By the time something is pronounced by a Council, it is merely a clarification. Pope Clement VI issued 2 papal bulls defending the Jews against them being responsible for the plague. He even offered them papal protection in Avignon.

Let’s go back even earlier (thanks to Wikipedia) :The Church attitude to the mistreatment of Jews is not new, though the experience of the Holocaust brought on an urgency to its renewal. Around 400, St Augustine, one of the most influential and foundational figures of Catholic theology, preached that the Jews must be protected for their ability to explain the Old Testament. Around 598, in reaction to anti-Jewish attacks by Christians in Palermo, Pope Gregory the Great (c 540–604) brought Augustine’s teachings into Roman Law, by writing a Papal Bull which became the foundation of Catholic doctrine in relation to the Jews and specified that, although the Jews had not accepted salvation through Christ, and were therefore condemned by God until such time as they accept salvation, Christians were nevertheless duty-bound to protect the Jews as an important part of Christian civilization.[9] The Bull said that Jews should be treated equitably and justly, that their property rights should be protected, and that they should keep their own festivals and religious practices.[10] Thus, in the Papal States, Jews enjoyed a level of protection in law.[9]

~
Although the ComPost uses the same language as you do, it’s a misrepresentation.

Short answer, No. Grew up in Pittsburgh left and returned in 1988. My office, two blocks from the Tree of Life, has been in that community for 13 years and I have Jewish clients. Never heard anything anecdotally or on local news reports about clandestine KKK activity. One of my colleagues was a Jewish woman whose daughter went through high school there; never heard anything like this from either of them as well. My children went to a magnet high school and my wife taught there for 22 years; again, absolutely nothing like this ever in the rumor mills. I note she is also particularly vague about the names of both about the high school she supposedly attended and the high school in the community.

Twelve years of my time out of Pittsburgh was spent in Montana; I got to know what bulls**t smells like. I detect its pastoral fragrance here.

BTW, DNW, Pittsburgh sits about 60 miles north of the Mason-Dixon line (PA’s southern border). It serves as the border between both Maryland and the eastern panhandle of West Virginia (WV also has a northern panhandle about 30-40 miles from Pittsburgh.

Sounds like Manju has a sister…

A fascinating blog post from a former Pittsburgh resident now living in Jerusalem:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/in-pittsburgh-hatred-of-jews-is-nothing-new/

In the context of the latest atrocity, she describes being the target of not infrequent anti-Semitic incidents while growing up in the next neighborhood over from the posher Squirrel Hill.

In other words, she’s upset about the massacre but she’s not terribly surprised….”

I’ve never been to Pittsburgh. I don’t know the town. I don’t know Pittsburghers as a culture, I don’t even know how many minutes Pittsburgh actually is from the famous Mason Dixon line, “I used to joke that being 15 minutes from the Mason-Dixon Line”. I guess it’s not far from the Maryland border, though it appears nearer to West Virginia.

I do gather from her essay that the events she reports began about 18 years ago when she was a Freshman. She graduated one assumes about 14 years ago, or approximately in 2004.

and that

– I moved to Israel used to be that I didn’t want my children to be called kikes. That was the truest answer

– ” … a new black friend nervously explained to me the terrible meaning of the word I had just been called.”

– She mentions that students she associated with came from various neighborhoods, ” … including those that had active branches of the KKK (under another name)”

– A teacher or teachers referred or called to her as “Jew” instead of using her name.

– A teacher is reported to have said to her that, ““You Jews think you are better than everyone else,”

– That black students there, were the ones who informed her that , “other students could not put bacon on me during assemblies ”

Geez, I don’t know.

Does this make sense? This seems to me to have been inconceivable 40 years ago, much less 14.

Draping bacon on a Jewish student as … what a sport of some kind? A teacher calling out, “Hey Jew!” or something along those lines?

Active branches of the Klu Klux Klan under a cover name[s] in various Pittsburgh neighborhoods?

Does this sound right or reflect the experience of anyone commenting here?

Interesting comment, but I believe that although there may be overlap in the two “antisemitisms” – hatred of Israel, and hatred or extreme resentment of “Jews” (as they are conceptualized or identified in the mind of the particular hater) whom one imagines inhabit one’s own society – are highly differentiable and separate phenomena.

@Richard Saunders on October 31, 2018 at 5:04

That’s a reasonable suggestion, but I’m not sure it covers the case in detail – as I am sure it was not actually meant to.

The question then arises: how do you know if your progenitors were “authentic” Jews, and that you are therefore … well, blah blah entitled to be recognized as a member in good standing by all fellow members, and granted all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto, and so on and so forth …?

I may be mistaken but it seems, if I recall correctly, that this issue has come up in Israel itself with regard to the right of return – if that is the terminology.

Re, Rabbinic Judaism as the proper terminology. Yes that’s right, I guess. Been 30 years, and most of what I have seen recently has been from Messianic Jews using terminology relevant to sorting out the various … scriptures … if all of them are properly called that by their own adherents. And by that I mean, I don’t know precisely what status the Talmud has in the mind of an average, if there is such a person, observant Jew.

