Talk:Jews/Archive 6

Silent Holocaust
"If everything is a "Holocaust" then nothing is a Holocaust" -- unh-unh, Jayig. That's a POV. The fact that some people have called it a Holocaust is a fact. The fact that some people believe that trivializes the Holocaust is also a fact. Both should be reported. Jdavidb 21:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The term "Holocaust" is used to refer to everything these days, as is "Nazi". Intermarriage is not the same as starving people to death, or gassing children and burning them in ovens.  Implying as much trivialized the suffering of the Holocaust victims.
 * In any event, the view that intermarriage is a "Holocaust" is highly POV. Jayjg 22:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Er, yeah. And we handle POV around here by contextualizing it, reporting who holds the view. (The fact that the hold the view is a fact; the view itself is an opinion.) Who exactly says this? Some significant Jewish leaders? (Leaders significant to somebody, that is, though certainly not to everybody.) Jdavidb 03:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The term "Holocaust" is always POV. Sam [Spade] 22:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No. The term Holocaust, in and of itself, simply refers to the period of time that Jews suffered under Hitler's power. Jayjg's position hits the nail perfectly.--Josiah 23:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 1st definition "Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire." This term has become best known regarding the circumstances of Jews during and just before WWII, buts it's in no way inappropriately used elsewhere, esp. in regards to extensive burning, or other great destruction, sacrifice, slaughter etc... Sam [Spade] 04:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * When a Jew intermarries, what is the "extensive burning, or other great destruction, sacrifice, slaughter etc."? Jayjg 17:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually my only point was that its ok to use the word "holocaust" in other ways, and that its not owned by Jews (Hellenic holocaust for example). As far as this intermarriage thing, it sounds like clear-cut anti-goyim racism to me, suggesting that marriage to non-Jews is similar to death, etc.... It should be in the article tho, I have a jewish friend whose always rag-ing about it, alternated w bragging about hassidim birth rates and so forth. Sam [Spade] 02:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I see this also as a debasement of language. People want to use the most extreme term in order to garner attention for their opinions but language, like water, seeks its own level, and the result is that the original term loses meaning. Ghetto was once the place where Jews were forced to live, now it is simply a neighborhood with a poor minority population; diaspora was the result of a specific historical event, now it describes even the willing migration of ethnic groups; genocide used to mean mass murder of a people with the objective of destroying them, now we talk of "cultural" genocide. Frankly, equating the murder of 3/7 of the Jewish people with a Jew's free choice to marry out is disturbing. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If the net result is that millions of Jews are completely lost to their people forever through assimilation then it quite truly is a SILENT Holocaust, no-one is saying it's a bloody Holocaust, but the historical and genealogical result is the same: No Jews remain alive as Jews, as over 80% of the children of intermarriages marry non-Jews. IZAK 06:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "The net result." So the central lesson of the Holocaust is not that 6 million Jews, 3/7 of the entire Jewish population of the world, were murdered, but that 6 million Jews were "lost to their people." This is what the comparison begs. Perhaps more children of intermarriage would marry Jews if the religious Jewish community were more accepting of Jew's marriage partners and their children. As it is, if half those "marrying out" are men (good guess) their children are not considered Jewish anyway, so what incentive have they to preserve Judaism or marry Jews. Rejection does not breed love. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia: Please explain why Jews who reject their birthright by marrying out of the faith should then be "re-welcomed" into the Jewish people because they desire to "have their cake and eat it"? It is illogical that one can cling to a gentile and simultaneously ask a fellow Jew to give it the "OK" with a "stamp of approval". You know, in legal terms, if one were a United States citizen and deliberately defied the laws governing that citizenship, then that act of defiance is termed and act of "renouncing" one's citizenship. This is what an inter-married Jew does when marrying a non-Jew, they are in effect renouncing their "citizenship", if not for themselves then certainly for and by their children who only follow in their parents' footsteps. It is a cop-out to "blame" the so-called "religious" Jews for "rejecting" anyone. In any case it's just not true that the religious are rejecting, on the contrary, the religious are reaching out and trying to bring back alienated even inter-married Jews and put a stop to the "Silent Holocaust" as seen from one prime Orthodox outreach practitioner Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald and his National Jewish Outreach Program. IZAK 07:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, IZAK, I wasn't addressing the issue of out-married Jews wanting to "have their cake and eat it, too." I don't disagree that they may be perceived as abandoning their community, and have no standing to demand acceptance. But it is the Jewish community that considers this a crisis, so is it reasonable for the community to expect the outmarried to cure the situation? Let me address in particular the issue of matrilinear descent. Religious Judaism is willing to say, notwithstanding lack of observance, that the child of a Jewish woman is Jewish. Let me blunt. The materialistic reason for matrilineal descent is one of the oldest in history: have you ever heard the old phrase "What Every Woman Knows"? The answer is "who the father of her baby is"--a core issue in distrust of women. But let's put aside casting aspersions on women's chastity and cut to the chase: matrilineal descent guarantees that a child has at least one Jewish parent; patrilineal doesn't. If that fact were acknowledged, and the fear was that "Jewish genes" (as it were) are not in the child, we now can reliably establish paternity. What would be the argument against that? -- Cecropia | Talk 08:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia: We are going way off on tangents here. Whichever way you slice it, the bottom line is that due to assimilation millions of Jews are being "lost" (or whatever word you want for fatal hemorrhage of millions of Jews as each decade's "National Jewish Population Survey" in the USA shows.) The statistics don't lie in this case unfortunately. Who is to blame is a matter of opinion. Most assimilating Jews don't give too much conscious thought to what they are doing and what is happening to them or to their off-spring when they drift into non-Jewish society and marry out of the faith to people who have no inkling what Judaism is about and thus together both partners contribute to the further extinguishing of Jewish life. The embracing of the "patrilineal descent" doctrine by the Reform Jews has not helped them stem the tide. It may have bought some time, but the writing is on the wall, and they know it, that without real Torah education and observance of the 613 Mitzvot they will be nothing but the "relics" in a metaphorical museum of history's "extinct" species much like the one that Hitler had planned to build once he had killed out the world's Jews. As Rabbi Buchwald correctly says, metaphorically, "carbon monoxide" (the invisible "silent" killer) is as just as deadly as the Zyklon B gas the Nazis used in their extermination camps. So ALL Jews need to wake up and smell the coffee and not die out due to any kind of Holocausts, be they Nazi (violent) or cultural (silent). IZAK 09:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * IZAK: you (and others) are entirely entitled to your opinion on this, but clearly opinionated words don't belong in the narrative voice of the article. It would be perfectly appropriate to cite some well-respected rabbi or some internationally known organization or some important author as calling this a "silent holocaust". It is not appropriate to put it in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel 14:40, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * IZAK: To the core of the instant discussion, I still can't agree with the metaphor that "Dead Jew = Jew dead to Judaism." But while piousness, Torah study and observance of the Mizvot certainly would reinforce Judaism in those who practice it, lack of these is not at the core of the decline of Jewish marriage, IMO. The core (in the US, at least) is acceptance. In the last 30 or so years, Christians have come to accept Jews as appropriate marriage partners (the easy part) and the relatives of the Christian spouses have come to accept, if not always be thrilled by, their kins marriage choice, and they no longer expect the Jewish partner to convert, nor do they feel empowered (as they once did) to demand that the children be raised in the family's denomination. The result, looking at the broad society is (according to a survey I read a while back) that while perhaps 2% of the US population is Jewish, 7% of Americans are themselves Jewish, married to a Jew, or have a close family member who is married to a Jew. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of intermarriage. The point is, the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust were real people, who were killed in many horrible ways.  The Jews who are "lost" due to intermarriage are theoretical people, who might not have existed in any case, if their parents had remained childless, or who might have been "lost" to other things like assimilation, conversion, etc.  A theoretical Jew who might or might not have come into existence is nothing like a real Jew who was gassed to death and burned in an oven. Jayjg 16:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. -- Jmabel 18:27, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

