Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Criticism of Judaism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Rationale for the existence of this article

Following discussion was copied from Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church

Where is this article (Criticism of Judaism)? 75.3.4.54 04:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There are "criticism of" articles for several faiths besides us Catholics and most of them are in dispute. There's Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of religion, Criticism of atheism, etc. I see there is even a Category:Criticisms. Still Judaism is in a different situation as it faced centuries of persecution, but never had the ability to persecute anyone in that period. Well outside of a few fringe offshoots and I think Spinoza was kicked out. Still I think the history of 2100 years of criticism justifies giving Judaism "a break from criticism" here.--T. Anthony 09:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The criticism should be documented whether or not it was valid. And the idea "deserves a break" makes no sense in an encyclopedia. There should be a Criticism of Judaism article precisely because much of Christianity is based on an anti-Judaism polemics. This is not just the "Jews killed Jesus" charge (although that should be documented) but the fact that much of Christianity is based on the allegation that the Jews built a religion based on rules and Christ came to shatter that religion and replace it with one of grace. Whether you agree with this charge or not is irrelevant. What matters is that this is what many Christians (both Catholics and Protestants) believe. This has strong implications for Christian-Jewish relations.

--Richard 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've created it. You can add to it if you like. --Richard 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If we must do this thing

Then we should do the thing. If it's just going to be Christian hostility to Judaism it's redundant as we have Christianity and anti-Semitism and Anti-Judaism. I don't think we should have this at all, but if we're going to have criticism of Judaism it should be the various criticisms of the religion too. Not just the bigotries of Christians. I believe Alan Dershowitz and Isaac Asimov had some critical attitudes to various things concerning the Talmud or Jewish religious rules.--T. Anthony 03:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it completely credible that Asimov and Dershowitz had some critical attitudes about Judaism. But I don't know what they are. Please add these to the article. --Richard 04:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this section has recently been repeatedly edited by an unregistered user using two different ISPs, who then put his/her edits in a new section. Unfortunately, the editor in question, succeeded in deleting the above post, which was not his own, in the process. I have done my best to restore the section to its previous condition. --Steven J. Anderson 10:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased

To avoid bias, this article should not defend Jews, because all of the other criticsm articles are just filled with attacks and no defense. 75.3.4.54 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it would just be bigotry. And I think other criticism articles do allow mention of the religion's defense. Plus criticism that are false are said to be false and many to most of these articles indicate when the critics are lying or have an agenda.(Note: I still think this article should not exist)--T. Anthony 00:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should not turn into an article about descrimination against jews, but of seriously criticsm of them. Also, something from an unreliable source will be more likely to be accepted as a fact at any other religion page than at this one. 75.3.4.54 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not take the view that the anonymous user takes. It aims, although some parts are still in heavy discussion, to realise an academic critique, as opposed to a blatant critical blow at the religion. This should be the aim. I also think that this article should not focus on people, keeping their actions separate from the religion. I also do not understand your worry about unreliable sources, sources still have to come under the verifiability criteria. Ans e ll Review my progress! 04:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

People will attempt to take this article off topic and make it into "wrongful descrimination against Jews". 75.3.4.54

It is everyones responsibility to keep it on track. Make sure you define the scope well enough and that should happen. Ans e ll Review my progress! 07:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Flawed premise

The biggest problem with this article is that it concentrates on what non-Jews have said about Judaism, when they clearly don't know what they're talking about, instead of what non-Jews and Jews have said in criticism of Judaism who do know what they're talking about. While there are mountains of material that could be discussed in this article, indeed plenty for a number of categories, if not an entire encyclopedia, the only subject actually covered would more appropriately be included in The antisemitism of ignorami masked as religious criticism. If one looks at the top of this talk page, in fact, the entire rationale for this article from the outset was deeply flawed. The existence of the fairly well-written [and on-topic] (if somewhat inappropriately named) Criticism of the Catholic Church (it should be named Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, since it only discusses criticisms of the Patriarchate of Rome) article is not a good rationale for creating Criticism of Judaism, which begins as a mishmash, not of criticisms of Judaism, but a collection of Christian anti-Jewish polemics. Tom e r ^talk 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually wish this had been deleted, but I've tried to add some criticism from Cherem and those who abandoned the faith to deal with your concerns. I worry these sound Anti-Semitic though, but I think people who leave a religion have a tendency to be unusually harsh. Hopefully readers will be aware of say Sinéad O'Connor or Ayaan Hirsi Ali and read these statements in that kind of context. (The "angry ex-member" context)--T. Anthony 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the original rationale that is at the top of this Talk Page.

The fact that someone "doesn't know what they're talking about" doesn't change the fact that they said it and that they maybe even believe it. Wikipedia is not interested in truth, it is interested in verifiability.

I struggled to insert into the Criticism of the Catholic Church text documenting arguments that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to say definitively whether or not the Catholic Church is or is not a Christian church. What it can say is that the Catholic Church considers itself to be a Christian church but some Protestants do not.

A similar principle applies here.

If Christians have a misinformed opinion of Judaism, that misinformed opinion should be documented somewhere in Wikipedia. I suggest that it be done here. Documenting it doesn't mean that the criticism based on a misinformed opinion is a valid criticism, simply that a significant number of people hold this opinion. If maintaining an NPOV stance requires a rebuttal, then let's put the rebuttal in.

