"Hilaire Belloc encountered it in 1920s England, noting that when anyone "exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an anti-Semite."

The two are not mutually exclusive. A person can be an anti-Semite -and- expose a financial swindler. If anything, an anti-Semite would have the most motivation to focus on the finanical dealing of Jews looking for swindlers.

Failed logic on your author's part and yours for citing him.

"The undisputed conclusion of this study was that a disproportionately large number of Jews who are to disloyal to Jewish teachings have led and are leading the campaign for legalized abortion."

This is gorgeous... You silly fool. You've been prattling on so darn long now you're contradicting yourself.

A "disproportionately large number of Jews" "are to disloyal to Jewish teachings" and "are leading the campaign for legalized abortion."

These are your author's claims and they show: 1.) if they are "disloyal to Jewish teachings" AND leading the campaign for legalized abortion, then Judaism opposes abortion. Your own cited author just supported the claim I made earlier.

Likewise, because they're disloyal to Jewish teachings, they're self-evidently poor examples of religiously minded Jews, those who. DO follow Jewish teachings. That leaves only one criteria for them being "Jews" at all: their race/ ethnicity.

...and that's being anti-Semitic and a racial bigot. Wow! I'm not surprised his superiors weren't happy seeing that in a Catholic priest!

"The Talmud and Judaism as whole have several allowances for abortion, even among the strictest sects."

...as did Catholicism for centuries.

Following Aristotle's view, it was commonly held by some "leading Catholic thinkers" in early Church history that a human being did not come into existence as such immediately on conception, but only some weeks later. Abortion was viewed as a sin, but not as murder, until the embryo was animated by a human soul. In On Virginal Conception and Original Sin 7, Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) said that "no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception." A few decades after Anselm's death, a Catholic collection of canon law, in the Decretum Gratiani, stated that "he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body."

...This Aristotelian approach to delayed ensoulment was abandoned by the 17th century

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church…

Wow! So for one thousand six hundred years, the Church had the substantially the same view as the Jews, as this notion of "ensoulment" forms the basis for a very conditional allowance for abortion (e.g. the fetus is threatening the mother's health).

Worse (for you) it shows The Church -changed its policies-. It became more strict, true, but it was comparatively liberal for the majority of its history. If the Church can update its views on abortion thanks to improved science, The Church can do the same on racism and religious discrimination thanks to seeing the alternative put into practice.

"Well, Fr. Marx may have been abandoned by his Bishop, but he was not abandoned by fellow conservative Catholics."

Not all conservative Catholics are anti-Semtites, bunky. ;-) Some "conservative Catholics" understand the fallacy of blaming a race/ ethnicity/ religion for a social policy, one routinely championed by atheists.

That's the error you and Jones and this wayward priest make.

"Nathanson replied that it was 'correct' to say Jews dominated the abortion industry "

Good for Nathanson. So the proof is Nathanson said so.

Your fallacy is "Appeal to Authority".

"That is proving that EMJ is not an ant-Semite. You are asking me to prove a negative. "

That a problem for you, hon? ;-)

--Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.--

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

"Nothing you have shown reveals him to be an anti-Semite. "

Argumentum ad Nauseam.

"the term itself is designed as a weapon of abuse, and then you abuse EMJ with it."

Outright garbage. The term itself is a noun describing a demonstrable hostility to a specific group. That noun DOES carry a very negative connotation because that hostility is based on a host of character flaws and errors in reasoning.

"Indeed I wonder if a religion that holds the Talmud supreme can call itself a religion."

Likewise, I wonder if a person who doesn't follow the second half of Christ's greatest commandment has any business calling himself a Christian, much less a Catholic. We're all entitled to our musings, eh? ;-)

"In the Talmudic perspective, anyone who resists Jewish hegemony is an anti-Semite; as is anyone who points this out."

Please quote the Talmud where it states this.

Quote it directly or your clam about the Talmudic perspective fails.

"the term "anti Semite" has lost its power."

...which explains these book-length replies you're writing desperately trying to convince those readers willing to sit through the entirety of them, that -somehow- the charge doesn't apply to Jones. :D

All of this because you aren't wetting your pants in fright that someone might realize, golly-gee. E. Michael Jones really is an anti-Semite, Jew-basher, Hebrew-Hater and all around human toilet-brush covered in his own muck.