Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 4

Archive 5

}}

new subsection on: promises of land in mideast leading to conflcts?

I was thinking of adding a new section to this article discussing the promises that God made to the patriarchs (esp Abraham) about descendents getting certain land in the mideast, and how that has - directly or indirectly - contributed to some conflicts in the mideast. Any suggestions or comments on this proposal? --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

... and the sources I was planning on using were Dawkins and Hitchens. --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious attachment by Muslims to Muslim holy sites is another cause of the Mideast conflict, and religious attachment by Christians to Christian holy sites historically drove the Crusades. I don't have a problem with your adding this section, so long as it's mentioned that it's not only Jews who would like to control disputed land in the Mideast for religious reasons. I also suggest that you use the religious texts themselves, commentaries on them and records of relevant political decisions with religious overtones as other sources. Dawkins and Hitchens are not primary sources on this topic and furthermore, are not historians specializing in the subject. --AFriedman (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. But I think that it is better to use secondary sources as in: "Notable critic CCC says that religion RRR is bad because it has policy PPP " and cite some book by notable author CCC. The alternative, which I think you suggest (tho maybe Im not understanding you) is to write "Religion RRR has an immoral policy PPPP, as shown by this verse from religious book BBB: ...". The latter phrasing here in WP will be immediately reverted as original research, I believe. --Noleander (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Connection to "Criticism of conservative Judaism" article?

I propose to add a (small) section to this article that summarizes the Criticism of Conservative Judaism article and has a "main" tag linking to it. --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This seemed like a pretty non-controversial addition, so I made it. If anyone has any heartburn, let's talk about it here. Thanks --Noleander (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to re-title Spinoza section

The title of the Spinoza section focuses on "Heretics", whereas I think a more informative title would focus instead on the nature of the criticism: something like "Rejection of theological underpinnings" or "Rejection of a personal God", ... probably some better wording could be provided by a Spinoza expert. Eventually, the section could be expanded to include other notable critics that also reject all or part of the theology (perhaps even capturing how reform J rejects some of the teachings of Ortho J.). In any case, the excommunication/cherem punishment is incidental to the topic. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you are going to mention Reform Judaism, you should also mention Conservative Judaism which also rejects some of the same Orthodox Jewish teachings, and Reconstructionist Judaism. Conversely, "criticism of Judaism" also encompasses the Orthodox criticisms of Reform and Conservative Judaism, since the latter two movements are generally considered to be part of mainstream Judaism. In addition, several other movements throughout Jewish history (and you may want to see the main "Jewish history" article) had their own criticisms of their contemporaries. Many of these movements still exist, although they are small. Some of the better articulated criticisms come from Karaite Judaism, whose scholars argued that ascribing divine authority to the Talmud was inconsistent with the Jewish Bible. I also understand that another historically important branch, Sabbateanism, had a more positive view of sin than normative Judaism's blanket condemnation. I don't completely understand the Sabbatean perspective on sin, and am trying to find this information to add to Wikipedia. I know that Shabbetai Tzvi, a Sabbatean leader, was considered a "holy sinner" and Jacob Frank, another Sabbatean leader, advocated "purification through transgression." These are very different ideas from what are normally associated with Judaism. --AFriedman (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Your ideas about the various movements is interesting, and - if supported by reliable sources - could be included if on-topic. My suggestion was mostly focusing on the section titles. If there are some criticims that are specific to individual branches (e.g. the Divorce criticism) it may be best to put those in a dedicated section. Also, it may be helpful to readers to have the sections grouped, something like:

Theological criticims

Criticism of personal god (Spinoza/pantheism)

Criticism of "chosen people"

Criticism of laws in Torah (e.g. excessive cruelty)

Irrational and unreasonable

Inter-branch criticism

[e.g. issues AFriedman mentions above]

Policies and practices

Criticisms specific to Orthodox branch (e.g. women's rights & divorce)

