Talk:Christian–Jewish reconciliation/Archive 3

Just to chime in-- I find it refreshing to hear Danny's well thought out and researched comments. On another issue, this article (i think) is largely based on the tone set by the US-Israeli relationship, and has some undertones toward the exclusion of Muslims. I know RK would disagree with me, but I think that this article cant be written without some flavor dealing with the political realities of the day-- the importance of Israel to US oil interests, etc. I'm not sure Im qualified to add such a treatment, but I wouldnt hesitate to try, if this article ever simmers down. 戴&#30505sv 02:05, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments Steve. I also agree with much of your assessment regarding rapproachment in light of the Middle East conflict, but I do have some problems with it. For instance, the strongest supporters of Israel in the US today are Fundamentalist Protestant groups, who are committed to the Jewish people and Israel because of their interpretation of the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. In other words, it is somewhat disingenuous. Meanwhile, certain Jewish leaders jump on the bandwagon because "it is good for Israel." Similarly disingenuous. On a much wider level, however, the topic of this pseudo-article is Christian-Jewish reconciliation, not American Christian-American Jewish reconciliation. Overall, it should focus more broadly on international efforts, not simply American efforts. There have been some very important meetings between Jewish religious leaders and the leaders of important denominations, not only in America but in Israel, to discuss similarities and differences. There is an international effort in this direction. This should be the highlight of the article, not (and here I get POV) a bunch of zealots from both sides deciding that my enemy's enemy is my friend. Danny 03:01, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On your point about internationalism: There is one Jewish state in the world, and it has some international relevance for Jews, right? I mean this is not Cuba we are talking about. If you're dealing with a separation between religious Jews apart from ethnic agnostic Jews, then its hard to follow where the line is. Religious issues are not apart from politics-- though I agree with Martin removing that line from the text as POV. Not international? How much more international can you get than dealing with the Jewish state, its peoples' relations with the most powerful state in the world, which just happens to be "based on a Christian ethic" however silly that sounds? I dont think having a short section as I wrote on the politicality of this relationship is irrelevant, nor can it be reasonably argued that the climate and terms of this religious reconciliation dont have political overtones (and undertones). Sincerely, -戴&#30505sv 15:12, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

P.S Even to segment this article into two:the overall and then the specific US-Israel relationship, would require that a little of each be in the other, right? I dont think theres enough here to warrant two articles, once we remove all the pro-Jewish and pro-Christian diatribes.'SV

Stop ranting about the US, Oil, Arand and Israel. This article isn't about your hatred of the State of Israel.

What does Stevertigo's rant about the US, Israel and Oil have to do with relations between Christians and Jews? Nothing. Just like the WikiEn list, he is using this forum to attack Israel, even though it has nothing to do with the topic. And, as you point out, his comments are disingenous in any case. RK 14:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with Danny? I think you have to make a stronger case than appealing to your common ethnicity. Sincerely, 戴&#30505sv 15:12, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Jews "ignore"

The following has been removed:

Jews hailed the document as the first time a Christian Church said that anti-semitism was unacceptable, but they ignore previous statements and acts, such as the papal protection of Jews throughout the Middle Ages and World War II; 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent, whose fourth Article spoke of culpability for the death of Jesus; Pope Pius XI's Mit Brennender Sorge; Pope Pius XII's , " No, no I say to you, it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible! Through Christ and in Christ we are spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites," etc. Some argue that the desire of some Jews to see the Second Vatican Council as a wonderfully revolutionary Council that "ended anti-semitism" is due to destruction of the Catholic Church that followed that Council and which appealed to the anti-Christianism of some practitioners of Judaism.

This part is touchy--It definitely needs a rewrite-- and a bit less intimation of what 'Jews think and say.' Its the same problem a certain partisan Wikipedian has with putting words in the mouths of Palestinians or Christians, etc, etc, etc.戴&#30505sv 15:20, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo writes the following lies and slander of Jews:

One of the greatest difficulties in Jewish-Catholic relations is the conflation of "Semitism" (a racialist or ethnic concept) with "Judaism" (a religious concept). While any Christian group that believes that Jesus is the Messiah for all must, by definition, have arguments against Judaism as a religion, often these arguments are labelled "anti-semitic" when they are mentioned.

This is a bald-faced lie. First off, there is no such thing as "semitism", This term is used by Christian Identity adherents of part of their ideology, but it is not recognized as real by scholars of religion or by historians. Secondly, Jewish group do not label Chrisitan belief in Jesus as anti-Semitic. Stevertigo is making this stuff up. This isn't a POV problem; he simply is fabricating positions which the Jewish community does not have, and attacks Jews with these strawman arguments. RK 14:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I didnt write that. So saying that I did write it must be "bald-faced slander." I support its removal. I also support the idea that you be more careful and actually read the text before removing it, Bob. 戴&#30505sv 14:52, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In other words, in defending Christianity, Christians are intimated to be racialists. Questions that must be answered for dialogue to proceed include: Does anti-Judaism equate with anti-semitism? Can a Christian believe in classic, orthodox Christian dogma without being accused of "anti-semitism"? Does any critique of Judaism on the part of Christians indicate anti-semitism? Is being Jewish a matter of race, ethnicity, religion, peoplehood, or some combination of these?

Pardon me, but I have not seen anyone make such claims. Nothing in this Discussion page or in this article attacks Christianity in general as racist or anti-Semitic. Please read more carefully before making such accusations. JeMa 17:59, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Racialists

Didn't anyone notice the red flag terms? Only Christian Identity adherents and members of the Ku Klux Klan use the term "racialist? In any case, Stevertigo is slandering the entire Jewish community; Jews are not slandering Chrisitans as "racists", let alone as "racialists". He is fabricating positions, and then attacking Jews for these positions which only exist in his mind. That is called Jew-baiting, and it is anti-Semitic by definition. RK 20:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On many websites and TV talk shows that have "exposes" of the new Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation, it is shown that these groups now use the term "racialist" instead of "racist". They are the same concept in a new dressing. Changing the spelling does not change the idea content. JeMa 17:59, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

According to the page history, RK added the text in -- where the word "racialist" is used {10:38, 1 Oct 2003 . . RK (Discussion of racist rant against Jews.)} whilst describing what he claims Stevertigo has said. I don't know where RK gets this from, but now it just looks like RK is flat-out lying and attempting to "plant evidence" -- as silly as that seems when anyone can go back and look at the history! -- Bcorr -- Брайен из Детройте 21:35, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please re-read the page history. Rk did not insert that text; he did not plant edvidence. It really was added here by an anonymous user. JeMa 17:59, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

RK probably moved the text from the article itself. I don't know who added it to the article, but I'm sure you could find out if you went through the page histories. Martin 22:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nope, I checked. This (nor anything close to it)never appeared in the article or on the talk page The only edit Steve made to the article was this revision. -- BCorr -- Брайен из Детройте 23:04, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I checked too. Anonymous IP added it in this edit. -- Cyan 23:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Cyan. Perhaps Robert will now accept that he just attacked Stevertigo on the basis of words that Stevertigo never wrote. Martin 23:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to be so definitive -- it never occured to me to check today's edit by someone other than Stevertigo -- I went through the past history. My apologies for that. -- BCorr -- Брайен из Детройте 00:08, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This belongs on another article --anti-Zionism not here. 戴&#30505sv 14:53, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Groups that state that "racialism" is the same as "racism".

Backgrounder on Racialist Groups and Hate Activity in Canada

Eye on Hate

ADL: Hate on the Internet

Road To Peace: Racism and Bigotry

Media Awareness Network: Deconstructing Hate Sites

Protecting the article

Semitism is a concept nonetheless: the concept that there are groups out there that speak Semitic languages out there, such as Hebrew, Maltese, Arabic, etc. and have some similar cultural heritage (i.e., Judaism, Lebanese/Maltese Christianity, Mideastern Islam, etc.) Rickyrab 23:41, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ironically, an article about "reconciliation" has been repeatedly reverted. I am protecting the page pending some calm discussion of what all the fuss is about. (And, please no one do one of those oops-he-protected-the-wrong-version things and re-revert it while it's protected. Let's actually talk this out.) --Uncle Ed 15:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mutual hostility needs defusing - I mean, among us Wikipedians!

This addition leaves me puzzled:

Anti-Semitism among Christians and anti-Christianism among Jews have not died out entirely, and anti-Semitic acts have been perpetrated by some Christian leaders, as anti-Christian acts have been perpetrated by Jewish leaders.

I think I know what "anti-Semitism" is; there is a fairly long Wikipedia article an it, for one thing. But what is "anti-Christianism"? How about listing some "anti-Christian" acts? (Please note, I am not editing the article - let alone, taking sides for or against RK, Stevertigo, or any other contributor. I just think that answering the above question, as well as others I intend to pose, might defuse the fight over the article.) --Uncle Ed 15:33, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I too have this same question. The article accuses Jewish leaders of engaging in anti-Christian acts. Who are these supposed Jewish leaders? What are these acts? The article on anti-Semitism links to a number of anti-Jewish incidents, but are there similar numbers of attacks on Christians by Jews? Support, please. The article on persecution of Christians has little or nothing on this topic. JeMa 16:25, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since no one has offered any answers, I take it that these claims can be removed? JeMa 17:59, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Good mornin' Ed. I'm gonna get some breakfast, before I deal with this anymore.-SV

I appreciate your intervention, and will be open to your comments, and your {{{soothing}}} tone of voice (text).-SV

"Anti-Christian acts" should be discussed at persecution of Christians. Martin 15:54, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Draft page

Contents copied to Christian-Jewish reconciliation (draft)-戴&#30505sv 15:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Note: Ed Poor deleted the draft page, and left this comment on talk:

Please, let's keep all the discussion at talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation. --Uncle Ed 15:59, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Draft talk page was also deleted in aggreement, comment moved here (above)-戴&#30505sv

Thank you for your cooperation, Steve. BTW, there's a lot of talk also going on in the mailing list.

Defense of being a racialist?

RE: "This is a bald-faced lie. First off, there is no such thing as "semitism", This term is used by Christian Identity adherents of part of their ideology, but it is not recognized as real by scholars of religion or by historians. Secondly, Jewish group do not label Chrisitan belief in Jesus as anti-Semitic. Stevertigo is making this stuff up. This isn't a POV problem; he simply is fabricating positions which the Jewish community does not have, and attacks Jews with these strawman arguments. RK 14:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)"

Then how can there be such a thing as "anti-semitism"? The dictionary defines "Semitism," Semitic," and "Semite" as:
Main Entry: Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: 'se-m&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1851
1 a : Semitic character or qualities b : a characteristic feature of a Semitic language occurring in another language 2 : policy favorable to Jews : predisposition in favor of Jews

The ADL says that anyone who denies the existence of anti-Semitism is anti-Semitic; and that anyone who denies the existence of racism is a racist. There is some deep common sense in this view. JeMa 17:59, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Main Entry: [1]Se·mit·ic
Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
Date: 1813
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites 3 : JEWISH

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
Date: 1848
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.

Now, if post-Temple Judaism is true, Christianity is not true, and vice versa. Either Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ for all mankind, as orthodox Christianity teaches, or He is not. If Jews use the word "anti-semite" to slander anyone who argues that Jesus is the Messiah for all men, or who defends Christianity and Christians against unfair attacks and mischaracterizations, or who explains, as a Catholic, what the Catholic Church teaches, then "Semitism" and Judaism are conflated. Defense of Christianity "becomes" a matter of racism. We see this in the attacks against Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion," which is a simple dramatic rendering of the Gospels, but which is seen by the ADL as Nazi hate speech. The same sort of phenomenon is at work in the political realm, when criticism of Eretz Israel or American foreign policy vis a vis that nation are called "anti-semitic."

Please stop falsely accusing the entire Jewish people of slandering all Christians as anti-Semites. No Jewish group holds such a view. No article in Wikipedia states such a view; no discussions on this page offer such a view. Jewish people do not view belief in Jesus, as described above, as anti-Semitic. Also, please refrain from attacking the entire Jewish people in reference to that new movie. JeMa 18:08, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

We see the same thing in the discussion of History: it is somehow perfectly OK to speak of "the Italians" as being mafiosi, of "the Germans" as a warlike people, or of the cruelty of "the Romans" (and "the Romans" as responsible for Jesus' death); but to speak of "the Jews" as anything other than completely heroic victims, is to be an "anti-semite."