I imagine that this article could have both criticism of Judaism leveled by outsiders and criticism of Judaism leveled by Jews.

--Richard 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of what is or was stated in this article (it looks like a lot of what I originally saw here has been removed) can be explained by the fact that most people would prefer that other people believe what they believe, and they get irritated when other people believe something else. Historically, the consequences of that irritation have ranged from mild annoyance to mass slaughter, wars, etc. OK, but aren't there already enough articles on Wikipedia which, taken together, state that particular truth, without this one being added to the pile? 6SJ7 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me try again. Much of the criticism of the raison d'etre of this article is that much of the content is "wrong" and believed by "people who don't know what they are talking about".

Perhaps that's true. However, Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about documenting verifiable facts AND opinions. You may believe that Nazism is wrong. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it. You may believe that Communism is wrong. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it. You don't make wrong ideas go away by ignoring them. You might make them go away by exposing them to the light of factual and rational analysis.

Judaism (and any other religion or ideology) should be made to withstand both reasonable and unreasonable criticism. It can only strengthen an adherent to be aware of and to know how to defend against both kinds of criticism.

--Richard 05:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an academic site though. A discussion concerning historic and philosophical criticism of Judaism can certainly be done, but this isn't the place for it. Wikipedia is ultimately a populist site for information and entertainment. Things like this have great potential for giving people a justification for their anti-Judaism, or anti whateverism as I oppose most of these criticism articles as unencyclopedic, but not much potential for educating anyone. I accept that it's going to survive, but if it gets merged or a deletion vote occurs again I'd be good with that. I wished I'd known of it's delete vote as I would've voted delete if that'd help.--T. Anthony 09:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, all these "criticism" articles of religions should be merged with the articles appropriate to that particular religion. This article and the other ones are unnecessary. Jtpaladin 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal?

Please make your case for merger. Otherwise tag will be deleted. --Doright 06:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I have put a cleanup tag on the last section of this article for the following reasons:

POV. Not most non-Jews, only some "criticised Israel for it's insistence on claiming the right to Palestine because of a book written thousand of years ago"; Israel has been supported by plenty of non-Jewish states. Second Zionism was never an exclusively or even a primarily religious ideology. David Ben-Gurion, e.g., was an agnostic.
Weasel words

--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for that earlier post which I've thoughtfully erased. Looking at your page I see I misread you. I thought you were criticizing my change of that section. I tried to alter that part to get rid of the statements about "most Non-Jews" and the indications Zionism is a religious ideology. For example I changed that from

One of the big criticisms of Judaism is zionism.Many feel that Jews have forced Palestinians of their land and than sought justification by claiming to be God's chosen people and/or claiming they were forced off their land by the Romans after the Jewish rebellion.Most non-Jews and some Jews have criticised Israel for it's insistence on claiming the right to Palestine because of a book written thousand of years ago.

To

In much of the world criticism of Judaism is linked to criticism of Zionism. As there are schools of Jewish thought that reject Zionism, and schools of Christianity that embrace it, this criticism is quite possibly confused. Still there are those who feel that Jews h forced Palestinians of their land and than sought justification by claiming to be God's chosen people and/or claiming they were forced off their land by the Romans after the Jewish rebellion. It should be mentioned that Zionism was primarily a secular movement whose justifications largely had nothing to do with the Talmud, Torah, or Jewish faith in general. However the association many in Evangelical Christianity make between Israel and the Bible has helped enhance the impression the two are inexorably linked.

Granted I maybe didn't go far enough in delinking Judaism and Zionism plus the wording is imperfect. I don't know why you changed it back to an earlier worse version though. Because of that I thought at first you were mad I tried to delink Judaism and Zionism at all.

On the former adherents section the Asimov part I should've never put up. He's my favorite writer and that quote had little support as valid. I'm ashamed I did so and apologize for any offense. However I think the view of Spinoza would be relevant. After all he did criticize Judaism, the religion, and was kicked out of it.--T. Anthony 14:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I wrote on your talk page I just now realized I removed all that content. Your edits made the article a lot better. Sorry once again.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I overreacted. I looked for that Asimov quote again and it's originally from some site called "Jewish tribal review" which appears to be Anti-Semitic. It talked alot of the Jewish-Zionist oppressors anyway. I'm a bit embarrassed that I even went on such a site, but I thought at first it was a jewish site about Anti-Semitism or self-hatred. I might just erase the whole Asimov section except that as an atheist who left Judaism I'd imagine some criticism probably did occur to him because it does to most people who leave most any religion.--T. Anthony 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey if Judaism and Zionism arent't linked than why make a religious homeland,choose Palestine and put the Star of David on the flag?They are linked.Dermo69

