Talk:Anti-Judaism

message: Noahide Law of Judaism. The two issues came to be linked in a theological discussion within the Christian community as to whether the coming of the Messiah (First or Second Coming) could or did annul some (see Cafeteria Christianity) or all (see Antinomianism) biblical law in what came to be called a New Covenant.
Ok. On first appearance I see the term "Cafeteria Christianity", which, if you visit our helpful Wikipedia page on it states it is a "...a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian individuals or denominations..."
So. That part is obviously POV, and would probably be offensive to people holding the views labeled as "Cafeteria Christianity". 
The last POV statement I found here was:
"...in what came to be called a..."
I replaced this with the far less POV:
"...in what many refer to as a..."
Next we have the following language "biblical law", which carries it's own religious and theological baggage.
So I changed it to the non-offensive and not as POV "judiac law". If you want a different term, we should discuss it here. I also did some minor changes to the grammatical structure it make it look nice.-jamiles1000  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiles1000 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Notes, removal of POV terms

message: The page has been protected as a result of edit-warring between users. Please discuss the changes here and then request page unprotection, or contact me on my talk page when you have resolved the dispute. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection and dispute resolution 

message: If this page ever becomes unprotected, someone will need to disambiguate St. Paul to Paul of Tarsus. Planetneutral 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation of St. Paul 

message: As discussed at Talk:Religious antisemitism, I'm wondering whether we may need mediation in regard to the proper treatment of these two articles, to resolve the basic issues: 1. Are the subjects different? 2. Different enough for different articles? 3. If not, which is the appropriate title? Mackan79 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

message: What exactly is the difference between these two topics?--Sefringle 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me give you the theological answer, as it's a rather essentially a matter of religious belief. Christians, in particular Catholics (the majority Christian faith), believe that salvation (i.e. you go to heaven when you die) for a given soul is entirely up to the Lord God. But as best we are able to understand, accepting that Jesus is the Son of God is generally essential for such salvation for those who are aware of Jesus's message. That position is, naturally, anti-Judaic, in that Christians, who believe in supersessionism, do not believe Judaism has the full understanding of truth which the Lord God has revealed. To insist that anyone who believes in this is an anti-semite is both insulting to this faith, and dangerously, gives legitimacy to those who truly wish to do real (temporal) harm to those of the Jewish faith (or ethnicity) in this world, at which point mere anti-Judaism ends and actual anti-Semitism begins. -- Kendrick7talk 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hocus Pocus aside, a Semite is anyone from the Levant and Arabian Peninsula which includes Arabs and Yemenis (as well as Akkadian descendents and a few other peoples, but no one really cares about them anymore). Anti-Semitism is hatred of Semites plain and simple. So really Anti-Judaism is more correct term for what everyone is thinking. It's a case of people using a broad term to describe something very specific and thus strangling out the other parts. Or like when someone says the US will become a Second World nation without knowing that that means the USSR and its former allies. I strongly discourage favour conotation over denotation, as doing the former leads to our society becoming more ignorant. TheArchaeologist (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TheArchaeologist—I don't think it is "hocus-pocus"; it is actual usage. At Antisemitism we find: "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[2] and that has been its normal use since then.[3]" You'll have to check the citations at the actual article because they won't show up here. Bus stop (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, must confess I didn't really read the one above because I thought it was going to be some religious thing like you find all over the web w/o substance (I am religious but against people who get high off their own beliefs), but now I see it has some. I see what he was getting at, but I mean Jews are an ethnic group for the most part, though we can usually be sub-divided into the three groups as Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim. He is saying that anti-Judaism is against our faith and anti-Semitism is against us the Jews as a people or something like that. I still think that it works to the exclusion of other Semetic people and really there must be a term to be used for a hatred of everyone in the region. The difference we have in the quoted use is the connotation instead of denotation. :p TheArchaeologist (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TheArchaeologist, other sensible terms are anti-Israelism (with current redirect to "anti-Zionism"), anti-Zionism and Persecution of Jews. Gregkaye (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-Judaism and antisemitism and merge