This is garbage. No one here has slandered the Italians or Germans in this way. No Jewish group has made any such claim as you imply. Your comments are totally disconnected from any reality I am familiar with. JeMa 18:08, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

RE: "Didn't anyone notice the red flag terms? Only Christian Identity adherents and members of he Ku Klux Klan use the term "racialist? In any case, Stevertigo is slandering the entire Jewish community; Jews are not slandering Chrisitans as "racists", let alone as "racialists". He is fabricating positions, and then attacking Jews for these positions which only exist in his mind. That is called Jew-baiting, and it is anti-Semitic by definition. RK 20:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)"

You are wrong. I used the term "racialist" and am not a member of the KKK or a follower of "Christian Identity" (I loathe racism). The dictionary defines racialism and racism as:

Main Entry: ra·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1907
RACISM - ra·cial·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- ra·cial·is·tic /"rA-sh&-'lis-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Mind you, I don't believe that Jews are a "race" in any true biological sense, if there is such a thing as a true biological sense of "race" (though the Talmud and Nazism seem to teach that). But when you accuse someone of "anti-semitism," you are accusing them of "racism" in some sense. Apparently, even pointing this out to you is just "proof" that the ones speaking are "Christian Identity adherents and members of the Ku Klux Klan."

No Jewish groups make any such claim. Please stop. JeMa 18:08, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

"ANTISEMITE!" There. I've done it for you. If it makes you happy to think of me as a racist, then so be it. Meanwhile, I -- a traditional Catholic with a beloved, VERY mixed "race" family, someone who worships a Semite and believes every single dogma of my Church and prays for the Pope daily -- will do my best to correct your mischaracterizations of what "the Catholic Church" teaches. If it amuses you to call me an "anti-Catholic," as ridiculous as that is (see my website at [link removed]), then have at it. Throw enough stuff and someone might perceive some of it as sticking, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together will see through your very old, very tiresome scheme. As you wind up your pitching arm, though, know that "anti-Catholic" properly applies to someone who considers the preaching of two millenia of Catholic dogma and doctrine "anti-Catholic."

I am uncertain as to who you are now talking with, but in your previous writings you seemed to admit being a racialist (i.e. racist.) Was this an error in writing on your part? Watchdog groups that monitor the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation (and related groups) all say the same thing: that racialism and racism are the same. These groups have attempted to improve their public image by spelling "racism" in a slightly new way. These groups explain that "racism" means hating people of another race, while "racialism" means loving people of your own race. Many watchdog groups, both on the political right and left, have shown that this difference is disingenous. You are only being criticised for what you seem to have written about yourself. JeMa 20:13, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Note that Stevertigo is not responsible at all for the posts you've taken issue with, RK. They are mine, and I stand by them. Re: my mention of "anti-Christianism," I will try to write something about that. 'Til then, you can see my (admittedly theologically biased) page on Jewish anti-Christianiam here (it's just a start): [link removed] For a secular person's view (actually, for a compilation of the views of Jewish writers), see this page: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/03jech.htm (this page's opening paragraph is biased toward Protestantism, imbalanced in that it ignores the anti-Catholic violence of Protestants, the seizing of our churches, cathedrals, and monasteries, the outlawing of the Mass, the massacres instigated by Elizabeth I and Cromwell, et. al., the pogroms against the Irish, etc. See "The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England," by Eamon Duffy). For a more general page on the Jewish version of History itself, see this page: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/13dicta.htm La Minturnesa

That particular site which you quote twice (i have as well, sadly) while it may contain some valid and important information-- is nevertheless a very suspect and perhaps even anti-Semitic source. In quoting it, I would keep this in mind. Its quite interesting perhaps that the level of discourse among traditionally ignorant anti-Semites may be elevating to a reasonable level-- and might oneday speak in Humanist terms rather than pseudo-religious terms as you do, Mr. Minturnesa. I understand fighting fire with fire, but I have long been over that, andjust to give you notice-- its not going to useful here. 戴&#30505sv 01:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unprotecting page