The word Jewish refers to more than the religion Judaism. Israel is not a religious homeland. And the Star of David is not only the symbol of Judaism but also of the Jewish people.--Carabinieri ^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 14:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact...although the Star of David is often seen in Jewish religious contexts, it is not a symbol of Judaism and never has been. It [along with hundreds if not thousands] of other symbols is ascribed "power" or "symbolism" to various degrees within certain schools of Jewish thought, but it is not, nor has it ever been a symbol of Judaism...in fact, as our article Star of David should indicate if it does not, the hexagram is a common symbol in a great many cultures. As a symbol of Jewish identity, it has enjoyed considerable success in recent decades, but this is a rather recent phenomenon. From what I've read, there has been, especially until recent times as I said, in religious circles, rejection of the symbol as representative, either rejection through indifference or rejection through vociferous denigration of its use. Its use as a symbol of the Jewish people as a whole actually has a more chilling [and much shorter] history (see yellow badge). Tom e r ^talk 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Zionism

I'm not sure if I agree with SV's removal of the section. But the section is real poor. The trouble points:

In much of the world criticism of Judaism is linked to criticism of Zionism. As there are schools of Jewish thought that reject Zionism, and schools of Christianity that embrace it, this criticism is quite possibly confused. -- says who? Whose opinion is it that the criticism is confused, and whose opinion is it that it's because of these reasons?

Still there are those who feel that Jews forced Palestinians of their land and than sought justification by claiming to be God's chosen people and/or claiming they were forced off their land by the Romans after the Jewish rebellion. -- Who are "those"?

It should be mentioned... -- any time these words are used, it means a POV is being expressed.

...that modern Zionism was primarily a secular movement whose justifications largely had nothing to do with the Talmud, Torah, or Jewish faith in general. It was based more as a reaction against European persecution and the rise in independence movements for various nationalities. -- says who?

For example the independence movements of the Irish, the Greeks, etc. -- This sentence no verb.

However the associations Christian Zionism makes between Israel and Judaism has helped enhance the impression that the two are inexorably linked. -- Says who? Why is Christian Zionism being called out twice in this section?

--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing was pure unsourced original research; rather than bringing "clarity", leaving it in left the reader "wallowing in ignorance." If there is actually any reliable source which criticizes Judaism because of Zionism, then it might make sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication

There is no such thing as "exommunication" in Judaism. Spinoza could not have been excommunicated.

Yes there is. See Cherem. Jon513 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cherem exists but has been misrepresented. The Spinoza case has also been misrepresented. I will source this and edit asap. elflng 16:52 22 Dec 2006 UTC

Needs a lot of work

I accept the premise that criticism of Judaism as a religion, or rather a religious system, is a legitimate enterprise, hence a topic that merits its own article.

But as it is, this article might as well be started all over again. For one thing, the expulsion of Spinoza, interesting and notable as it is, has nothing to do with criticism of Judaism, but rather the nature of heresy in Judaism. These might seem related, but they're distinct. Discussions of shechita have all kinds of dimensions, but they're not "scholarly" nor even theological. The schism between Christianity and Judaism certainly relate to a profound disagreement, but it's reductionist (to say the least) to make it about "criticism" - Christians left Judaism because they felt they had been party to a "superior" revelation, and this is to simplify things, as well. I could go on.

Religious criticism is very tricky, because it's hard to get past endless debates about the premises for the debates themselves. If Christians see it as a matter of faith that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, Jews and Christians will simply have to agree to disagree and move on; but this has nothing to do with criticism.

As I see it, there are two valid bases for criticism of Judaism, or indeed, any religion:

Its actual function in the world. If there's a religion that seeks to accomplish something specific, but doesn't; then it's legitimate to at least ask why not. If, for example, the Shakers were a proselytizing religious group, then their approach clearly has something lacking.
Its internal consistency. In other words, if you accept for the sake of the argument the premises that the religion espouses, it is legitimate to examine whether it makes sense.

It seems to me that the article as it stands is just a collection of strange factoids and allegations. --Leifern 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I recall I initially opposed this article existing. However if it were to exist Spinoza seemed relevant going by Jewish religion magazines I read. True he's more relevant as to heresy in Judaism, but ultimately what he came to wasn't some new movement in Judaism. At least not so far as I know. He came to believe some totally other thing, different than maybe any extant religion, and in his way had criticisms of all extant religions. To be honest I think Judaism is probably too small to really merit this (We don't have Criticism of Sikhism, for example, and that's maybe a larger faith) and has seen too much hostility in its history to keep this from just being an Anti-Semite magnet.--T. Anthony 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism in Talmud section

The section is about the event that michael hoffman has described some of the verses (or whatever) of the talmud as racist/hate literature. Please write whatever is wrong with the section here. thestick 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality :

I see nothing wrong with just pointing out which chapters the critics criticize, I also added a link to the chapters in an online Talmud for the readers to see for themselves. This is the criticism of Judaism article, you may see things you do not like - but it's all NPOV and within wikipedia rules. thestick 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven’t simply "just pointed out which chapters the critics criticize", you have copied & pasted them in the way he has distorted them. You provide links which are worded differently. e.g.: You added: Sanhedrin 58b: If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed" yet the link says: "R’ Hanina said: If a heathen smites (kills?) a Jew, he is worthy of death". You have also not provided the response to the erroneous interpretations which leaves the section very POV. The Talmud, written in an age when the Roman Empire ruled the most world, is written in a way that requires each line to be delved into and not just read on face value. Put simply, just as the Bible cannot be understood without the Talmud, so too the Talmud cannot be understood without the commentaries of the early-day saints. Chesdovi 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The responses (Albeit they look more like Chewbaccaa defense to me) are already there in the introduction - so why the POV problem? . Also now the reader can decide by comparing the allegation to the actual text of the Talmud. thestick 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Chewbaccaa"? "Chewbaccaa"?! Whoever heard of such a word? If people want to do research into this subject let them follow the links. Why have you polluted wikipedia by bringing distorted, malicious and rude examples and then defend yourself by saying the response is already in the into. So are the allegations in the intro?! Chesdovi 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By insisting on the inclusion of these quotes, this page is going to end up looking like one of the external pages. Is this what we really want or need on Wiki? I think it would be very unencyclopedic. Chesdovi 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Chewbacca defense - sorry about the typo. thestick 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I left one alleged "quote" with analysis as an example. Please do not turn a WP article into a compendium of fake quotes copy/pasted from dubious (to put it mildly) sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of them almost perfectly matched the text in the Talmud - Why did you remove them? I'm not trying to change WP into anything. thestick 03:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The section clearly states that it's Michael Hoffman (among several others) that's doing the critizing, instead of (The Talmud has been critized by many who feel it contains Racist and hate literature), and clearly says that these are the chapters highlighted by Michael hoffman (instead of "Some one the chapters considered to be racist are" ), and these are his interpretations.

Also, it provides links to an online Talmud (Which no other "compendium of quotes" has) so people can verify for themselves. Also the title has the magic word "Allegation" .

How much more NPOV do you want it to be? Criticism hurts sometimes, and I don't prefer cattle. thestick 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Avodah Zarah 22a-22b contains some of the vilest discriminatory statements I have ever seen in a religious book. I think "Allegations" can be dropped. thestick 10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing that section because it is a POV fork of what's already covered in Talmud#Charges of racism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not create POV forks, and find more reliable sources on the subject than 1) a conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier Michael A. Hoffman II, 2) a personal website (I don't want to give them publicity because some of its pages are antisemitic), or 3) al-Jazeera. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand whats wrong with citing Michael Hoffman, since everything from people like Robert Spencer have made it to other articles. Does this article have special requirements. And I've read that POV fork page - I don't see any way in how this section is a POV fork, whats wrong with providing links to the chapters of the Talmud which people consider racist/discriminatory - There's no 'antisemitism' in that. Also it was Al-jazeerah magazine, not Al-Jazeera TV (Both totally different). Pardon me for not assuming good faith - but are you just removing the section to keep this article as small as possible? Because

First you removed it telling me not to turn the article into a compendium of fake quotes
You removed it saying it's a POV fork
You tell me to find another RS , I provide one AND remove the quotes (addressing your first gripe)
You remove it again saying it's still a POV fork thestick 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Humus, Racism in the Talmud is a widely discussed topic - and people should know just what those allegations are. If you have problems with Michael Hoffmans widely cited and popular work (Which passes WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV) - Please go ahead and initiate WP:DR or whatever it's called. thestick 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any improvement since the last time. If you feel a need to file DR, go ahead. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the one removing the material - I think you should do the work to get it initiated, and let it remain in the article so other editors can expand it instead of going trigger-happy. thestick 13:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be interested in making a POV fork based on unrealiable sources. I am not going to do the work for you, but I surely will respond. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We cannot take any such section seriously if it is based on URLs to "Come and Hear", that sneaky piece of online antisemitism. The Talmud is a lot nicer about Gentiles than the early Church Fathers were about Jews (please take into account particularly their statements on the synagogue). Thestick, I strongly suggest you drop this. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Early chuch founders were jews, LOL. Ironic, huh?--Dr.Worm 03:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for "Come and Hear" and found a website about the Talmud. I don't understand why it's being called a "sneaky piece of online antisemitism". Isn't this a Jewish source that is edited by Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein? Or, is this a fraud? Can someone please clear this up? If this is a fraud, can someone post a good link to an online source of the Babylonian Talmud that is translated into English? Jtpaladin 00:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer, paladin, is that it's a fraud. If you start digging around in there, you'll find the whole smorgasbord of antisemitic canards from blood libels to conspiracies of world domination, along with a heavily quote-mined version of small sections of the Talmud all calculated to show what an evil, evil document it is. (Did you know the Talmud condones sodomy with gentile women? Go to that site for "proof") The version of the Talmud they're abusing was indeed edited by the Rabbi you mention, but he had no part in the cynical annotations made by the ladies behind the site. Don't waste your time on it. One of the problems with finding an online version of the Talmud is that it's an enormous work in several volumes. Takes up about as much space on a shelf as a standard print encyclopedia. Also, most Talmudic scholars feel that if you want to study it properly you have to do it in Hebrew. While there are print translations available, they always include the Hebrew text along with the English, since the page layout is important to understanding what's going on and doesn't translate easily. I'll look though. If you're nice to me. --Steven J. Anderson 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jtpaladin is forever just "innocently" wanting people to clear up "confusion" he has about various antisemitic claims; not that he would ever believe them, mind you, but still, just look at what it says at this or that antisemitic link, isn't that very compelling evidence? Oh, and if a Rabbi dispels an antisemitic myth, of course he must be identified as a Rabbi in the article; out of "respect", you understand. For more info, see Talk:Kosher_tax#Confused and Talk:Kosher_tax#Added_Rabbi_to_Berel_Wein. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Steven, thanks for the info. I had a chance to look around that site and noted other topics that are clearly critical of Israel and Jewish people. So, I see your point and agree with your assessment. If you happen to come across a good Talmud translation, please let me know. I see these often repeated Talmud quotes and have simply dismissed them. The website you mentioned seemed to me initially to be a scholarly work but after noting the other topics on that website, I don't know if these are simply misquoted Talmudic statements. It would be great if we could get a source that is an unbiased translation of the Talmud. However, as I mentioned above, I don't think this article and others like it are of any value and should be either deleted or incorporated into the articles relevant to those particular religions.