Circumcision

Holy Land land acquisition

Cruelty to animals and kosher

--Noleander (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're trying to create some combination of organization by criticism, and organization by critic. I would group "Theological criticism" with "policies and practices" as "criticism by issue" and then write a section about the history of criticism of Judaism, which would include not only criticism within Judaism but also criticism outside of it. What did the Persians have to say? The Greeks and Romans? Not to mention the Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others. Might get some interesting ideas for this if you post on the relevant WikiProjects. --AFriedman (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your proposed organization sounds good. I dont have any strong feelings one way or another (I only mentioned the organization because there is no grouping, at all, of the criticisms). By the way, is the book "Jewish history, Jewish religion: the weight of three thousand years" by Israël Shahak considered a valid book of criticism? I've googled it, and it seems to be written by a reputable source, and is prominently discussed. I ask because it has several criticisms that are not yet mentioned in the article, such as "orthodox judaism has religious laws that discriminate against non-jews" and "Jewish religious leaders were totalitarian and were interested in gaining and maintaining power" (Im paraphrasing here). --Noleander (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I can answer my own question: the ADL thinks enough of Israel Shahak that it wrote a rebuttal to some of his claims, here: http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf. --Noleander (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. I never heard of the book before, but the author has his own article on WP that seems to confirm he's a reputable source. --AFriedman (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to adding the two above-mentioned criticisms into this article? It would be good if we could find some "rebuttal" information that balances the raw criticism, since Shahak does not include any balancing information himself. Can anyone help with that? --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of notable authors, are we going to add everything? Just because an author is notable in his or her own right does not make their position notable enough cis-a-vis WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and thus WP:NPOV, well-poisoning, etc. Why is the position or criticism notable enough and pervasive enough in existing literature that it merits entry in a tertiary source like wikipedia? -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. Looking a similar articles like Criticism of Catholicism or Criticism of Islam or Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may provide some guidance. Certainly fringe critics should not be used as sources. Is a given critic notable? I suppose that must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Hitchens and Dawkins are very reputable and widely know. Israel Shahak also seems to be widely discussed. Even tho we may not like Hitchen's or Shahak's criticism, that is no reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia. Notable people can have very offensive, controversial opinions, true? A good compromise approach is to include the notable, supported criticism, and then include some opposing "rebuttal" information (for lack of a better word). --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Even tho we may not like Hitchen's or Shahak's criticism, that is no reason to exclude it from the encyclopedia." Why on earth would you again bring up this red herring? Aside from a very typical lack of good faith and sly personal attack, that is? No-one has stated that they don't like Hitchen's etc. criticisms; they have stated that these individuals are not reliable sources when it comes to Judaism. Those are completely different things. Your use of this argument indicates a fundamental disregard for other editors and policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham: please discuss here before deleting sections.

Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I discuss here too? Christopher Hitchens is not a world leader, no matter how much he wants to be. His criticism of Judaism is not notable in the scope of world history, and this article is not entitled "Criticism of Judaism in the past 10 years". If you want to justify those sections you'll need something better. Otherwise they'll be removed, as I removed similar sections from Criticism of Buddhism. Shii (tock) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Which Hitchens criticism are you referring to (there are two)? I dont understand what you mean by "world history"? Is there some rule about when a criticism is made? For example, one of the big criticisms of the LDS church is its (recent) opposition to gay marriage.

In any case, I think we should work together to have the criticisms described in an appropriate, neutral way. Here are some examples of some things we could do:

Include opposing or rebuttal commentary (e.g. from the ADL report above)
Describe any biases of the critic
Put the criticism in context (e.g. "recent" or "rare" and so on)
Compare with other religions (e.g. "Spinoza's criticism of the personal god concept is also levied at other religions including Christianity and Islam")

In other words, if there is a criticism that is offensive or controversial, there are ways to include it in the encyclopedia and yet present balancing information, so casual readers do not get misinformed or confused. Does that sound like a good plan? --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely skeptical that Hitchens is important enough to be included on this topic. He's not Jewish, and he's not influential; he's just famous in English-speaking media circles as a person who is angry about a lot of things, like Charlie Brooker. If we include it at all your pattern sounds good, but I would put it under the heading of "Christopher Hitchens" and not of the two specific practices he is being quoted on here. Shii (tock) 21:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As Shii said, Hitchens is not known as a notable critic of Judaism, and the addition was the problem (WP:UNDUE which is WP:POV), therefore, I believe that the article needs to remain in a state without the addition until such point as it can be shown that said addition is not a violation; not the other way around. -- Avi (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens is known as a notable critic of religion and of the Bible, and Judaism is definitely a subset of that. He's not Jewish is an extremely inappropriate reason to exclude any view at all. And, for the record, he does have recent Jewish ancestry on his mother's side [1] (It says that in the Christopher Hitchens article too, if you'd care to read it). Newman Luke (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

