Talk:Judaism/Archive 4

December 2003
Another FYI - Jews don't consider Buddhism a religion per se; Therefore, one can be a Buddhist Jew. Contrariwise, one can't be a Messianic Jew without being a Christian which is against the Jewish Principles of Faith and thus the individual is clearly no longer Jewish. Not trying to be divisive but to better inform. - Sparky 02:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ezra writes "It is a religious civilization whose tenets while unchanging, can handle new circumstances." But Judaism has changed its tenets in a number of ways. It even changes from the Torah to the Prophets, and changes from the medieval era to the modern era. JeMa


 * Judaism is a living evolving religion JeMa -- and the above is not an answer to my FYI. EG - Prior to the 3rd Century CE - Deaf and Mute people were considered half-people. That was changed. Modern people will mold their religion to their needs while being mindful of their traditions. - Sparky


 * Your definition of tenets and my definition of tenets undoubtedly differ. However, a fundamental belief of Judaism is that the laws of the Torah are eternal. This means that what is right and what is wrong never changes. If circumstances change, then the principles of the Torah mandate how the laws should change. For example, permitting the writing down of the oral law when it was in danger of being forgotten. Such changes in the way the laws are practiced are not changes in the tenets of Judaism, they are changes mandated by the tenets of Judaism. Until you can point to a change in Judaism that was not mandated by its tenets, you will have to agree that that its tenets never changed. Ezra Wax


 * Ezra, please read the article on Jewish Principles of Faith. None of us can agree with your claim, because your claim is demonstrably incorrect. Jewish principles of faith have never been canonized, and they never have been totally constant. This isn't a "reform" position. Plenty of Orthodox Jews are quite willing to admit this. Please stop spouting pious Orthodox dogma, and take the time to do some objecive historical research on this topic. I would suggest starting with these sources:


 * Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought, Menachem Kellner, Oxford University Press, 1986
 * Must a Jew Believe Anything? Menachem Kellner, The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999
 * "Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology? Marc. B. Shapiro, The Torah U-Maddah Journal, Vol. 4, 1993, Yeshiva University
 * Letters to the Editor, a series of letters by Rabbi Alan J. Yuter, Mr. Andrew Gordimer, Rabbi Jacob Chinitz, and Prof. Marc B. Shapiro, printed in The Torah U-Maddah Journal, Vol.5, 1994, Yeshiva University, pages 182-189.


 * I am not sure what you are getting at. I did not say what the principles were, only that they never changed. I think everybody will agree that whatever they are, they never changed. All the authorities who formalized principles were looking at the sum total of authentic Judaism and saying what they believed to be its essence. They were all trying to define what is essential to Judaism and are its eternal principles. Ezra Wax

Ezra writes "They decry the divisions as implying that there is more than one kind of Judaism when in reality there isn't." But Judaism has always had divisions; many divisions still exist. Mr. Wax is mistaking his beliefs (only kind of Judaism should exist) for actual reality (many Judaisms exist). The same is true in Christianity. Christian fundamentalist write that only one form of Christianity exists; this implies that all other forms of Christianity are heretical. So the same position is held by Jewish fundamentalists? It doesn't change anything. After you spend some time in the Unitarian-Universalist community, and compare liberal religions to fundamentalist religions, you begin to recognize these commonalities between true believeres. The creeds differ; the logic and psychology is the same. JeMa 17:04, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Judaism is based on fundamental principles. Any practices that adhere to those fundamental principles are authentic Judaism. Judaism allows different practices in different circumstances and recognizes that as times and locations change, different practices are mandated. At the same time, all those practices must fall within the framework of the fundamental principles. Ezra Wax


 * Which you and only you define?! Sorry, Ezra, but this is an NPOV encyclopedia which does not edit articles according to Orthodox Jewish dogma. RK


 * As I wrote above. I did not define what the principles were. I only wrote that they never change. Ezra Wax


 * Which is incorrect. In any case, that is believed only by ultra-Orthodox Jews. You can point out that UO Jews believe this, but you cannot state it as an undisputed fact. JeMa

As such, there is a clear line between what is Judaism and what is not Judaism. There may be disagreement on where that line is, but those disagreements must fall within some sort of framework. Otherwise the term Judaism is meaningless. It is clear that the defining work of Judaism is the Talmud. As such any Judaism that does not adhere to the Talmud is something else. The Talmud is the sum total of Jewish thought and any future Jewish thought is based on that. Any thought not based on it is not Jewish thought it is something else. Ezra Wax


