Talk:Jews as a chosen people

Charges of Racism

"Many books and websites promote the idea that Judaism is inherently racist. Hundreds of websites exist run by neo-Nazis, White supremacy advocates, Christian Identity adherents, and radical Islamist groups"

What the fuck is this? How can this section of the article start out with this line? This is a legitimate concern amongst non-Jews, misguided as some may consider it, and what this paragraph does is to accuse them of racism in return. Get rid of this =/

I agree. I've never been involved in anything even remotely related to white supremacy or any sort of anti-semitism. Yet I still hold the opinion that declaring a group of people the "chosen race" is in fact racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.153.11 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

People who attack Jews for believing in the correctness of their religious tenets are just absurd. How many other ancient religions have texts that say "And if you worship other gods or subscribe to other religions, that's just hunky-dory"? I mean, get real. -J21

Wikipedia:Truce

Hey, lets settle down a bit. Accusations of lying are out of place here. I honestly don't know enough about the particulars to weigh in strongly, but I will say that while Danny is an expert on these issues (unless we are calling his integrity completely into question, which I should hope is not the case) I have had occasion to disagree with him in the past (Amalek=dwellers in the valley or no?) regarding linguistics. Disagreeing is ok; heck it’s good even sometimes, if done politely. If need be we can provide conflicting references or citations of divergent interpretations of data. What we don't need to do is bicker. And, btw, every religious Jew I have ever met or heard of claimed to be "chosen", so I don't know what the argument is really about, but whatever. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of beating a dead horse; I understand that the argument is really about the purpose of the article (therefore about what should be included there) and not about some translation. Quoting RB: ["But this article is not about this sentence; rather, it is about what Jews believe about the concept of chosenness."] People's understanding and interpretation changes - but the literal text usually stays. That's why I think literal interpretation is not less important than theological one (not more important as well). In other words, if there was a passage in the Bible which says "world was created in 7 days" but 95% of religious Jews would interpret it as "world was created in 7 time sections", I would still want to know what the literal translation means. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 19:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) (a hebrew-knowing jew who agress with the popular/real interpretation of "chosen")

Missing Orthodox content

The Orthodox Jews are not solely modern orthodox. This discussion is sorely lacking in Charedi Yeshivish beliefs. Most Jews may have the biblical beliefs, like the Reformers, or like rabbi Norman Lamm, but many have a newer belief based on their reading of the Zohar and Cuzari. Many Charedi Yeshivish Jews do believe that Jews are superior to gentiles. Even though this is not a belief among most Jewish people, the Charedi Yeshivish population is large enough to warrant mentioning. See the new Charedi book "Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut," "The Superiority of Israel and the Question of Exile", which is based on American Charedi teachings, and is defended by the Charedi Yeshivish community.

Over the last few years the modern orthodox have been giving up their beliefs, and becoming more like the Charedi (Yeshivish) Jews. Perhaps the spread of Charedi ideology into modern orthodox Judaism was inevitable. In any case, the article is missing points of view like the one shown below. Apparently, some modern orthodox Jews believe that Jews have a different DNA than gentiles, and a different soul. The article mentions nothing of this.

• "Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut," "The Superiority of Israel and the Question of Exile"

• Second article on Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut

• New Jersey Jewish News. Drew University scholar defends article exposing Lakewood rabbi’s ‘racialist’ text

• Discussion of modern orthodox controversy

Been to New Jersey, and knowing what I am missing, and not missing it.

Actually, rather than being "defended by the Charedi Yeshivish community", it appears that the Haredi community is disavowing it. Jayjg 21:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think to reach NPOV this sentence should be edited from Instead of using such beliefs to persecute non-Jewish people, they use such beliefs to emphasise their view of their role in the world. to something like They use such beliefs to emphasise their view of their role in the world.. Who agrees? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 01:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have they ever used their beliefs to persecute non-Jews? Jayjg 16:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. My point is that in either case there's no purpose for that "instead" part - they either did or didn't. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose the intended contrast was to various supremacist groups. Jayjg 19:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which shows the POV of anti-supremacist, don't you think? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 19:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article in general is missing the concept of "choseness" as held by Heradim. Am Segulah means peple who are private property. Segulah is Private Property or a personal secret stash. Fuzz balls can be a segulah if the owner is very possessive of them. The idea is that Jews belong to G-d and don't get a choice about it, not that they are superior. This is from a verse straight from the Torah, "DO not think I chose you because you are the greatest of the goyim, rather you are the least of the goyim." The idea is that G-d freed them from Egypt and now owns them. ALso it doesn't mention the interesting view of the Ari Z'l on the chosen because of being the least of the goyim idea. That the Jews are the reincarnations of the people of Sodom and Gemorah, and because Abraham prayed on behalf of those people, he was given personal responsability for them. They became his descendants and inherited the TOrah that Abraham deserved to recieve, because if the Torah can succeed in transforming the people of Sodom and Gemorah into a Kingdom of Priests, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt it Author's greatness. 212.179.209.103 10:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-Orthodox Orthodoxy