You guys are still trying to argue whether or not this is an appropriate use of the word Holocaust. That is not for Wikipedia to decide. (And, for the record, I agree with you that using the word Holocaust in this way cheapens, trivializes, and demeans the deaths of millions of Jews.) All that matters is this: is the use of the term "silent holocaust" a one-shot thing, something that one random guy somewhere once said, or is it a significant view, like, say, a phrase often repeated by Orthodox rabbis. If it was a one-time quote by somebody, it probably is not worth reporting in Wikipedia. But if Orthodox rabbis often scold Jews for intermarriage and say they are causing a "silent holocaust," then Wikipedia should say (somewhere, if not in this article), "Orthodox Jews consider the decline in Jewish population due to intermarriage an extreme tragedy, often referring to it as 'the silent holocaust'." NPOV means we don't debate the merits of particular points of view; we just contextualize them. Jdavidb 18:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, guys; let me put it another way. As Jews, are you constantly hearing Jewish leaders berate your community for intermarriage and lambast you for causing a "silent holocaust" and thinking, "For crying out loud; get a grip! Nobody died here!  How dare you compare this issue to something so serious!"? If so, then the fact that people use the term is significant and should be reported, NPOV, in Wikipedia (along with the reaction of Jews who do not agree, i.e., that this is demeaning to those who actually suffered in the real holocaust).


