Talk:Anti-Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Editing Notes, removal of POV terms[edit]

Noahide Law of Judaism. The two issues came to be linked in a theological discussion within the Christian community as to whether the coming of the Messiah (First or Second Coming) could or did annul some (see Cafeteria Christianity) or all (see Antinomianism) biblical law in what came to be called a New Covenant.

Ok. On first appearance I see the term "Cafeteria Christianity", which, if you visit our helpful Wikipedia page on it states it is a "...a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian individuals or denominations..." So. That part is obviously POV, and would probably be offensive to people holding the views labeled as "Cafeteria Christianity". The last POV statement I found here was: "...in what came to be called a..." I replaced this with the far less POV: "...in what many refer to as a..." Next we have the following language "biblical law", which carries it's own religious and theological baggage. So I changed it to the non-offensive and not as POV "judiac law". If you want a different term, we should discuss it here. I also did some minor changes to the grammatical structure it make it look nice.-jamiles1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiles1000 (talkcontribs) 03:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did this page go???[edit]

Anti-Judaism and anti-semitism are the same thing. The former is basically a workaround to being labeled, "anti-semitic," when instead, we should be trying to legitimize the concept altogether! It should not be wrong to challenge Jewish interests no matter what it is called. Not only is anti-judaism anti-semitism, but any group claiming to be "anti-judaic" is a "hate-group," as defined by the SPLC, which along with groups like the ADL is where these definitions keep coming from. This is basically a battle over language, where anti-judaism is the defense's way of saying anti-semitism. I do not believe we should be on the defense. We are anti-semites, members of a hate-group (eg. the American people), and we ought to be proud of that! After all, the United States government itself is a hate-group, or any group that has an enemy that consists of an entire class of people, for example terrorists.

Furthermore, there is good reason to be "anti-semitic." For instance, consider the 2009 British court case that concluded the entire Jewish religion is inherently racist. That case was resolved when a well-funded Jewish organization lead the advisement of an appeal process. However, for anyone following the case, the uninfluenced decisions evinced beyond a reasonable doubt the racist nature of the Jewish religion. see: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/11/08/from-zionism-is-racism-to-judaism-is-racism/

I have one last comment to make. Does anyone really think that someone can get away with saying something obviously opposed to Jewish interests by saying the remark "wasn't antisemitic; it was anti-Judaic!"? That is total nonsense. Just distribute David Duke pamphlets and get it over with. Qqminuss (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Who (or what) gives people permission to move pages around without any form of discussion? Last time I checked someone (I believe it was HS) had proposed merging this with Antisemitism, but there weren't even any discussions for that. This article had been rightly called "Anti-Judaism" for as long as I can remember. What was the rationale behind moving it to Religious antisemitism? WP:POINT? ==Taxico 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT seems to be to base on a definition by one historian (namely Langmuir) and artificially split the content between several articles describing pretty much the same phenomenon, Judenhass. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
SNIPE! - crz crztalk 05:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Things are always more complicated once you introduce religious belief into the equation. If an angel appeared to me and convinced me, beyond a doubt, that tomorrow your house will catch on fire, for me to not warn you would clearly be anti-Humus from my point of view, though from your point of view, rousing you to run around and double check all your pilot lights would clearly be some form of harassment, so warning you would be anti-Humus. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; since no one really knows whether or not there's going to be a fire. Sometimes, like Meister Eckhart said, "the devils are really angels..." and probably vice versa. But I have ceased expecting any sort of talmudic dialogue here; go ahead, snipe away

SMocking.gif. -- Kendrick7talk 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been pointed out elsewhere, but a google search of "religious antisemitism" gets 1820 hits, whereas a Google search of "anti-Judaism" gets 140,000 hits. Why would this page simply redirect to the other? Also, there appears to be quite different material on each topic. I'm reinstating the page, please explain if you disagree.Mackan79 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This page should be merged with religious antisemitism and the names changed to "anti-Judaism and religious antisemitism" because they are closely related (and some would argue), interchangable subjects. They shouldn't be separated into different articles but into subs of one article. Guy Montag 09:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have two articles, and then perhaps a common section on their interaction? Judging by Google, "anti-Judaism" is about 70 times more common as a phrase, while on Google book search it comes up with 7 times as many hits. If anything, thus, it'd seem there should be an article on anti-Judaism, with a subsection on religious antisemitism and how they interact. This certainly could also be discussed prominently at the outset.
Certainly the issues are related, and some would argue they're interchangable, but several have also argued that they're not. Doesn't this risk POV, then, simply to combine them into the same subject? Google books gives me at least 5 books on anti-Judaism (word in title), while not turning up any books about "religious antisesmitism." That said, I can't see how this combination helps WP, or how Anti-Judaism gets no article except as related to religious antisemitism.