By way of rough parallel, none of the writings or commentaries of the “Fathers” of the Church (Clement or Ignatius for example), nor the “doctors” (Aquinas or Duns Scotus for example) , no matter how generally understood to be enlightening or authoritative in certain regards, have the status of sacred scripture or revelation per se.

In the context of the latest atrocity, she describes being the target of not infrequent anti-Semitic incidents while growing up in the next neighborhood over from the posher Squirrel Hill.

In other words, she’s upset about the massacre but she’s not terribly surprised….

Then I read Jerzy Kosinsky’s The Painted Bird and believed I’d gained some insight. I was fascinated by the claim that many bore no ill will towards the Jews, but believed that they had crucified Our Lord and well, karma is a bitch. No justification, of course, but some small understanding of why a people tolerated such barbarity. I have no answers for you, and little understanding, but seek more.

With regard to the Catholic Church, until 1965:

In 1965, as part of the Vatican II council, the Catholic Church published a long-anticipated declaration entitled Nostra Aetate, offering a new approach to the question of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. The document argued that modern-day Jews could not be held accountable for Jesus’ crucifixion and that not all Jews alive at the time of the crucifixion were guilty of the crime. This was a remarkable step forward in the history of Christian attitudes toward Jews, as Jewish blame for Jesus’ death has long been a linchpin of Christian anti-Semitism.

Watch three toddlers happily playing and then introduce a new toy. ‘Mine’ will be heard. I see it as the early version of status seeking.

As adults, this instinct may get ‘civilized’, but actually not much. We’re all still prone to envy and may secretly rejoice when others get brought down. Why? There are two ways to get status – by building yourself up or bringing others down.

And, by far, bringing others down is the easiest and, sadly, commonest choice.

Nationalizing Education, by John Dewey
The Journal of the National Education Association, Volume 1
By National Education Association of the United States

its a FREE ebook
https://books.google.com/books?id=aKoVAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q&f=false

The words “nation” and “national” have two quite different meanings. We cannot profitably discuss the nationalizing of education unless we are clear as to the difference between the two. For one meaning indicates something desirable, something to be cultivated by education, while the other stands for something to be avoided as an evil plague.

-=-=-=-=-

Skilful politicians and other self-seekers have always known how to play cleverly upon patriotism and upon ignorance of other peoples, to identify nationalism with latent hatred of other nations.

-=-=-=-=-

We are now faced by the difficulty of developing the good aspect of nationalism without its evil side – of developing a nationalism which is the friend and not the foe of internationalism. Since this is a matter of ideas, pi emotions, of intellectual and moral disposition and outlook, it depends for its accomplishment upon educational agencies, not upon outward machinery.

Among these educational agencies, the public school takes first rank.

-=-=-=-=-

No matter how loudly any one proclaims his Americanism, if he assumes that any one racial strain, any one component culture, no matter how early settled it was in our territory, or how effective it has proved in its own land, is to furnish a pattern to which all other strains and cultures are to conform, he is a traitor to an American nationalism

-=-=-=-=-

[the african-american thing goes back THIS FAR!!!]

In what is rightly objected to as hyphenism, the hyphen has become something which separates one people from other peoples, and thereby prevents American nationalism. Such terms as Irish-American or HebrewAmerican or German-American are false terms because they seem to assume something which is already in existence called America, to which the other factor may be externally hitcht on. The fact is, the genuine American, the typical American, is himself a hyphenated character.

-=-=-=-=-

I have said nothing about the point which my title most naturally suggests – changes in administrative methods which will put the resources of the whole nation at the disposition of the more backward and less fortunate portions, meaning by resources not only money but expert advice and guidance of every sort. I have no doubt that we shall move in the future away from a merely regional control of the public schools in the direction of a more central regulation. I say nothing about this phase of the matter at this time, not only because it brings up technical questions, but because this side of the matter is but the body, the mechanism of a nationalized education. To nationalize American education is to use education to promote our national idea, which is the idea of democracy. This is the soul, the spirit, of a nationalized education, and, unless the administrative changes are executed so as to embody this soul, they will mean simply the development of red tape, a mechanical uniformity and a deadening supervision from above

given that this was baked into the schools after Dewey went to the soviet union, you guys are very very late

so late you dont know that a lot of your education was co-opted… you read what, but why bother, they told you and taught you NOT TO. and your a good student

the left started the hyphenated thing in the 1800s for feminism and wealthy to know whose families you belonged to.
hyphenated americans like african american goes THAT FAR BACK

now, how you gonna change anything when the peiple you want to convince knows this stuff, and you dont, and you come off as an ignorant idiot becasue you cant quote and reference the right things to unloke their comisseration

you dont even know whence and where these ideeas began
you dont care, you will figure it out and make it up
not like you can make up the nams, thinkers, and papers
so all you have to do is come up with a natural sounding explanation
and do the work of covering it up FOR THEM
they dont have to invent the cover, your going to by inventing a reasoning sans facts