 * Oh, the phrase "Silent Holocaust" is used all the time, by all sorts of people. Most often it's used by Christians in relation to abortion.  Some Jews use it the same way regarding abortions in Israel, others to Jewish assimilation, others to Jewish conversion to Christianity.  It's also used to refer to the genocide in Sudan, to the effects of Islamization, sanctions in Iraq, victims of famine, victimes of clitoridectomy, victims of AIDS, Tanzanian "witch" killings, the poisoning of American citizens by chemical industries, SUV rollovers, really almost any situation you can imagine.  And yes, some Jews use it to refer to intermarriage as well.  That said, if you asked most Orthodox (or other) Jews what the "Silent Holocaust" was, they'd look at you with a blank stare. Jayjg 03:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did see references to the use of the term for almost all of the other things you describe (probably including the SUV thing). And if it is true that most Orthodox would give you a blank stare if you mentioned the term, then it is probably true that the article has no need to mention it. However, I think that is what we should have argued about in the first place: whether or not the term is used to any significant degree; not whether or not the term is appropriate.

Thanks. Jdavidb 13:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Like Jayjg, I have heard the phrase "silent holocaust" only with reference to abortion, and primarily by Christians. However, I think Jayjg is missing a bigger point, which is that among Jews there really are important differences as to the meaning and importance of the Holocaust. Traditionally, life after death has not been a big issue for Jews, and I think the reason is that God's covenant is with the Jewish people, and the sign of the covenant is the continued existence and growth of the Jewish people (thus the power of thc chant/song "am yisrael chai"). I think this also explains why so many Jewish parents are so obsessive about their children't Jewish identity and their children's marrying other Jews -- God's promise is at stake. If you do not know what I mean, I suggest it is because you and probably most of your Jewish friends are relatively secular. But if you have spent much time in even moderately observant communities (I mean, not even necessarily Orthodox) I think you will know what I mean. In any case, I think the conviction that the horror of the Holocaust was the practically assembly-line slaughter of living individuals is something that is entirely understandable within a secular point of view. Certainly, religious Jews too share a horror at millions of people killed. BUT it is possible that secular people, including secular Jews, would find it hard to understand or even imagine that for religious Jews, the real horror of the Holocaust was not six million individual deaths but the loss to the Jewish nation, and the possibility that God's promise had been revoked and the covenant compromised. This is one of the points philosopher Emil Fackenheim was making when he devised the 614th commandment, which is not to give Hitler a posthumous victory. Total assimilation would be giving Hitler a posthumous victory, because even if millions of people born Jewish were still alive, the Jewish people -- Judaism -- would die. You do not have to agree with this, Jayjg (or Sam Spade or others), but it is a valid (in the sense that it ought to be represented in this article) point of view -- and other points of view (e.g. that the horror of the Holocaust was in the killing of individuals, and intermarriage is in no way comparable) are precisely that: other points of view. But if they are the point of view only of various editors (Jayjg, Sam Spade) then our policy is not to represent them in the encyclopedia. On the other hand, if any of you know of published critics of Fackenheim, or of this point of view, by all means include it! Slrubenstein


 * I agree that NPOV is best achieved by including all verifiable, encyclopedic POV's. Sam [Spade] 20:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Total assimilation would be giving Hitler a posthumous victory Nothing personal, but that is a sad perception. Hitler was not trying to kill the Jewish religion. He was trying to kill the Jewish people. Human beings! He didn't ask Jews whether they were religious or secular. This is what made Hitler unique from previous pogromists. If you want to see Hitler's real posthumous victory, visit Germany, where I have relatives. See the streets that you may have seen in black-and-white newsreels and know that they are now Judenrein. I apologize for shouting, but I think too many posters on Wikipedia were born too long after World War II. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well said. -- Jmabel 21:39, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Not well-said. Cecropia doesn't understand Fackenheim's -- or the many many people who share his views understanding of the isomorphism between the Jewish people and the Jewish religion (or my own comment, which made it crystal clear that I was talking about the Jewish people and Hitler -- I guess you aren't Jewish but "Am Yisrael Chai" means "the people of Israel live."), nor their view of the Holocaust (which many, like Fackenheim, lived through). In any event, if Cecropia wants to discuss his or her own views on the matter, take it to a chat-room. This page is for improving the article, and NPOV means representing multiple views. Cecropia can be as ignorant, dismissive, and condescending as s/he wishes but it just doesn't matter what Cecropia (or I) think about this view. It is an important view and must be represented. Slrubenstein