 * So what? This has nothing to do with the specific changes you made. In any case, Jewish theology has evolved significantly since the time of Talmud, especially so among the medieval rationalism and neo-Aristotelianism of Maimonides. (Unless you want to condemn his as a non-Jew as well!) RK 18:28, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Maimonides as everybody else maintained that the principles of Judaism are eternal. He simply disagreed to some extent what they were. In any case he considered the Talmud authoritative as must anyone who is Jewish. Ezra Wax


 * In agreement with the above, "So what?" This doesn't justify your specific changes. It just mentions a point of view. JeMa 16:45, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Ezra Wax writes: SLR: I don't like to look gift horses in the mouth, but I don't see any compromise there. All the changes that matter to me have been undone. I take issue with a non-Orthodox Rabbi being called upon to define Judaism.


 * Irrelevant. This is merely your point of view. You have a right to see that your point of view is represented.  But you have no right to censor other points of view.


 * Agreed with SLR. JeMa


 * Slrubenstein is correct; Ezra is removing ideas that he finds offensive from his religious point of view. But a NPOV encyclopedia cannot allow this. In fact, if we stay true to our NPOV policy, we always will have many ideas that Orthodox Jews will find repugnant, especially our articles on the history and development of Judaism, not to mention evolution and cosmology, which violate some Orthodox teachings on the creation of the universe. Ezra still thinks that NPOV means that "everyone must agree"; that is not so. It means that we analyze ideas critically, and attribute beliefs to the parties who have such beliefs. We have seen the same problems users who are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians, as they find certain ideas repugnant, and tried to remove them. RK 13:48, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

Ezra Wax writes: I don't agree with his definition.


 * Again, so what? You have a right to have your point of view represented.  But Kaplan's point of view is important to mainy people and will be represented as well.  What is important is that his point of view be represnted as a point of view and not as the sole truth.


 * It is extremely important to me that part of the definition of Judaism is that it is unchanging. [Ezra Wax]


 * irrelevant, this is only your point of view. Again, you can express it, but not in such a way that privileges it above other points of view.


 * Agreed with SLR. Mr. Wax obviously believes that Judaism is unchanging. No one else shares this belief. Historians have shown that this claim is false. Many Orthodox Jews also reject this point of view. JeMa

Ezra Wax writes: It is also extremely important to me that it be made clear that the dividing Judaism into denominations is absolutely against my beliefs.


 * Okay, you have made this clear on these talk pages. And if we ever have an articleon "Ezra Wax's views on Judaism" of course it would be important that your beliefs be expressed.  But, guess what?  THIS ISN"T AN ARTICLE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS!


 * I also object to the way that Ezra Wax is trying to rewrite this page in accord with his religious beliefs. His recent statements have made clear that he has no intention of working with us in accord with NPOV. JeMa 16:45, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Since all of these things have been removed. I cannot do anything but revert. Ezra Wax


 * dittoSlrubenstein


 * Agreed with SLR. JeMa 16:45, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

If your goal is NPOV then you cannot present as undisputed fact something that is not agreed to by all people. Presenting a non-Orthodox viewpoint on what Judaism is without making it clear that it is non-Orthodox and not presenting the Orthodox view at the same time is clearly not neutral.


 * False. The term "NPOV" does not mean that all people will agree to it. In fact, in practice NPOV discussions of religion are often objected to by religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalists often view historical and NPOV descriptions of their religion as heresy. You are a good example of this. JeMa


 * I identified it as Kaplan's view -- you can't do much more to identify a "POV" than that.


 * Identifying it as Kaplan's point of view is not enough. The way his view was quoted made him out to be an authority. While he may be an authority to non-Orthodox Jews he is anything but an authority.