Any objections to unprotecting this page? --Uncle Ed 01:13, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No objection. 戴&#30505sv 01:33, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not interested in fighting fire with fire, or in engaging in religious dialogue on an Encyclopedia site (outside of these sorts of Talk pages). But I can't sit idly by as someone mischaracterizes what "the Catholic Church" teaches, over and over again. I also don't deal well with the one-sidedness of what is being said about Christian-Jewish dialogue. Look at the page history and note the incredible bias in various versions. No mention of anti-Christianism, no mention of what the Talmud teaches about Jesus and His Mother and Christians (and the "goyim"), no mention of the sorts of things Israel Shahak has written about (the spitting on seeing a Cross, etc.), no mention of persecution of Christians by Jews, etc. It's all given as a non-Catholic's version of what "the Catholic Church" "now" teaches, how some Christian groups have been so "noble" in changing their teachings to appease, how Christians must become introspective and change (even our Gospels!) and do all the apologizing and hand-wringing and so on. The only thing expected of the Jewish side is to refrain from dwelling "too much" on the incessant atrocities commited against them by those dastardly Christians -- and for no reason at all but for their wicked theology and innate psychopathology that even watching a film about the final hours of Jesus's life might inflame, setting off rioting and mayhem everyhwere! It's asinine, and I simply want the issue to be presented in a BALANCED and accurate manner.

I know of no Catholic officials who agree with you. All I see is you stating your own opinions. This article can state the view of the Catholic Church, of the Luther World Ferderation, the Orthodox Union, or of any other group. But specific views must be attributed to specific groups. That seems to be Wikipedia policy. Your own personal views, and my own personal views, are not of relevance, even if they are deeply felt. JeMa 20:13, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Though I express my religious views on these Talk pages, I don't think I've written anything from a religious angle in the Encyclopedia section of this topic (though something could certaintly slide by; I am a religious woman, after all, and am far from perfect).

As to the site I reference, I'm not going to "vouch" for it Donnie Brasco style or anything. It's a secular site with a relatively leftist slant that I'm not into at all, but I don't see it as even remotely racist. Then again, I may have missed something. In any case, the beauty of the site (the online book portion, that is) is that citations are given, and the vast majority of its quotes about Jews are BY Jews. So the author, assuming he's not "sinning by omission," is simply exposing what is all too often kept hidden and what must never be spoken of in "polite society" lest the speakers be branded "Christian Identity adherents and members of the Ku Klux Klan," Nazis, racists, and -- well, you know the drill, I assume. I am just very tired of the slanted History, the forgotten History, and the double standards.

P.S. I have no objections to unprotecting the page (if I'm supposed to "vote" on such a thing), but would appreciate it if Catholic teaching weren't mischaracterized by certain a user who shall remain nameless, but whose initials are "RK" LOL. La Minturnesa

Unprotected. By the way La Minturnesa, RK has decided to leave Wikipedia. Angela

LM--Im glad to see that youre a reasonable fellow, and not interested in flame wars. On your central points I agree with you, that particular former user had a severe problem with polemics, politics, and claiming to know things he has no clue about, and putting words in the mouths of others. Thats all done with and we can move on. In time, some of those particular areas can be worked on to represent each of the great many views in some balance. Be well. 戴&#30505sv

Essay on oil and Arabs and Israel

I thought this page was supposed to be about reconciliation between Jews and Christians? In agreement with User:RK, I ask why this article has been interupted by an essay on oil, Arabs, and the State of Israel? It seems very inappropriate to use this article as a veneer for a criticism of Israel. That essay fragment should be moved to an article where it would be on topic. Here it sticks out as a politically motivated off-topic essay. JeMa 16:25, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since no one has disagreed, I moved the political essay to Wikipedia:Arab-Israeli conflict editing project. If it can rewritten in accord with NPOV, there may be a valid home for it someplace. JeMa 17:44, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV

Why does the article accuse the Jews of being ignorant of, or perhaps even deliberately trying to ignore, Chruch documents on relations between Christians and Jews? I see no evidence to support this position. Jewish interfaith scholars are not ignorant or deceptive about this subject at. The individual who wrote this claim obviously disagrees with many Jewish and Christian scholars. So? That is not a good reason to make such a claim. Therefore, this article is not written in a "neutral point of view". A fact is that many Jewish and Christians scholars and groups read the documents in a certain way. So let the article say so. If this one person, or a group that he is a member of, reads the documents a different way, then that point of view should also be mentioned. That is NPOV format. Yet this article makes claims that the Jews are wrong and are ignoring facts. This is not correct policy. If some groups have a different way of reading these documents, then please state who these groups are, and what their views are. JeMa