Mackan79 16:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If anti-Judaism is more prominent academic subject then it would make sense to merge religious antisemitism as a sub srticle within anti-Judaism. But there must be a historic relation from theological rivarly and antagonism that "evolves" (without using too determinist a language) into religious antisemitism. The article just wouldn't be complete without what many historians academics etc. conclude to be its end result.

Guy Montag 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the status quo only a matter of weeks ago. Some editors seem to feel rather strongly that there must be an article about religious antisemitism, though I object to that all-encompassing definition that equates anti-Judaism to anti-Semitism. It has a real "hangman of history" feel to it. I have no interest in whitewashing how one has historically and repeatedly led to the other. But it's like the relationship between alcohol and cirrhosis. Drinking too much alchohol can, but doesn't have to, cause cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has other causes besides alchohol. Everyone knows cirhrosis is a bad thing; but various divisions in thought exist on the evils or benefits of alcohol. You wouldn't try to have one article entitled alcohol and cirrhosis though, and you definitely wouldn't have alcohol solely explained as a subtopic of cirrhosis. -- Kendrick7talk 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC) and, as Jesus turned water into wine, there is even theological debate on the matter....
That's an awfully weak argument, Kendrick7, especially because there is an article called alcoholic liver disease and because religious anti-Semitism is only one of many articles about subtopics of anti-Semitism. Btw, there are many different kinds of cirrhosis as well, each with its own Wikipedia article. --GHcool 05:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the problem would be having alcoholic liver disease in place of both alcohol and cirrhosis. In any case, I've yet to see why the main article should be on "Religious Antisemitism," when much much more seems to have been written about "Anti-Judaism." Does anyone have an answer? Does anyone have a source on "Religious Antisemitism" as such? It seems to me from what Kendrick is saying that the siutation a few weeks ago made a lot more sense. Mackan79 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that looking at other anti-Xism articles around the wikipedia aren't very illuminating, such as anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, Anti-Protestantism, Anti-capitalism and anti-Irishism. Anti-Islam redirects to Islamophobia; can a person only be anti-Islam if they are afraid of Muslims? I doubt that just as much as claim by Humus above that anti-Judaism is only motivated by hatred of Jews (Judenhaas). On one end, I certainly think you can be anti-Communism without having some black hate in your heart for all communist people and likewise with anti-Capitalism; at the other extreme, it's hard to see how someone could subscribe to anti-Irishism without hating Irishpeople. For the most part, none of these articles cite their sources anyway. So this is all part of one big muddle. -- Kendrick7talk 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I think the wider discussion has been underway at religious antisemitism. Mackan79 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Page protection and dispute resolution[edit]

The page has been protected as a result of edit-warring between users. Please discuss the changes here and then request page unprotection, or contact me on my talk page when you have resolved the dispute. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of St. Paul[edit]

If this page ever becomes unprotected, someone will need to disambiguate St. Paul to Paul of Tarsus. Planetneutral 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?[edit]

As discussed at Talk:Religious antisemitism, I'm wondering whether we may need mediation in regard to the proper treatment of these two articles, to resolve the basic issues: 1. Are the subjects different? 2. Different enough for different articles? 3. If not, which is the appropriate title? Mackan79 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

anti-Judaism and antisemitism and merge[edit]