 * This is a straw-man argument. The article never presented Kaplan as speaking for all of Judaism. It merely mentioned his point of view. Ironically, it also is an Orthodox point of view. Orthodox Jews reject the idea that Judaism is only a religion. I am beginning to wonder if Ezra Wax is a troll. JeMa 16:55, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Dividing up Judaism into denominations and not making clear that not everybody agrees that Judaism should be divided up into denominations is also not NPOV Ezra Wax


 * Yet it is you who included "orthodox Jews" in your revision. I am confused. Do you accept denominations or not?  I see absolutely no way to get around using denominations in the article, as they identify pointsof view.  You are more han welcome to say "this is Ezra Wax's point of view" but as soon as you say it is "Judaism's" point of vie or the view of "all Jews" you are lying. To avoid lying you need some way to identify different points of view. Slrubenstein


 * You are correct. Calling it Orthodox is a compromise. When the subject is the denominations themselves, then it must be made absolutely clear that much of Orthodoxy does not recognize them. At the same time when the denominations themselves are not the issue, for practical reasons to compare general beliefs it is useful. Ideally I would say Judaism has unchanging tenets however those who are reconstructionist say otherwise and they are wrong for the following reason. However, I haven't yet figured out how to do that. Ezra Wax

Albo gives 3, the Rambam gives 13. That is more than just a minor difference. Danny 22:14, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I reverted. I think EW is mixing up two issues: first, is Judaism a religion, and two, does it have unchanging tenets.  I think it is easier to eparate the two issues and moved the second into the first paragraph. Slrubenstein

Is there a chance of reaching some kind of consensus on this page before it needs to be protected to stop the edit war? Pakaran 23:13, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think this edit war will reach the point where the page will have to be protected. Ezra Wax

I still don't like it, but I think it's better than what we started with. Ezra Wax

What are the fundamental tenets of Judaism? Like Messianic Jews, the Reformed jews reject Halacha. Like Messianic Jews the Reformed insist that it is a valid form of Judaism. The Reformed ignore the Torah except when convenient. What would they have to do to be declared anathema and heretics? I am sure that you do not wish to appear as a hypocrite.


 * Please do not bothet us with you religious polemics. This is not a discussion forum, nor is this a place to proselytize ultra-Orthodox Judaism. JeMa


 * JeMa: Although I don't necessarily disagree with the statements you are replying to, It wasn't I who wrote them. Ezra Wax

I object to all of Mr. Wax's recent changes. His statements violate NPOV, and any Google search shows that they do not even represent Orthodox Judaism. For instance, Orthodox Jews do not characterize Judaism as only a religion. Only the German Reform Jews made this claim, and they apparently came to reject this idea. (Some within Unitarian-Universalism have this view, but as wonderful as it is, UU is not a form of Judaism.) Clearly, Mr. Wax's edits are made for the sole purpose of annoying non-Orthodox Jews and people whom he considers heretics. This is not constructive; this is trolling. JeMa 15:20, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually take a position on the question of whether Judaism is a religion, I just more or less left whatever was there concerning that point. I was taking a position on whether its tenets were permanent or evolved. I was also unhappy that Rabbi Kaplan was being cited in a way that implied that he was an authority speaking for all of Judaism. These issues have mostly been resolved. It has been made clearer that Rabbi Kaplan is not speaking for all of Judaism, and therefore his statement no longer implies that all of Judaism agrees that its tenets evolve, because I think his statement implies that the tenets of Judaism evolve. Ezra Wax

JeMa: I don't deny that my edits have introduced a somewhat Orthodox slant. However, it is not less neutral than the article was before as before it had an anti-Orthodox slant. It is very difficult to remove what is objectionable without introducing a slant. If it is going to have a slant, then I want it to be my slant. Ezra Wax


 * This is another admission that you refuse to work with us, and that you are only pushing your quasi-Orthodox stance. JeMa

The only way to work with you is to show you that your current article is unbalanced. You were perfectly happy with the way the article was. I wasn't. If so, the article was not neutral. In order for the article to be neutral it must either reflect all points of view or none. You cannot put up a summary of Judaism that reflects just your point of view, otherwise it is perfectly fair for me to put up a summary to reflect mine. When it is clear to you how our points of view differ and that there is no way to come to an agreement without hashing it out, we will be able to hash it out. Ezra Wax


 * Can JeMa and Ezra Wax agree that one way to achieve an NPOV article is to incorporate as many different slants as possible, as long as it is clear that they are slants, and whose slants they are? Slrubenstein


 * This is standard NPOV policy, and I would encourage all parties to follow SLR's advice here. I don't think that any of us would object to the inclusion of Orthodox Jewish points of view. In fact, they could enrich this article. RK 14:29, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

Ezra Wax writes "You were perfectly happy with the way the article was. I wasn't. If so, the article was not neutral."