message: I believe should be a section which cites criticism of the concept. After all, rational criticism of a religon, in this case Judaism, is not the same thing as anti-Judaism sentiment. Padishah5000 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept seems to be accepted as valid in the sources I've examined. The main source for the article was published in 1903 so this isn't a neologism, like Islamophobia, where there's been a lot of recent give-and-take on the concept's validity. While I won't claim behavior which emerges from religious conviction is rational, it's inaccurate to dismiss the history of anti-Judaism as driven by sentiment alone. I've compared anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism and neither have a criticism section of those parallel concepts. So I would be at a loss here. -- Kendrick7talk 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the Concept

message: The term is a synnomym fore antisemitism. Why was the template removed? Yahel Guhan 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole section comparing and contrasting the two terms: Anti-Judaism#Contrasted_with_anti-Semitism, which you may not have read? This has been discussed above as well. -- Kendrick7talk 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Section seems to verify why the template is needed. There are enough views which view the topic as antisemitic, and there is enough discussion in the section to warrent the template. Yahel Guhan 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this would simply be POV pushing since the relationship between the two is a matter of such contention as the sources attest to. The template is already present in another wikipedia article which accepts the premise equating the two; see religious anti-Semitism. -- Kendrick7talk 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Antisemitism template

message: The article reads (footnotes omitted):
"A disputed interpretation identifies these books with the Gospels (q.v. Gilyonim): 'The Gospels must be burned for paganism is not as dangerous to the Jewish faith as Jewish Christian sects.'"
I don't have access to the cited texts. However, our article on Gilyonim and this summary of the relevant Talmud page indicate that Rabbi Tarfon said that if a copy of the Gospels were to fall into his hands, he would burn them. That's different from making a blanket statement that "The Gospels must be burned" by Jews in general. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning the Gospels 

message: I don't think the assertion that Emperor worship posed problems for worshippers of Mithra and Sabazius can be sustained. Mithraism was particularly popular in the Roman army; this would obviously conflict with the religious rites associated with their sworn oaths. Sabazios is regularly cross-identified with both Zeus and Dionysus; hard to see how Emperor worship poses a problem. I suspect that a naive understanding of the emperor's cult underlies this; for instance, the difference between being divus and being a deus. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed reference to Mithraism and worship of Sabazios 

message: Bernard Lazare is not a historian. He is a polemicist. To allow his material to remain in this article would not only be a grievous crime against the historical method, but also a great act of prejudice. It would be like permitting Race Life of the Aryan Peoples to serve as a modern source for European History. NJMauthor (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Bernard Lazare was a Jew so he was certainly not biased against this topic, and his work here was quite seminal. I won't permit you to vandalize it away; I strongly suggest you take your anti-polemical mania elsewhere. -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Lazare

message: The section on Christian anti-Judaism, which appears to take up more than half of the article with history, is ridiculously disproportionate to the section on Islamic anti-Judaism, which takes up a measly paragraph. This Islamic section condemns Judaism on only one count, namely the corruption of the original truth of Islam. There must be prominent people in the history of Islam who, for example, opposed medieval Judaism while the Jews were dhimmis in Muslim-controlled lands. The particular beliefs and ancient practices of Judaism, such as the system of animal sacrifices and the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice Isaac with the faith that God would either resurrect his son or prevent him from carrying out the deed, have been strongly denounced as evil and irrational by antireligious moralists. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both rail against the Judeo-Christian conception of God in the Tanakh/Old Testament. This article needs to branch out more and lose Christianity as its central focus. 98.91.67.212 (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too focused on ''Christian'' history