His being Jewish or not is completely irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not he is a notable critic of Judaism. Please do not confuse the issue. -- Avi (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one raising the issue of his Jewishness. Shii did; I note you didn't criticise Shii for this in your edit responding to Shii. Now, he is a notable critic of religion and of the Bible, and Judaism is definitely a subset of that (unless you are claiming that Judaism only has a tenuous connection to the Bible, a view that I doubt will find much support). Newman Luke (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure that Hitchens is a notable critic of religion, so your premise may be flawed ab initio. Even if, and I reiterate that in actuality I do not, but even if I were to concede that Hitchens is a notable critic of religion, I believe your statement above is fallacious, specifically, an example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Given Hitchens is a notable critic of religion and given that a notable critic of Judaism is a notable critic of religion, that does not mean Hitchens is a notable critic of Judaism; he may be a notable critic of Ethiopian Coptic or Jainism. So, regardless, your argument is neither correct nor valid, and I reiterate, Hitchens is not appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary style & possible outline

After reviewing those other similar articles, the guideline WP:Summary Style may be very apropos here. It gives guidance on how to structure articles when many of the topics/sections are (or will be) covered in other articles.

As for the outline, certainly we should not take a "one size fits all" approach to the outlines of "Criticsim of [some religion]". On the other hand, creating a template outline from the above three articles, using their common elements, could be a good start. Here is a draft outline that tries to do that:

My comments in italics. Criticism from within Judaism and mainstream Judaism's responses to these criticisms belong in each section. --AFriedman (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Overview should provide a several-sentence summary of some of the main issues where Judaism was honestly criticized, and which notable critics attacked Judaism on these issues. Also a brief mention that some of the criticism was dishonest --AFriedman (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Criticism

Early criticism

Separate into "Biblical era" and "Greco-Roman period"? --AFriedman (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Medieval criticism
Early modern criticism --AFriedman (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Contemporary criticism

Ethics, doctrine, and halakha (Jewish religious law)

"personal god" and "chosen people" (Spinoza, etc. Also criticized by Reconstructionist Judaism)
Criticism of Judaism's exclusivist monotheism
Women's rights
Violence / conflict (Not sure what this is supposed to include)
Kosher / Animals (Criticism of kashrut; another section called Criticism of animal sacrifice)
Brit milah (circumcision)
Heretics / Cherem

Religious documents (Tanakh, etc)

Historicity & veracity

False accusations (e.g. Blood libel, Host desecration, Well poisoning --AFriedman (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
See also
References
External Links

General
Critical
Responses to criticism

--Noleander (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You're getting ahead of yourself, list sources first, and then we can group the criticisms. Shii (tock) 02:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. What you are suggesting is the "bottom up" approach. See suggestion above by AFriedman to create an outline ("top down" approach) then fill it in with content later. If you want to work bottom-up, that is okay with me, but perhaps you could work it out with AFriedman. If you are refering to the specific "doctrine" sections in the proposed outline (womens rights, etc) those, of course, need to be individually addressed here on the talk page (see above for in-progress discussions). They are listed above in the proposed outline simply for illustrative purposes, to illustrate what the "ethics/doctrine/religious law" section is (because that title, by itself, may be a bit vague to some editors). Their inclusion in the proposed outline was not intended to imply that those individual sections were magically approved just because the top-level outline gets adopted. Those particular individual sections were selected for this proposed outline because they all are (or were) in the article at one time. --Noleander (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Shii (tock) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Shii is correct. How do you know these criticisms are representative and comprehensive? How do you know reliable sources for those section headings even exist? Start with reliable sources, and summarize them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm working on an RfC right now for the "Women's Rights" section (focusing on the reliability of the sources), so we should be able to gradually move forward in that direction. Jayjg: do you have any suggested improvements to this article? Or any sources you can recommend? --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for "History of criticism"?

Does anyone have sources regarding the history of the criticism of Judaism (focusing on theological, criticisms, of course)? User AFriedman originally suggested that new section, but unless we can get some sources, we may have to omit that, and so the outline would be something like:

Ethics, morality, religious laws

Personal God, chosen people
From Christianity
From Islam
... etc ..

See Also
References
External links

...--Noleander (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a book that outlines the history of criticism of Judaism. An overview of Jewish history might be the closest, at least in terms of pointing you in the right direction. As a start, you may want to read the Wikipedia article about Jewish history. You may also want to read this book or this book, overviews of Jewish history which are available at many regular bookstores/libraries or for sale online. (User:Slrubenstein has his own point of view about these books, which you'll see if you go to User talk:AFriedman#Judaism 2, but the books in question are at least some of the most readable and easily available ones on the market. They should also give you ideas about what to search for and which more specialized sources to use.) You may also want to post this same question on the Talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. Do you have access to a major University library? That might help in finding sources about more specific topics, but information about many of these topics is already available on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. --AFriedman (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add two criticisms

I made a proposal above to add two sections with the following criticisms, but it was indented and maybe no one saw it, so I'll bump it up here:

The proposal is to add two criticisms: (1) orthodox judaism has religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews; and (2) Jewish religious leaders were totalitarian and were interested in gaining and maintaining power. (I'm just paraphrasing here).

The criticisms have quite a few notable, reliable sources, one of which is the book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak. I agree with editor User:Newman Luke that it is highly inappropriate to have a religious litmus test on sources, but, for what it is worth, Israel Shahak is Jewish, a Holocaust survivor, a veteran of the Israeli Army, and a professor at the Hebrew University. Granted, he was a bit of a political activist, but his criticism of Judaism are very notable, and heavily discussed. The ADL even published a report responding to some of his criticisms, here: http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) is plausible - in other words, it is quite plausible that notable critics hold such a view - I can't see why that shouldn't be mentioned. Newman Luke (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(2) seems a bit more fringe to me - it seems to be treating individual people as a monolithic identikit group - so I think you'd probably need several notable sources for that - not just the Shahak source. Newman Luke (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Actually, since both are potentially controversial, it is probably wisest to include additional sources for both of these. --Noleander (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And since when is Shahak a notable expert on Orthodox Judaism? Colin Powell is Episcopalian, a veteran of the US Army, a former Secretary of State, and limited partner in a vanture capital firm. So that makes him an expert on Hooker and the three-legged stool? Fallacious and non-credible. -- Avi (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

His reliability as a critic is something that is contentious, so an RfC or similar will probably be required to get consensus. In the meantime, if you have any sources on these matters that you can suggest, please feel free to contribute here. --Noleander (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding criticism (1) "Judaism has religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews", I propose add that section, supported by the following sources (in addition to the Shahak source):

David Novak, "Tradition in the public square: a David Novak reader", p. 132-136 ("Elimination of the double standard")
Steven D. Fraade, "The Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity", p. 145-165
Ephraim Shmueli "Seven Jewish cultures: a reinterpretation of Jewish history and thought", p. 261

and the section would include balancing information ("arguments against discrimination were posited by leading rabbis starting in the middle ages, and virtually no discrimination is practiced today .."), which is supported by sources:

Sidney Schwarz, "Judaism and Justice: The Jewish Passion to Repair the World" p. 74
Peter J. Tomson, "Paul and the Jewish law: halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles", p. 151-163

....--Noleander (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no comments on this proposal, I'll add the the new section (on criticism "1"). --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to restore section on circumcision

I propose to restore the section on circumcision. The criticism was that circumcision is cruel, inhumane, reduces sexual pleasure, and is genital mutilation. There are many notable, reliable sources for this criticism, including God is not great. Can we restore the section? If not, would more sources overcome the objection? Or would some balancing information in the section overcome the objection? --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

a) Hitchens is a journalist and polemicist, not a philosopher or theologian or professor of religion. The same applies to chemistry professors, such as the ones mentioned above. If you want to criticize religion, bring relevant experts, per WP:V and WP:UNDUE.

b) The issue you have brought up is general to circumcision, not specific to Judaism, and is discussed at length in the circumcision articles.

c) We're not really enabling your inappropriate behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of circumcision that relates specifically to Judaism is the fact that in Judaism, it is a religious requirement. Lots of issues here. First of all, the fact that 8 day old infants are involuntarily circumcised is certainly open to criticisms analogous to the Anabaptist criticism of involuntary infant baptism, especially since a surgical operation is a bigger deal than a baptism. Offhand, I don't know whether this would appear in a notable source. However, the appropriateness of circumcision as a benchmark of religious faith and tribal loyalty seems also to have been questioned by Paul the Apostle, the New Testament and the Christian church. I think there could be at least a few sentences of an interesting section here--possibly a larger section entitled "Criticism of Jewish practices." Even so, since Judaism has so many other aspects which have been criticized--other sections of the article, for example, might be "Criticism of Jewish beliefs" and "Criticism of Jewish texts", in addition to sections about the many other practices that have been criticized from inside and outside the religion--not sure it's warranted to single out circumcision. --AFriedman (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is circumcision a "religious requirement?" You probably mean Brit milah, not circumcision. More importantly, Brit milah is not necessarily accepted by Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism any more than observance of the Shabbat, observance of the Jewish dietary guidelines, and other halachic principles are accepted. Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism don't accept halacha as "binding." I find that here (Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism both hold that modern views of how the Torah and rabbinic law developed imply that the body of rabbinic Jewish law is no longer normative (seen as binding) on Jews today). Bus stop (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of people circumcised are infants or children; that includes children of Muslims, Oriental Orthodox Christians in Africa, and the millions of people of other faiths (or none at all). The issues are identical until the child reaches the age of majority. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg: You seem to be suggesting that the only sources that can be used for this article are theologians and philosophers. Am I understanding you correctly? Wow, I've never heard of that sort of limitation before. Let's apply it to, say, the criticism that "Judaism's religious laws violate fundamental women's rights by denying women the right to obtain a divorce from an abusive spouse that refuses to cooperate". Are you saying that 1,000 non-theologian feminists could make the criticism and it cannot be documented in this article. But when the first theologian makes the criticism, then it can be in this article? Wouldn't be more appropriate to look at whether the critics are notable? Whether their criticism is widespread? Whether the criticism is discussed in notable forums? Imposing a limitation that sources must be "philosophers or theologians" would have the effect of silencing many minority voices, and I'm sure that is not your intent. --Noleander (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review loaded question. The objection raised was three-fold, and each part was equally valid. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) Criticism of X is what journalists do as their day-job, so I think he's a highly pertinent source. As he's not a professional/widely-acknowledged philosopher, we couldn't use him as a source for criticisms invoking philosophical intricacies. As he's not a professional/widely-acknowledged theologian, we couldn't use him as a source for criticisms invoking theological intricacies. But he's a journalist, and that makes it absolutely fine for him to be used for journalistic criticisms - political and human-rights type issues. And as far as I can tell, his gripe with circumcision is on human-rights type-grounds, so he's fine as a source for that. Newman Luke (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(b) General issues can still be mentioned - they shouldn't be turned into huge sections, but there's nothing wrong with having a brief summary section/paragraph on them, concentrating on any Judaism-specific details if possible, and linking to the main article. Its not true to claim that its entirely unconnected to Judaism, or that its entirely not a criticism that has any impact on Judaism, so it evidently does have some connection to this article. Newman Luke (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(c) You'll need to be more specific about what you mean by inappropriate behaviour. As an outside observer on this article, and in relation to Noleander, I really haven't got a clue what you're referring to here. Newman Luke (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The key question to ask is not is it a valid criticism of Judaism, but is it a criticism which some people make against Judaism?. If the answer to the latter question is yes, then it should be discussed in some form in the article. Now in the US, Canada, and (to some extent) Australia, circumcision is very common among non-Jews too, so if you're editing from those places, criticism of circumcision may well seem a general issue and a fringe viewpoint, but its not common practice in the UK - where Hitchens was brought up - and here (the UK) circumcision is a fairly minority practice. Wikipedia follows the principle of trying to avoid being US-centric - limited geographic scope is to be discouraged - so you have to consider the parts of the world where circumcision is mainly a Jewish thing, and it is criticised by mainstream voices. Newman Luke (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care what criticism some people make. Wikipedia only cares what criticism reliable sources make. And when it comes to Judaism, Hitchens (and the others mentioned) are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the other "Criticism of [some religion]" articles, the notable critics are almost never philosophers and theologians. The vast majority of notable critics are statesmen, journalists, activists, members of other religions, secular skeptics, and renegades within the religion. Hitchens and Dawkins and Shahak are very notable sources on religion. When the time comes (after we get the outline established) we can do an RfC or similar to see what other editors think about specific sources. Limiting sources to just Jews, or just theologians/philosophers is plainly a clumsy attempt to keep negative material out of the encyclopedia. A better approach is for us to all work together to find a neutral, balanced way to present the information. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

