Talk:Religious antisemitism

"non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock"

The article refers to "non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock". What are these? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Break occured after Akiva declared Bar Kochba the Messiah

The article asserts that Jewish Christians supported Jews until Akiva declared Bar Kochba the messiah. What support is there for this claim? Akiva's claim was hardly universally accepted to begin with, and was dropped immediately following Bar Kochba's death. Also, didn't the real break happen after the First Jewish revolt and desctruction of the Temple in 70-73CE? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Query

I deleted this from the article "including Jewish Christians (also called Judaizers), non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock, and Gentile converts ..." because I don't know who these groups were, particularly "non-Judaizing Christians of Hebrew stock". Pintele Yid 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre, and rather sad story in that vein... My advisor is a Chinese guy from Singapore... From the day I started back at school he hasn't ceased to talk to me about how amazed he is by Tzahal...all about how advisors from tzahal trained the Singaporean army, etc. ... We've been on good terms since the day in my first class in the program, about 3 lectures into the semester, when he said that doing something "just isn't kosher", and then basically freaked out that I might think he'd said something wrong... funny thing was, he used the word "kosher" completely properly in English, and in such a way that there was no way to find fault with it even if the entire statement had been made in Hebrew...albeit with "kasher"... Anyways, he made some comment about a year ago that struck me as just a little bit odd, about how Jews are Jews whereëver they go, so I sent him the link to Kaifeng Jews, and he never said anything about it to me. Then last week, he said something similar about how Jews are Jews, but there aren't any Chinese Jews. So I sent him a couple of links to amishav about some of the remnants of the Kaifeng community reclaiming their Jewishness. So today I went to talk to him about making up the midterm I missed during 8 Atzereth, and he showed very little interest in discussing it, instead the conversation somehow turned to the email I'd sent him, and he was astonished that there could be Chinese Jews...since you had to have "Jewish blood" to be Jewish. He was flabergast that there was such a thing as conversion to Judaism, and even moreso by my assertion that "yes" he could convert to Judaism if he really wanted to. Gawd. What are we doing so horribly wrong about being a light le`olam that they don't even know that they can convert?! Tomer ^TALK 12:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro

IMHO, the intro needs to be carefully rewritten because in the current form it is very confusing and may be misconstrued in the sense that hostility to Jews on religious grounds is merely anti-Judaism. Reputable references would help. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see if this intro works. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to work on it a bit. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's much better now. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam and Judaism

Having read the page on "criticism of Islam", which pretty much offers all the arguments on why Islam is an evil and false religion, I believe that this page which is its equivalent should justly offer a similar content and not only offer a history of hostility towards jews. I noticed that in the page on criticism of Islam, it is claimed that Islam is clearly a moral regression from the Jewish and Christian traditions. It would be easy to find theological aswell as moral criticism of judaism, including God commanding the Jewish people to commit Genocide and mass murder of women and children. (Torah:(I Samuel 15).http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter3-21a.html It is unfair and distasteful to judge entire religious communities both Jewish, Muslim and Christians especially in the times we live in. We must especially not target Islam from the position of a supposedly superior "Judeo-Christian" tradition which, in my opinion, does not exist.--Burgas00 13:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are other pages than just "criticism of islam", namely criticism of religion, criticism of Christianity, which contain criticism of these religions. Other pages , such as Criticism of Mormonism, criticism of atheism or this page, offer accounts of criticism, not criticism per se. It seems it's ok to criticize Islam, or religions as a whole, but criticising judaism amounts to anti-semitism, a form of racism. Someone please do something about this ! --Nobel prize 4 peace 22:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is criticism of Judaism.So why the complain.132.72.71.149 13:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition vs. Hostility

I am opposed to the Jewish religion insofar as I believe it is not true. That does not make one an antisemite. The first line should be altered or the last line of the intro should be altered. The opening as it stands tries to use the dictionary to make antijudaism antisemitic by definition. Fine, but only if antijudaism is redefined as hostility or discrimination, not mere opposition, to Judaism. Sarcastic Pillow 22:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the article as it stands conflates the terms "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism." If the two are synonymns, why have a separate article?

"Anti-Judaism" denotes opposition and hostitlity to Judaism's religious claims, hence to the existence of the faith itself; "anti-Semitism" denotes bigotry against those who identify as Jews, regardless of their subscription to the religious claims of Judaism. Given Christianity's origin as a Jewish sect, anti-Judaism can be traced to sectarian disagreement — more like "anti-mainstream Judaism." The tendency to move from a critique of the faith claims of Judaism vis-a-vis nascent Christianity towards a critique of Jews as Jews is the movement into anti-Semitism, imo, and is a direct result of Christianity's evolution into a gentile movement, and more particularly, into the state religion of the Byzantine Empire to which everyone was expected to conform.

The distinction between the two terms is tricky, since Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic identity. In other words, there is a correspondence between being and doing. Seen in this way, it is perfectly understandable that such a conflation should creep into the article itself. If one opposes the existence of Judaism, perforce one opposes the existence of Jews. Paul of Tarsus' claim that in Christ there is now no longer "Jew or Greek" is a lot less innocent nearly 2000 years on.

In sum, I think there is a more subtle way of bringing out the distinction, but I'm wary of giving it a shot. Fishhead64 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How is the term a "euphemism"? like this article says in the first paragraph.

Futhermore: Shouldn't this page be merged with Criticism of Judaism?--Greasysteve13 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OR removed

I have removed the following from the WP:LEAD:

The definition of "antisemitism" in Merriam-Webster Dictionary patently includes anti-Judaism: "is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." According to this definition anti-Judaism is a specific form of anti-Semitism.

This is argumentative OR and not suitable for the article, let alone the lead paras. — JEREMY 12:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger Proposal?

Please make your case for merger. Otherwise tag will be deleted. --Doright 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing merging Criticism of Judaism into this article? If so, I vote yes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Last I check there were proposal going both ways, but no discussion. I think merging anti-Jud into Criticism is a very bad idea. I'm not even sure merging Criticism into anti is a good idea, because "Criticism" and "anti" seem to be unique concepts.--Doright 06:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hostility, opposition, and the dictionary

As long as the lead paragraph uses the dictionary to back up equating anti-Judasim and anti-Semitism, it cannot logically define anti-Judaism as mere opposition.

I am opposed to socialism, does that mean I exhibit hostility towards socialists? Hardly, I have socialist friends. I am opposed to a full-going empiricism, but I have no hatred for Hume or Locke (who would have opposed socialism). Opposition doesn't equate with hositility towards, hatred of, or discrimination against. Srnec 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Look at the history this language keeps being correctly edited out then reappears. Additionally the cartoon is an Anti-Semitic cartoon which further confuses the reader.

The article is good, the lede paragraph and the first sentence of the second graph "Christian anti-Judaism is a Christian theological position denigrating Jewish belief and practice," are absurd. By these definitoons all relgions are hostile and denegrating to each other, wich maybe true but creates a tuatology in that Judiac "hostility is not similarly explored. The problem is this articel is hihgly POV, and unhelpful unless the intent of its authors is to dilute antisemitism to the point of being a meaninless descriptor. 71.252.99.54 05:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Inevitable breach

The (very brief) section says that the Christian answer of Jesus being God 'made the breach inevitable', but surely it should be pointed out that it was Judaism that insisted that this was a breach; Christians did not leave the Jewish faith; they were thrown out of it. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Schisms are a common occurrence in religions. DJ, why do you insist that Judaism should have accomodated a renegade group that threw away some principles that Judaism held important?

"Jewish groups however have made very little effort to seek rapport at the theological level with Christianity." - according to whom?

What you called "unsourced rubbish" is thoroughly documented, please read further. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Kendrick, the version you reverted to is a very strange lead. What does the first sentence even mean? "Anti-Judaism is a total or partial opposition to Judaism—and to Jews as adherents of it—by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior". It is opposition only by men? And how do we know they have anything as solid as a "competing system of beliefs"? If its antisemitism and irrational, there needn't be any other "competing system of beliefs." Also, what are "genuine" Judaic beliefs, as opposed to non-genuine ones?

In addition, the claim that calling Jews "Christ killers" isn't antisemitic is bizarre. We can't repeat bizarre claims in the lead, and particularly not as fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems to be based on one old source, Langmuir (1971) cited by Abulafia. Who are they? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I almost changes it from men to people or persons -- I couldn't decide on the right word. I haven't laid eyes on Taxico's sources mind you (though I guess they pre-date Women's lib), but everyone has a set of beliefs, and this seems like a fair definition of anti-Judaism to me. For the definition of Judaism, I imagine the the wikipedia article might be enlightening, though I supposed you mean "genuine" could be a bit of a weasel word.

I initially also had a problem with the source's deliniation you mention, but after some thought I realized it was quite Solomonic. This isn't some "bizzare claim" but a literal reading of Matthew 27; see Blood curse. Though a minority, a sizable segment of Christian sects do adhere to various form of literal interpretation of their Holy Scriptures, and this draws the line. And its only a label, it would be inhumane acts which come about because of such a label which would cross the line into anti-semetism. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry SlimVirgin, but you're obviously misunderstanding the definition of anti-Judaism. I don't know why you're making it so complicated.

