it makes them "famous", it gives them entertainment when the media rolls over back and forth on how awful it is.
But vandalism is also wrong, so that shouldn't be done.
I prefer to treat people with respect when they deserve it, and I have long stood against the muh Jews sentiment, although I have participated in offensive jokes specifically because it gets a rise out of people.
Normal folk just want to see equality, not equity.
I agree and was going to post similar after reading the bill. There is nothing against having or distributing Bibles in that bill. You just can't go onto private property and harass.
Good mod!
I made an account to day this but I've lurked a long time.
While True it only serves as a modifier it is a dangerous precedent to let stand as it legally acknowledges the Bible as anti-semetic.
It's reminds me of gun registration, "we don't want to bam guns, but we would like a detailed list of every gun, also please put a check box beside them."
DeSantis is doing a great job in Florida don't try to misinterpret what he's doing. Hate mongers do those things. The best thing that ever happened to me was when my family and I moved to Florida and nothing anybody says is going to make me change my mind
seems as though we are progressing nicely towards the times described in Revelations.
The Jews didn't kill Jesus. I killed Jesus.
Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sin, because I am incapable of paying it myself. He did it so that I could spend eternity with him in heaven.
If I hadn't have been a sinner, Jesus wouldn't have had to die to save me.
Ergo, I killed Jesus.
This is the correct response.
Ron is still a traitor tho. Jeb Bush wearing a thin coat of MAGA colored paint.
We cant present as barbarians at the gate. Infiltration rather than invasion. Spy vs spy requires spies have to play the game. Think.
I mean i logged alot of hours in tf2. Though spy vs spy is a good tactic. Pyro vs spy tends to be more effective ;)
Both can be true. You, me, etc were the cause, the Jews were the vehicle.
In their own words, they stated this. "But the chief priests (pharisees) and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." -- Matt. 27:20.
"Then answered all the people (a pharisee Edomite majority), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -- Matt. 27:25.
One cannot erase what is written or add verses not in Scripture.
Amen brother. If we want to know who killed Jesus - look in the mirror.
In their own words, they stated this. "But the chief priests (pharisees) and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." -- Matt. 27:20.
"Then answered all the people (a pharisee Edomite majority), and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." -- Matt. 27:25.
One cannot erase what is written or add verses not in Scripture.
FYI. The chief priests were Sadducees appointed by the Romans - an illegal chief priesthood since they were not from the priestly line of Zadok. The people knew it and they knew it. The people hated them. Most of the later conflicts between the Apostles were with the Sadducees who did not believe in resurrection and were corrupt. They controlled the Temple by permission of the Romans and were the ones ripping the people off. The year that Jesus died, the Pharisees were essentially kicked out of the Temple proper area where the Sanhedrin previously met adjacent to the Temple - a place called the chamber of hewn stone. They were relegated to the outer court area with the rest of the people.
The Sadducean high priesthood, with a very small number of Pharisee collaborators, orchestrated a kangaroo illegal court to interrogate Jesus. They were looking for a crime to give them reason to have him tried by Pilate on charges of sedition. It was not a full Sanhedrin which did not have the authority to pass sentence on a capital case. No capital cases were allowed to be heard during the the entire month of Nisan - the season of Passover. There were many reasons why this was an illegal court which did not have the authority to pass a death sentence - which the Romans barred them from administering as well. Therefore, the Sadducees had to get Rome to do their dirty work.
The "multitude" present at Pilate's tribunal were preselected agitators - the very same thing that happens today. There is nothing new under the sun. This was NOT the same large group of worshippers that welcomed Jesus into the city just a week prior that mostly consisted of fellow Galileans that had followed Jesus' ministry for three years. Matt. 27.25 must be understood in the context of the crowd of agitators assembled at the praetorium. Most of the people in the city were getting ready for the Passover holiday and were clueless about what was taking place at the praetorium. Pilgrims that were just arriving in the city for the holiday also did not know what was taking place until they were told later. Everyone was focused on the holiday and the Sabbath.