 * I hardly know how to respond in a way that would reach you. I am obviously discussing my opinion, but what makes it inherently less suitable for article talk (as opposed to a chatroom) than your opinion or Fackenheim's opinion, for that matter? I have the experience of having grown up in a mostly Jewish neighborhood in New York City in the '50s and '60s, of having many Jewish freinds and acquaintances, including two Holocaust survivors, one of whom has been very generous in sharing his perspective of his and others' experiences before, during and after. I have seen Judaism become polarized. In the '50s most Jews who were my playmates and friends were Orthodox. That is, they went to Orthodox synagogues, didn't ride on Saturday or the High Holy Days, kept Kosher at home, participated in Jewish cultural life, and were all Bar Mitzvah (the boys--there was no ceremony for girls, then). But they attended public school, didn't study Torah, and didn't cover their heads, except at the Temple. Were these not Jews? Hasids were curiosities to them. Now I'm not criticizing anyone's practice, but it seems that there is now a minute concern of "who is a Jew" that demands of some, and excludes others; and at the same time those who consider themselves most Jewish decry the shrinkage of Jewry.


 * I understand the concept of "the body of the Jewish people was reduced by Hitler's murders, and is also reduced by intermarriage." What is the value being expressed here to use the term "holocaust" for both? What is being preserved? Numbers of Jews? Then why so hostile to acceptance of the children of Jewish men and their shiksehs if the mother is raising them Jewish and the children believe they are Jews? What do I tell my friend, Holocaust (the one where you became an ex-Jew by Zyklon-B, not by marrying out) survivor, whose family was relgiously Orthodox but secular in their dealings with the world? His family: mother, father, himself, sister and brother, all went to the camps. The men survived, but mother and daughter perished. Do I say, "well, if your own son marries a goy, it is the same thing, as far as Judaism are concerned? Or do I comfort him by saying "well, at least your mother and daughter died as Jews. How much worse if they had converted." -- Cecropia | Talk 17:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is it an "important" view? Must every view of every Jew on intermarriage, or anything else, be represented in this article? Jayjg 20:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought from the context this was clear: I am not claiming every view on intermarriage must be included. I am vlaiming this is a very important view of the Holocaust. Within the Jewish community (and beyond it, I think) Fackenheim is one of the most important post-Holocaust philosophers, perhaps the most important. And he is conceptualizing in terms of a philosophical tradition (specifically, Spinoza and Hegel via Rosenzweig) a view held by many observant Jews. If such a well-established view leads people to articulate a view on intermarriage, it is worth including in the article. Slrubenstein


 * If it's an important view of the Holocaust, then perhaps it belongs in the Holocaust article. Jayjg 18:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True enough. But certainly not a reason why it cannot be mentioned here, with a link to the Holocaust article. Slrubenstein

Original source of "Silent Holocaust"
Originally the article merely stated that "critics" refered to assimilation as a "Silent Holocaust", and it was not presented as a POV by an editor. Later it was expanded (and then deleted) after a source was cited:
 * "This phenomenon is known as "intermarriage" and is the leading cause for the shrinkage of almost all Jewish populations in Western countries since World War II, it has been called the Silent Holocaust  by communal leaders such as Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald of the National Jewish Outreach Program (NJOP)."

Many Orthodox rabbis refer to assimilation as a type of "Holocaust". And obviously Orthodox rabbis and their followers are NOT speaking about the SUV's and whatnot. As for the world's almost two billion Christians, who would expect that they should know about "Jewish problems" when they are so busy being Christian? So it is natural that their concern is about the abortion "Holocaust" since that is what their clergy talks about and not about the Jewish World War II Holocaust. And since this is an article about Jews, it should follow, that when the word Holocaust is being used it firstly refers to the original Holocaust of the Jews (not SUVs etc), but can also refer to any national catastrophe that befalls the Jews as a people, and assimilation counts as a national (demographic) catastrophe. Hence, the phrase "Silent Holocaust" is logical, justified, and accurate according to the Orthodox leaders who make use of the term. IZAK 20:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You were not able to quote from the original source. You assert that intermarriage would be a Silent Holocaust. --Vasile 01:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vasile: Ok, I see that you cannot read or understand links, so let me spell it out in full here. I cited the source, which appeared so:, and since you have not bothered to click on it, it is this (same thing): http://www.njop.org/html/Newsletters_and_articles.html#a1, it's from an article written in 1992 by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald of NJOP, a well-known rabbi (respected by all streams of Judaism for his outreach work to secular Jews) in the USA who says (this is from the conclusion of the article):
 * "There is a Holocaust taking place in America right now. We can't hear it, because there are no barking dogs; we can't see it because there are no goose-stepping Nazi soldiers and no concentration camps; we can't smell it because there are no gas chambers. But the net result is exactly the same. If we fail to act now, if we fail to share with our young Jews the beauty and meaningfulness of Jewish life and Jewish heritage, there will be few Jews left in the next generation who will even know that there ever was a Holocaust of European Jews. The "silent Holocaust" will have done its job. Hitler will have emerged victorious. (Ephraim Buchwald is the Director of the National Jewish Outreach Program. He is the Founding President of the Association for Jewish Outreach Professionals, and rabbi of the Beginners Service at Lincoln Square Synagogue in New York City.) Reprinted in updated form from The Los Angeles Times, April 28, 1992."