1. Where it says "by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices", it means "by people who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices". Even my 10-year-old brother would understand that "men" in this context does not refer to sex or gender.
2. When it says calling Jews "Christ-killers" is anti-Judaic, that does not mean calling them "Christ-killers" is not antisemitic. I don't know where you're getting that idea, but perhaps the wording was a little confusing and I'm going to fix that. Also see #3 below.
3. The qualifier "by men who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior" is there to distinguish between anti-Judaism and antisemitism. So when a 20th century atheist calls Jews "Christ-killers" in an antisemitic rally, that's not anti-Judaism because there's no religious context. It is simply a slur and antisemitic as well. But when Saint Paul (a well-know anti-Judaist who was himself originally a Jew) calls Jews "Christ-killers" he's not being antisemitic.
4. I have in front of me a number of texts and focus specifically on the anti-Judaic rhetoric of Paul, but not a single one of them comes even close to calling Paul antisemitic. This is exactly why the version you're reverting to is so wrong; it portrays anti-Judaism as a form of antisemtism (which is as close to nonsense as one can get): "Anti-Judaism is an aspect of antisemitism, which is the more commonly used umbrella term." There are some texts who call Jesus himself anti-Judaic (see Jesus, Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, for example)--does that mean Jesus was antisemitic??
5. I've spent some hours looking for consistent definition of anti-Judaism and then you just come and revert it to a version that does not even have any sources and is plain original research (I'm being lenient here--this obviously does not deserve to be called "research")??
6. It's not really my job to defend sourced information against removal (especially when no alternatives are being proposed), but Langmuir is a historian of anti-Semitism at Stanford University ([1]). It doesn't really matter who Abulafia is because she's just the editor of the book where Langmuir is being quoted as authority.
7. Your removal of sourced information and their replacement with unsourced nonsense is completely irresponsible and cannot be justified. I'm reverting back. My edits may not have been perfect, but that doesn't justify hair-splitting and then reverting to an earlier version without even justifying the superiority of that former version over mine.

==Taxico 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't say "men" if you mean "people."
2. Your fix has made no difference and it's a poor example. It also relies on an unknown source.
3. That's your OR.
4. Then find a modern expert on antisemitism who discusses the difference. I'm not saying the current lead shouldn't be improved. I'm saying the version you want is not an improvement, and it relies on one paper from 1971. Also, Langmuir specialized in medieval antisemitism. His opinion can be included, but you can't base a lead on his views as though they are fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to Slimvirgin's version, because I don't think it's valid to draw a distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism. To the extent that we're talking about hostility to Jews as adherents of Judaism, it has to amount to antisemitism. --Leifern 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying there's no distinction between antisemitism and anti-Judaism? Maybe you should take a look at WP:OR, specifically the first point: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." So where are your sources? ==Taxico 02:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The very first paragraph here mentions the definition of antisemitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." Anti-Judaism emphasizes the religious component. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, where are your sources? You can't just take a dictionary definition of "antisemitism" and analyze it come up with a nonexistant defintion for "anti-Judaism". Again, from WP:OR:"Articles may not contain any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. ==Taxico 17:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be deleted. Please read the general article on Antisemitism about the rationale and pretexts for antisemitism throughout the centuries. Anti-Judaism is a subset of antisemitism and not distinct from it. --Leifern 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to delete this article that's a totally different issue. I might support making this into a disambiguation page (with a link to antisemitism and another to Criticism of Judaism), but if this is going to stay the definition have to be sourced. The version you're reverting to does not have any sources. ==Taxico 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it should be deleted, and regardless of the quality of the current lead, the one you inserted wasn't an improvement, because the source's view was idiosyncratic and yet presented as fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Taxico's claim that Paul was an anti-Judaist and that, according to many christian sources, Jesus was as well: No, Paul was opposed to Judaizing - Gentile converts to Judaism forcing other gentiles to convert. The Talmud and Maimonides also forbid judaizing. Paul was a pharisee, as I claimed in his trial before the Sanhedrin in Acts, and as he affirmed late in life by taking a Nazirite vow. But Taxico is accurately reflecting the historic of christian (mis)interpretation of Paul (and of Jesus), which is the very anti-Judaism that we're discussing here, and is still taught as doctrine by all the major protestant denominations, and also Roman catholicism. The traditional term for this was Judenhass, Jew-hate and I think that this should be the name of the article, rather than "religious anti-semitism" which is anachronistic, unclear, and was defined by the anti-semites themselves in order to make Judenhass seem "scientific" and more respectable.

The New Perspective on Paul begins to correct it, but remains a minority viewpoint within christianity. Christian doctrinal and theological statements on this subject are inherently not-neutral, and are very much part of the history this article is describing, even when they are not "anti-semitic" in the racial sense. Christianity by and large is OK with Jews as "semites" / ancestral background, but they must not only profess Jesus as Christ, they must renounce the Law and stop practicing sabbath and holidays, and kosher dietary restrictions. The must stop being "distinct". Thats what makes Jew-hatred inherent in nicean christianity, even when its not in the racist anti-semitic sense. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

merge to Antisemitism

Since the merge seems to be a possible solution, I am proposing it. Please let's discuss at Talk:Antisemitism. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

People there suggested moving it to Religious antisemitism, [2] so I've done that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

quote mining?

Not sure how Taxico was quote mining. The person being quoted in the lead provides a good summary of the other sections of the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead can't consist of one source's idiosyncratic view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

We currently have: "Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is hostility to Judaism and to those who practise it. [1]"

I would change it to: "Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is prejudice or hostility toward Jews as a religious group. [1]"

This is consistent with the main article on antisemitism, and I think is more accurate.Mackan79 16:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including Judaism is that it says too much. Hostility toward a religion is very different from hostility toward practitioners of a religion. For instance, see Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris who are considered hostile toward religion generally, but generally not considered bigots generally or antisemites specifically. "Religious antisemitism," however, is by definition a type of bigotry. To say "religious antisemitism" is "hostility toward Judaism," thus, is overbroad.

Also, isn't the main point of religious antisemitism that it's a cover for regular old antisemitism? Otherwise, you'd think "antisemitism" would be the wrong word. Someone who just hates the religion of Judaism more than is normal would presumably have a different label than "antisemitism," if it didn't really didn't stem from any antipathy toward the Jewish people. So for that reason too, I'd think the definition should focus on Jews as a religion, like the definition of anti-semitism, rather than including criticism of the religion itself even when not related to any traditional anti-semitism.Mackan79 18:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just your personal opinion, Mackan. We go by what the sources say. Richard Dawkins doesn't focus on Judaism. The words "regular old antisemtism" are meaningless; you'll need to be specific and quote sources. There is no "point" to religious antisemitism. Please stick to what your sources say, and if they contradict what's in the article, we can add their views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part was my personal opinion? The first source, deriving from Encyclopedia Britanica, defines antisemitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." It doesn't include hostility toward "Judaism." Do you have a source for this other proposition? I think I explained why the two are different. Mackan79 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, there are hundreds of sources. Please provide a source for your claim that "the two are different." Saying that you explained it is personal opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are hundreds of sources, can't you provide one or two? Can we be reasonable here? I'm not alleging my opinion, I'm alleging facts. I'm alleging that a source for antisemitism = hostility to Jews as a religion can't also be used for antisemitism = hostility to Judaism. Isn't this obvious? If not, then why would we even need to make the distinction, which Britanica doesn't make? If there's no distinction, then "Jews as a religion" makes the entire point. Mackan79 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is like something that should be on the nightmare final exam. Please provide a reliable source that apples are not in fact oranges. For the purposes of this exercise the dictionary does not count! -- Kendrick7^talk 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until you work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

LOL!!! You might be wishing that's all it was by the time we're through. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also somewhat instructive to look at what the lead used to say. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of the areas I edit a lot in are antisemitism and animal rights. Perhaps it's the same everywhere and I've just not noticed, but these areas seem to attract large number of editors who (a) have read next to nothing on the subject and yet (b) have strong views that they feel they should add to the articles. I'm genuinely puzzled by it. Ought I to go to black hole and just type in any old thing that seems to make sense to me? Mackan and Kendrick, please acknowledge that you haven't read any of the scholarly sources, which is obvious from your edits and comments, and explain why you feel it's okay to edit an encyclopedia article on a subject you know almost nothing about. Not a dig, but a serious question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, they asked Jesus the same thing (Jhn 7:15: The Jews were amazed and asked, "How did this man get such learning without having studied?). I have read The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish, and Early Christian Patterns though perhaps eight years ago; I still have my copy. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC) now, stop reverting my edits or I'll club this baby seal! Don't think I won't!!

I can see only two possibilities here. First, you think you're Jesus and have achieved much learning without studying. In this case, you should not be allowed to edit any longer. Second, you don't think you're Jesus. In this case, you should understand that your lack of studying has resulted in lack of knowledge and refrain from editing subjects on which you know next to nothing. Beit Or 14:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If people would share their expertise rather than try to use it as a license, we wouldn't have this problem.Mackan79 14:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, let me tell you exactly why I came to these articles. About two months ago, I was watching an interview with Rashid Khalidi on Charlie Rose, and thought "Wow, this seems like a smart, interesting guy." So I looked him up on WP. What did I find? An article with about 50% on Khalidi, and about 50% wild propagandistic attacks mislabeled as his politics. I did some research and cleaned up the article. Through that, I found an article on Joseph Massad, in even worse shape. Following that, I found articles on Alexander Cockburn and Folke Bernadotte in similar condition.