message: Firstly, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that this article makes no mention of what was happening during Hellenistic times, and the clash of ideological and religious views between Greeks and Hellenized-Jews against strictly Jews, which resulted in the first religious and ideological (guerrilla) war in history between the Seleucid Greeks and the Jews in the hills of Judea, celebrated by Jews to this day as the Chanuka. This was NOT just simply a war between Greeks and Jews, but also a CIVIL war between Jews and Hellenized Jews as well. Much of this resulted from the persecution of Jewish beliefs and not Jews by Seleukid king the IV, and anyone who practiced circumcision (not only Jews practiced it!) would face penalty of death (circumcision being unthinkable for Greeks), and the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Greeks who changed into a temple for Zeus (not because it was personal against the Jews, but because it was part of the contemporaneous globalisation and religious and ideological homogenisation that was taking place in hellenistic times), among other things. The Jews likewise retaliated or initiated similar acts of clashing by desecrating temples and Greek statues, while there are various mentions of Hellenised Jews going against Jews-per-se sacrificing pigs in public just to make a point, which resulted in further tension that divided people not ethnically but ideologically, and this makes the term "anti-judaism" not only ridiculous, but also inapplicable, for HOW could the Jews themselves be labeled as anti-judaic when such instances like the preamble of the tension that lead to the Hasmonean Dynasty were deeply rooted even amongst Jews themselves, and it is much a case of civil war as much as it is a case of war between SOME jews and Seleukid Greeks/hellenised Jews??
Likewise, there are numerous sources concerning Ptolemaic Alexandria in papyri of Egyptian court procedures from Oxyrinchus, for instance, which demonstrate a sentiment of inferiority on the part of Jews and of superiority on the part of Greeks, which clearly demonstrates the mounting pressure from the Greeks and oppression felt by the Jews, which culminated to the creation of the briefly-lived Hasmonean kingdom. The Greeks would arbitrarily take native Egyptian land and allot it to Greeks of higher status, while Jews had the worse lot of most cultures in Alexandria, being a minority. The inclusion of this section i propose, concerning the preamble to the Hasmonean Dynasty and ideological, religious and cultural tension in Ptolemaic and Seleukid areas with reference to Jewish peoples (but not exclusive to Jews only), ought to go before the section of "Anti-Judaism in pre-christian, Roman times". These issues are entirely pertinent to the subject discussed here as "anti-judaism", and should be mentioned in the article, but of which, the title is utterly unacceptable and stems from our modern perceptions, and does not reflect actual circumstances, at least in pre-christian times.
Secondly, on this matter of the article's title, I would suggest, in order to at long last make the study of this subject academic, to abstain from using severely emotionally-tainted titles such as "anti-judaism" or "ancient anti-semitism", as this issue, especially in antiquity, was never one of being "against the Jews" specifically or personally, but a matter of clashing ideologies between two cultures that had resulted from the hellenistic melting pot of cultures, and when we are reducing it to a modern perception of "anti-judaism" we are simply ludicrously generalizing, with political ramifications. There was NO SUCH THING as "anti-judaism" in antiquity, in the way is is defined today, through our modern construction of the term and the cultural and ideological weight it carries largely in due result from the upshot of WWII. At least this much MUST be pointed out to the reader in the article, so that there is caution not to associate a continuity of there being a general trend of oppression and tribulation against the Jews from antiquity to present: the viewpoints arising from such an interpretation are misleading, to say the least.
The whole issue of using such titles has become a panacea of sorts. Does one ever use the title "anti-hellenism" to connote an ideological, religious and/or political clash between Greeks and Persians, for instance? Applying such labels merely paints the whole subject a certain color for the scholar a priori, making it taboo to touch upon certain issues from a varying perspective, and it is tiring and infuriating to say the least. But of course, anyone who says such things would be labeled an "anti-semetic", wouldn't they? Anyway, That's my second suggestion: the title should be changed LIKE EVERY OTHER MAJOR HISTORICAL EVENT in this encyclopaeda, to reflect historic periods of ideological and religious clashes between judaism and other cultures or religions (christian, pagan, etc), if we ever want to be academically and historically concerned about any study of this subject and make some progress besides avoiding certain emendations in fear of offending, hence every scholar has to walk on egg-shells.
So, my suggestion, which I leave to the veterans of Wikipedia to decide is:
1.include details of the hellenistic Seleukid ideological-religious clash which resulted to the Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty.
2. change the title of this article to something more scholarly, which reflects the incidence of religious and ideological clashes throughout history between Jews and other cultures, namely Greeks, Romans, and Christians, instead of putting forth a modern-perceived lens of viewing the matter reflected in the title of the article. A simple read of the Jewish encyclopedia online will point in a similar direction. Perhaps "HEBRAIOPHOBIA" needs to be coined here, which does not carry all the political weight of today, and redirect any search on "anti-judaism" there. Any reference to "Anti-anyculture/people" seems to stir problems that hinder academic effort, as it is merely a matter of perspective: was the war that lead to the Hasmonean Dynasty due to "anti-judaism" on the part of Seleukid Greeks, or "anti-hellenism" on the part of Jews, or both? Why choose the latter and not the former? Point made. Should the historiographer choose either of the two terms, he has immediately preambled pre-conceptually the reader in either direction for interpreting the facts. We must abstain from this tradition in tainting facts on either side, in the name of clarity of historiography and scholarship. Otherwise let us make an article called anti-hellinism and begin mentioning the pillaging of any Greek temple by the Christians, and try to connect that with the Ottoman empire's anti-greekism. That's how insane what we are doing here is by even merely inferring that anti-semitism and anti-judaism are connected. These terms have NO historical basis. And for the sake of castration, i have to point out: I AM NOT A JEW HATER. MY gf is jewish, and I am Greek. I just dread the misleading repercussions of such terminology and the heat that emanates from their use, which should be avoided at all costs for the sake of academic scholarship.
____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANTI-JUDAISM IN HELLENISTIC TIMES RESULTING IN HASMONEAN DYNASTY 