What exactly is the difference between these two topics?--Sefringle 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you the theological answer, as it's a rather essentially a matter of religious belief. Christians, in particular Catholics (the majority Christian faith), believe that salvation (i.e. you go to heaven when you die) for a given soul is entirely up to the Lord God. But as best we are able to understand, accepting that Jesus is the Son of God is generally essential for such salvation for those who are aware of Jesus's message. That position is, naturally, anti-Judaic, in that Christians, who believe in supersessionism, do not believe Judaism has the full understanding of truth which the Lord God has revealed. To insist that anyone who believes in this is an anti-semite is both insulting to this faith, and dangerously, gives legitimacy to those who truly wish to do real (temporal) harm to those of the Jewish faith (or ethnicity) in this world, at which point mere anti-Judaism ends and actual anti-Semitism begins. -- Kendrick7talk 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hocus Pocus aside, a Semite is anyone from the Levant and Arabian Peninsula which includes Arabs and Yemenis (as well as Akkadian descendents and a few other peoples, but no one really cares about them anymore). Anti-Semitism is hatred of Semites plain and simple. So really Anti-Judaism is more correct term for what everyone is thinking. It's a case of people using a broad term to describe something very specific and thus strangling out the other parts. Or like when someone says the US will become a Second World nation without knowing that that means the USSR and its former allies. I strongly discourage favour conotation over denotation, as doing the former leads to our society becoming more ignorant. TheArchaeologist (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
TheArchaeologist—I don't think it is "hocus-pocus"; it is actual usage. At Antisemitism we find: "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[2] and that has been its normal use since then.[3]" You'll have to check the citations at the actual article because they won't show up here. Bus stop (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, must confess I didn't really read the one above because I thought it was going to be some religious thing like you find all over the web w/o substance (I am religious but against people who get high off their own beliefs), but now I see it has some. I see what he was getting at, but I mean Jews are an ethnic group for the most part, though we can usually be sub-divided into the three groups as Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim. He is saying that anti-Judaism is against our faith and anti-Semitism is against us the Jews as a people or something like that. I still think that it works to the exclusion of other Semetic people and really there must be a term to be used for a hatred of everyone in the region. The difference we have in the quoted use is the connotation instead of denotation. :p TheArchaeologist (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
TheArchaeologist, other sensible terms are anti-Israelism (with current redirect to "anti-Zionism"), anti-Zionism and Persecution of Jews. Gregkaye (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the Concept[edit]

I believe should be a section which cites criticism of the concept. After all, rational criticism of a religon, in this case Judaism, is not the same thing as anti-Judaism sentiment. Padishah5000 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept seems to be accepted as valid in the sources I've examined. The main source for the article was published in 1903 so this isn't a neologism, like Islamophobia, where there's been a lot of recent give-and-take on the concept's validity. While I won't claim behavior which emerges from religious conviction is rational, it's inaccurate to dismiss the history of anti-Judaism as driven by sentiment alone. I've compared anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism and neither have a criticism section of those parallel concepts. So I would be at a loss here. -- Kendrick7talk 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism template[edit]

The term is a synnomym fore antisemitism. Why was the template removed? Yahel Guhan 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole section comparing and contrasting the two terms: Anti-Judaism#Contrasted_with_anti-Semitism, which you may not have read? This has been discussed above as well. -- Kendrick7talk 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Section seems to verify why the template is needed. There are enough views which view the topic as antisemitic, and there is enough discussion in the section to warrent the template. Yahel Guhan 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this would simply be POV pushing since the relationship between the two is a matter of such contention as the sources attest to. The template is already present in another wikipedia article which accepts the premise equating the two; see religious anti-Semitism. -- Kendrick7talk 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Burning the Gospels[edit]

The article reads (footnotes omitted):

"A disputed interpretation identifies these books with the Gospels (q.v. Gilyonim): 'The Gospels must be burned for paganism is not as dangerous to the Jewish faith as Jewish Christian sects.'"