Lastly, you have to ignore the ranting of Jayjg because he follows me around Wikipedia making bizarre comments that add nothing to an article. In fact, the above comment by Jayjg is a violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc. If you read through his history, you'll find that he disrupts discussions with his odd and quite biased point of view that bears little factual basis to anything relevant. I spent some time looking through his history, as he did with mine, and noted his rants and numerous irrational confrontations with other editors. Often, he makes critical changes to an article without discussion. You'll find that he engages in "revert wars" with other editors. He often ignores Wiki rules, just like he's doing in his comments above. He's been a member of Wikipedia long enough to know that posts like the one he made above are inappropriate and cause for action against him. So, in the interest of following procedure, Jayjg, stop making personal attacks against me. Stop focusing on me and focus on the article. Your time and talents can be put to better use rather than expending them on personal insults. Jtpaladin 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to point out that the reliable source policy requires material in Wikipedia articles to come from peer-reviewed academic, scholarly, or similar sources and generally excludes private websites and the like except in very limited circustances, such as sites by well-known schoars on topics in their field, or in articles about the web site owner. The purpose is to publish material from established scholars, rather than serve as a sounding board for private individuals. Is there a basis for a claim that Michael A. Hoffman II's material is a reliable source within the meaning of this policy? Best, --Shirahadasha 02:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PETA and Agriprocessors

I just fixed some non-working links on the page including the last one. I found the relevant article at JTA.org and read it. I could not find one word of criticism of Judaism from PETA in that article. They were, however, critical of the USDA for allegedly failing to enforce the animal welfare laws in the slaughterhouse in question. Additionally, I visited the PETA website, and read their page on the issue, along with the letter they sent to the US Attorney. Still I found not one word critical of Judaism. I suggest that this should be deleted unless someone can document that PETA criticized Judaism. Comments please. --Steven J. Anderson 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Took it out after waiting a week for comments. --Steven J. Anderson 04:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zionism (again)

In my opinion, the section on Zionism should go. This article, if it is to do anything, should document and describe criticisms that have been directed at the religion, Judaism, who made them, and what, if any, responses have been made to those criticisms, bearing in mind, of course, the difference between criticism and mere invective. Aside from being rife with weasel words and unsourced original research, this section, as it stands, accomplishes no such thing. It merely mentions the fact that Zionism has its opponents without establishing or documenting that such opposition amounts to a criticism of the Jewish religion. I invite comments in this space. --Steven J. Anderson 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll start the discussion myself with this. I just finished perusing Anti-Zionism. In this sizable article I found nothing linking Anti-Zionism with any criticism of Judaism. --Steven J. Anderson 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in the current form it shouldn't exist. But criticism of zionism in the context of Judaism should be in the article. That is, criticism of divine right.--Kirby♥time 06:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Women

I'm removing the new section entitled "Women". The reasons for this are quite thouroughly explicated above in the "Racism in the Talmud" and "Zionism (again)" sections of this talk page. Additionally, the author of the webpage referenced makes clear on another page[1] that his purpose in creating the website is to answer certain criticisms made against Islam by some Christians. He makes no mention of any attempt to criticize Judaism. Furthermore, the referenced page contains no criticism of Judaism per se. It describes the author's distaste for a certain Biblical quote regarding the punishment for rape and his preference for the punishment laid out in the sayings of Muhammad. --Steven J. Anderson 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chosen people

I think this section should also be removed. As it stands, it gives us two pieces of information:

Spinoza criticised the idea of "chosenness". (Already described in the "Former members" section)
Disagreements exist within Judiasm about the meaning and validity of the notion of "chosenness".

I'm afraid that my mind is just not elastic enough to see how a debate within Judaism could possibly be construed as a criticism of Judaism. Although Spinoza's criticisms can be regarded as coming from outside Judaism, since he had already received cherem when he made them, they're already mentioned earlier in the article. Aside from Spinoza, just who has made these criticisms, when, where, and in what text? The section is unsourced as to criticisms, although it provides sources for defenses.