That is taken from the NJOP website at http://www.njop.org/ I did NOT "make this up" and it deserves to be in a section on modern present-day intermarriage which, together with apostacy (converting to another religion), results in the phenomenon called "the vanishing Jew/s". IZAK 01:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In the article, Ephraim Buchwald equivalated the failure "to share with our young Jews the beauty and meaningfulness of Jewish life and Jewish heritage" with "Silent Holocaust". Your personal assertation about intermarriage is not based on this article. --Vasile 04:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vasile: You are obviously having trouble with English meanings in reading Buchwald's article in its entirety and understanding that he is talking about the total picture of assimilation including intermarriage (he is not talking just about youth seeking "beauty and meaning") or fascination with Holocaust memorials, either way, such as when he states (in the same article) at the outset:
 * "...But obsessing over the Holocaust is exacting a great price. It is killing America's Jews. According to the 1990 Council of Jewish Federations National Jewish Population Survey, record numbers of Jews are now walking away from Judaism. Two million American Jews no longer acknowledge being Jewish. One million American Jewish children are being raised as non-Jews, or with no religion at all. And 625,000 Jews or their children have converted out of Judaism. A recent Gallup organization survey of religions in America reported that while there seems to be a resurgence among Protestants and Catholics, Jews as a group are drifting away from their religion. There are many reasons for this wholesale abandonment of Jewish identity. Our grandparents hoped that America would be a melting pot for future generations; instead it has become a meltdown!"

When he says that One million American Jewish children are being raised as non-Jews he is talking about the RESULTS of assimilation and intermarriage, that is very clear (except to you for some reason). In other words, assimilation and intermarriage equals the One million American Jewish children [that] are being raised as non-Jews (because children come from MARRIAGES) which equals a silent Holocaust as 625,000 Jews or their children have converted out of Judaism. (1990 survey estimates). This is not hard to understand. IZAK 08:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong; in this article, the sentence "One million American Jewish children are being raised as non-Jews, or with no religion at all" is not about intermarriage. --Vasile 14:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The term "Holocaust" is "logical, justified, and accurate" to everyone who uses the term for whatever purpose they use. Orthodox Rabbis also refer to abortion as the "Silent Holocaust" http://www.jewsformorality.org/israel_abortion.htm, and to conversion to Christianity as the "Silent Holocaust" http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/j4jlibrary/silent.html . So which "Silent Holocaust" are you talking about, the intermarriage one, the assimilation one, the abortion one, or the conversion to Christianity one? Jayjg 20:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intermarriage; assimilation, apostasy (i.e. converting of Jews for Jesus); and abortions of Jewish babies: They can all be part of one over-all massive Silent Holocaust which can also be taken to mean its constituent parts as they are all part of one problem: Jews joining gentile society and their non-Jewish values and the consequent results thereof. IZAK 21:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you need a Silent Holocaust article instead, then, explaining all the different ways in which Orthodox Rabbis have used the term, and (ideally) what they have in common. Jayjg 02:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some more sources
Really, I have not made this up. The usage of the phrase "Silent Holocaust" as refering to intermarriage/s is actually quite common, both among scholars and lay people (even anti-Semites know about it!) as can be seen from the following links:
 * 1) http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/IntermarriageWhyNot.htm "More than 50% of the Jewish People today are intermarrying, in some places it is as high as 90%.....Intermarriage has created a silent holocaust in this generation..."
 * 2) http://www.whymarryjewish.com/j2k.html "...Unlike the persecution that the Jewish people have endured by the hands of others for over 3,000 years, Jews on this continent now face a "silent holocaust" stemming from within their very own communities and their very own households..."
 * 3) http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/191/Q1/ "There have been many other arguments offered against intermarriage, below is a summary of some of the most famous. 1. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, 12 million were left afterwards. Today there are only 13 million Jews in the world. Where are the rest that by natural increase should number close to 20 million? The answer is that the silent holocaust of assimilation has caused them to disappear as Jews."
 * 4) http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108396 "What is Wrong with Intermarriage?...This is all the more true after the Holocaust. Intermarriage is, in a sense, an act of treason to our people for, instead of bringing new Jews into the world by marrying a Jewish wife, one would be contributing to the decimation of our people and the “Final Solution” that Hitler and his followers began and nearly accomplished. The horrific rates of intermarriage today constitute a silent annihilation of our people..."
 * 5) http://www.duke.org/library/race/bobjones.html Even the Jew-hating David Duke of the KKK knows about it (and wouldn't he love to do the "real thing" to Jews!) when he quotes Rabbi Norman Lamm of YU and the head of Hadassah: "In 1989 Carol Diament was the National Director of Jewish Education at Hadassah, the Woman's Zionist Organization of America (and she may still hold that position). She was quoted as saying ". . . we [the Jews] are not imparting to our children the responsibility to marry Jews...the greatest threat of all to the future of Diaspora Jewry is intermarriage.' 2 Norman Lamm, president of (Modern Orthodox) Yeshiva University has said that intermarriage between Jews and non- Jews will result in "another Holocaust." Herewith: "With a diminishing [Jewish] birth rate, an intermarriage rate exceeding 40%, Jewish illiteracy gaining ascendance daily--who says that the Holocaust is over? . . . The monster has assumed a different and more benign form." 3. (Quoted in Peter Novick, THE HOLOCAUST IN AMERICAN LIFE (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999), p.185.).