I don't have access to the cited texts. However, our article on Gilyonim and this summary of the relevant Talmud page indicate that Rabbi Tarfon said that if a copy of the Gospels were to fall into his hands, he would burn them. That's different from making a blanket statement that "The Gospels must be burned" by Jews in general. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

removed reference to Mithraism and worship of Sabazios[edit]

I don't think the assertion that Emperor worship posed problems for worshippers of Mithra and Sabazius can be sustained. Mithraism was particularly popular in the Roman army; this would obviously conflict with the religious rites associated with their sworn oaths. Sabazios is regularly cross-identified with both Zeus and Dionysus; hard to see how Emperor worship poses a problem. I suspect that a naive understanding of the emperor's cult underlies this; for instance, the difference between being divus and being a deus. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Removal of Lazare[edit]

Bernard Lazare is not a historian. He is a polemicist. To allow his material to remain in this article would not only be a grievous crime against the historical method, but also a great act of prejudice. It would be like permitting Race Life of the Aryan Peoples to serve as a modern source for European History. NJMauthor (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, Bernard Lazare was a Jew so he was certainly not biased against this topic, and his work here was quite seminal. I won't permit you to vandalize it away; I strongly suggest you take your anti-polemical mania elsewhere. -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I know he is not biased against this topic. The issue is that he makes things up out of thin air, like many wannabe-historians did during his lifetime. He is not a credible source. NJMauthor (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Too focused on Christian history[edit]

The section on Christian anti-Judaism, which appears to take up more than half of the article with history, is ridiculously disproportionate to the section on Islamic anti-Judaism, which takes up a measly paragraph. This Islamic section condemns Judaism on only one count, namely the corruption of the original truth of Islam. There must be prominent people in the history of Islam who, for example, opposed medieval Judaism while the Jews were dhimmis in Muslim-controlled lands. The particular beliefs and ancient practices of Judaism, such as the system of animal sacrifices and the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac with the faith that God would either resurrect his son or prevent him from carrying out the deed, have been strongly denounced as evil and irrational by antireligious moralists. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both rail against the Judeo-Christian conception of God in the Tanakh/Old Testament. This article needs to branch out more and lose Christianity as its central focus. 98.91.67.212 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

ANTI-JUDAISM IN HELLENISTIC TIMES RESULTING IN HASMONEAN DYNASTY[edit]

Firstly, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that this article makes no mention of what was happening during Hellenistic times, and the clash of ideological and religious views between Greeks and Hellenized-Jews against strictly Jews, which resulted in the first religious and ideological (guerrilla) war in history between the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews in the hills of Judea, celebrated by Jews to this day as the Chanuka. This was NOT just simply a war between Greeks and Jews, but also a CIVIL war between Jews and Hellenized Jews as well. Much of this resulted from the persecution of Jewish beliefs and not Jews by Seleukid king the IV, and anyone who practiced circumcision (not only Jews practiced it!) would face penalty of death (circumcision being unthinkable for Greeks), and the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Greeks who changed into a temple for Zeus (not because it was personal against the Jews, but because it was part of the contemporaneous globalisation and religious and ideological homogenisation that was taking place in hellenistic times), among other things. The Jews likewise retaliated or initiated similar acts of clashing by desecrating temples and Greek statues, while there are various mentions of Hellenised Jews going against Jews-per-se sacrificing pigs in public just to make a point, which resulted in further tension that divided people not ethnically but ideologically, and this makes the term "anti-judaism" not only ridiculous, but also inapplicable, for HOW could the Jews themselves be labeled as anti-judaic when such instances like the preamble of the tension that lead to the Hasmonean Dynasty were deeply rooted even amongst Jews themselves, and it is much a case of civil war as much as it is a case of war between SOME jews and Seleukid Greeks/hellenised Jews??

Likewise, there are numerous sources concerning Ptolemaic Alexandria in papyri of Egyptian court procedures from Oxyrinchus, for instance, which demonstrate a sentiment of inferiority on the part of Jews and of superiority on the part of Greeks, which clearly demonstrates the mounting pressure from the Greeks and oppression felt by the Jews, which culminated to the creation of the briefly-lived Hasmonean kingdom. The Greeks would arbitrarily take native Egyptian land and allot it to Greeks of higher status, while Jews had the worse lot of most cultures in Alexandria, being a minority. The inclusion of this section i propose, concerning the preamble to the Hasmonean Dynasty and ideological, religious and cultural tension in Ptolemaic and Seleukid areas with reference to Jewish peoples (but not exclusive to Jews only), ought to go before the section of "Anti-Judaism in pre-christian, Roman times". These issues are entirely pertinent to the subject discussed here as "anti-judaism", and should be mentioned in the article, but of which, the title is utterly unacceptable and stems from our modern perceptions, and does not reflect actual circumstances, at least in pre-christian times.