With each bio, I found editors immediately reverting my changes for ridiculously POV reasons. To be honest, I found this offensive. Having edited other articles, I was completely impressed with the WP community, and the respect and cooperation. Looking at these Arab-Israeli articles, I found all of this ignored. After that I checked out the Zionism page, and I think you know the rest.

So am I an expert on antisemitism? No. I'm someone who believes in accurate information. I'm someone who believes that POV articles don't help anybody, but as you said, simply makes for terrible articles. Incidentally, here's a question: can you show me an article on WP with a blatantly anti-Israel or antisemitic bias? If you can, I assure you I'd be there supporting your side. So far, for whatever reason, I haven't found any. Thus, you must get the impression that I'm here simply to attack Judaism and Israel. I promise you this isn't the case.

My studies, incidentally, are in religion and politics. This gives me plenty of insight into these articles. I'm not here pretending to be a historian. As someone who has read about religion, though, I know criticizing a religion isn't the same as being bigoted towards its adherents, and I know this isn't a fair characterization for an article lead. This has nothing to do with expertise in antisemitism. Anti-Judaism and anti-semitism are not the same thing.

But here's the thing: If your expertise tells you otherwise, you should be able to explain why. But you don't, instead you spar and obstruct and tell me to go find sources to disprove things you refuse to source. You absolutely refuse to openly represent the basis for your own edits, simply pestering me with ridiculous demands while refusing to answer my questions. So why do you do this? Why do you refuse to be civil and argue in good faith? Is this your response to my blatant ignorance? Personally, I'm pretty sure it doesn't help the encyclopedia. Mackan79 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a better lede paragraph than the current. describes the theology of anti-judaism, and the theologians of it. "religious antisemitism" is an anachronistic neologism. Jaredscribe (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So here's the question: are "religious antisemitism" and "anti-Judaism" actually one and the same, or is it more that some consider anti-Judaism a clear byproduct of antisemitism, while some argue it's distinct? Currently, the very first section presents a historian arguing they're distinct. While I imagine "religious antisemitism" and "theological antisemitism" are indeed near synonyms, my understanding is that "anti-Judaism" is actually a slightly distinct concept, the comparison of which would require some explanation. For the record, this is not intended as a contentious discussion, despite its being treated as such.Mackan79 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this somewhat annoying, because I really don't feel like I should have to fight with people simply to get them to address my edits before reverting them. I'm not exactly pushing something inflammatory. In any case, let me try to clarify a little further. The previous lead states:

Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is prejudice against, or hostility toward, Judaism and Jews as a religious group. [1]

I think it could be much better for a number of reasons. 1. Asserting that religious antisemitism IS hostility toward Judaism suggests the converse is true as well. This means hostility toward Judaism is religious antisemitism. I say this not as an expert on antisemitism, but as an expert on what words mean. I added "is a term used to describe" to correct this to an extent. However, 2. If we're talking about terms, I think it's also pretty clear that religious antisemitism and anti-Judaism aren't simply synonyms. They're not two version of the same term, even if they describe similar and related things.

Thus, to be accurate, you'd have to say something like: "Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism, is a term used to describe prejudice against, or hostility toward Jews as a religious group. [1] An often associated term, anti-Judaism, focuses specifically on hostility toward Judaism as a religion. Many people feel these are all related." Instead, I chose to take anti-Judaism out of the lead and address it below. Any thoughts on better ways to deal with this would be extremely appreciated. Mackan79 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not acquaint yourself with WP:V for starters? The sources cited for the first sentence do not support your edit. Beit Or 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part of WP:V? In what respect do they not support the edit? I removed an unsourced statement which is contradicted by the first section of the article. You've responded twice, along with others, by reverting without any explanation. I find your comments somewhat puzzling. Do you not believe in dialogue? Mackan79 22:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem (and at Slim's insistance, I'll try using big words this time) is these experts on anti-Semitism are acting as if theological opposition to Judaism (anti-Judaism) is somehow gone from Christianity, when in point of fact, aside from a few Protestant sects which have rejected Supersessionism and Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, its the mainstream view. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are meant to discuss changes to the article, not to complain about the state of research on antisemitism. Beit Or 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As anti-Judaism currently redirects here, this is the correct talk page to discuss this topic also. I would like to generate some consensus here, so that next time I fix this, it won't get immediately reverted. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: How common is this phrase, "religious antisemitism"? I'm thinking possibly the word "sometimes" should be put into the lead, as in "Religious antisemitism is a term sometimes used to describe..." This isn't meant to denigrate the phrase or idea, which I don't think it would do, but simply to point out that this isn't such a common phrase, if it's not. In fact, it might clue people in that they'd be better off finding a comprehensive discussion at antisemitism.Mackan79 03:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing so disruptively. You've reverted that eight times, and you're wrong about it. But even if right, constantly reverting against a number of editors isn't the answer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what the answer is, then? As far as I can see, this is pretty simple: if you don't want me to make a change, you have to tell me why. Am I wrong about this? In any case, my intention is to try a couple more times, and if you continue to revert without explaining, I'll have to report it as an incident. Or, you could save all of us the time by simply looking for a compromise here, which I would very much appreciate. I'm currently pretty much at a loss why several of you seem to have taken a principled stance against explaining yourselves. Assuming my good faith, what would you do in my position? Mackan79 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's you who wants to make the change; Judaism was in the lead, and you want to remove it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Are "Religious Antisemitism" and "Anti-Judaism" the same thing?

Background: The current lead states, in total:

"Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is prejudice against, or hostility toward, Judaism and Jews as a religious group. [1]"

Question: Is this accurate, or are there distinctions between the terms which should be acknowledged?

Opposed: This is not accurate, and should be changed. Anti-Judaism has refered and can refer to hostility targeted solely at the religion of Judaism, and especially has refered to a Christian theological tradition. (See old version of this article here[3]). Meanwhile, religious antisemitism is, by definition, bigotry against a group of people as such. While it is certainly legitimate to present argument that the two are related, and while the meanings may even overlap, calling them synonyms is imprecise, unsourced, and contradicts the rest of the article.

Specific points: 1. The cited sources do not support the equation. 2. The first section presents an argument from a historian that the terms are distinct. 3. The second section provides another who leaves the question "open." 4. Nothing in the article argues that they are the same thing.

In Favor: The lead is accurate as is. It is supported by hundreds of sources and the rest of the article.

An RfC should briefly state the problem in completely neutral terms, without names, and should be posted with no signature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, amended as such. Further comments, from newcomers or those involved? Mackan79 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the answer to this question is to clarify of which "religion" is being emphasized by the term "religious anti-Semitism:" Judaism or Christianity? Do you mean anti-Semitism inspired by love of Christianity or anti-Semitism inspired by hatred of Judaism? I think its possible for someone who took Christian doctrine so literally that he/she could be against Judaism even if this opinion wasn't very developed. I wouldn't call this a case of anti-Judaism because he/she hasn't given significant amount of thought about Judaism to be against it. On the other hand, I would call a person anti-Jewish that developed the opinion that Judaism as a religion is an evil and that the world would be a better place without people who practiced Judaism. Of course, both cases would be classified under the general heading of anti-Semitism. --GHcool 07:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So the first instance would be antisemitism but not anti-Judaism? Mackan79 08:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (Oops, reedited to fix personal stupidity) Mackan79 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. This is a good question. After thinking about it for a while, I think that "religious antisemitism" and "anti-Judaism" are, by definition, two seperate things. A "semite" is an ethnic group while Judaism is a religion. Many semites are Jews, but not all semites are Jewish (for example, many are Arab and Muslim.) It would make sense that the terms wouldn't be meaning exactly the same thing, so they shouldn't be stated as being synonyms.

There's also what GHcool said above about the difference, which is a very good point in itself. .V. (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case that I mentioned above, I think there would be a difference between religious anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism, but the different is so small that I don't think that it would require two completely seperate Wikipedia articles. As for .V.'s assertion that the term "anti-Semitism" refers to people of all Semitic derevation and not just to Jews, the Random House Webster's College Dictionary explicitly defines the term as "discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews" (emphasis added). --GHcool 19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe not two articles, but a distinction should be made. .V. (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the definition, a semite is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semite. .V. (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, GHcool, that's the contemporary meaning. Still, going on then to say that religious antisemitism refers not just to hostility toward Jews, but also to hostility toward Judaism, seems to stretch the etymologic roots yet further (and still with no supporting sources). One problem, I think, is that the phrase "hostility toward Judaism" is imprecise to begin with, as to what kind of hostility we're talking about. Who defines hostility? If we called it something like "intemperate hostility," then I could agree with calling it religious antisemitism, since we'd clearly be implying some underlying anger at the Jewish people. Simply saying religious antisemitism is hostility toward Judaism, though, seems overbroad, by suggesting it needn't even have any connection to Semitic people at all. Technically (and we're being technical here), I think that's anti-Judaism, not antisemitism. (Of course, this doesn't preclude also making clear that anti-Judaism was a precursor to modern antisemitism).