They could not fit a huge number of people in the courtyard of Pilate's praetorium where Jesus was on trial. The praetorium was part of Herod the Great's former palace located on the western hill above the the upper city. Herod Antipas also shared this same complex with Pilate on the opposite side of the palace grounds. This was Antipas's residence when he was in Jerusalem. His normal capital residence was in Tiberius.
Pilate and Antipas' close proximity is what allowed Jesus to be shuttled back and forth between the two without alerting the rest of the city. Jesus had a huge number of supporters and the last thing the Sadducees wanted was for the people to find out that their beloved rabbi was being railroaded by the high priests.
The common people did not have access to this area in order for the Roman guard to maintain control. Only family members and supporters for the accused would have been allowed at the praetorium when Pilate was seeing prisoners. The Sadducees had placed their agitators posing as supporters of Jesus. It was too early in the morning for the disciples to have rallied the troops before the tribune to petition Pilate on Jesus' behalf. By the time they arrived, Jesus had already been convicted and was being led off to execution. Those that took the curse of blood were only those present at the tribunal - not the entire city nor the entirety of the people. John was the only one that stayed close - but from a distance. The rest had fled and were in hiding after Jesus was arrested. Therefore, the rest of the people did not know what was taking place until it was too late.
You can go ahead and piece together whatever narrative you wish based upon interpretation not grounded or rooted in the original languages, culture, and historical records. The historical and archeological evidence paints a much different picture for anyone that takes an unbiased look at the evidence according to the historical record, from multiple sources, and let it speak for itself.
As far as my original statement - it still stands. If we are to believe that Jesus died for us to save us, then we are the reason for his death - no matter who was the instrument used by the Father to give us such a precious gift. To shift blame somewhere else, is to cheapen and negate what Jesus accomplished. We are the reason for his death. Otherwise, his resurrection is meaningless.
First, disregard the "(pharisee)" in parentheses next to the chief priests. Copy/paste error. Albeit, the Pharisees enjoyed the popularity of the vast public.
" And, "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace obsequious to them, (but) the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." (Ref. Jose. "Antiquities of the Jews," Whiston, pg. 281).
The fact of the matter was the people favored the Pharisees, while the rich and powerful (i.e., the slave owners) favored the Sadducees.
King Alexander 1 Janneus feared the very end of the Hasmonean dynasty. Before his death, he confided in his wife the idea that he had hoped would preserve it. His wife was not to let on that he had died when he did, but instead return back to the city as if in victory over their enemies and then call the leaders of the Pharisees in so as to make a deal with them. And this was that they (the Pharisees) agree to let her remain as regent (Queen) and leave the Hasmonean dynasty to exist; and in exchange, she granted them all power over the government. Salome Alexandra (Regent), then continued to rule after the death of her husband Alexander 1 from 79 to 70/69 BCE. One of the focal points in the war occurred upon the death of Salome Alexandra, as that is apparently what led to a great civil battle within the war as a whole.
Whereupon she served as a figurehead and whether reluctant or not, supporter of the Pharisees. Her son, then after her, likewise served the same purpose. He was John Hyrcanus II. He ruled from the time of his mother's death in 70 BCE till 40 BCE, and he was finally put to death by King Herod in 31 BCE. Even though the Pharisees were in great power in Judea, the Romans and rulers elsewhere were still in opposition and the fighting continued. Nevertheless, the Hasmonian dynasty ended ignominiously at the hands of a slave named Herod who rose up and exterminated the family and reigned in their stead. In addition, if that was not enough, he took the name of the Hasmoneans for himself. As the Hasmoneans lost their influence, it fulfillment of the verse: “The stranger among you will ascend higher and higher, while you will descend lower and lower” (Deuteronomy 28:43). The majority of the populace was Edomite.
“When, years before, John Hyrcanus had forced Judaism on the Idumeans [Edomites] he evidently conjectured that the new, though unwilling, converts could learn to identify their own destiny with that of his people”, The Jews, their History, Culture, and Religion, pg. 121
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147.
“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants”, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966), pg. 594, also in the The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589.
