I'm borderline considering deleting this, because it might cause confusion.

We all agree with what was posted -- uncharitable acts can't be committed against Jєωs or any other peoples -- without committing sin, at least.

But to define anti-semitism as "what was described above" and then switch to a 21st century definition of the Anti-Semitism, and then draw false conclusions -- that is what I have a problem with.

It's an old trick. Take this argument:

Anti-semitism is sinful. (Anti-semitism = hating Jєωs)
Bishop Williamson has preached anti-semitism (Anti-semitism = being against the modern State of Israel, which has committed countless war crimes)
Conclusion: Bishop Williamson is committing sin.

The above argument is a logical fallacy, because the term "Anti-semitism" means something different in the Major and the Minor.

A less controversial example of this fallacy:

Matthew is a fan of Bishop Williamson.
Fans require electricity to move.
Matthew requires electricity to move.

As you can see, you end up with some pretty crazy conclusions when you confuse terms.

The solution is to come up with a different term for one or the other -- to be more precise in one's terminology:

Anti-semitism is sinful.
Bishop Williamson has preached anti-Zionism
(No conclusion can be drawn from these two)

Matthew is a disciple of Bishop Williamson.
Fans require electricity to move.
(No conclusion can be drawn from these two)

I'm borderline considering deleting this, because it might cause confusion.

We all agree with what was posted -- uncharitable acts can't be committed against Jєωs or any other peoples -- without committing sin, at least.

But to define anti-semitism as "what was described above" and then switch to a 21st century definition of the Anti-Semitism, and then draw false conclusions -- that is what I have a problem with.

It's an old trick. Take this argument:

Anti-semitism is sinful. (Anti-semitism = hating Jєωs)
Bishop Williamson has preached anti-semitism (Anti-semitism = being against the modern State of Israel, which has committed countless war crimes)
Conclusion: Bishop Williamson is committing sin.

The above argument is a logical fallacy, because the term "Anti-semitism" means something different in the Major and the Minor.

A less controversial example of this fallacy:

Matthew is a fan of Bishop Williamson.
Fans require electricity to move.
Matthew requires electricity to move.

As you can see, you end up with some pretty crazy conclusions when you confuse terms.

The solution is to come up with a different term for one or the other -- to be more precise in one's terminology:

Anti-semitism is sinful.
Bishop Williamson has preached anti-Zionism
(No conclusion can be drawn from these two)

Matthew is a disciple of Bishop Williamson.
Fans require electricity to move.
(No conclusion can be drawn from these two)

Israeli Minister: "We always use the 'anti-Semitism' trick or bring up the 'h0Ɩ0cαųst'" to silence people.

 

Klaus has an agenda which implicitly condemns previous Catholic teachings, and confuses Catholic teachings with the tenets of Jєωιѕн supremacism, which marks the Jєωs as a people especially immune from all serious criticism, on pain of "antisemitic sin."

Such a view makes the New Testament antisemitic.

Indeed, that was the position of Jules Isaac and the other Jєωs who have been seeking to corrupt the teachings of the Catholic Church for decades now.

http://archive.org/details/JudaismAndTheVatican

Precisely, Christianity in essence  is "antisemitic" defined by todays' Judaic dominated standards.

This guy "klutz" is probably nothing more than an ADL troll or plant.

First issued by Calixtus II in order to protect Jєωs during the First Crusade, "Sicut Judaeis" was reaffirmed by many popes including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).

Earliest available text is from the Alexander III edition:

Quote

[The Jєωs] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection.

For We make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But, if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of the faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of Christianity who is not recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.

Too, no Christian ought to presume... to injure their persons, or with violence to take their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.

Besides, in the celebration of their own festivities, no one ought disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform.

...We decree... that no one ought to dare mutilate or diminish a Jєωιѕн cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried.

If anyone, however, shall attempt, the tenor of this degree once known, to go against it... let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.

SOURCE

 :applause: