Talk:Criticism of Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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)

Contents 1 Rationale for the existence of this article 2 If we must do this thing 3 Biased 4 Flawed premise 5 Merger Proposal? 6 Cleanup tag 7 Zionism

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Ansell 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. Ansell Review my progress! 07:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Tomer^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)

[edit] Merger Proposal?

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

[edit] 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). Tomer^talk 22:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)