Ultimately, with very few sources dealing specifically with "religious antisemitism," my suggestion is to reinstate the article on anti-Judaism, and then provide a full discussion of its history and relationship with antisemitism. The current situation seems to be overshadowing a prominent historical concept with one much less discussed or understood. (See discussion also at Talk:Anti-Judaism. Mackan79 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, check out an Amazon.com search on anti-Judaism[4] and one on Religious Antisemitism[5], or "Religious Antisemitism" (with quotes)[6]. I think the difference in both prominence and scope is pretty clear. (Same at Google Books here [7]).Mackan79 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Could this possibly be fixed by having a second sentence (or a longer sentence) which differentiates this to an extent? .V. (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think one sentence is really all that is necessary. This is quite a minor issue. --GHcool 05:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a minor distinction but an important one. Maybe something like...

Current Revision: Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism

Proposed Compromise: Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism (when directed at the religion)

How's that? .V. (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --GHcool 06:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not fine. It's terrible writing for one thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's "terrible writing", do you mind proposing a change to it that would fix it? Perhaps you'd rather like -

"Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or (when directed at the religion), anti-Judaism." .V. (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for religious antisemitism being different from anti-Judaism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be handled by the people originally involved in this discussion. I'm just responding here as a part of an RfC, and that was a compromise edit that I thought would satisfy the parties involved. It seemed the dispute centered around a specificity issue, and I think the compromise edit fixed that. .V. (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are the one suggesting the edit. Therefore, you are the one who has to produce sources showing there's a difference. Why on earth would you suggest it if you know nothing about the subject? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the "Current Revision" and .V.'s "Proposed Compromise," and then .V.'s later suggestion, I think they all mean exactly the same thing, and the "Current Revision" is much less cluttered, so why not leave it as it is? I do not see anything here that needs to be "fixed". 6SJ7 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They do mean very similar things, but there's a slight distinction. The current revision lists them as if interchangeable, my compromise edit distinguishes that the last in the series is not always synonymous. .V. (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell us WHERE YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A SLIGHT DISTINCTION. This page is the blind leading the bloody blind. Who are your sources? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah, no need to get excited here. It's just a Talk page. Anyway, it seems like there's a slight definitional distinction. Let's say there's a whacked-out, paranoid guy sitting behind his desk somewhere that thinks the Jews are trying to take over the world. He might be considered Anti-Semetic and to have anti-Judaism beliefs, but his hatred wouldn't be based out of religion. It's the difference between Judaism as a social entity and Judaism as a religious entity. .V. (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not a published expert on antisemitism, so your personal views are irrelevant. Please find sources who say there is a difference, and if you want to add it as fact to the lead, the majority of scholarly sources would have to say that. Please don't respond to this unless you're going to tell me what the sources say, because this isn't Usenet and I have no interest in an exchange of personal prejudices. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to favor common sense (and common sense examples) for things which are definitional in nature. For example, if someone posted "Blue things are always red. Red things are always green. Green things are never blue", it would make sense to change it because there's a common sense example that would contradict that logic (not to mention the whole "red/blue/green" thing is not true.) Because I could see an example that would invalidate the logic provided in the sentence in question, I figure it should be reworded. It really doesn't seem to be an opinion, it just seems to be basic logic. But if you really still want sources for this, I'll leave it to the people more involved in the debate. .V. (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content policies tend to favor reliable sources, rather than the "common sense" of young anonymous contributors who have read nothing about the topic, silly us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, no need to get strung out about this. Just offering a counterexample. .V. (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think this issue is such a large problem with the article that the article must be changed to accomodate it, I do see the slight difference between "religious anti-Semitism" and "anti-Judaism" through inductive reasoning (or is it deductive reasoning? I always get the two confused). That said, just because I see something and .V. sees the same thing, it doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia because, as SlimVirgin said (patiently at first), reliable sources and verifiability count on Wikipedia more than deductive or inductive reasoning. Deductive and inductive reasoning often yield false or debatable conclusions; this is how we got the flat earth and heliocentric theories. It is .V.'s responsibility to produce a reliable source, preferably an expert on anti-Semitism or religious studies, to state with clearly the same view. --GHcool 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As was noted down below, "anti-judaism" directs here, and "anti-Judaism" directs to "anti-Judaism". If they're the same thing, they should be the same article. .V. (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty straight forward to me. The text ....

Religious antisemitism, sometimes called theological antisemitism or anti-Judaism, is prejudice against, or hostility toward, Judaism and Jews as a religious group.

... is accurate as per the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one says Anti-Judaism and religious antisemitism are the same thing? That's the point we're missing, while we now have at least three scholars who have argued they're different. Also, Britannica doesn't actually say religious Antisemitism includes hostility toward Judaism, merely that it includes hostility toward Jews as a religious group (to the extent it comments on this at all). While the distinction may seem odd, I think it's at the heart of this, and can be stated clearly in the simple sentence: Anti-Judaism is the cause of Religious Antisemitism. They often coincide -- in fact, you can't have the latter without the former, but you can have the former without the latter. That seems to me to be what the sources, as well as common sense, suggest, no? Mackan79 08:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Clear

After reading the article, I'm not clear (and so didn't want to respond to the RfC). By "religious anti-semitism," does this article mean "anti-semitism motiviated by religion" (say, as I understand it, the views of the Nation of Islam); or does this article mean "views that oppose Jewish religion" (which is how I have understood the term "anti-judaism"). I have a hard time figuring out which the article is about. I could just be dense. A little help? -- Pastordavid 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are similar to Pastordavid's. Just from reading the RfC, I assumed there was a distinction between the terms - "religious antisemitism" would have referred to someone who is antisemitic for religious reasons, while "anti-Judaism" would refer to hatred of the Jewish religion. Having read the article, I see that "religious antisemitism" is generally used with the latter meaning, and therefore there's no real distinction as used. So it now appears to me that the term "religious antisemitism" would not cover someone who, for religious reasons, hates all Jews (even nonreligious ones) because he believes they are "spawn of Satan" or something like that. I think it *should* cover such a person, but the job of Wikipedia is to explain meanings, not create them. PubliusFL 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking messed up

Please fix the links. When a search is doen for anti-judaism it routs to this article and when people write anti-Judaism they are transferred to another article. We need to decide what gets merged with what and soon because people are getting conflicting messages. Guy Montag 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. If there is a separate article for anti-Judaism, either the meanings of the two terms need to be distinguished (as .V. argues), or the two articles should be merged. The one thing that makes no sense is to say that the terms are interchangeable and yet maintain two separate articles. PubliusFL 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. That's rather confusing that the redirects would be set up that way. .V. (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism or Religious Antisemitism

So it seems pretty clear to me from the RfC as well as Talk:Anti-Judaism that we have a real question of what this article is and should be about. My thoughts:

1. Substantial evidence seems to suggest a difference between the usage and study of "Anti-Judaism" vs. "Religious Antisemitism," although the two are certainly related. First, we have the scholar Langmuir, sourced as distinguishing each, with no sources refuting his take. Second, one can simply search Amazon.com on anti-Judaism[8] and one on Religious Antisemitism[9] to see that the books come up very different. Do we need more?

2. Nevertheless, most seem to agree that the terms are related, and should be discussed in the same article.

3. So then, what do we call it? According to Kendrick, up until a few weeks ago, we had an article on Anti-Judaism, which also then discussed the historical connections to antisemitism. In fact, this might explain why some remain unclear as to the real topic of the article. In any case, based on current sources, and those which seem to be available, I'd think this should be an article on anti-Judaism, which then discusses the connection to religious antisemitism. Not only are there many more books about anti-Judaism (I personally can't find a book with "religious antisemitism" in the title), but the term comes up 70 times more often on Google. I'm really not sure why the change in title was made, if that's what happened. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Mackan79 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In these cases, it's best to default to the most general term available. Anti-Judaism does seem to be the most general term available. Religious antisemitism is a kind of anti-Judaism, although other kinds do exist. As such, it would make sense that religious antisemitism would be included under the wider purview of anti-Judaism. .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the "substantial evidence" the suggests a difference between the usage and study of anti-Judaism vs. religious anti-Semitism. So far, you have not provided even one source on this difference. The Amazon keyword search is not a good source. If it were, the article on "Palestinian political violence" would quickly be replaced by "Palestinian terrorism" as would many more controversial articles. --GHcool 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources seem to make clear they are not the same, and that their relationship is a source of much scholarly debate. See Anti-judaism#Contrasted_with_Anti-Semitism. Why would scholars be debating the relationship between synonyms? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All that page shows is that there might be a difference between hatred of Jews by race and hatred of Jews by religion. It does not say anything about synonyms. My feeling is that the words "anti-Judaism" and "religious anti-Semitism" are so close that the only way to differentiate between the two is through a logical loophole. I'm reminded by my friend of mine when I was in high school. She was a Jew with her ancestry going back to Egypt and she once joked that she should write that she is an "African-American" on her college application and get in under affirmative action. Of course, she was kidding, but through a logical loophole, she could have convincingly argued that she was an African-American. --GHcool 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue I've been trying to point out for weeks now. Anti-Semitism is always motivated by (or is the equivalent of) hatred of Jews. The same cannot be said of anti-Judaism, any more than someone can say anti-Capitalism is solely motivated by hatred of capitalists. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did provide a source, though, Gavin Langmuir, whereas we lack any sources saying the words are interchangable. As to Palestinian Terrorism, that's a peculiar case with a specific reason the article doesn't have that name. Is there any such reason here? If you look at the article, you see a discussion of Christian Anti-Judaism. I could be wrong, but I simply don't think this is more widely discussed as Christian Religious Antisemitism. In fact, it looks to me like that phrase, "Religious Antisemitism" is largely a neologism, with only 2,060 hits on Google, vs 156,000 hits for Anti-Judaism, and with apparently nobody ever having written a book about "Religous Antisemitism." In the end, it seems like a very clear case of a more minor phrase superceding one much more widely used and studied. This makes it difficult, of course, to find a lot of scholars discussing the difference, but I think that misses the point. It seems the real question is: can anyone provide an actual source on "Religious Antisemitism"? And if not, shouldn't this go back to being an article on Anti-Judaism, something on which a great number of books appear to have been written? Mackan79 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is yet another source I found floating around google books. It's Cook, Michael L. (2003). Justice, Jesus, and the Jews: A Proposal for Jewish-Christian Relations. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. p. 21. ISBN 0814651488.:

The terms "anti-Judaism" and "anti-Semitism" though in need of much nuance, provide a common and useful distinction. The latter could include other Semites such as Arabs, but as a negative and racist designation it was first used explicitly in reference to Jews in the nineteenth century. The first is a theological and apologetic term that in some form rejects the religious claims of one or other forms of "Judaism" without neccessarily rejecting the Jewish people as a racial or ethnic group. Anti-Judaism is, then, a term more appropriate for discussing the New Testament materials and the history that lies behind them. Yet it should not be forgotten that such anti-Judaism did provide warrants for anti-Semitism. George Smiga, in discussing Douglas Hare's threefold classification of anti-Judaism as respectively "prophetic," "Jewish-Christian," and "Gentilizing," makes the point that anti-Judaism as applied to the New Testament "implies a normative Judaism from which to deviate." So he retains the term "only for Hare's third category in which the Jewish people as a whole are seen to be rejected by God"; i.e. not in a racial but theological sense.

etc. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is Mr. Smiga, to whom the above source refers (Smiga, George Michael (1992). Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels. Cleveland: Paulist Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 0809133555.) in a section entitled Anti-Judaism or Anti-Semitism (skipping the first para mentioning Semites can be Arabs too):

Secondly, the term "anti-Semitism" as employed commonly today is seem primarily as a racial designation. This is especially due to its association with the program of Nordic superiority as promoted by the Nazis during the Second World War. Not only is this type of racial prejudice lacking in the New Testament, but even the negative attacks of pagans in the ancient world never employed a theory of race as a weapon of attack.[3] The term "anti-Judaism" avoids a racial evaluation. As commonly employed in the literature today, "anti-Judaism" is "a purely theological reality; it rejects Judaism as a way to salvation but not Jews as a people."[4] For these reasons, "anti-Judaism" is to be prefered to "anti-Semitism" in reference to the New Testament.

Nevertheless, the issue is not so simply resolved. With appropriate nuance, there remain a number of scholars who would still champion the use of "anti-Semitism" in refering to New Testament polemic.[5] The reason for their choice should not be passed over in silence. When the history of Jewish-Christian relations is surveyed, it is an indisputable fact that the negative evaluations of Judaism present in the New Testament (however they may be termed) have shaped a theological tradition hostile to Judaism. This tradition has in turn fostered an attitude toward Jews which has in no small way contributed to the underpinnings of beliefs and actions which are racial and can properly be called "anti-Semitic." It is impossible to deny the disasterous effects which have flowed from the polemic against Jews and Judaism in the New Testament. Lest this disasterous potential of the scriptural writings be overlooked, some scholars have argued that "anti-Semitism" or a nuanced form such as "theological anti-Semitism" is the more honest term to describe the polemic.[6] Even though I have decided not to employ these expressions, I am in sympathy with the concerned scholars who argue for them. Futhermore, I trust that the use of "anti-Judaism" in the following pages will in no way be seen as a denial of the serious anti-Semitic potential which these scriptural texts do indeed possess.

-- Kendrick7^talk 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced. Well done, Kenrick7. --GHcool 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else? So what next? Kendrick, do you agree that the pages should be merged? Mackan79 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked Kenrick's post as well. As for the page merger, there might be an issue with that. The two pages are so different that it might not flow as well. Perhaps making it a bit more nuanced in the first sentence of this article would work? .V. -- (^Talk_Email) 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy enough for now to continue working on anti-Judaism in peace for a while. The problem with having an anti-Judaic theology dominant throughout the past two thousand years of European culture is there are certainly going to be zealots who put it into practice in dubious ways (e.g. Johannes Pfefferkorn). I'm happy to leave it up to other editors on exactly how they want to split the difference; I don't have a problem with the existance of this article per se. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I see two options: a) Leave the pages generally as they are. In that case, this page simply needs some substantial work, since it's currently really about Anti-Judaism. I guess that's not a hurry, so long as the first paragraph is cleared up. b) Merge the two into an article about Anti-Judaism, to fully discuss the matter there, along with all connections to antisemitism.

Is this about right? Personally, I prefer the second, for a few reasons. 1. Anti-Judaism, I think, is really the main discussion of hostility toward the Jewish religion. "Religious antisemitism" seems to be a neologism. The full discussion would very much fit under Anti-Judaism, and thus seems like it should. 2. Having these two different articles is going to lead to a lot of confusion and arguing in the future. Already, Antisemitism has recently been changed to link to Religious Antisemitism rather than Anti-Judaism. Shouldn't that choice be avoided by resolving the issue once and for all? 3. A discussion of one probably really also needs a discussion of the other. Thoughts? Mackan79 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some references to reliable sources won't hurt, Where did you get the idea that "religious antisemitism" is a neologism? Beit Or 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did a Google search, and found only about 2000 hits, which mostly seemed to be in passing, as opposed to some 150,000 hits for Anti-Judaism. I also tried an Amazon.com and a Google books search, neither of which turned up a book on Religious Antisemitism. The page still doesn't have any sources which actually talk about "Religious Antisemitism." Basically, it seems there was an assessment by some editors that "Religious Antisemitism" is a more accurate term than Anti-Judaism, but I'm simply saying, it doesn't appear to be the prevalent term. Do you disagree? Did you have some other problem with my edit? Mackan79 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A Google search is not a reliable source. Just to point out at least one flaw with this approach: you may have missed expressions with essentially the same meaning, like "antisemitism based on religion", or, in more specific cases, "Christian antisemtism", "antisemitism in Christianity", "Muslim antisemitism" etc. Beit Or 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, you simply asked me why I thought it was a neologism, which relates to the phrase itself. I'm still not sure what your concern with the edit is, though. I said Anti-Judaism is the more prevalent phrase, which is clearly accurate, and points people to the topic where the primary historical discussion has taken place. Is there a reason you don't like this? There's clearly a problem here between these two articles; I think we're going to have to be willing to talk a little if we actually want to work it out. Mackan79 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're mostly relying on the results of your Google search for your assertions. I'm still surprised that you don't understand why your arguments are not taken seriously. Beit Or 10:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were five other people who agreed that there's a problem: Pastordavid, Publius, V, GHcool, Kendrick and myself. The primary issues here aren't Google, but two things: 1.) We still don't have a single source on Religious Antisemitism, and 2.) The sources we have suggest several commentators have distinguished Anti-Judaism from antisemitism. It's been a number of weeks now as well, and still nobody has provided a single source justifying the first paragraph. I guess I'll keep trying other options, but it would be helpful if you could be a little more civil in participating. Mackan79 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried another option, based on the source. This seems accurate to me: Religious Antisemitism is Antisemitism based in Anti-Judaism. This is based on Michael Cook, quoted above, desribing Anti-Judaism as "a theological and apologetic term that in some form rejects the religious claims of one or other forms of 'judaism' without neccessarily rejecting the Jewish people as a racial or ethnic group." I think the current version is accurate; I'd encourage people to edit it if they'd like changes rather than reverting to the unsourced version. Mackan79 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense. The whole difference between racial antisemitism and the older kind was the identification of Jews as a racial or ethnic group. Discriminating against Jews because of their religion is the same as discriminating against Jews because of their religion - that's "religious antisemitism", "anti-Judaism", or "theological antisemitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there were some great sources provided above that made the distinction clear between anti-Judaism and religious antisemitism. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with the source, Jayjg? The source says Anti-Judaism is a theological and apologetic term which doesn't necessarily connote rejecting the Jewish people. Do you have something to contravene this? We currently don't have anything. Mackan79 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is an apologetic Christian one. Here's something more relevant:

"Of the four roots of anti-Semitism, religious anti-Semitism has the longest history in Western Christian societies. Religious anti-Semitism encompasses hostility that stems from the Jewish people's refusal to abandon their religious beliefs and practices and, specifically within Christian societies, from the accusation of Jewish collective responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ. By the eighteenth century, the religious root would expand to include the French Enlightenment critique that Judaism was responsible for the antiprogressive and exclusionist characters of its followers.
Official Christian antipathy toward Judaism began to gather steam within one hundred years of the death of Christ. Christian bitterness may have stemmed largely from the new religion's competition with Judaism for a following... The strong desire for Christian self-affirmation and Christian disconfirmation of Judaism, especially during the church's formative years, may help to explain its unique anti-Judaism." William I. Brustein. Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521774780, p. 49.