And, as I have explained on other Criticism of religion Talk: pages, that is a weakness of those articles. Let's not repeat those same mistakes here. Insisting on using sources that are not reliable as regards Judaism is plainly a clumsy attempt to promote un-encyclopedic bias. Also, it's unclear why you would suggest "Limiting sources to just Jews". Can you explain further? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing issue is a matter of opinion, and that is why an RfC may ultimately be the best way to go. Regarding "limiting to Jews" there was a suggestion above (not by you) that sources should be Jewish. I didn't mean to imply that you made that suggestion. --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be Jewish to be notable and reliable critics of Judaism, but they do have to be notable and reliable critics of Judaism. Hitchens does not seem to be such. I am certain better sources can be found; there is no reason to to violate notability by bringing in non-notable sources. -- Avi (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See above for logical deconstruction of Newman Luke's argument re: Hitchens. -- Avi (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start gathering material to support an RfC or similar to determine if Hitchens, Dawkins, Shahak (and others) are reliable sources for circumcision/violence/discrimination against non-Jews etc. In the meantime, if anyone has any ideas on how to improve this article, please feel free to suggest ideas and sources. Also, if you have any "balancing" sources that address the opposite side of the ciriticsm(s), those will be necessary to create neutral, balanced sections. I think we can all agree that the article is not in good shape now. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources that may be more acceptable than Hitchens:

Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Why aren't Jewish women circumcised?: gender and covenant in Judaism", p. 207-224
Leonard B. Glick, "Marked in your flesh: circumcision from ancient Judea to modern America", p. 115-148
Elizabeth Wyner Mark, "The covenant of circumcision: new perspectives on an ancient Jewish rite", p. 157-176
Eric Kline Silverman, "From Abraham to America: a history of Jewish circumcision", p 177-212

They all address the same widely-discussed criticisms: painful, cruel, lack of consent, and sexual pleasure, and they do it within the context of "this is a sometimes controversial covenant of Judaism" so they are not just addressing medical issues, but theological issues. Following the Summary Style guideline, this article should just have a brief description of the issue, and then the "main" link should point to Brit milah article. Are these sources adequate? --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from Shaye Cohen, why would these individuals be any more reliable when it comes to Judaism? By the way, Mark is just the editor of that work, not the author of the contents you refer to. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, could you be more specific? All four discuss brit milah, and all four are critical of it (or document others who are critical of the practice) within the context of its role in Judaism. Maybe if you explained why you consider the Cohen source reliable, but the others not, that would shed light on your concern. --Noleander (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If a source can comment on a particularly notable historic or contemporary criticism of circumcision, then it would be reliable as a secondary source. For example, any reliable source that describes what Paul the Apostle said would be an acceptable reference when describing Paul's position. Of course, Paul's works, or at least the works of an eminent historian of the subject, would be the best sources to use, but I'm not convinced that any of the sources Noleander mentioned are unacceptable for this purpose. On the other hand, even Shaye Cohen is at best a secondary source, since he himself is not a notable critic of circumcision. --AFriedman (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of concept of a personal god

The entire section "Rejection of concept of a personal god" makes no sense because Judaism does not require belief in a personal God. For instance, it would be easy to argue that Maimonides did not hold such a belief.

Moreover, since his cherem does not explain why Spinoza was excommunicated, saying it was because he rejected the notion of a personal god is pure speculation. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the cherem/excommunication content in this article is not directly relevant to this article, and could be eliminated, but you may want to get more input from other editors (I'm not sure which editor wrote that content). Regarding the "belief in a personal god" and "chosen people" content: those are notable criticisms of the theology of Judaism (not to say I personally agree with the criticisms, but notable critics make those claims) so it is appropriate for this article. Other groups of editors found similar topics useful to readers of this encyclopedia, for instance in articles like Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Catholicism, and Criticism of Islam. Perhaps another way to incorporate your suggestion is to add content into the existing "personal god" section explaining your idea, something like "Although some texts and religious authorities discuss personal god and chosen people, many modern interpretations of Judaism reject those principles. Also, Maimonides has been interpreted ..." That may be the most informative way to present your suggestion to the readers. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose to make a few improvements to the section "Rejection of a personal God": (1) eliminate the irrelevant discussion of cherem/excommunication (which was a consequence that Spinoza suffered, but is not to relevant to this article); (2) break the section into two parts (no new content added) one part on "rejection of a personal God" (i.e. on the "Criticism that there is no transcendent being, as Judaism's texts claim") and the other part on "chosen people" (as already mentioned in the existing section). (3) add some sources (cites) to the section, namely:

The Chosen People in America: A Study in Jewish Religious Ideology; by Arnold M. Eisen
"Does the Idea of Jewish Election Have Any Meaning after the Holocaust?"; by Eliezer Schwied (in Wrestling with God: Jewish theological responses during and after the Holocaust; edited by Steven T. Katz)
The Jews as a Chosen People: Tradition and Transformation; by S. Leyla Gürkan
Demonizing the other: antisemitism, racism & xenophobia; (Intro) by Robert S. Wistrich

... --Noleander (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any comments here, so I made those changes to the "personal God" section. --Noleander (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add new section on homosexuality

I propose to add a new section on homosexuality. Content would be along the lines of: "Judaism has been criticized because its religious texts condemn homosexual activity, and because some formulations, such as Orthodox Judaism, prohibit homosexual activity. However, Reform Judaism accepts gay and lesbian members and rabbis. Orthodox Judaism does not exclude homosexuals, but does require that they not engage in homosexual sexual activities." Sources would include:

Wrestling with God and men: homosexuality in the Jewish tradition, by Steven Greenberg
Judaism in America ( p 121-123) by Marc Lee Raphael
Denise L. Eger (2001), "Embracing Lesbians and Gay Men", in Contemporary debates in American reform Judaism: conflicting visions, Dana Evan Kaplan (Ed.), Routledge, p. 180-192

...--Noleander (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no responses after a couple of days, so I'll add it in. Please discuss here if you have any concerns. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add new section on "religious texts endorse violence"

I propose to add a new seciton "religious texts endorse violence". The content would be something like: Judaism has been criticized because its religious texts allegedly endorse or glorify violence, including violence against innocent peoples. The story of the battle of Jericho, the story of Amalekites, and the Purim festival are cited as sources of violent attitudes that are allegedly endorsed by Judaism and its religious texts. Sources could include:

Carl. S. Ehrlich (1999) "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds).
Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence, by Elliott S. Horowitz
The Holy Land in transit: colonialism and the quest for Canaan; by Steven George Salaita
For the land and the Lord, by Ian Lustick
A. G. Hunter "Denominating Amalek: Racist stereotyping in the Bible and the Justification of Discrimination", in Sanctified aggression: legacies of biblical and post biblical vocabularies of violence, Jonneke Bekkenkamp, Yvonne Sherwood (Eds.). 2003

Balancing material would include: However, religious authorities repudiate the sort of warfare described in the battle of Jericho, or assert that it is not a historical battle, or claim that the events, as described in the Book of Joshua, are exaggerated or metaphorical. --Noleander (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no ability for there to have been a theologically-driven battle for the past 2000 or so years, what exactly is your point? -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is: documenting critical assertions about various religions. Is your concern that this particular criticism only pertains to ancient events/documents? Or do you think the sources for this particular criticism are not sufficient? If so, can you be more specific, and I can find additional sources? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess as it is now seems OK, I may look for more sources, and I suggest that the criticism is equally valid of all non-pacifist religions, but you seem to have a rather narrow focus on Judaism for now. Oh well. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add "References" section

I propose to add a new section for "References". Does anyone have any suggestions for criteria that should be used to determine which sources are appropriate for such a section? --Noleander (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How do the new sections fit into the outline?

Noleander, I'm wondering how the new sections you added will be incorporated into the outline we've agreed on. At least to me, it looks like you are writing a very different article from the one we had discussed. Please explain. --AFriedman (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question. My perception of the "outline discussion" above was that it faded-out without a consensus. I think I proposed several outlines, and some editor said "whoa, we're going too fast, get some sources first, then we can discuss outline". So, I've been gathering sources to satisfy that request (the sources are in the article). Perhaps it would be a good time to revive the outline discussion? Could you suggest an outline (any one from above, or one of your own design) and perhaps we could just go with that and see how it goes? Or did you see a consensus in the "outline discussion" above? --Noleander (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given you some comments in the section called "Summary style & possible outline." IMO that's the closest to the outline I envision. Given the duration of Jewish history, I think that an article with a more historical organization reveals more about the cultural context of each criticism, which can provide interesting information about the criticisms. Not sure you saw the comments. --AFriedman (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your outline there. I liked it. If you refer to that section you will see two editors that objected to the outline (any outline?). So, you may want to discuss the issue with them. --Noleander (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Insults directed at Jesus (Talmud examples)?