One can go on and search for many more times it's used. So it's quite clear that the notion of a Silent Holocaust being the result of intermarriage is open knowledge and acknowledged and known to many people out there. IZAK 09:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, some people use the phrase to refer to intermarriage. That was never in question.  Others use other phrases (e.g. "silent annihilation", "another Holocaust").  Other use it to refer to assimilation, Jews not bringing up their children in the Jewish faith, abortion of Israeli babies, Russian Jews converting to Christianity, etc.  As I said before, I think an article on the uses of the phrase "Silent Holocaust" would be a great idea; all the different ways Jews use it, all the different ways non-Jews use it, and the objections of others to the phrase. Jayjg 18:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok here goes: Silent Holocaust. IZAK 23:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a start. I'll try to work on it a little today. Jayjg 15:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bias removal
I'm moving this paragraph, a mix of fact and opinion, to the talk page for revision or deletion. I'm surprised it's been left as long as it has...
 * As a matter of fact, Jews were persecuted over the whole Christian world since Christianity defined himself as a different religion and became the religon of the State. The intensity of persecution varried but it has been never stopped in these ca 1700 years; the modern antisemitism -- although is somewhat different -- is also essentialy rooted in the antijudaism of the Christian Churches.
 * While there certainly are fringe groups that preach hatred, the majority of Christians today view Judaism as a sister faith. Pollinator 18:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the paragraph should return with an added paragraph, to the nature of:
 * Since World War II and the creation of the modern state of Israel, many Christian groups, especially in the U.S., have rethought their relations to the Jewish faith and to Jews. Some Christian groups, particularly those considering themselves "born-again," even express a special affinity to Jews and Israel.
 * The historical attitudes are not erased so easily. When the Pope expresses concern about the Church's relations with Muslims (vis a vis Israel), when European nations in general feel a special affinity with the Palestinian cause and consistently chastise Israel, when anti-Semitism is again rising in Europe, are we witnessing a new phenomenon based on the actions of Israel or an extension of thousand-year-old sentiments. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chabad org. vs. net?
As an outsider to the discussion, could someone explain to me why chabad.org and chabad.net (or the English language redirect of the latter) can't both be included in links, with appropriate comment? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried that, but one of them was down at the time so I removed it. I'll put it back. Sam [Spade] 19:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion in the substantive matter (other than the relative uselessness of a Hebrew-language link), but I do have a strong opinion that the messianic side keep adding their info by vandalizing the other link and ignoring the talk page and I don't like to see that encouraged. You might want to look at this above and this in the archive. -- Jmabel 19:15, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The question naturally arises: "So why aren't we putting more non-Lubavitch links"? Trying to decide on the real or authentic or best Lubavither site seems inappropriate.