message: I have removed this statement:
"The Council of Nicea ended Passover celebrations for Christians."
The first council of Nicea had nothing to do with "ending Passover celebrations."  This is part of the whole bogus Constantine/Catholic church corruption/pagan practices narrative.  I realize this is promoted in a lot of different areas, but it is not true.  Read the actual documents from the Council yourself and you will see it.
Some Christians were still joining Jews in the celebration of their festivals at the time of John Chrysostom a half a century later because he was raging about it in his Eight Homilies Against the Jews.  The Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1438-1445 banned Christians from participating Jewish observances.
The Council of Nicea did was set a common date for the celebration of the Paschal Sunday, Resurrection Sunday, which was the day of First Harvest during the Passover celebration.  The issue was the churches were having to go to the local synagogue to find out when Passover was that year.  This ended up in the Christian celebration of the resurrection being celebrated on different dates in different areas.  
All the Council of Nicea did was eliminate the dependence on the date of the Jewish observation of Passover, which at the time, was still going by lunar observation.  The Jews themselves moved to a set calendar during the time of Maimonides.  The Christian Church chose to calculate the date according to the vernal equinox (which was also the same method used by the Essenes during the time of Christ.)
The question was how to calculate the 15th of Nisan.  Even the Quartodeciman controversy wasn't so much about Passover itself as it was on which to observe, Jesus's death or his resurrection.  The day he died, Nisan 14, was the date the Passover lamb was killed.  Passover officially began on Nissan 15 with the Feast of Unleavened bread.  
It's very odd to me that this page relies so much on one single book written in 1903.
Cma01 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Passover Statement 