I note as an aside that the final link in this section links to a six-hundred page PDF file with no help to the reader about where to find the relevant information. --Steven J. Anderson 03:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Waited a week and deleted it. --Steven J. Anderson 07:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The killing of Jesus

I have deleted the above entitled section. This is not a criticism of Judaism; it's a slur against Jews. --Steven J. Anderson 02:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But it says in Quran bible and Talmud.Why remove it? Attack against Jews is to say "jews are bad." Vmrgrsergr 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misguided. Deicide is a medieval antisemitic canard. See Second Vatican Council. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, whether the accusation of deicide is true or false (it's false) doesn't change the fact that this kind of accusation is not a criticism of Judaism. Judaism is a religion. Jews are a people. The Purple Gang killed a lot of people in Detroit in the 1930s. That's an accusation that's actually true, but it doesn't belong here because it isn't a criticism of Judaism.

To put it another way, when Martin Luther tacked up his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenburg, he was lodging certain criticisms against the Catholic church. By contrast, when Hutton Gibson called Pope John Paul II "garrulous Carolus the Koran kisser," he was engaging in mere invective. --Steven J. Anderson 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But if the Talmud is attacking Jesus, then that could be a criticism.And the chosen people is mentioned in both Torah and Bible.And Torah is part of Jewish beleifs so that mention in the Torah can be criticised not used as an attack against anyone.But anyways I will be busy to discuss it now.I will edit sometime later and cite verses from the Talmud and Torah scriptures.-Vmrgrsergr 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And your edits will very likely be reverted then, too. Probably before I even see them. Rpresser 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a difficult question. I propose that we base our discussion of this issue on the following points...

It's generally true that, even if "some Jews killed X", it is not reasonable to say "the Jews killed X".
However, if, as it is alleged in the Bible, the Romans killed Jesus at the behest of the Sanhedrin, it would might be argued that "the Jewish religious establishment had Jesus killed" in the same way that the Catholic Church didn't kill anybody during the Inquisition but handed over the accused to the civil authorities who then did the dirty deed.
But we now have to ask whether it is reasonable to assert that this alleged act by the Sanhedrin in the 1st century CE is a legitimate criticism of Judaism. Institutions do many evil deeds in their history. Are all of them reasonable criticisms of the institution rather than of the specific individuals who ran the institution at the time?
We could assert that this "blood libel" is not a criticism of modern Judaism but rather of the Jewish Sanhedrin at the time. It's a very tenuous link between the 1st century Jewish Sanhedrin and modern Judaism.
We could assert that modern Judaism has never accepted responsibility for and apologized for the persecution of Jesus (somewhat akin to the Catholic Church apologizing for anti-Semitism or the British apologizing for slave trade).
Of course, such an apology would rest on an acceptance that the persecution of Jesus as reported in the Gospels actually took place as recorded therein.
What we know for sure is that this alleged persecution was used and continues to be used as an attack on Judaism and Jewish people. The question is whether this constitutes "criticism of Judaism" or "anti-Semitism".

I am inclined to put this in the Anti-Semitism article where it is covered in some detail.

--Richard 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Then if the acts of a few misguided Muslims can be seen as a criticism of Islam, I dont see your reasoning here.-Vmrgrsergr 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If some Muslims had committed crimes them it has nothing to do with Islam.Or in other word not every crime that some Muslim do will be put in criticize of Islam but only those that were committed in th the name of Islam.If those Muslims had committed the crime in the name of Islam then it should be in the article criticize of Islam. About Jesus first the man was killed by the Romans.Second Jesus himself was Jewish.The death of Jesus is an historical event and has nothing to do with Judaism.However I do believe that the Jewish response to the Christian should be removed.Oren.tal 12:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of these arguements are neither here nor there. If someone has a source where a person criticized Judaism (as opposed to Jews) because they felt something within it led to the death of Jesus or anyone else, it belongs in the article if it is referenced. Vatican 11 or anyother later feeling on that criticism may or may not be relevant, but it does not change the situation so that criticism never took place. One thing deeply disturbs me, and it was this exchange: "But anyways I will be busy to discuss it now.I will edit sometime later and cite verses from the Talmud and Torah scriptures.-Vmrgrsergr 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)"

"And your edits will very likely be reverted then, too. Probably before I even see them. Rpresser 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)"

If Vmrgrsergr brings verses from the Torah and Talmud that have been criticized along with a criticism from a verified source, it belongs in the article. If such criticism bothers another user because it offends his religious sensibilities, he should consult WP:COI, and step back from editing the article. In my opinion the mere threat to delete info from an article without reading it is very very serious and calls for censure of some kind. It should be understood that an article about criticism of a faith is going to have criticisms of that faith which will offend the faithful. Basejumper 15:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If Vmrgrsergr can bring verses from the Torah and Talmud that meet verifiability and notability, no one will be more shocked than I, and I will certainly not delete such additions without checking the references he brings.
I did not threaten to delete info; I expressed a belief that such info would be deleted by others, with the implied reasoning being that his added info would be just as bogus next time as it was the previous time.
Finally, it would appear that your unjustified call for censure is just as much a threat, and just as deserving of disapproval. In other words, it's just as silly.