It would be nice if people who don't know what they are talking about stop trying to present Orthodox viewpoints. These people are spouting the biases of secondary sources and probably have never seen the primary sources. Furthermore, they possess an extremely skewed understanding of historical background.

Also, when people hear "Rabbinic Judaism," they think of Orthodox Judaism. (Just because you have rabbis, it doesn't make you "Rabbinic." "Rabbinic Judaism"'s Connotation is Orthodox.

P.S. REUVEN HAMMER WAS ORDAINED AT J.T.S., A CONSERVATIVE SEMINARY. CONSERVATIVE RABBIS AREN'T KNOWN FOR THEIR ORTHODOX VIEWPOINTS. WHY IS SUCH A LARGE PART OF A SECTION ON CLASSIC RABBINIC PHILOSOPHY DEDICATED TO HAMMER'S IDEAS? 4.241.36.239

Not a comment on the content above so much as a statement about the use of primary sources on Wikipedia. The policy, Anonymous editor, stipulates that we cannot rely on any one editor's interpertations of primary sources. Such interpertations need to be grounded in the scholarship (i.e. 2ndry sources), otherwise, as correct as these interpertations may well be, they count as original research and are inadmissible here. El_C 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON HERE?

Tomer ^Talk 23:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add some substance to Tomer's style. Oh, El_C, writing a book doesn't make you a scholar or admissable 2ndry source. Having studied the topic material intensively for years does. 4.241.36.239

Heh, funny. Anyway, fair enough, but that strays from my point, Anonymous editor 1, that interpertations of primary sources need to be grounded in the scholarship. A policy which someone who studied the topic material intensively for years should have little difficulties with. p.s. You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comments. El_C 00:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Um. What you have done now is clearly vandalism. Where do you get off deleting other peoples' stuff on the talk page? Tomer ^TALK 01:43, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed that. 4.241.36.239, don't edit or delete other users comments. El_C 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Tomer. 4.241.36.239 Changed your comment back. 4.241.36.239

POV

Many Charedi (Yeshivish, religiously right-wing) Jews hold a differing point of view. Based on teachings in the Tanya and Zohar, many hold that Jews are either physically or spiritually superior to non-Jews. Interestingly, this does not imply that they consider non-Jews as any less deserving of civil rights than themselves. Instead of using such beliefs to persecute non-Jews, they use such beliefs to emphasise their view of their role in the world.

The words that I have bolded above clearly imply that one would expect that Charedi Jews would oppose civil rights for non-Jews (!) and persecute non-Jews (!!). Why is it intersting that Charedim don't oppose civil rights for non-Jews? Why is it necessary to mention the contrast "Instead of using such beliefs to persecute non-Jews?" HKT 22:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it means the opposite. Views of superiority usually do lead to persecution of people in other faiths. Therefore it is very remarkable to note that this is not true among Chareidim who have such a belief. Mark3

Who is Tanya? ~~~~ 20:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a book, the Tanya (technically "Likkutei Amarim"), not a person. Tomer ^TALK 20:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, none of those sources speak of "physical superiority", and I'm not aware of any element of Judaism that considers Jews physically superior. HKT 21:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does any group have such a belief? Mark3

Query

Hey, are the owners or founders of Wikipedia Jewish? Just wondering.

Well, Jimmy Wales is not. Larry Sanger may well be, although this has in no way influenced his work for Wikipedia. But why are you asking? Isn't it quite obvious we're run by a ZOG cabal? JFW | T@lk 10:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology and Jewish Ethnocentrism

Can anyone point me toward a scientific analysis of putative sources of Jewish ethnocentrism and group selection? This is probably the most taboo topic on the face of the earth. All opinions are welcome, especially scientific ones.

a debate between John Tooby and Judith Shulevitz: http://www.slate.com/id/74139/entry/74452/

Apologetic and Simplistic article

How sad that when one reads this article there is no doubt that it was written by Jews. How sad that it completely obliterates and confuses the pretty simple idea of G-d choosing a nation to exemplify and personify the ideals in the Torah. All the apologetics concerning peripherals (i.e. can this idea be twisted and misconstrued) should perhaps be in a different article titled " Modernity and Chosenness", or " Chosenness and Political Correctness".