Herod was an Edomite and the priesthood answered to King Herod, who in turn was a vassal king friendly to Rome. The temple was referred to as Herod's temple because Herod recognized it as a lodestar of Jerusalem and greatly contributed to its riches. During his reign, he rebuilt the Temple. The Pharisees were discontented because Herod disregarded many of their demands with respect to the Temple's construction. The Sadducees, who were closely associated with priestly responsibilities in the Temple, opposed Herod because he replaced their high priests with outsiders from Babylonia and Alexandria, in an effort to gain support from the multitude. Herod's outreach efforts gained him little, and at the end of his reign anger and dissatisfaction were common amongst the people. Herod was in his decline at this time, and it was a decline into madness. Josephus records that he suffered from various sicknesses and suffered from hallucinations. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem the thought of another claimant to the throne of a sick and unpredictable monarch was unthinkable. Herod immediately went to the chief priests and scribes of the people. These were all men whom he had appointed. There was only one chief priest, but Herod had appointed and then deposed so many in his reign that no doubt we have here a reference to the fact that not only the incumbent high priest but also those who had been deposed were brought together.
However, it is well recognized the Pharisees held sway in In 66 CE, when the Roman general Vespasian swept into Jerusalem, Judaism was a cultic, oral religion, with Herod's massive temple as its lodestar. Everything happened in the temple complex. Four years later, Vespasian's son Titus razed it to the ground.
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.
Hence, they were NOT a people of the book before this time.
The Talmud was compiled as a result of the absolute destruction of Herod’s temple, in which every stone was carried away leaving no trace of it’s existence. Thus, Christianity is arguably an older religion than Judaism (not Hebraism).
"I know the blasphemies of them, which say they are Judahites, and are not, but are from the synagogue of Satan". - Rev. 2:9.
You seem to be conflating the bearing of false witness by those priests resulting in Jesus death with the purpose of His Divine sacrifice. To claim I or other Christians bore false witness against Jesus causing his death is misplaced and simply untrue. To claim we all killed Jesus is as false of a deduction as saying -- Mary is the mother of Jesus and then claiming her as the 'mother of God'. It's a false deduction.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
I'll reprint from my earlier post -- "and in exchange,she (queen Salome Alexandra) granted them (read the pharisees) all power over the government.
Not quite. Again, I'll reprint:
"And, "...while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have the populace obsequious (i.e. kowtowing; servile) to them, (but) the Pharisees have the multitude on their side." (Ref. Jose. "Antiquities of the Jews," Whiston, pg. 281).
The fact of the matter was the people favored the Pharisees, while the rich and powerful (i.e., the slave owners) favored the Sadducees.
Simply stated, the Pharisees and Essenes were at variance with the Sadducees (and the Romans) on the issue of slavery. As to the Pharisees, Josephus says; *"...they follow the conduct of reason..." Meaning a) ethics, and b) that the leaders of the Pharisees were not 'religious', as in following after 'beliefs' over practicality, and c) "...they also pay respect to such (as) that are in years..." (i.e., they honored and respected their elders). And furthermore, "...they do not take away the freedom from men..." Which indeed means that they were adverse to the idea of slavery. (Ref. Josephus, Whiston translation, page 376-377).
This is absolutely nonsensical. Seemingly, you have no idea to what the Pharisees believed in. Pharisaism ended Hebrewism and after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD, it was directed to confront Christianity.
Titus razed Herod's massive temple to the ground. From the Haggadah, we read:
"Where was God under the rubble?" wondered the Rabbis. "How to praise him now that the temple was gone?" The sages agreed: Jews would have to become a people of the book, or they would disappear.
(Hence, they were NOT a people of the book (the Hebrew Bible) before this time.)
One thing remains certain: the Talmud, and the Haggadah along with it, was a response to a catastrophe so great it threatened to destroy a people. The first extant version of the Haggadah was ... unearthed in a manuscript of a siddur (prayer book) compiled by Saadia Goan in the 10th century.
*"The Jewish religion, as it is today, traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of their literature; the study which is essential for a real understanding of Pharisaism." --Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, page 474.
Stephen S. Wise, deceased, and formerly Chief Rabbi of the United States stated, "The return from Babylon and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."
