Talk:Judaism/Archive 5

message: This comment is moved here from Talk:Jews
How about a section detailing the Beit Din system. Also at least a little section listing the different sects, within Chareidi, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. like for example Chabadnik,
:Warning: JOKE Chabad: the religion most similar to modern Judaism. Sorry, couldn't resist it.Gzuckier 20:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Beit Din

message: * Home Page of "Jew Watch"  The "anti-Jewish" critics of past and of current "Jewish/Zionist" Supremacism ]
* Judaism and Jewish Apologetics - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org
* Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993
* David Duke's critical historical analysis of "Jewish Supremacy" and its impact on the modern world
*http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance  Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years]
Editorial Reviews 
From Booklist:
Israel Shahak, who came to Israel in 1945 after surviving the concentration camp in Belsen during the Holocaust, contends that the potential for Israel's right-wing Jewish religious movements to seize power represents a threat to the peace of Israel and to the Zionist movement. 
He posits that Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other people and states in the Middle East. 
Shahak, who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, condemns what he sees as discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel. The real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism, which must include the critique of the Jewish past. 
Most disturbing, Shahak insists that the religion, in its classical and talmudic form, is "poisoning minds and hearts." 
This controversial attack of Israel by a Jew is bound to alarm Jewry worldwide. George Cohen --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.'''
REVISED CRITICAL LINKS:
*  Freud's criticism of the ancient origins of Judaism and how it de-evolved away from the original ethical Judaism also later advocated by the prophets
*Jews as a chosen people
*Jewish ethnocentrism
* David Duke's critical historical analysis of "Jewish Supremacy" and its impact on the modern world
*Anti-Semitism
*http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html Judaism and Jewish Apologetics] - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org
* Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993
*http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance  Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years]
----
First, let's put away the red-herring of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  I am not taking any stand on this position here, nor does the article.  It is appropriate for another article.  Anyone who brings it up is clouding the issues here.  If you are doing so and do not understand why it is unproductive I will explain it to yo; if you are deliberately clouding the issues know that you are using an anti-Semitic tactic.  Second, that a website has the highest googles must -- as with all facts -- be taken in context.  Anti-Semites link and search certain pages specifically to influence their position in Google.  So, finally, the link in question is anti-semitic and has no place in this article.  Period.  If you feel wikipedians should have access to it, link it to the page on anti-semitism. Slrubenstein
"First, let's put away the red-herring of the Israeli Palestinian conflict."
There is nothing "red-herring" about this conflict, whatsoever. 
It is at the very heart of the CENTRAL ISSUE of Jewish vs Non-Jewish relations.
"I am not taking any stand on this position here, nor does the article.  It is appropriate for another article."
That is only your own pov opinion.
"Anyone who brings it up is clouding the issues here."
Again, on the contrary, as it is actually at the very heart of the CENTRAL ISSUE of Jewish verses Non-Jewish relations.
"If you are doing so and do not understand why it is unproductive I will explain it to you;"
Let me hear your explaination to understand as to why it is "unproductive".
"if you are deliberately clouding the issues know that you are using an anti-Semitic tactic."
No one is actually "clouding" any issues, except for you, in your falsely calling any such valid criticisms as being "Anti-semitism", which it obviously and clearly and factually is not.  
"Second, that a website has the highest googles must -- as with all facts -- be taken in context."
The context only being that very many people consider it worthy enough and google does rank it according to how many people link to it and reference it.
"Anti-Semites link and search certain pages specifically to influence their position in Google."
That is only your own pov opinion, as is your pov slander of "Anti-semites".
"So, finally, the link in question is anti-semitic and has no place in this article.  Period.  If you feel wikipedians should have access to it, link it to the page on anti-semitism. Slrubenstein"
You and your ilk falsely labeling any "criticism" of Judaism as ONLY being "anti-semitic" is what is actually a "red-herring" and is deliberately and falsely and hypocritically being used only to "cloud the issues" and to limit any productive debate and to avoid anyone actually getting to the real root of any such issues and solving these problems and relations. Those that suffer from such psychological projections should "GO AWAY!" and for the sake of World Peace.-PV
:What makes you think that the judaism article is unique in being able to remain w/o criticism? You point about palistinians and such is valid. Your second point is flat out wrong, period. Sam Spade 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Will it be acceptable if it is labelled as anti-semitic?  Sam and Paul, would you accept this label if they keep the link? - Tεxτurε 16:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: So, you don't find it to be acceptable criticism.  Worth a thought, anyway. - Tεxτurε 17:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: How would you define acceptable criticism?  (I'm on neither side of this but looking for the boundaries.) - Tεxτurε 17:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Not referring to the links in question, I can see plenty of non-Jewish criticisms that would belong here.  You do not need to be of a religion in order to have valid criticisms.  In fact, I would think that a balanced article would need criticisms from outside the object in question.  (Atheist analysis, perhaps.)  I do agree with you that slurs and slandar alone are not criticisms.  Since this page is on Judaism I am sure that there are non-Jewish criticisms that belong in the critics section.  (The current links aside) can you tell me that there could never be a non-Jewish criticism that would belong on a Judaism article?  Are you of the opinion that only Jews can criticize Judaism?  If so, we will have some issues on an Islam article. - Tεxτurε 18:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Good response.  The last line is a good evaluator of criticism of Jews but not of Judaism. My understanding is that the term refers to the religion and now the people.  (Somehow the culture is in there but still this is really about the religion since you can be Jewish and not believe in Judaism.)  I have listed to a woman named Irshad Manji speak on Islam and her belief that the Quran was not written by God.  She has much to say about Jews that are not well received by Moslems and much against Israel that is well received.  Do you read criticisms from non-Jews?  Have you found any that are credible? - Tεxτurε 19:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I think its one thing to have *theological*  or philosophical criticism of the Jewish religion (and this can be internal or external, I have no problem with a link from a Christian viewpoint arguing, for example, that the Jewish religion is wrong not to accept Christ etc or from a Islamic viewpoint arguing why Jews should accept Islam or why Jews should accept Buddah or what have you or a secular or athiestic viewpoint on why Jewish religious beliefs do not hold water). I think it's also valid to have criticisms, internal or external, say of the Haskalah and moves towards Jewish assimilation or criticisms of Jewish nationalism (though if it gets into Zionism it belongs in that article). But that's all quite different from anti-Semitic Jew-baiting or Jew-hatred, ie criticisms that have no scholarly or intellectual basis (or even factual basis) but are just propaganda attempts at spreading hatred against Jews rather than engaging in a serious debate on Jewish issues. Jew-Watch brings nothing to the debate, it is not "criticism" but abuse and vitriol and it is ridden with factual errors and distortions. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should list it in an article on Judaism as some sort of source of either information or criticism. If it belongs anywhere it's in an article on Anti-Semitism as an example of the practice. AndyL 21:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the responses.  I agree that jewwatch is inappropriate.  I am glad that critical links will remain.  I hope to see at least one more link that is truly critical of Judaism (not jews).  I think an internal criticism would be most appropriate. - Tεxτurε 03:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: You've got the wrong page, check these out 
*Jews as a chosen people
*Jewish ethnocentrism
*Anti-Semitism
the stuff your talking about here is better suited for these pages. p.s. be careful! Remember wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility. Sam Spade 18:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Paul 