message: That is clearly not what Merriam Webster says hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. It probably should be deleted. -- Avi (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, , I've attempted to clean up the lede. -- Kendrick7talk 18:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, your clean up gave the minority opinion full weight; I've readjusted the prose. The citation supports what is now there, in my opinion, although we can probably find more if necessary. -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You used WP:PEACOCK wording to give undue voice to a minority view. I've cleaned this up again. -- Kendrick7talk 04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Kendrick, it is not WP:PEACOCK wording. Most sources do not make any differentiation between antijudaism and antisemitism. It is a minority, perhaps WP:FRINGE, who do. Your language gives more weight to the fringe than the majority meaning, misrepresenting the sources and common usage. -- Avi (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I've asked for consideration and input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion Also, please see discussion at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_34#Pov issue : is anti-Judaism a form of antisemitism ? where I believe consensus is the way I understand, that the predominant usage is that the terms are the same (interchangeable) and that it is a minority opinion that makes the distinction, which is why the lede should reflect that. -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any distinction between the two terms. If someone were to be against Judaism and just want to criticize it, that wouldn't be anti-judaism. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi lies. We were both discussing there and there was no consensus at all between us. He just made his own interpretation of some sources rejecting those that didn't fit his interpretation instead of trying to develop the nuances between these two terms and the evolution of their meaning among the ages. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully, Wikipedia keeps records of very edit and every version. The reader can follow the discussions and see if any falshoods were made, and if so, by whom. -- Avi (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Don't forget each time you claim something to argue why you say so. You mispresented my point of view here above. I am certainly the best person to commment on the fact that you would have done so or not. Ping: do you want to go on this discussion? Pluto2012 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede sentence "as opposed to antisemitism" seems wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anti-Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060519213922/http://www.icjs.org:80/scholars/bachfred.html to http://www.icjs.org/scholars/bachfred.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, bot. Good work. -- Kendrick7talk 04:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Section on Islamic anti-Judaism is currently problematic due to a single source being used (Encyclopedia of Islam) and presented as a standard and universally accepted interpretation of Quranic scripture. The two refs provided are totally vague to begin with, which is bad enough considering the sensitivity of this article and its subject matter, but more so, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest this interpretation is universally accepted, let alone accepted by both Sunni and Shia theologians. Further, where is the evidence this interpretation is legitimately to be considered as "anti-Judaism"? The source used does not identify this view as such. At best, its original research unless clarified and backed by reliable sources. Laval (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic anti-Judaism

message: The definition given in the lead of the article come from Langmuir:
:Anti-Judaism has been called "a total or partial opposition to Judaism — and to Jews as adherents of it — by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior."[1]
This definition is pov-ed and in more of this Langmuir's mind is wrongly presented:
1. Langmuir is a medievalist and studies the Christian anti-Judaism (dating back the Middle Ages) and not something that may be considered as modern. The definition doesn't state so.
2. Even in his area (Middle Ages), Langmuir's ideas are not totally followed and therefore we could not use his definitions to define the concept (even if here Langmuir's mind is mispresented.)
Quite obviously, the definition is pov-ed if we talk about modern times. Why would the Judaic beliefs be genuine ? And why would people who oppose to them consider these practice as inferiors ? They may just consider these as useless.
As a consequence, and more globally, we should define what we want the article to talk about. Is this about the 'historical anti-Judaim' (in which case, Langmuir is relevant) or is this about 'modern or any-time anti-Judaism', in which case the definition is wrong. Also, what are the links and differences with criticism of Judaism that have to be discussed here ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, . Yes, this article is meant to take an historical and theological view on the topic; compare anti-Catholicism, anti-Protestantism, etc. I haven't lately read criticism of Judaism but I presume that fills the goal of a more modern and atheistic take. -- Kendrick7talk 02:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of anti-Judaism 