 * These words are a declaration of war on the process of consensus and NPOV. Come on. Learn how we work, and work with us. Or leave and go to exclusively Orthodox forums. RK 14:29, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't entirely know the solution. I would like the article to be as concise as possible while at the same time being accurate. I think certain issues which are being summarized by the article are too complex to be dealt with in a short article. They have to be dealt with in detail in order to come to some sort of agreement. I think the disagreement is fundamental and cannot be dealt with superficially.


 * The disagreement is one of pluralism vs. exclusivity. I want to show that Judaism is exclusive in order to show that non-Orthodox Judaism has a poor claim to being Judaism. This is in direct contrast to non-Orthodox Judaism which wants to show that Judaism is widely tolerant and that non-Orthodox Judaism is just as valid as Orthodox Judaism and that Orthodox Judaism is simply intolerant.


 * Part of the problem lies in defining what is and what isn't Judaism. If the definition is broad then nearly anything is Judaism. If it is narrow, then almost nothing is Judaism. The term is used in more than one sense. The sense has to be made clear each time it is used.


 * There is more to it than that, but it isn't clear to me yet. Ezra Wax


 * By the way, I just read the most recent set of changes (I think by Ezra Wax) and I have no objection to the content, although I do believe that it could be better organized and more clearly framed. Here is my suggestion -- if both Ezra and JeMa agree, perhaps the two of them can figure out how to edit the article appropriately.  It seems to me that the key point, for NPOV, is that Jews have debated among themselves both "who is a Jew" and "What is required for one to be a good Jew?" -- I think this is pretty clear but could be clearer in the intro.  Also, I think that the different answers have involved debates around four issues: rules of descent; belief in God; belief in the revelation at Sinai and the authority of the Torah/Tanach; and acceptance of the authority of the Talmud and the Rabbinic tradition of law embodied in the Talmud.  I would suggest making this clear in the opening (if not the first, then the second paragraph).  I would suggest organizing it in one of two ways: first, divide it ino four sections, one per "debate" and provide an account of different positions that have been taken by Jews over time; second, divide it into many more sections (contemporary movements like Reform, Neo-Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, but also other "movements" like Hasidism and Karaitism, Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes) and for each one, summarize their position on these four issues.  What do you think?  I realize this will have implications for content, but my motivation is simply to find a way to take the content that is currrently in the article and reorganize it in a more logical way. Slrubenstein


 * Although I think the presentation is important, I think the accuracy of the content is more important. As such, I have been working on that first. There is also the problem that I think the method of approach of the existing articles on Jewish topics is somewhat unfair. They require me to do a lot of research into topics I currently know relatively little about in order for me to correct blatant inaccuracies. The problem with reorganizing the article is that the reorganization would require much of the article to be rewritten and a good portion of the content to be dropped. Which I don't think is bad, just a lot of work. I'm trying to do it piece by piece, but of course there is lots of resistance. Ezra Wax


 * Although I can conceed that "the method of approach of the existing articles on Jewish topics is somewhat" imbalanced, I don't agree that the method of approach of the existing articles on Jewish topics is somewhat 'unfair." Ezra, you protest that you have to do a lot of research on topics about which you are unfamiliar.  Don't you see how bad this makes you look, in two ways?  First, people who want to write an encyclopedia must take it for granted that they have to do research.  Second, it sounds strange that you would have very strong views about issues about which you have not done much research.  The second is a more personal criticism, and I want you to be aware of how what you just wrote can be understood by others (such as myself).  But I do not want to criticize you personally, rather I want to be constructive.  So on this different note: first, either you have to be willing to do a lot of research, or others besides you, who speak from your point of view but have done considerable research already, ought to contribute.  Second, you can'' make the point that


 * Judaism is exclusive in order to show that non-Orthodox Judaism has a poor claim to being Judaism. This is in direct contrast to non-Orthodox Judaism which wants to show that Judaism is widely tolerant and that non-Orthodox Judaism is just as valid as Orthodox Judaism and that Orthodox Judaism is simply intolerant.

