Talk:Religious antisemitism

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Bizarre

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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