message: I am planning to add to the Islamic section with information from multiple scholarly articles written by Rabbi Cohen and Rabbi Stillman.  This edit will contain details of anti-Judaism from the Late Middle Ages for example a limit placed on the degree of maintenance on synagogues described by Stillman as a provision of the Pact of Umar.  I am inexperienced in editing articles, so if anyone wants to comment on these changes please post here or on the talk section of my page. Corte128 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff, . This section has deserved expansion for quite a while. Go forth and be WP:BOLD and I will try to keep an eye out. -- Kendrick7talk 02:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . It's good to develop the article but take care that rabbis (potential victims) are not neutral for this matter, so you should mention each time "according to...". By the way, I don't know them but I expect both these rabbis to be reknown and have at least univerisity diplomas, else it is useless and other sources must be found. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be preferable to see who these Rabbis are, of course, but an accepted Rabbinical authority is no less "useless" than an Imam with a degree or ordination from a madrassah or an ordained priest with a theological degree. No one HAS to have a degree from a non-religious institution necessarily. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the Islamic Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001206174000/http://www.chrysostom.org/jews.html to http://www.chrysostom.org/jews.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028160859/http://spanish-inquisition.cuqr.com/spanish-inquisition/ to http://spanish-inquisition.cuqr.com/spanish-inquisition/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems that Anti-Judaism has several different meanings in actual usage:
* Opposition to Judaism as a religion without necessarily being against Jews as a ethnic group. Thus non-practicing/atheist Jews and Christian convert Jews would be treated differently then practicing Jews. Opposition to practicing Jews as individuals or a as group would be all about their religious beliefs/system rather ethnicity. Christian anti-Judaist would still oppose secular/Atheist jews but only due anti-atheism then the fact they are Jews. Of course one could be both anti-Judaist in the literal sense and anti-Semitic, though they are not inherently tied together in this sense. This is the literal meaning of term.
* Historical opposition to Judaism as a religion by the Catholic Church due to theological conflicts but not necessarily anti-semitism. In this instance, it's more about the historical belief by the Catholic Church that Christianity superseded Judaism in God's eyes and that God wanted all Jews to convert to it.
* Another terms for Catholic anti-semitism. There is the view that Catholic anti-Judaism was not just an issue of ideological conflict by also included strong anti-semetic beliefs. 
* Simply a synonym for anti-semitism. Some argue that one can't be apposed to Judaism as a religion without being against Jews as an ethnicity or even if that is technically possible most if not all those that try claim a distinction are really just anti-semites trying to cover up their anti-Semitism by falsely claiming they only oppose Judaism not Jews as an ethnic group.
I don't know what reliable sources have to say about each of these different definitions but from a strictly logical perspective one can be opposed the Judaism as a religious ideology with being against Jews a people. Obviously there is a difference between merely expressing opposition to Judaism on religious or atheist/agnostic grounds as apposed to actively trying oppress Judaism and take away practicing Jews religious freedom. The article should discuss what appears to be the fact that the term "Anti-Judaism" is often used in literal sense, much like anti-Semitism doesn't mean literally "against semites". If we are going to say in the article that Anti-Judaism is not the same as scholarly criticism of Judaism, then we should make that clear in the article itself. I propose a separate section at the top desiccating in general the term "anti-Judaism" and it's various meanings in actual usage over time, and any controversy over how we define the term (i.e. Does Anti-Judaism = anti-semitism?) in brief. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Part of the overlap-with-anti-semitism problem was that the Bible itself described the Jews as "chosen people", or a chosen race, when now we know that they are largely similar genetically to other middle eastern groups. Anti-Judaism should perhaps be described as views held by some members of other religions? The trend now is not to take any one religion as absolute truth.78.16.4.13 (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The book of Exodus, chapter 19, calls them the "chosen people", but only on condition of accepting the covenant.  They are NOT chosen because of their DNA, and the prophets continually remind the Israelites of later generations that they are NOT 'genetically' stronger, mightier, or better than the other nations, but on the contrary smaller and weaker.   Anyone can convert into the faith, and anyone born into it can voluntarily leave or be "cut off".  The Hebrew bible does not deny physicality and ancestral identity, nor does it essentialize it.  Christianity tends to the former, and Racialists and anti-semites tend to the latter, and both tend toward Antijudaism.  But this covenantal definition of "Jewish peoplehood" is the anthropology of the hebrew bible, and Judaism of today elaborates on it. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

text: Proposal to merge, redefine, and deprecate RFC  Jaredscribe (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The different concepts of Anti-Judaism 

