Fact check: Would bill outlaw Christian teaching, as Gaetz and Greene claim?
Far-right lawmakers also repeat antisemitic canard that Jews killed Jesus
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1a0a9c75-c064-4746-9d92-6f6296bd30b4_1280x924.jpeg)
In the wake of disruptive and sometimes violent protests over Israeli military actions in Gaza, the U.S. House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, sending it to the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future. The bill was designed primarily to crack down on antisemitic speech on college campuses.
Of course, the legislation had political aims as well. The bill was pushed primarily by Republicans, who expected that Democrats would be divided over the matter, allowing Republicans to claim that Democrats were tolerant of antisemitism. And 70 Democrats obliged, raising questions about the constitutionality of the legislation, which would require the Department of Education to “take into consideration” the working definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance when it determines the motivations of school-related actions alleged to be antisemitic.
One thing that Republicans may not have been counting on is that opposition to the bill would also come from 21 Republicans, especially from the far-right flank of the party.
Among the most outspoken Republicans regarding the legislation were firebrands Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Both claimed that the legislation would threaten the religious freedom of Christians, and both also strongly suggested that the Bible says that the Jews crucified Jesus.
Claim
Here are excerpts from tweets Gaetz and Greene posted on X, formerly known as Twitter:
Gaetz: “The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of the bill! The Bible says the definition of antisemitism includes ‘contemporary examples of antisemitism’ identified by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). One of these examples includes ‘... claims of Jews killing Jesus...’ The Bible in clear. There is no myth or controversy on this. Therefore, I will not support this bill.” [boldface in original]
Greene: “I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6060) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing that the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”
Truth verdict
❌❌ False and false.
First, the wording of the bill would do nothing to prevent Christians from believing or preaching Christianity. Second, as a matter of history, it wasn’t the Jews who killed Jesus, but the Romans, and all four of the Gospels indicate this.
Comment: Does the proposal ban Christian teaching?
The lawmakers’ remarks show, at best, an apparent inability to understand the intricacies of the legislation. Leaving aside the issue of whether the proposed law would pass constitutional muster,1 the proposal simply doesn’t prohibit any kind of speech or action, religious or otherwise, unless it is antisemitic in character.
This is the definition the IHRA uses as its working definition of antisemitism:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
In its explanation of the definition, which has been adopted by the U.S. State Department and many other entities worldwide, the IHRA lists 11 examples of “contemporary examples of antisemitism,” and it is apparently the ninth item on that list that has raised concerns among the far right:
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel2) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Three aspects of this example should be noted:
Like the other examples, it is not part of the proposed legislation. Potentially, however, it could be cited by a court in interpreting the law.
This example does not outlaw the false belief or statements claiming that the Jews kille Jesus, only the use of symbols and images of the Jews doing so.
Furthermore, to fit with this example, the symbols and images would have to be those associated with classic antisemitism.
In other words, even if this example were part of the law, it couldn’t be used to prohibit belief or even the words of a speech or sermon, since those wouldn’t involve symbols or images associated with classic antisemitism.
Comment: Did the Jews kill Jesus?
On the matter of who killed Jesus, the history is clear: Crucifixion was a method of torture and execution used by the Roman Empire, which occupied Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death around 30 CE, and not by Jews, who were not allowed to execute anyone. The consensus of historians is that Jesus was killed by the Roman empire under the direction of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea. Crucifixion was often used to execute political rebels, and the most likely course of events is that Pilate saw Jesus as a threat to his authority (or that of Rome) and ordered the execution with collusion or support from some local leaders (who, of course, were all Jews).
Three of the four Gospels explicitly indicate that it was the Romans who executed Jesus. Although they differ in details, three of the Gospels in the New Testament point to Roman soldiers acting under Pilate’s orders carrying out the Crucifixion. Matthew and Mark, whose accounts are the most similar, and John explicitly have Pilate turning over Jesus to the Roman soldiers, who crucified him.
Meanwhile, Luke is ambiguous, not stating that the soldiers took Jesus to Calvary. Luke does say, however, that Roman soldiers mocked Jesus on the cross, which suggests that they had brought him there.
The apostle Peter in Acts 2:36 and 3:15 does support the idea of some Jews’ culpability in the death of Jesus — but Peter seems to be referring only to those present at Jesus’ trial and isn’t blaming Jewish people as a whole. The same can be said of what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15,3 where he lambastes those Jews had rejected not only Jesus but also the prophets who preceded him. It wouldn’t make sense for Paul, himself Jewish, as were Jesus and the the first apostles, who had been selected by Jesus, to blame Jews as a group, much less as a nation.
Greene also mischaracterizes why Jesus was handed over to Herod. Herod is mentioned only in Luke’s account, which says that Pilate turned Jesus over to Herod, his ruling authority, but does not explain why. Herod and his soldiers mocked Jesus while he was in Herod’s custody, implying that Herod agreed with the decision to crucify Jesus and may have even encouraged it.
The matter of when hate speech that doesn’t involve crimes, such as vandalism or assault, can be outlawed hasn’t been totally settled. The best-known case involving hate speech is 1977’s National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, in which a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Nazi group seeking a state-level review of regulations affecting a planned march. However, the decision was made on procedural grounds that did not resolve the most important underlying First Amendment issues.
Blood libel is the malicious, false accusation that Jews have murdered non-Jews so that their blood could be used in ritualistic practices.
Scholars have debated in recent decades whether the comma that exists at the end of verse 14 in the King James Version and other traditional English translations belongs there; the Greek of the New Testament did not use punctuation. Some scholars refer to it as the “antisemitic comma”; omitting it, as the current New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version do, indicates more clearly that Paul isn’t referring to Jews as a group.