• Yes, it is very obviously written by Jews, but I suppose it's a subject that Jews themselves are most likely to be knowledgeable about. The angle that ‘anyone who calls the chosenness idea racist is themself a racist/Nazi/radical, and also a liar/fabricator’, is - whether you agree with it or not - unquestionably and shamelessly POV. I suggest a ‘neutrality disputed’ tag. Palefire 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is thus written "How sad that it completely obliterates and confuses the pretty simple idea of G-d choosing a nation to exemplify and personify the ideals in the Torah" I am having a hard time understanding this criticism. This point of view is repeatedly stated within the article. The questioner seems not have read several paragraphs within this very article. Mark3 02:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about how Jews view the concept of choseness. I should hope its written by Jews. [TJ: Oct 2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.245.149 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brahmanism

Sounds like Jews as a chosen people is similar to Brahmanism in India. Known 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The Jews are not a caste. Asarelah 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK Brahmins are also the chosen people. Known 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Hinduism does not emphasize any concept of a chosen people. It just says that there are some features that are reminicent of the "chosen people" concept, but it does not draw direct paraells. Asarelah 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Charges of racism section

The "Charges of racism" section makes it sound like only crazy groups like neo-nazis and white supremacists would think that the chosen-people idea makes Jewish people racist. However, when a group claims that it is chosen by God, it sounds kind of racists at first against the non-chosen even to someone who is not anti-semitic. You should explain why being "chosen people" is not a racist claim without accusing the reader of being a nazi just because he is confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A few minutes of Googling proves that Charges of racism are not mostly "by neo-Nazis, White supremacy advocates, Christian Identity adherents, and radical Islamist groups" . The vast majority of criticism is not fabrication or "quote mining" and is not based on arcane nonsense like "blood libel" as the ADL claims. It is based on the Jews claim of god-given rights to Palestinian land and Judaism's racist conversion practices and other plain truths. Fourtildas (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Find reliable sources (not from the lunatic fringe, in other words), and put them in. Asarelah (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOAP. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The claims about "neo-Nazis, White supremacy advocates, Christian Identity adherents, and radical Islamist groups" seem like soapboxing to me, I will put a citation needed tag on them. I was just stating that my brief session with Google didn't turn up much evidence of these but did turn up the other concerns I mentioned. Just because you don't agree with what Google searches turn up doesn't give you the right to make accusations or bully me, even if you are a bigshot in the Wikicracy. The onus is on the proponents to defend their content, not on me to disprove it. Fourtildas (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also put a citation needed on "generally". Fourtildas (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could add Atheists to the list if you looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.138.232 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the statement that we're stuck with at the moment to be very unsatisfactory. It reads "Some people have claimed that Judaism's chosen people concept is racist because it implies that Jews are superior to non-Jews. However, the ADL and other authorities assert that the concept of chosen people within Judaism has nothing to do with racial superiority, but rather is a description of the special relationship between God and Jews." This is a non sequitur, since "a special relationship between God and Jews" is not incompatible with any racism implicit in that relationship. For example, any group can believe that it has "a special relationship between them and their god", but that very belief can spring from racism, or can provide justification for racism. So, it's entirely possible that Jews could believe that it is their "race" that created that "special relationship", or that the "special relationship" makes their race superior to others. Indeed, if one believed that there was just one "true god", and that he had one preferred people who were united by their genetic relationship, it's not a stretch to think that such people could indeed consider themselves to be superior or privileged. I am not suggesting that the Jews believe this, merely that the way that the explanation is written here goes nowhere toward disproving the accusation. Someone needs to rewrite it or strike it entirely. I might also point out that declaring the Anti-Defamation League to be an "authority" on whether or not Jewish "chosen-ness" could be racist is problematic, given that their raison d'etre is to defend Judaism from defamation, which charges of racism would surely be. Bricology (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

a slight tangent

but I just discovered this article and since I probably will never post here again thought that I'd leave this story behind. I was at a funeral of my wife's cousin - held in a Lutheran church because the family was Lutheran, sort of. It was at this funeral that the deceased's children learned that their mother, and thus they, were (was?) Jewish. So at one point the Lutheran minister says something about the Lutherans being "God's chosen people" and this was too much for Aunt Pauline who went air borne and was about the tell the minister (well, you figure it out) . . when her husband dragged her back to her pew and clamped his hand over her mouth. So the moral is . . . . . . . ....... this "God's chosen" thing. It's, it was revealed to me, not just the Jews. Carptrash (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because of the common view that the Church is the "new Israel": it's not always clear whether this is meant literally or as a rhetorical analogy. The section of the Code of Canon Law dealing with the Catholic faithful generally is entitled "De Populo Dei", "About God's people". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So it really should be "God's new chosen people?" Surely not the "new God's chosen people?" Carptrash (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