Rpresser 21:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call me silly. I accept your point however, and apolagize to you for my misreading. You are correct and you did not threaten him. I invite you to review with me wp:civility and we will both try not to call others' reasoning bogus, silly, or be to quick to accuse eachother of threats. Again I apolagize. Basejumper 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. Sorry I got so annoyed. I guess I understand where you are coming from. I will attempt to improve my behavior. Rpresser 13:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Woman's right to testify

According to the Jewish Mishna woman can not testify in the court of law (Hebrew law not Israeli law).It is part of Judaism and even many Jews criticize it.Oren.tal 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are misinformed. There is considerable controversy over this issue, not only recently but all the way back to the time when the Mishna was being written. I quote:

"The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 3:3) does not state specifically that women are disqualified as witnesses. The parallel in Rosh Hashanah 1:8 does add a statement about women, but this seems to be an addendum to the original statement. Even this statement assumes that women are not accepted as witnesses in every case, but it is clear that they are accepted as witnesses in some cases. Thus, it is clear that women are not inherently or on principle disqualified as witnesses, but, as we have seen above, they are disqualified in some cases for specific reasons, which are all connected to the social or psychological status of women. Particularly relevant is the reason the Bavli (Shevuot 30a) gives for a woman's disqualification as a witness, so that she will not have to appear among men in court (cf. Tosafot ibid. s.v. kol kevodah)." Conservative Responsa in Israel

Rpresser 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He is not as mistaken as you say, you are expanding the arguement beyond the confines of his statement. In Jewish religious law Women are only permitted to testify on one subject - the delivery of a get to divorce a woman or emancipate a slave. You extended the question to include if conservative judaism accepted the traditional interpretation, then brought reasons why it does not. Nevertheless the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Edis agrees with him. Basejumper 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews say Ezra son of God

a few translation: Yusuf Ali "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God."

Pickthall "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Shakir "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah"

Sher Ali "And the Jews say, ‘Ezra is the son of ALLAH,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of ALLAH"

Rashad Khalifa "The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!"

Irving "Jews say: "Ezra was God's son," while Christians say: "Christ was God's son."

And of course anyone that know Arabic can check the Quran in the original version and he wont find the word "some". So adding the word is creating a mistake.132.72.149.74 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) A transliteration of the first part of 9:30 in Arabic is:

Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi

waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi

as you can see the two line parallel for both Jews and Christians. 132.72.149.74 13:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An Arabic translation of the Quran that say [9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated. http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch9.html This is an Islamic website.132.72.149.74 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first and last sources give a translation consistent with the "a son of God" phrasing in the previous version of the article. Your last source also leaves open the "some" interpretation as it does not say the Jews, just Jews. Does the Arabic itself contain the definite article? In Hebrew, this is indicated by a Ha- prefix, e.g. Hashem == the Name. Is the "al" particle the equivalent in Arabic? I do see it in your transliteration there in alyahoodu, the Jews, but I don't know the meaning of ibnu. Is it the son or a son, or is it ambiguous? Rpresser 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- Find a JEWISH source that claims this!!! Besides, we are all the children of G-d. Chesdovi 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss understand me.Of course Jews DON'T say that.I just want the criticize of the Islam to be accurate. The sentence that say that the Jews don't believe in Ezra as son of God should be stayed. I just want them to to mention also the criticize of the Quran as it is.132.72.149.74 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not original research since it is only mention of fact unless you find any resource that claim that Jews believe Ezra is the son of God. I came from Jewish religious family I know what I am talking about.

However, this claim seems inexplicable, since no modern Jews claim Ezra to be son of God, nor does there is any such claim in the Jewish scriptures, Talmud, or later writings.

This is OR since you are putting your own interpretation of the Quranic verse and what it refers to. I have added a sourced referenced to this fact. → AA ^(talk) — 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Judica don't claim the Jews believed Ezra is the son of God but only that some Muslims claim that. You better read what the text say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 August 2007.

The source is Encyclopaedia Judaica. It is fair to say so. → AA ^(talk) — 08:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

it is fair to use when you use it as it is.It don't say the Jews believed in that but only that according to Muslims sources the Jews believed in that.Don't rape the text.Oren.tal 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The EJ accepts the views of Ibn Hazm and the other muslim sources. It does not refute them so the EJ accepts this view that there were Jewish people at the time who said Ezra was the son of God. → AA ^(talk) — 14:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it does NOT. it say "H Z Hirschberg proposed another assumption".The meaning of the word assumption is very clear.Second it say Muslim sources not Muslim historians.Oren.tal 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The text seems to lead in from a previous related topic. However, I'm OK with the version you've got there at the moment. Hope you are too. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.I am O.K.Oren.tal 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have notice there are difference between Ibn Hazm assumption and the other Muslim sources. Going to fix it.Oren.tal 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had to remove the final sentence about Muhammad, as that is not adding anything further to the argument and it would be a copyright violation of the EJ (not sure if this is what you're referring to above but I don't think it's necessary). I've also worded it so that it makes it clear that the EJ is making an assumption based on Ibn Hazm's works and other muslim sources. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 16:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The EJ doesn't make any assumption but only mention as assumption.Oren.tal 16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) I see what the text about Muhammad is referring to (thanks to your rephrasing). I couldn't understand from the excerpt what it was trying to say. However, I think it is the EJ making the assumption as the text says: "H Z Hirschberg proposed another assumption" - so the EJ is proposing the assumption. Could you reflect that in the text please? Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.EJ say that Hirschberg proposed another assumption.The assumption belong to H Z Hirschberg and not to EJ.I think that we can mention that Hirschberg propose that assumption according to the words of Ibn Hazm but than we can remove the "the Encyclopaedia Judaica" part and let it to appear in the reference only.Instead we can write "Hirschberg propose an assumption...".Oren.tal 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ummm....Hirschberg IS the EJ. As you know (by editing WP), Encyclopaedias are put together by "editors" and Hirschberg is the one for EJ on this topic. So, it is correct to say it's EJ. → AA ^(talk) — 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I may be incorrect on that. Need to find out who Hirschberg was (unless you know?). → AA ^(talk) — 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't produce any sources myself, but I heard that particular verse refers to Jews practicing in Medina at the time of its alleged revelation. Therefore, it is not directed at all of Judaism, but at a particular group of Jews. I also believe it has been said in reference to Yemenite Jews who did indeed hold this practice. Although if this viewpoint is accepted, the verse is no longer a criticism on Judaism as a whole and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.67.48 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Criticism Section