As to messianic Jews, I live in the general area and have seen the Rebbe Schneerson headquarters on Eastern Parkway any number of times, and watched news of him when he was alive. When he died, one of the local news stations asked his followers what they thought of their Messiah now that he had died. The follow-up talking-head commentary sort of implied that his followers were nuts who just had their basis for existence cut out from under them. I couldn't help but wondering if the Romans and quite a few contemporary Jews didn't say the same thing when Jesus was killed. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Followers of Jesus were regarded as a fringe cult, worthy of quite intensive persucution and/or disdain for some three hundred years or so before it gained in popularity. This Rebbe guy on the other hand seems to be pretty roundly respected, even outside the Jewish community. Its the messianic part that people raise eyebrows about. Sam [Spade] 20:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really mind one specifically messianic Chabad link, as long as we describe it clearly to indicate what it is (and please let's stick to the English-language link instead of the equivalent Hebrew-language link), but remember, this isn't the article on Chabad Lubavitch, or even on Hassidim, and they shouldn't end up with a number of links all out of proportion to their numbers and importance, which is what will happen if we try to "outnumber" the messianic links with non-messianic (or neutral) ones. -- Jmabel 21:39, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thats true, but doesn't it suggest adding more links from other groups, rather than deleting one of these? Wiki is not paper, mind you ;) Is there a policy suggesting the amount of links reasonable to have on one page? Sam [Spade] 22:08, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No formal policy, but generally when it gets over about 30, there are some people who start objecting and (usually) trimming. I can't remember exactly which pages this has happened on, but I've seen it more than once: it seems to set a de facto standard. -- Jmabel 22:22, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'm not saying this link is great (I can't make any use of it all, not being in english), but there should be a messianic link, shouldn't there? Its an interesting subject which many a reader (myself included) would like to explore. Sam [Spade] 22:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I replaced your link with its precise English-language equivalent (same faction, even the same graphics). You might want to take a look at that. -- Jmabel 23:35, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to this inclusion. As I have pointed out earlier, Lubavitch now has three links, including 50% of the Orthodox links.  This seems wholly out of proportion to their actual numbers (perhaps 10% of all Orthodox Jews, and 1% of all Jews).  The organization has an official site, and we have linked to that; why are any more links necessary?  They can certainly get to that link from the Lubavitch article, if they're interested. As for the site, it's still half Hebrew, and not even complete, it's a "Beta" site. Jayjg 00:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I, for one, don't have an opinion on the inclusion or exclusion of the link, only that if we have it we clearly characterize its nature and that we prefer the (even incompletely) English-language site to their Hebrew-language site with the same content.

There seem to be several reasonable things to do here. I was thinking we might take a quick informal poll for 72 hours on what would be acceptable to whom and see if we can get a consensus. Feel free to add other alternatives I haven't thought of. You can sign by putting " ** " under the appropriate category. -- Jmabel 02:26, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Omit messianic Lubavitcher link entirely.
 * OK
 * Jmabel
 * Jayjg 15:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * --Josiah 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Not OK
 * --Jew 19:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Cecropia | Talk
 * Sam [Spade] 06:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 13:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Chabad