The Babylonian Talmud was originally called - "The Tradition of the Elders" (laws of men). The Jews confirm this when talking to Christ in Matthew 15: 2, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread." Christ answered in the next verse "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15: 9, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines, the commandments of men."
More than 90% of Judaism today is Pharisaism. Every law in the Bible is diametrically opposed by the Talmud. In the 23rd chapter of Matthew, Christ identifies them by calling them Pharisees, not once but nine times. He heaps upon them the most scathing. denunciation ever recorded, calling them thieves, liars, hypocrites, murderers, etc., even responsible for all who have been killed upon this earth including the righteous Abel. Christ could not make this statement if the they were not descendants of Satan through Cain.
I'll quote from the 23rd chapter of Matthew starting with verse 13:
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither permit them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour your widow's houses, and for a pretense make long prayers; therefore, ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him, twofold more the child of hell then yourselves. Woe unto you, ye blind guides, who say, 'whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind; for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, whosoever shall swear by the altar it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is bound. Ye fools and blind; for which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whosoever, therefore, shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things on it. And whosoever shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him who sitteth on it. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faith; these ought ye to have done not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the seputchers of the righteous, and say 'if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore ye are witnesses against yourselves, that ye are the sons of them who killed the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation (race) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify, and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah, son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation (this race)."
It's so very clear Jesus rejected the scribes and Pharisees.....
Your statement doesn't seem to recognize that the vast majority of Israelites never returned to Judea, nor lived there. There was only the small community of Israelites in Galilee, in which Jesus came from. Jerusalem was very multicultural trade center and dominated by the Edomite majority. As a reward for being an ally of Nebachednezzar, the Edomites received the spoils of war including the vacant homes, businesses, farms, and orchards vacated by the conquered Israelites, who were carried away in captivity (slavery) to Babylon. The Greeks later conquered this region and named it 'Idumaea', meaning the land of Edomites. Obviously, they were the predominant population there. Further, We read --
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”*, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147. Also, "Edom is in modern Jewry". The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol. 5, Page 41, and/or vol 4, page 25. Finally, "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew'". - The 1980 Jewish Almanac's first chapter, p. 3 entitled "Identity Crisis."
This ought to be over-turned because of it violates the First Amendment and censors Religious Rights to worship and to evangelize. The Bible is clear that the word "Jew" is used from the English translation as early as the 1600s AD. Christians have been accustomed to the use of Jew for over 500 years. It would be an outright attack on Christianity if this law somehow stands.
Despite this it was the Pharisees and their predominant Edomite following that called for Jesus to be crucified, not Israelites.
Could not agree more. This observation alone should convince anyone the bible is true.
You will know who is controlling things by who you cannot use free speech against! The Zionist Jews, firstly, are not Jews at all...they are all half-breeds and the synagogue of satan (as opposed to just your average, working, Israeli who calls themselves Jewish for whatever reason). Second, the Hebrew nation ceased to exist in 70AD at the hands of God Almighty because they were (according to God) a stubborn and stiff necked people...they murdered all their own prophets God sent to warn them to stop practicing satanism...but they wouldn't stop. Then God sent His own Son and they (THE JEWS...the real JEWS...the Hebrews) killed Him as well. This action (the rejection of their Messiah) sealed their fate.
In 70AD God used the Romans to annihilate the Hebrew/Jewish nation in a most horrific way never to be seen on earth again. The Hebrews were never to return again. What we see in Israel now isn't real Israel, but a satanically created, Rothchild funded FAKE nation.
The current FAKE Israel is a result of the Balfour Declaration, and phony banker bucks...NOT Biblical prophecy fulfilled! Unfortunately most modern Scofield deceived Christians don't understand or accept this to their own detriment and the continued hinderance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ taking over the world.
But the blinders are being removed and God's true church are beginning to see the truth about the fake state of Israel. Until modern Christians wake up and understand that not only are there no longer any "real" Hebrews as they were scattered to the four winds or murdered in 70AD and that the "Jews" are no longer God's chosen people...we as a nation will continue to be the major part of the problem in the setting up of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ here on earth.
Khazarians set up israel as a place to hide
That was, perhaps, one of the best most succinct History lessons I ever read.