Jayjg: there are several notable sources that say the Talmud describes Jesus Christ as being subject to the punishments you removed. The article simply re-stated what the critics said. Do you think the article summarized the criticism inaccurately? Or are you saying that the critics are mistaken? If the latter, perhaps we could add some qualifying content like "... but many scholars believe that this text in the Talmud did not refer to Jesus" or similar? --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The verses in question refer explicitly to Balaam. Balaam was a much reviled Biblical figure who, according to Biblical chronology, lived over 1,500 years before Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that opinion is shared by some scholars, but there are other interpretations that _do_ ascribe that punishment to Jesus. Regardless, it is a notable criticism, and simply because there is scholarly debate on the issue, is no reason to exclude it. Instead, the neutral approach is to include it, but accompanied by balancing information that indicates that the critics may be mistaken (and explain why). --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the following text is from the Yeshu article: "Yeshu summoned by Onkelos: In Gittin 56b, 57a a story is mentioned in which Onkelos summons up the spirit of a Yeshu who sought to harm Israel. He describes his punishment in the afterlife as boiling in excrement. " That may be relevant to this topic. --Noleander (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unsourced in the Yeshu article, and in the standard texts there's no reference to Yeshu there. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but other sources say that some versions of the Talmud have been censored to remove such mentions (which is a whole other criticism altogether). But you are not answering the question: do you agree that some critics have made this criticism (however misguided it may be)? If you concur that some notable critics have made the criticism, and that the criticism has been documented by secondary sources, then what is the reason for excluding it from this article? --Noleander (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which critics have made this criticism? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which criticism? The censorship or the yeshu/boiled? --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some secondary sources that discuss the cricitism "from Christianity" that Judaism insulted Christ by saying that he was in hell, being boiled in excrement. The specific verses from the Talmud, according to these sources, include Sanhedrin 107b and Gittin 56b-57a. Some of these secondary sources also include discussion of the censorship of that topic in the Talmud (such omitting the verse, or changing the name of Jesus to Balaam):

Jewish history and Jewish memory: essays in honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi by Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, page 33
The Jew in the medieval book: English antisemitisms, 1350-1500 by Anthony Paul Bale, page 33
Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History by David Klinghoffer, page 154 (says critic is King Louis IX)
Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer, p 13, 85, 88-89, 90-92, 113, 174
From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture by Matthew B. Hoffman, page 4 (specifying Talmud verses: Sanhedrin 107b and Gittin 56b-57a)
Tolerance and intolerance in early Judaism and Christianity by Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa, page 247 (NOTE: this also has a discussion of the censorship that removed references to Jesus- see footnote #34 on page 256; includes the assertion that "Balaam" is one of the names used instead of Yeshua).
Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians, by Israel Jacob Yuval, page 132
Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence by Robert E. Van Voorst, page 110 (also equates Jesus with Balaam).
Church, State, and Jew in the Middle Ages by Robert Chazan, page 227-230 (transcript of 1240 Paris disputation)
A history of the Jews by Paul Johnson, page 217, says that the main critic was Nicholas Donin
Rabbi Moses ha-Kohen of Tordesillas and his book ʻEzer ha-emunah, by Yehuda Shamir, page 31-32 (says that Pope Gregory IX was a key critic)

Some of the critics explicitly named in the sources above include King Louis IX, Pope Gregory IX and Nicholas Donin. --Noleander (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is an article on Judaism, not the Talmud, please remain in scope. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the thrust of this criticism is that "Judaism insults Jesus" and the critics cite the Talmud as but one example of that alleged attitude. In addition many criticisms of religions are critical of the content of their religious texts. We could probably create a new article "Criticism of the Talmud" but then either (1) such an article would get merged into this article; or (2) this article would contain a small section linking to the "criticism of Talmud" article. If you refer to Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, and Criticism of Christianity, you'll see they all have sections containing criticisms of the sacred texts. If you refer to the sources above, you'll see that the criticisms of the Talmud were within the context of criticizing Judaism. If you want to go the route of creating a new article on "Criticism of the Talmud", you could refer to Criticism of the Qur'an, Criticism of the Bible, and Criticism of the Book of Mormon as starting points. --Noleander (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which seems to be original research or synthesis, no? -- Avi (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. If you'll read the sources, you'll see they talk about how many Jewish authorities and authors allegedly insulted Christianity and Jesus, and they talk about how many Christians criticized Judaism because of those alleged insults. --Noleander (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I will propose an improvement to the Yeshu article so that it also contains more detail and more citations on this topic. --Noleander (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)