Brustein notes the four roots of antisemitism, religious, racial, economic, and political. He is quite clear that anti-Judaism is just another word for racial antisemitism. The book is not a religious work published by "Liturgical Press" or "Paulist Press" about how one might better Jewish-Christian relations, or a study of the gospels, but is an analysis of antisemitism, published by Cambridge University Press. Brustein has written extensively on antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but you also disregard Langmuir. Is he not also a respected scholar of antisemitism? That would seem to be 1-1, except that Langmuir actually discusses the issue, while Brustein doesn't (indeed, did you not just engage in OR? Oh dear...). In any case, I think the basic point you're missing is simply that while anti-Judaism is a topic of antisemitism, it's also studied as something else, in which it is not simply a matter of antisemitism. Primarily, this seems to amount to a theological study of Christian opposition to Judaism. This has at times been antisemitic, and relates to antisemitism, and has involved antisemitism, but it is clearly not simply discussed as one and the same. You couldn't simply call Smiga's book, "Pain an Polemic: Religious Antisemitism in the Gospels." In that regard, I'm simply pretty sure a single scholar seeming to use the terms interchangably on one page of a book doesn't erase dozens of other books making the distinction.

In any case: are you really making the argument that Anti-Judaism, as used in all contexts, is simply another word for Religious Antisemitism? Are you saying the three scholars speaking of a distinction are in the extreme minority? Are you also saying that Religious Antisemitism is in fact the predominant term for Anti-Judaism? It seems to me this is the position you would have to take to have an argument, but I have a hard time seeing you can really think this. To me, the last edit I suggested is a very good way of showing the relationship, but also noting the difference. Mackan79 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so in technical terms, I think you've provided some original research, which doesn't overcome three sources specifically stating otherwise. Regardless, I've tried to explain the problem in much more detail. If you can respond, I'll hold off on editing; otherwise, I'll try again. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think the distinction is extremely clear, based on several sources and a simple book search on "Anti-Judaism."[10] Indeed, you may even be right that Langmuir is the exception among scholars of antisemitism, but I'm extremely doubtful you'll be able to establish the same for religious scholars who have discussed Anti-Judaism. Simply read the article. It's a discrete topic; it can't simply be erased. Mackan79 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• In the Brustein quote, it's not clear that he's equating the terms. He uses both in the same block of text, but it's not like he's saying "This = that." .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All of the authors who write on the topic, with, apparently, the exception of a tiny number of people writing essentially Christian works of theology, view these phenomena as identical, and, like Brustein make no differentiation. For example:

"the Swedish people... though inheriting the Christian, Lutheran, theological anti-Semitism common to Scandinavian history, were much less biased than the clergy. Even in the priesthood, anti-Judaism has weakened over the years, possibly because Luther's anti-Semitic teachings were never emphasized in Swedish theological schools." Selwyn Ilan Troen, Jewish Centers and Peripheries: Europe Between America and Israel Fifty Years After World War II, p. 183.

"These virulent assaults are part of a pattern of Christian anti-Semitism begun long before Chrysostom lived, and they continue on the lips and pens of some to this very moment. There was anti-Judaism long before Christianity... Theological anti-Semitism began with Gentile converts of various tribes. They resented the established Israel..." Harry James Cargas. Holocaust Scholars Write to the Vatican, p. 4.

"Traditional Catholic Anti-Judaism: ... Although Marxist anti-Semitism was of far more recent vintage than the Catholic variety, it by no means replaced it. Even though some newly emerging social groups such as the industrial working class and the academically trained bourgeoisie - both of them militantly anticlerical - abandoned religious anti-Semitism in favor of "progressive" economic or racial anti-Semitism, the more traditinal form remained surprisingly tenacious, especially among such traditional social groups as the clergy, the peasantry, and the lower middle class." Bruce F. Pauley. From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism, p. 151.

Even Smiga himself acknowledges that many scholars view them as one and the same:

"When the history of Jewish-Christian relations is surveyed, it is an indisputable fact that the negative evaluations of Judaism present in the New Testament (however they may be termed) have shaped a theological tradition hostile to Judaism. This tradition has in turn fostered an attitude toward Jews which has in no small way contributed the underpinnings of beliefs and actions which are racial and can properly be called "anti-Semitic". It is impossible to deny the disastrous effects which have flowed from the polemic against Jews and Judaism in the New Testament. Lest this disastrous potential of the scriptural writings be overlooked, some scholars argue that "anti-Semitism" or a nuanced form such as "theological anti-Semitism" is the most honest term to describe the polemic. Even though I have opted not to employ these expressions, I am in sympathy with the concerns of scholars who argue for them." Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels, p. 12.

Other authors are not so forgiving of these apologetics:

"In some circles it has become fashionable to speak of early Christian 'anti-Judaism' rather than 'anti-Semitism'. But to the victim this is a distinction without a difference. It also lifts from the Churches the guilt of preaching and teaching theological anti-Semitism, the closed system of rejection of the Jews which the midrashim of the Church Fathers developed." Franklin H. Littell "Breaking the Succession of Evil" in Levon Chorbajian. Studies in comparative genocide, p. 239.

It is clear that some authors would like to remove the stigma of anti-Semitism from Christian groups and thought by re-naming religious/theological anti-Semitism as "anti-Judaism"; but regardless of the term, the authors are describing the exact same phenomenon. While there is room in this article to describe the arguments of those who think anti-Judaism should be the preferred term, there really is no room for a fork of this article which describes religious anti-Semitism from the POV of the apologists. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This simply seems like an odd argument, when dozens of books have been written specifically on Anti-Judaism, and noted scholars of antisemitism have acknowledged the distinction. I might say, even Littell, who clearly takes a dim view of the distinction, suggests the distinction has become "fahionable," and in fact clearly argues against it on moral rather than factual grounds. In any case, I've looked some more, and I hope these sources seal the matter (at least that there is a distinction, even if we should say some don't recognize it):

More Sources On Distinction between RAS and AJ

The last is the most directly on point, but I think these all establish a pretty strong showing for the view that Anti-Judaism is the cause of religious antisemitism, but not synonymous as generally discussed:

• "Flannery has distinguished theological anti-Judaism and negative prophetic statements delivered within a Jewish ambiance 'from modern antisemitism' and candidly acknowledges that the New Testament has reflected an anti-Judaic theology and anti-Jewish pronouncement, prophetic in nature, which has made it a seedbed of antisemitism." Donald J. Dietrich, God and Humanity in Auschwitz: Jewish-Christian Relations and Sanctioned Murder, at 51. Published 1995 Transaction Publishers ISBN 156000147X
• "For an example of this 'theological antisemitism,' see Janis Leibig, 'John and 'the Jews': Theological Antisemitism in the Fourth Gospel,' Journal of Ecuminecial Studies 20 (1983): 226-27. Robert Kaysar has recently insisted that the Gospel itself is not antisemitic but that it historically has nurtured antisemitism.... see Kayser's essay in Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hager, eds., Antisemitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993)."
• "It is one thing to understand Christian anti-Judaism as one necessary cause or condition of modern antisemitism and quite another to say that antisemitism was the result of faith in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and appeared with that faith. the differences in the nature of the hostility and in chronology are too obvious. The problem -- both for Christians and for objective scholars -- is to find a way of distinguishing reactions against Jews that were direct or unavoidable consequences of belief in Christ from the hatred of antisemits wtihout taking a theological position or denying the connection between them." Gavin I Langmuir, History, Religion, and Antisemitism at 41.
• "Christian historians tend to deny an intrinsic link between their religion and anti-Semitism, claiming that hatred of Jews has pagan origins, and when its most violent expressions were carried out by nominal Christians, such as the Nazis, these malefactors were not true Christians. Jewish historians, for their part, tend to place the blame for anti-Semitism almost exlcusively on Christians and see the origins of anti-Semitism as residing in the New Testament. The intrinsic difficulty in determining the origins and causes of anti-Semitism is a function of the lack of an agreed definitionof rhe term, and it is to this task that Gavin I. Langmuir has directed his attention in the two complementary books under review." Daniel J. Lasker, Speculum, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 826-828 [11]
• "From this type of misconveived "scientific" view, "antisemitism" came to designate a hatred of the Jews in general and of their religious practices and so-called basic personality type in particular. The former aspect is often reinforced by a special brand of anti-semitism, designated theological antisemitism, which adds religious grounds to those based on culture and politics." Frank E. Eakin What Price Prejudice?: Antisemitism in the Light of the American Christian Experience. Paulist Press, 1998 ISBN 0809138220
• (Chapter title: "Anti-Judaism as the Necessary Preparation for Antisemitism"): "Anti-Judaism I take to be a total or partial opposition to Judaism -- and to Jews as adherents of it -- by people who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior." Gavin Langmuir, Toward a Definition of Antisemitism, University of California Press, 1996 ISBN 0520061438 [12]
• "To be sure, there is a crucial difference between Christian anti-Judaism, whose epicenter is the myth of deicide, and modern antisemitims, which is powered by nationalist and racist myths that castigate Jews as an alien and dangerous race threatening the survival of nations." "The distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism is of fundamental importance to historical understanding, even though the boundary dividing them is vague and fluctuating. One must avoid any kind of apologetic in the use of the term anti-Judaism taht would separate the two phenomena as unconnected. Historically, one is the seedbed of the other one, as Gavin Ian Lanmuir argues in a seminal essay; it is necessary to approach 'Anti-Judaism as the Necessary Preparation for Anti-Semitism," Vintar: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1971): 385-89." Marvin Perry and Frederick M. Schweitzer, Antisemitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present, Palgrave 2002,ISBN 0312165617
• "Anti-Judaism is understood in the present volume as a theological or apologetical category, which comprehends all opposition to Judaism or Jewish opinion insofar as they run counter to Christian belief or practice, but which falls short of antisemitism, which in turn is understood as any form of hateful stereotyping of the Jewish people as such.... Marcel Simon has certain scruples concerning the setting off of the term 'anti-Judaism' as the contrary of antisemitism: 'The choice (of the term),' he writes, 'is perhaps not too happy. For myself, I prefer to see 'anti-Judaism' as a more precise and adapted synonym of anti-Semitism, and I would call anti-Jewish apologetics what Lovsky calls 'anti-Judaism." Whatever term is retained, there is a capital distinction to be made. No doubt, anti-Jewish apologetics can occasionally be, in its form and its argumentation, anti-Semitic, properly speaking. But it is not so either in principle or essence.' (op. cit., p. 493). Sensitive to Mr. Simon's refinement, one may yet employ 'anti-Judaism' in Lovsky's sense, which has received widespread acceptance. (See Lovsky, op. cit., 102-104, 113-117.)" Edward H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Paulist Press, 2004 ISBN 0809143240