Well done for accuracy and covering the important bits!!
Well said, thank you for explaining all of this!
'what you said'
No, it's not allowed, sorry
see sidebar: This includes forum sliding. Q said "We are saving Israel for last," and so are we.
There’s NOTHING hateful about:
It’s a factual statement; that’s simply what happened.
This is hella creepy.
edit: I just read u/parallax_crow’s post, oh.
Does that change anything. What this law does is penalize a vandal more if he vandalizes a synagogue with the truth instead of the usual bullshit.
I'm not sure this is a positive step here.
I thought about it some more,
this could be a case of:
This could be that inch, that takes miles.
edit 1:
Using “Vandalism” as Camouflage.
Using “Hate Speech” to Justify Censorship.
edit 2:
Jordan Peterson said that Tyrants control how you think by controlling what you say.
I am now concerned. ron is now a bitch
Well they eventually reveal themselves in due time.
Thanks to the First Amendment, I don’t give a shit about hate speech laws. The Jews killed Jesus.
Jesus said no one takes my life from Me, I lay down my life John 10:8 the letter to the thessalonians is wrong.
By that logic, Jesus's statement in Mark 9:31 contradicts Jesus's statement in John 10:8. But there's no contradiction. Both are true and are not mutually exclusive.
However He still chose to go, John 18:36 He could have stopped it at any moment so no contradiction.
Jesus said NOBODY takes His life but He lays down His own life for us. It wasn't the "Jews" that killed Jesus, it was Satan swaying man to destroy the Creator and he used the Jews and the Roman's to do it. Little did he know that he was doing God's will that was planned from the foundation of the world. Our sins are what killed Jesus and only by His blood are we saved from our sins. You want to see who killed Jesus, look in the mirror.
".Well all i can say is, Sanctimonious has just lost any chance he had of winning the 24 Election ,.as if he ever did anyway,.!
It isn't hate speech, it is just facts.
Rome carried out the execution of Christ. Isn't Desantis a Roman Catholic?
I used to support desantis.. hes just a jew cockholster trampling on freedom of speech.
Remember when Jesus called the people that called themselves Jews the synagogue of satan?
If you bring that line of scripture up, write out the whole thing. Its the ones that worship with child sacrifice falsely calling themselvss jews in order to operate in the open.
Not true.
Revelation 2:9-10 KJV I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. [10] Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
First law change will be full repeal of all hate laws. Worst laws ever.
They can’t legislate speech right someone tell me I’m right….also wtf are these little carve outs all over for special groups how bout the same rules apply across the board
Does anyone have the link to "defining antisemitism"? Is that from a florida website? Its important to have that link to have defining context. Thanks! Trying to refill a brother
The fact is we all crucified Jesus.
There is no such thing as a hate speech crime in America. Challenge it in court and strike it down like every gun law ever.
My favorite crimes are the love crimes. Those are so much better than the hate crimes.
If you attack a white Christian, that is an act of love.
If you attack one of the preferred classes of people, that's hate. Make sense now?
Any law repugnant to the Constitution is illegal including this one.
What was that one thing? Oh yeah the first amendment.
Amendment 1, US Constitution
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."
Doesn't say "Unless presidential candidates want to fellate a certain minority group by making criticizing them a crime"
So basically the apostles are felons... Again...
Jews killed Jesus
proving again Ron is not presidential material
probably what he was going for
he signed sp 2006 giving the FL Surgeon General authority to JAB people in a pandemic against their will, yea right, see how that goes. which is why the false flags continue so we are disarmed like Europe.
and Jeb bush also signed a vaxxx bill as well, still on the books.
birds of a feather, but, put him in a debate with Geotus, see what happens.
u/parallax_crow
I'm not trying to start anything, just an honest question that came into my mind. If it's already illegal to graffiti private property, why the need to modify?
Would it be okay if I spray painted a synagogue with, "I love you!" or would that also be considered damage/defacement/graffiti type activity?
Marten Luther's writings are prohibited then?
https://wikiless.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies?lang=en
It seems we are looking at a re-enactment and we have to fight for the same real estate again.