message: With reference to Wikipedia:Lead section, I have moved the reference to the Jew article to a "disambiguation line" in italics and indented, and added a header for "introduction" to create a "lead section". Presently, this is small; perhaps the lead section should comprise 2-3 paragraphs, as suggested in Wikipedia:Lead section. <BR>JFW | T@lk 16:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Can someone work a reference to Imitatio dei into the article? -- Itai 06:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imitatio dei 

message: Does this article really need all of its many external links? There seem to be too many: is it not in danger of turning into a link hub for all of Judaism? --138.37.188.109 08:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links - too many? 

message: The Jew article has better links on Judaism; should they just be copied to here? Jayjg 15:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Jew]] article has better links on Judaism 

message: The Jewish Encyclopedia has now passed into the public domain. Feel free to legally cut and paste to you hearts' content, for this or any other Judaism-related articles.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/
Quadell (talk) 19:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Don't we know it :-( JFW | T@lk 21:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jewish Encyclopedia 

message: I have removed this new paragraph:
:Unlike most other identities (including other races and religions) Judaism is not a self-enclosed and bounded phenomenon (A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity 243-244). During the Golden Age of German intellectualism, when religious prejudice came to be considered a mark of insufficient intellectual development although racism was still considered rational, an attempt was made to untie this knot in the case of the Jews, by referring to the religion as Judaism, the people as Palestinians, and opposition to the people (not the religion) as antisemitism, as can be seen in writings of the time by such as Kant. That use of the term Palestinian was adopted by European Zionists, largely nonreligious, who emigrated to the Holy Land, but has since fallen into disuse as the term is now almost invariably used to describe the Arabic residents of the region. The term antisemite, however, has survived mostly intact, although there is some debate today over whether it should be extended to other nations regarded as Semites.
The problem is that this new paragraph is a discursus which takes us far away from the main topic, onto a 100 year old terminology which had never been used previously, and has not been used since. This has no place in the main article on Judaism. The last two sentences are also highly problematic for other reasons. For one, there is no such thing as a Semitic people; this issue has been discussed endlessly on Wikipedia!  (There are, of course, Semitic languages.) RK 01:22, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
OK; it's not my position, nor do I assume it's Wikipedia's, it was the response of German thinkers 100 years ago to the question posed above 'Is Judaism a religion or a people or what?'
Gzuckier 02:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently removed paragraph 

message: I reverted a recent change.  Judaism is the first recorded monotheistic religion -- and the article explains, a little lower down, what the significance is.  This is an uncontroversial fact that ought not to be deleted.  It is possible that there were other monotheistic religions before Judaism, but we have no record of them -- which is why the fact is "recorded," not just the first monotheistic religion.  This is an important fact, because in Judaism's own myth of itself, its rejection of non-monotheistic religions was central to its creation.  The compartative study of ancient texts confirm this -- many of the changes the Biblical authors made to the myth of Utnapishtim, in writing the story of Noah and the flood, involved a shift from polytheism to monotheism.  By the way, it is worth discussing changes before making them. Slrubenstein
:Akhenaten's monotheistic cult of Aten is recorded, and it's older than monotheistic Judaism. It's been discussed at the top of this talk page. Ausir 20:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, Zoroastrism comes first or at the same time period. An absolute claim that "Judaism is the first recorded monotheistic religion" is just a POV.  – Kaveh (talk) 12:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  monotheism