message: as an article is not bad, but should renamed or merged into Anti-Judaism_in_early_Christianity, or into this one, IMHO, or we are having a content fork.
 should probably be renamed Antijudaism in Islam, IMHO.
Consensus of scholars is that racial antisemitism emerged in the 1800's as a distinct ideology, but racist jew-hate also was part of the Spanish Inquisition.  Nirenberg holds that anti-jewish theologies of supersession were translated into the discourse of "Critical reason" in the enlightenment, and has mapped this out persuasively from Kant to Hegel and beyond.  This hasn't been dealt with in the other articles, so I've added a section header for it here.  Please expand. 
Thank you for accepting my edits to the lede so far.  My vision for this article is to use WP:Summary style and WP:Transclusion for the child articles, and to include notable meta-analysis from scholars of the trans-generational historic pattern.
Lets ask questions and debate terminology, definitions, and distinctions on this discussion thread.  Most of the discussion up till now has been without the benefit of David Nirenberg's comprehensive and systematic 2013 treatment of the subject, which we can hope will settle a few tedious debates and improve the quality of our discussion.  Lets all renew a commitment to WP:Civility, and believe that the future can be better than the past. Thank you all for helping to improve Wikipedia!Jaredscribe (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal to merge, redefine, and deprecate RFC  Jaredscribe (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The Perennial question: Antijudaism and Antisemitism, whats the difference?

message: The lede currently has a definition of "AntiJudaism" by Gavin Langmuir from 1971.  Here is an alternative I composed from a composite of sources cited in the article below:
This what I think is the basic proposition of the article, that should be included as its lede sentence.  Thank you all for helping improve the EncyclopediaJaredscribe (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: =Definition of AntiJudaism for the Lede

message: Just a question by me if if one is being anti casinos if one is then also antijudaist or better to say
generalizationally antijudaist then?
I know that Christians in general (had many nonradicals at my school, they all oppose Casinos, gambling and the lotteries also)
and even many Muslim believers are antigambling as a whole!
Reasons mentioned by Christians: gambling is in relationship to freemasonry, satanist occultism, the occult in general and judaism and even zionism, zionist right-wing extremism (mainly banking Jews) and even the n**i regime plays a role in them hating it.
Reasons mentioned by Muslims: gambling is in relationship to freemasonry, Jews and Rotary Clubs and therefore as much hate-preached.
Is gaming also a religious belief system all by itself? What also is the name of the GOD in the 777 Slot machines also?
--2001:16B8:5792:C000:5DA9:BEE9:B63C:C94E (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it about Casinos that make them essentially "Jewish", other than the mere fact that muslims and many christians reject them both?  Muslims also don't eat pork and most christians don't eat dogs.  By your logic, it seems to follow that pigs and dogs are essentially "Jewish", in some mysterious way, even though Jews also abstain from both.  Is that what you think?  If you would clarify the grounds for your equation of the two, then I could answer your question as to whether the peculiar form of "anti-casinoism" proposed here is also a form of "anti-judaism". Jaredscribe (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  is anticasinoism also generalizationally antijudaist? 

message: In the meantime since I was here, someone added a set of three definitions from Douglas O'Hare (presumably christian POV), the article was in a German journal I couldn't read.  Rather than disputing it, I left it.  I also added explicit attributions to the Langmuir definition, and to my summary of Nirenberg mentioned above, to take it out of wiki-voice and address any concerns about neutrality.  Since we don't have any consensus on a definition of what is proving to be a very WP:Broad concept article, its best to let them all stand and try to encapsulate in the lede sentence(s) something that they all have in common.  I've endeavored to do so with this WP:Bold addition:
Anti-Judaism describes a range of historic and current ideologies based on total or partial opposition to Judaism, on denial or abrogation of the Sinai covenant, and replacement of Jewish people by another religion or ideology held to have superceded them as "light to the nations" and as God's covenanted people. There have been christian, islamic, and enlightenment rationalist variations on this theme, according to Nirenberg. 
Agreements, disagreements?  What do Langmuir, O'Hare, and others have to say in response to this, if anything?  Vatican II started to walk back this doctrine in Nostra Aetate, which could be mentioned later, but it had been orthodox catholocism since the third century or before, and it remains the doctrine of nearly all mainline and evangelical churches today.  An Islamic or post-Islamic source would be helpful in clarifying the nature of the enmity there.
Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring 2023 Lede Re-write

message: The original christians were jews and the current jews are as jewish as christians they are rabbinic jews who emerged after christianity 93.106.8.237 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural apropriation are ylu kiddinh