I deleted that section because as it was written it did not mention any specific Christian criticisms of Judaism, it only mentioned Jewish criticism of Christianity as per the group Jews for Judaism. Section should be rewritten to include Christian criticisms of Judaism from carefully sourced material. Basejumper 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Could it be helpful

Might it be helpful to split the article into Criticism of Orthodox Judaism and Criticism of non-Orthodox movements in Judaism. Some criticisms that apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other. SOme of the gender rules might be criticized by feminists. Laws of homosexuality by homosexuals. Criticism of even the traditional education system by the Israeli government. These things only apply to Orthodoxy. Basejumper 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside criticism

Somehow, I'm sure other groups than Islam have "criticized" Judaism as well. Content regarding those groups should be included as well. John Carter 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lacking in Substance

This article is ridiculously lacking, especially when compared to criticism articles on other majors faiths (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism). It seems to me that whenever someone tries to include such topics, many thin-skinned people lurking here delete it immediately. That is absolutely preposterous. Criticism page is meant for criticism levied by the critics presented in a completely uncensored form, followed by an appropriate rebuttal (if necessary0. There is absolutely no justification for deleting it off this article completely.
I am listing below some of the tenants in Judaism that have faced major criticism. I am not a Talmudic scholar, so this list should be far from complete. Still, it should be a decent starting ground.
1. Enslavement permitted in Old Testament
2. Issues of women rights
3. Idea of "Kohan man" and idea of "Chosen People"
4. Genocide described in the siege of city of Jericho.
5. Death penalty for homosexuals in Old-Testament
6. Incompatibility between science and Torah
7. Lack of any archaeological evidence to back up many of the biblical stories.

Please address these criticisms here on this page in more detail. 71.255.44.201 MAG

If you can use reliable sources to document these criticisms, who made them, when, where and in what text, you are more than welcome to try to improve Wikipedia by contributing to this article. Please be prepared to defend your edits. Bear in mind that this article is not a repository for criticisms of Judaism made by Wikipedians. Rather, it is a place to document notable criticisms made by significant commentators, thinkers and others. Bear also in mind that it will facilitate communication between you and other Wikipedians for you to select a user name and sign your posts. --Steven J. Anderson 09:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also compare to Hinduism it is not lacking.Islam and Christianity has gain more criticisms from other religion but that don't mean it should be artificially —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is terrible

Cherem has nothing to do with criticizing Judaism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.42.165 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of the Ezra line?

It seems especially biased to focus on one single line from the Qu'ran which could be interpreted in many ways. The article first cites it as a criticism of Judaism from the Qu'ran and then goes on to defend it's own side... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeilaStar (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

it actually defense the Islamic side.It don't focus in this part but mention that the Jews don't regard Ezra as the son of God.It must be mention in order to prevent misconception.In fact many Muslims may believe that the Jews regard Ezra as the son of God but this is not the case moreover there is no any Jewish scripture that claim Ezra was the son of God.132.72.70.21 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Prehaps we should try deletion again? This article is horribly POV and OR. Yahel Guhan 07:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should have deleted the Islamic criticism.All of it have had reference (the Quran).87.69.77.82 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

but perhaps the Quran is not reliable source for criticism of Judaism.87.69.77.82 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not. Yahel Guhan 20:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this Criticism or a Religious debate?

I can not understand how effective is a theological criticism to a religion! Unfortunately, that is what the article is about. We do not find such criticisms in other articles such as Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam (beside external links). I think the priority is looking for or citing non religious criticism, I mean, other grounds. That is why, I found that the section about Muhammed accusations is not right to place here, in fact it is not criticizing Judaism as it is criticizing Islam (may be it should be moved to Criticism of Islam). In my personal opinion, I prefer writing such debates in Religion and Religion articles (such as Judaism_and_Islam, Christianity_and_Judaism..Christianity_and_Islam).I have started a research in order to collect different criticisms on different grounds (philosophical, scientific, ethical, political) so the article could be richer and more informative. I have found already many. I hope that I will start posting them soon.Bestofmed (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that way. I would be in full support of removing the Muhammad section (and possibly putting it in Criticism of Muhammad. Of corse if we do that, this article will have hardly any sourced content. Yahel Guhan 07:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)