Secondly, on this matter of the article's title, I would suggest, in order to at long last make the study of this subject academic, to abstain from using severely emotionally-tainted titles such as "anti-judaism" or "ancient anti-semitism", as this issue, especially in antiquity, was never one of being "against the Jews" specifically or personally, but a matter of clashing ideologies between two cultures that had resulted from the hellenistic melting pot of cultures, and when we are reducing it to a modern perception of "anti-judaism" we are simply ludicrously generalizing, with political ramifications. There was NO SUCH THING as "anti-judaism" in antiquity, in the way is is defined today, through our modern construction of the term and the cultural and ideological weight it carries largely in due result from the upshot of WWII. At least this much MUST be pointed out to the reader in the article, so that there is caution not to associate a continuity of there being a general trend of oppression and tribulation against the Jews from antiquity to present: the viewpoints arising from such an interpretation are misleading, to say the least.

The whole issue of using such titles has become a panacea of sorts. Does one ever use the title "anti-hellenism" to connote an ideological, religious and/or political clash between Greeks and Persians, for instance? Applying such labels merely paints the whole subject a certain color for the scholar a priori, making it taboo to touch upon certain issues from a varying perspective, and it is tiring and infuriating to say the least. But of course, anyone who says such things would be labeled an "anti-semetic", wouldn't they? Anyway, That's my second suggestion: the title should be changed LIKE EVERY OTHER MAJOR HISTORICAL EVENT in this encyclopaeda, to reflect historic periods of ideological and religious clashes between judaism and other cultures or religions (christian, pagan, etc), if we ever want to be academically and historically concerned about any study of this subject and make some progress besides avoiding certain emendations in fear of offending, hence every scholar has to walk on egg-shells.

So, my suggestion, which I leave to the veterans of Wikipedia to decide is:

1.include details of the hellenistic Seleukid ideological-religious clash which resulted to the Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty. 2. change the title of this article to something more scholarly, which reflects the incidence of religious and ideological clashes throughout history between Jews and other cultures, namely Greeks, Romans, and Christians, instead of putting forth a modern-perceived lens of viewing the matter reflected in the title of the article. A simple read of the Jewish encyclopedia online will point in a similar direction. Perhaps "HEBRAIOPHOBIA" needs to be coined here, which does not carry all the political weight of today, and redirect any search on "anti-judaism" there. Any reference to "Anti-anyculture/people" seems to stir problems that hinder academic effort, as it is merely a matter of perspective: was the war that lead to the Hasmonean Dynasty due to "anti-judaism" on the part of Seleukid Greeks, or "anti-hellenism" on the part of Jews, or both? Why choose the latter and not the former? Point made. Should the historiographer choose either of the two terms, he has immediately preambled pre-conceptually the reader in either direction for interpreting the facts. We must abstain from this tradition in tainting facts on either side, in the name of clarity of historiography and scholarship. Otherwise let us make an article called anti-hellinism and begin mentioning the pillaging of any Greek temple by the Christians, and try to connect that with the Ottoman empire's anti-greekism. That's how insane what we are doing here is by even merely inferring that anti-semitism and anti-judaism are connected. These terms have NO historical basis. And for the sake of castration, i have to point out: I AM NOT A JEW HATER. MY gf is jewish, and I am Greek. I just dread the misleading repercussions of such terminology and the heat that emanates from their use, which should be avoided at all costs for the sake of academic scholarship.

____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The thoughts of David Nirenberg[edit]

I've removed the following information from the lead, as I can't make heads or tails of it:

According to David Nirenberg, anti-Judaism extends far beyond Judaism or interactions with Jews, bearing only a passing relationship with actual Judaism. It is arguably a form of thought that is one of the corner-stones of the edifice of the Western tradition itself, in which the focus of enmity lies as much with "Judaizing non-Jews" as with Jews themselves.[1][2][3]

If there's a point in there somewhere, I'm not sure what it is. It looks like word salad to me. -- Kendrick7talk 03:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, 2013.
  2. ^ Michael Walzer, Imaginary Jews, in New York Review of Books March 20, 2014 pp.31-33, p.31
  3. ^ Adam Kirsch, A World Without Jews, Tablet 13 February 2013.