In the end, I think it's also clear some scholars don't recognize the distinction, and do use the terms interchangably. I have no problem acknowledging that. There's simply no way we can call Langmuir, Flannery, and all the others a completely unnoteworthy extreme minority, when it appears they're actually a majority. In any case, my suggestion remains that we acknowledge both positions, that there is a distinction, and that there isn't.Mackan79 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You have brought quotes that distinguish between anti-Judaism and modern antisemitism. Of course they are not the same; modern antisemitism is racial antisemitism. From the first century to the 19th "theological/religious antisemitism" predominated; in the late 19th and 20th century that was mostly replaced by the modern, pseudo-scientific, racial antisemitism. The sources in no way refute that religious antisemitism is the same as anti-Judaism; instead, these generally Christian authors say that Christianity or the gospels are not inherently antisemitic, that religious and racial antisemitism are different, and that some prefer the term "anti-Judaism". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources don't all refer to "modern" antisemitism. Those who do appear to be distinguishing it from the historical anti-Judaim, which is the whole point. Please see the last section from Flannery, which makes the distinction extremely clear: "Anti-Judaism is understood in the present volume as a theological or apologetical category, which comprehends all opposition to Judaism or Jewish opinion insofar as they run counter to Christian belief or practice, but which falls short of antisemitism, which in turn is understood as any form of hateful stereotyping of the Jewish people as such." As he says, the antisemitism he refers to is not simply a modern term limited to racism. Flannery goes on to say that his usage of Anti-Judaism has gained "widespread acceptance." Are you saying he's incorrect?

Also, just check out the review of Langmuir. "Christian historians tend to deny an intrinsic link between their religion and anti-Semitism, claiming that hatred of Jews has pagan origins, and when its most violent expressions were carried out by nominal Christians, such as the Nazis, these malefactors were not true Christians. Jewish historians, for their part, tend to place the blame for anti-Semitism almost exlcusively on Christians and see the origins of anti-Semitism as residing in the New Testament." I think you're right about the dichotomy, but surely that doesn't justify completely ignoring the former group. Mackan79 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The group shouldn't be ignored, and I've never advocated that. However, it's clear that everyone is discussing the same phenomena, but some people (basically Christians) prefer the term "anti-Judaism" for various reasons. There can't be two articles about the same thing; instead, the POV-fork needs to be merged back here, and a section inserted discussing the debate over the correct terminology. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply curious: is there a reason you think "Religious Antisemitism" is the more predominant phrase? Mackan79 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a different question. The fact is, some authors wanted the Religious antisemitism article to be at Anti-Judaism instead, and when they couldn't get their way, they created a POV fork. That cannot stand. If the article is to be renamed, then there is a process for that, but POV forks are a no-go. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I believe this was actually an article on Anti-Judaism, the title of which SlimVirgin changed on January 5th: [13]. So before that, we had an article on Anti-Judaism, which didn't actually mention the phrase "Religious Antisemitism." [14]. Did this change of the name follow the process? In any case, I'm not sure how you can call it a POV fork to have an article on Anti-Judaism, when that article appears to have existed for a long time.

Anyway, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Should we have mediation on this? It seems like a rather complex issue: two articles, whether they should be the same, which should have the title. I see about three major issues:

1. Is there a distinction between Religious Antisemitism and Anti-Judaism?
2. Should there be separate articles on the two?
3. If there is one article, what should the article be called?

If you'd like to propose a compromise, I'll listen, but it kind of seems like this will need mediation. Would you agree to that? Anyone? Mackan79 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you what won't work as a compromise; using as references for your POV some of the sources above, which, as has already been explained, do not distinguish between anti-Judaism and religious/theological antisemitism, but rather between anti-Judaism and racial antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please try to WP:AGF. I didn't source the material solely to prove the point, but as sources relevant to that statement. I actually removed some of the material that was most relevant to the argument, to avoid using the sources so contentiously. Instead, I included the sources most relevant for someone wanting to look into the issue. I have to convince you that there's a distinction here, of course, but every source there doesn't have to argue directly for the point (see FN1, for instance). In fact, the sources are provided for the whole sentence; ideally sources would be added which argue that the terms are interchangable.

I was actually almost regretting my compromise, though, simply because I'm pretty sure this article shouldn't even exist. I say this seriously, as a matter of WP:NEO. Anti-Judaism is a very commonly-used and discussed term and concept, with dozens of books written about it; the idea that WP would have no article on it is absurd. "Religious Antisemitism," on the other hand, is a phrase which literally nobody appears to have ever written a book on, and for which no definition has been found. How could that possibly be the proper name for the article? On what basis was the name chosen? It's really not suppoed to be for WP editors to decide what we'd rather have something called. In any case, I'm letting it slide as long as the definition makes clear that "Anti-Judaism" is not always used to mean a form of antisemitism. In that regard, I'd have to think you could live with the last compromise I offered, or at least something similar.Mackan79 01:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also: You could add the Littell quote if you like, which would seem appropriate. I don't mind its placement at the bottom either, other than that the Langmuir view is currently understated by failing to note that this is actually the predominant view of Christian historians, but I'll leave that for another day. Mackan79 14:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue here is that "Anti-Judaism", "Religious antisemitism", and "Theological antisemitism" are all synonyms, but you keep trying to hide that, using sources that don't prove your POV. And I've been keeping one of the most common synonyms out of the article for a while, but given your intransigence, I'm starting to regret it. The synonym, of course, is "Christian antisemitism", which gets tens of thousands of Google hits, and about which a number of books have been written, including Flannery's. I suppose it will have to go in now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, which source is irrelevant? If I reduce it to the source that is most clearly on point, will that help? I really have no idea where you're coming from, except that you seem to assume that I'm arguing in bad faith. Can I ask, if you were in my position, would you know what Jayjg wants to hear? You seem to agree that some compromise would work, but you're not exactly helping me find it. Coudld you help a little?

As to Christian Antisemitism, you can argue that if you want, but I think you also know that's not a synonym for Anti-Judaism or Religious Antisemitism, which can come from any religion or atheism. Mackan79 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Crime of Christendom: The Theological Sources of Christian Anti-Semitism by Fred Gladstone Bratton.
• Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate by William Nicholls.
• What Price Prejudice?: Christian Antisemitism in America by Frank E. Eakin Jr.

What do you think these books are about? What do you think this article is about? What do you think Father John Pawlikowski is talking about here or here? As for your argument, not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. All Christian antisemitism is religious antisemitism/theological antisemitism/anti-Judaism, and is basically what all the authors are talking about, even if anti-Judaism can (theoretically) also come from different sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

From one of the articles:

"Nazi anti-Semitism, of course, was of a fundamentally different character from Christian anti-Judaism..."

He goes on to blame the one on the other, but I didn't see much to back that up other than the offense he takes at anti-Judaism, which to his mind means it should be blamed as much as possible -- and even he admits the distinction exists. A.J.A. 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blood libel question

Excuse me for asking perhaps a dumb question, but shouldn't there be some statement at the end of that section (for example) that states that there is no known factual basis for this allegation? What am I missing? Crum375 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

this article

This article needs a section on islamic antisemitism. --Sefringle 02:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It shiffers me a little that when I say that there can't exist a God with a "chosen people" I am charaterized as a antisemit Limboot 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Where have you been characterized as such in wiki? -- Avi 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because here we speak about "religious antisemitism". Classified this article as "criminalizacion" of people who have critics on judaism religion, just like people who have critism on israeli gouvernment are often criminalized as "antisemitists" Limboot 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

merge

I have nominated a mege because I don't see a difference between the tow topics. Antisemitism and anti-Judaism are the same thing.--Sefringle 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look above on the talk page, there are a dozen or so authors discussing the difference in their estimation. I think you're right that there is a strong connection, and even that many authors discuss them as the same thing. The various sources also show a lot of authors (primarily Christian) who discuss the one (Anti-Judaism) as not the equivalent, but rather a cause of the other (Religious Antisemitism), however. The other problem is that Anti-Judaism actually seems to be a much more prominent phrase, which would cause problems in choosing the title. I think this is why the articles are kept separately, based on previous discussions. Mackan79 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatred of Jewish "Race" and When Did it Start

There is much evidence that Jews were considered a "race" from the start of Chrstian times. Evidence is found in St. Augustine, St. Isidore of Seville, Peter the Venerable, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and institutionalized in the Church long before Poliakov's "Spain of the Inquisition."

