By Tyler Arnold
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, May 10, 2024 / 12:15 pm
Following the passage of the Antisemitism Awareness Act by the House, critics have voiced concerns that the legislation could punish Christians for citing Scripture as well as restrict the right of students to protest Israeli military actions.
The proposed legislation would apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as the standard for enforcing all federal discrimination laws related to education programs or activities, including campus protests.
That definition has drawn criticism from several Christian lawmakers since it lists among the examples of antisemitism “claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel.” Other examples of antisemitism listed, such as “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” also alarm free speech advocates.
Potentially implicated Bible verses
Republican lawmakers Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, both Protestant Christians, have raised concerns about the impact of the measure on the use of biblical language.
Gaetz said on X that “the Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill” and cited three Bible verses: Acts 4:10, Acts 3:14-15, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
In another post, Gaetz emphasized: “The Bible is clear in that its words plainly, textually would violate this law. That is nuts — and in deep conflict with the First Amendment.”
In Acts 3:14-15, for example, St. Peter, speaking to “you Israelites” in Jerusalem shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus, tells them: “You killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.”
Likewise St. Paul, in the above-cited epistle to the Thessalonians, speaks disparagingly of “the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets.”
However, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Lawler, R-New York, has directly pushed back against the notion that the bill implicates the use of Scripture, saying: “Those pushing that nonsense are truly idiotic and irrational.”
“The bill does not criminalize Christianity — I’m Catholic,” he said in a post on X. “It gives contemporary examples of potential antisemitism. Calling all Jews Christ killers is a form of antisemitism. Believing in the Gospel is not.”
What the Church teaches about these verses
In Article IV of “The Creed” in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Church rejects the notion that Jewish people are solely responsible for the Crucifixion, teaching that “our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross.”
“This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory,” the text adds.
The issue is also specifically addressed in the Second Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate. The council states that “what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” Rather, it adds, “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ.”
“Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God,” the document adds.
(Story continues below)
Stephen Hildebrand, a professor of theology at Franciscan University, told CNA that the crux of the matter is that “we don’t hold a whole people responsible for the actions of some of them.”
“To attribute guilt to a whole people on the basis of the actions of a few of them is profoundly unfair and against all sense and reason and … against the teaching of the Catholic Church,” Hildebrand said.
Additional free speech concerns
The legislation, which passed the House of Representatives 320-91, has yet to be considered by the Senate. In the House, the measure received broad bipartisan support, with only 91 members (70 Democrats and 21 Republicans) opposed.
“I’m proud to support this important legislation that will protect our brave Jewish students who are watching their campuses be taken over by unsanctioned mobs of antisemites by requiring the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition of antisemitism when enforcing antidiscrimination laws,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York, who is also Catholic.
Meanwhile, the civil libertarian Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has argued that the legislation’s definition of antisemitism is “vague, overbroad, and includes criticism of Israeli government policy,” and that it would stifle speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed similar concerns, saying the bill “threatens to censor political speech critical of Israel on college campuses.”
This article was updated on May 13, 2024.