السؤال

التوراة تقول ان اسرائيل هي شعب الله المختار. يعتقد المسيحيون في التوراة. ويعتقد المسلمون أعطى الله التوراة لشعب اسرائيل. ويعتقد المسلمون ان الله لا يغير رأيه. ثلاث ديانات نؤمن بأن الشعب اليهودي هو المنتخب؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.100.61 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

God changed his mind after he gave the Jews in the Torah? God changed his mind after he chose the Jews from all countries? God changed his mind after he loved the people of Israel? God changed his mind? We are confident that God does not change his mind! God is eternal! We need to respect the Jews because the Koran says God chose the Jews gave them the Torah! God does not change his mind! We need to respect the Jews because the Koran says so!

The Bible says that Israel is God's chosen people. Christians believe in the Torah. Muslims believe God gave the Torah to the people of Israel. Muslims believe that God does not change his mind. Three religions believes that the Jewish people he was elected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.74.90 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is an example

Of why wikipedia will never be accepted as a valid information source in academic circles.

You mean because folks such as yourself can edit without signing up? Carptrash (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Charges of Racism section

This section is completely unsourced and contains flat out lies that are not only POV and ridiculously biased against any mention of racism, they also have no sources to back them up either.

I have deleted, which has ended up being a great deal of it, this pitiful section and removed the practical vandalism that is the majority of it. I have left a basic sum up of what the section is about and the sourced article about it in relation to Soviet findings. If anyone wishes to rewrite it, sourced, they may do so. But until the section can be sorted do not automatically revert it or edit back in any POV statements, lies or unsourced idiocy.

If none of that can be done, then open up discussion about deletion of the section. 124.148.238.200 (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Can you provide sources that contradict the sourced statements? The original research portion was removed. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Why is this article in the racism section?What this concept has of racist?Do you know at least what this concept is about?It's about an imaginary god visiting earth asking to all people to accept its commendments,but only jews accept.What there is of racism?--87.3.87.167 (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Google "goyim" and don't bother looking on Wikipedia about it, because Jews have flocked to this place to attack anyone with ANY criticism of the "chosen people". 174.54.36.247 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Proof that Wikipedia articles on Jews have been completely scrubbed of ANY negative aspects of Judaism.

Funny how it makes it seem that only "ZOMG ANTISEMITES AND EVIL NAZIS" could possibly voice concerns of Jewish supremacy that are in fact stated outright in Jewish religious texts. When asked for any sources that do criticize this, the "usual suspects" like Jayg, insist that any sources that do are anti-semetic, and then come in to protect the article using their mod powers. Good thing people are tired of the antisemitism trite, and even spineless American liberals are turning against the Jewish supremacy that is explicitly shown in Israel. Oh and by the way, most Jews aren't Semites. 174.54.36.247 (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Cleanup" tag added

This article has way too many large block quotes. It should be written in a more encyclopedic manner, and editors should try to paraphrase the large quotes. The quotes can be kept, verbatim, in footnotes, if needed. --Noleander (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruth

This section was excised:

General overview The common theme is that "Chosen People" are not a physical nation or race, but a people who have been granted a special desire to unite in common love for one another beyond all boundaries But the belief that Jews are the Chosen People actually has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. In fact, chosenness has so little to do with race that Jews believe the Messiah will be descended from Ruth, a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism and whose story is recorded in the biblical “Book of Ruth.”

I excised it because one the one hand it was just copied and pasted from about.com but it is also misleading: Ruth was married to Boaz the great-grandfather of David, from whose line the Messiah was prophesied to come, but Jewish lineage is either matrilineal or patrilineal, and Ruth is in neither direct line - she was unrelated to David's mother. Oliver Low (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Avi Beker a reconstructionist?

The paragraph from him is put in that section, automatically describing him as a reconstructionist, but it's not clear to me whether that is true based on his biography here and a quick google search. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)