“Not only did institutionalized racism begin in 15th-century Spain (the Inquisition ran from the late 15th through the early 19th centuries), but I would argue that a Christian racism can be detected as early as the 4th century in Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom. Moreover, is not the belief in inherent and inherited traits what characterizes 19th-century racism as well, the same emphasis on evil vs good blood occurs among the Spanish, and is implied in Luther, as well as 19th-century writers.” Ref:: Michael. racial antisemitism vs mala sangre. Apr 1997

Scholars describe the evidence of Martin Luther's Jew hatred in his early works like his Spalatin Letters. But more importantly, his 1543 work, On the Jews and their Lies, asks, "What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?."

"Luther wrote of the Jews as if they were a race that could not truly convert to Christianity. Indeed, like so many Christian writers before him, Luther, by making the Jews the devil's people, put them beyond conversion". Michael noted that in a sermon of September 25 1539, "Luther tried to demonstrate through several examples that individual Jews could not convert permanently, and in several passages of The Jews and Their Lies, Luther appeared to reject the possibility that the Jews would or could convert." Trying to convert the Jews, he argued, was like "trying to cast out the devil . . .." "They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile. . . . If these blows do not help, it is reasonable to assume that our talking and explaining will help even less. . . . Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible." In a sermon of 25 September 1539, Luther tried to demonstrate through several examples that individual Jews could not convert permanently, and in several passages of The Jews and Their Lies, Luther appeared to reject the possibility that the Jews would or could convert.”

-Doright 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Direct Quotations from Martin Luther Attacking Jewish Race

In On the Jews and Their Lies,Martin Luther repeatedly attacks Jewish race. Luther states:

"There, Jew, you have your boast, and we Gentiles have ours together with you, as well as you with us. Now go ahead and pray that God might respect your nobility, your race, your flesh and blood."

"Therefore it is not a clever and ingenious, but a clumsy, foolish, and stupid lie when the Jews boast of their circumcision before God, presuming that God should regard them graciously for that reason, though they should certainly know from Scripture that they are not the only race circumcised in compliance with God's decree, and that they cannot on that account be God's special people."

"There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth, from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself admits this when he says in Romans 9:5 Quorum patres, that is, 'To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ,' etc."

"Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, 'He has a demon' (Matthew 11:18) Our Lord also calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore, in John 3:39,44 he states: 'If you were Abraham's children would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."

"They are the boastful, arrogant rascals who to the present day can do no more than boast of their race and lineage, praise only themselves, and disdain and curse all the world in their synagogues, prayers, and doctrines. Despite this, they imagine that in God's eyes they rank as his dearest children."

"They boast of their race and of their descent from the fathers, but they neither see nor pay attention to the fact that he chose their race that they should keep his commandments."

"They turned a deaf ear to us in the past and still do so, although many fine scholarly people, including some from their own race, have refuted them so thoroughly that even stone and wood, if endowed with a particle of reason, would have to yield.

"Furthermore, as Gabriel says, he must have come from among their people, undoubtedly from the royal tribe of Judah. Now it is certain that since Herod's time they had had no king who was a member of their people or race."

"This was accomplished despite the fact that the other faction, the blind, impenitent Jews — the fathers of the present-day Jews — raved, raged, and ranted against it without letup and without ceasing, and shed much blood of members of their own race both within their own country and abroad among the Gentiles, as was related earlier also of Kokhba."

-Doright 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Is the subject of this article really distinct from Anti-Judaism? Should the two be merged? Since I am not following this article, I am not making a formal proposal, leaving it entirely to others to pick up or ignore. Lima 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I would support the merge. Unfortunately, this has been discussed several times before and has failed to result in a merge. Yahel Guhan 01:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image sourcing

I've found these two sources regarding the image:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=H5PAwJvTtasC&pg=PA283&dq=%22Judaism+Without+Embellishments%22&sig=ACfU3U1fM-jgfjKi7xZVIdFTc4ijuH-a-Q
• http://books.google.com/books?id=fE2quB852jcC&pg=PA348&dq=%22Judaism+Without+Embellishments%22&sig=ACfU3U3vt-qNHvDJzn63XNBcbJpwfFbQAw

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New merge request

It seems like we have three articles for two concepts. The two concepts are:

1. hostility against Judaism and Jews based on religious grounds
2. hostility against Judaism and Jews based on non-religious grounds

The three articles are:

1. Antisemitism which defines antisemitism as "... against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group" - so religious and non-religious motivation are mentioned here. It starts in the 3rd century BC in which antisemitism was religion-based at that time and goes on until recent times in which antisemitism is largely of non-religious character.
2. Anti-Judaism which focuses on the religious component, it starts in the 1st century and ends with the Reformation. It hardly discusses the Islamic point of view.
3. This very article at hand also focuses on the religious component. Compared to the Anti-Judaism article, this article adds substantial content 1) on ancient Hellenistic antisemitism (like the main article Antisemitism does); 2) on the view of the Christian churches in modern times, 3) on the relationship between religion-based antisemitism in history and the Holocaust, 4) on the Islamic point of view.

By and large I think that Anti-Judaism and this article are very complementary in content and can therefore easily be merged. I've been trying to follow the discussion in the year 2007 (see above) but that discussion mainly dwells on principles and not so much on the actual content of the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to add settings for an archive bot to work

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Religious antisemitism/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

This might clear out dead discussions and improve accessibility.

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 111 KB Gregkaye (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre

I am entirely confused about what this article is even supposed to be about, and the lead doesn't help. There are so many "Antisemitism"-related articles on Wikipedia that it's starting to get utterly confusing. I have never heard of this term. What is "religious antisemitism"? How can you hate the whole group because of a religion not even all of them follow? Does this not include irreligious Jews then? And is it just about the religious view or also about culture? Is it from religious point of view or irreligious point of view? Is it just severe anti-Judaism? Is an anti-religious person in general a religious antisemite? Can an irreligious Jew be a religious antisemite or is that a self-hating Jew? Can opposing one branch of Judaism make one a religious antisemite? Is there such a thing as religious anti-Arabism? Is it closer to antisemitism or anti-judaism? And isn't this already extensively explained in both? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have tried to nuance all this. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Already a big improvement. Good job. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've set two tags for the time being, not sure what to do there. One line specifically asserts that R-AS and anti-Judaism are the same, and the last section seems to simply be about anti-Judaism. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You can delete this. Stating anti-Judaism and [religious] antisemitism are synonyms is a pov-pushing that has be denounced on the 3 articles about the topic. I cannot understand it could have been introduced.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Religious antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110301033826/http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/ViewersGuide.pdf to http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/ViewersGuide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001206174000/http://www.chrysostom.org/jews.html to http://www.chrysostom.org/jews.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_10_121/ai_n6159172/print

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religious antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028160859/http://spanish-inquisition.cuqr.com/spanish-inquisition/ to http://spanish-inquisition.cuqr.com/spanish-inquisition/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Religious antisemitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721133805/http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/99an2a.html to http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/99an2a.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.meforum.org/article/1073Righteous

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Split this article into "Jew-hate in christianity", "Jew-hate in Islam", and "Anti-Judaism"

As there are articles on Christianity and antisemitism and on Islam and antisemitism, it would make things simpler if this article was merged with them and deleted. Jontel (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with Jontel, and modifying his proposition slightly (and the section header to reflect it) I propose the following: an article on "Jew-hate in christianity" and "Jew-hate in islam", IMHO. Then this article could be merged with those and deleted as some editors have tried unsuccesfully to do for over a decade. Those articles could have sections transcluded into "Anti-Judaism". The term "religious anti-semitism" is a fairly recent neologism, as previous editors have said, and its anachronistic and indistinct. David Nirenberg, 2014, uses the term "Anti-Judaism" because his scope is very broad, includes pre-christian antijudaism from pagans, and examples from post-christian enlightenment modernity, and the use of anti-Judaism as a cognitive tool and pejorative against christian materialists, sinners, and heretics, and not just as racist "antisemitism" against Jews themselves. The lede sentence on that article, IMHO, should updated from Gavin Langmuir's 1971 definition, but I'm going wait on that until there is more consensus.

The term "Judenhass", Jew-hatred, is the traditional christian term for the narrower phenomenon of, well, Jew hatred, and I think we should respect the traditional usage by redirecting that term (occurs alot in wikipedia) to "Jew-hate in christianity", where it can be analyzed it from a neutral perspective. This strategy allows us to avoid using neologism to cope with anachronism. It can be noted in those articles that the theological and religious Jew hate frequently spilled over into the racist style Jew-hate, that we now usually call anti-semitism (borrowing a term invented by the anti-semites themselves, to make Judenhass seem scientific and respectable), and into actual violence against Jews. I will let this proposal marinate for a few weeks or months, post on the Judaism WikiProject, and ping some involved editors, before taking action. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)