Link to Hebrew-language www.chabad.net without comment.
 * OK
 * Chabad
 * Jew
 * Not OK
 * Jmabel
 * Cecropia | Talk
 * Sam [Spade] 06:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 13:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) Not with English-language link available
 * Jayjg 15:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * --Josiah 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link to (partly) English-language www.kingmessiah.com without comment.
 * OK
 * Cecropia | Talk
 * Jew 19:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Chabad
 * Not OK
 * Jmabel
 * David Gerard 13:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) NPOV descriptive label is appropriate, I think
 * Jayjg 15:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * --Josiah 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link to Hebrew-language www.chabad.net, commenting that it sees the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach.
 * OK
 * Jew 19:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Cecropia | Talk
 * Chabad
 * Not OK
 * Jmabel
 * Cecropia | Talk (Not actually changing vote--voted OK by mistake--this is en wikipedia)
 * David Gerard 13:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) (not with the English-language link below being available)
 * Jayjg 15:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * --Josiah 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Link to (partly) English-language www.kingmessiah.com, commenting that it sees the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Moshiach.
 * OK
 * --Jew 19:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Jmabel
 * Cecropia | Talk 03:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam [Spade] 06:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 13:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Chabad
 * Not OK
 * Jayjg 15:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * --Josiah 19:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment
 * It seems to me we're fighting over nothing. If this were a link to an anti-Jewish site or a Jews for Jesus or something I could see it. I would prefer seeking balance by adding links. Where are links to prominents Jewish organizations, secular or religious? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * agreed, besides were unanimous on a couple thinsg above, l;ets just ad the necessary links to restore balance and explain the links we already have, deleting anything useless or not in english. Sam [Spade] 06:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There was no unanimity on the main point, which was whether or not to include it in the first place. Jayjg 15:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well now theres no unaminity ;) Why do you oppose including a link to a "Rebbe Lubavitcher as Moshiach" site? Or do you just happen not to like the links people have come up w? Sam [Spade] 16:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Jmabel also opposes the inclusion; so far the vote is 3 to 2. I've stated above my objections many times, quite clearly.
 * 1) Chabad.org is the official Chabad site.
 * 2) Chabad already has two links in this article, this would be a third. As far as I know, all other organizations get only one link, and Chabad itself represents at most 1% of Jews.
 * 3) All Jewish religious movements have 3 links, this gives Orthodox a fourth.
 * 4) Chabad now has 50% of the Orthodox links, while representing under 10% of Orthodox Jews.
 * 5) The site in question is a beta site, still half in Hebrew.
 * 6) The Messianic Chabad sites in general have little content compared to the other links, which are rich with content.
 * The real question is, why would one include it? The only answer I've heard from you is that you think it's "interesting". Jayjg 17:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * By the way, why not include http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/, a non-Lubavitch haredi website? Why not include http://www.breslov.org/ , the website of a different Hassidic group? Why not include http://www.ohr.edu/  , a worldwide Jewish outreach group? Why not include http://www.613.org/ , a site chock-full of thousands of hours of Jewish audio and video?  Why not include http://www.torah.org/ , a site bursting with well written articles on Judaism? All of these sites have more content than the site in question, arguably much more interesting as well, and from all sorts of viewpoints which are currently not represented in the article. Jayjg 17:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, since IZAK has deleted the link, it would seem he objects to it as well. I'm guessing that makes the vote 3-3. Jayjg 20:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excessive links
Some time ago we were advised that this article contained too main external links. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jew/Archive_2#Too_many_external_links So please do not repeat the errror of too many links just because there is confusion over Chabad links. There should be only one link to mainstream Chabad, which is already a great privelege here, considering it was not cut with other links long ago. IZAK 20:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish views
Remember that there is already a section on the reform views later on, the traditional views refer to orthodox (and conservative). By no means do orthodox count the matrilieal descendants from a line that was not originally (i.e. orthodoxly) Jewish to be Jews. I.E. the descendants of a woman who converted to Reform Judaism will not be counted as Jewish in the traditional sense at all. Why is Jayig reverting this? Also why not mention that legally jewish Messianic Jews are still considered Jews though in apostasy according to the orthodox view (just like legally jewish Reform Jews) to highlinght how different Reform Jews are from the Orthodox with regards to treating Judaism as a set of beliefs instead of a nationhood?Zestauferov 17:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Since a woman who did not convert is not a Jew (by anyone's definition), the existing definition excludes her and her children. Your change adds nothing except confusion. Please remember, this definition is given in the Traditional Jewish Views section.  Jayjg 19:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? Zestauferov 02:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Orthodox Jews don't recognize Reform conversions, obviously they don't recognize the descendants of these (non-)converts. -- Jmabel 06:04, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Jayjg 16:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They recognise any legal Jew in both movements as apostate. while reform Jews simply identify them as non Jewish. This is a fundamental difference illustrating that the reform movement considers Judaism to be nothing more than a religious identity outlined by a set of beliefs. while Orthodox look at Jewishness as a nationhood wityh binding legal requirements upon the members of that nation.

It is just like the British view on nationhood. A citizen can claim to be a citizen of another nation and even change nationality, but in the eyes of the british government they will always be brtitish ans subject to the monarch's justice. Reform judaism takes a fundamentally different approach. Reform judaism even accepts the adoption of Buddhist principles as not abandoning Judaism, while this is again apostasy in the orthodox view (as far as i have understood). It is best to highlight these differences with clear examples unless we are consciously trying to hide something are we?

Anyway that is point 2 more important is point 1.Zestauferov 23:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Left
Can the regulars here take a look at Jewish left? I think it might be vaguely anti-Semitic gunk. jengod 21:40, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

How did you arrive at that cnclusion from the sentence? It is dreadfully stubbish though.Zestauferov 23:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was more there. It's down to a stub. Yes, it would be a good topic for an article, but I've got too many on my plate already. -- Jmabel 02:31, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've edited from its previous version, which was at best POV, at worst anti-semitic. Jayjg 20:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)