But the NPOV requirement of Wikipedia (and if you simply cannot accept it, you do not have any business contributing and have no right to complain when people take issue with you) requires you to contextualize these two points of view -- you need to make clear that the first point of view is a point of view, and try to describe or give an account of whose point of view it is (besides your own, personally); you need to make clear that the second point of view is a point of view. This is implicit in what you just wrote above; I am simply asking you to be careful to make this explicit in your contributions to the article. We understand that you are working piece by piece because you need time to do more research. I don't think anyone takes issue with that, but people do expect your claims to be contextualized and based on research. So third, if you believe that claims in the article are biased or not true, you have every right to ask other contributors to make clear the point of view, and share the research they have done to back up the claim. You have every right to do this. Moreover, give other people a chance, and more people might give you more chances. Slrubenstein


 * On your point that I complain that I have to do a lot of research: I am relying on the conclusions of my teachers. In other words, they have taught me the Orthodox point of view without necessarily telling me how they arrived at it.


 * There is a big difference between research, which should be impartial, and memorizing dogma. That is part of the problem. You have done the latter, and none of the former. RK 13:56, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * personally, I wonder then why you accept this point of view. But that really is not any of my business.  However, as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, I can observe that those who taught you (and presumably have done the research) would make better contributors. Slrubenstein


 * As such, when I see a point of view that derides and belittles the one I have been taught, I have the right to change it before doing the research necessary to determine how the conclusions were arrived at.


 * You misunderstand me -- I am not insisting that you research views you do not accept (only that you research views you wish to include). But I also insist that you have the right to change it only insofar as you specify that this is only one point of view among many.  You also have a right to ask the other contributors to ask what research they did before making the contribution.


 * I don't write articles on wikipedia in order to do a lot of research, I write with the understanding that I can share that which I already know, but is not common knowledge. This does not mean that I never do research for something that I write, only that I don't think I need to do research in the short term in order to rebut a point of view that belittles mine.


 * It is not my goal to have an article that has an Orthodox slant. My agenda, and everybody who writes on wikipedia does have an agenda otherwise they would not bother to write, is that Judaism be presented in a way which addresses everybody's concerns and seems fair to everybody because I sincerely believe that were Judaism presented in a totally neutral way, that my point of view would be considered valid and more than valid. I would not accomplish this by an article that was non-neutral because I, at least, would know that it was not neutral and that the reason nobody refuted it was because of lack of knowledge or that they couldn't be bothered.


 * The assumption is that if I put in my point of view in addition to the existing point of view, it would be accepted. I don't think that is the case.


 * well, maybe I am wrong. But I do believe that if your point is backed up by research, and that you explain the point of view from which it comes, it will be accepted. Slrubenstein


 * I think there is an active desire to suppress the point of view that I am championing. If I simply added my point of view to the article it would be deleted, it is only if I change the article to reflect my point of view, that my point of view would have any chance of surviving.


 * Your view that I research the points of view that I disagree with and write them in, is somewhat disagreeable to me.
 * As I said, you misunderstand me. I do not think you are obliged to do any researchon points with which you do not agree -- unless you want to delete them, in which case you have to do enough research to justify your deletion.  But you do have a right to ask others what research they have done, and share that with you.  And you have the right to add material from another point of view -- as long as the point of view is identified.  But people have the right to ask you how you know that.  All contributors must be accountable in some way.Slrubenstein
 * It does bother me to have to attempt to put into a good light points of view with which I disagree and more than disagree with, think that they are purposely formulated to deceive.
 * I don't believe I said this; if you think I did I assure you that was not my intention. But you do have to accept other points of view as valid enough for inclusion in the article as long as the point of view is identified and the reasons for the claim (or evidence) is given or made available. Slrubenstein
 * I feel that being that those points of view already have champions, those champions can add them in all on their own. When I have a solid case why my point of view is correct, those who believe a point of view against which I have brought a proof should refute it all on their own, rather than me attempting to discover why it is they believe something which to me is patently false.


 * However, even so, I do believe that it makes sense to find out why somebody who disagrees with you has an opinion that makes no sense to you. But it is lower down on my list of priorities than being sure that my view is not being disparaged. Although the only way to make certain that my view will never be disparaged again is to understand the other point of view properly and figure out how to show where they are making a mistake, I cannot do that at the expense of sacrificing my own more than valid opinion. Ezra Wax

I think people are missing a critical point: This article is not about Jewish principles of faith. That is a separate article. Discussion on points in that article should take place there, not here. However, I despair that Ezra can write in that article, because he has publicly and repeatedly stated that he will censor all material that is not in accord with ultra-Orthodox beliefs. As long as he repeatedly admits that he won't accept NPOV, then we must revert his edits. RK 13:56, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

As to someone's Jewishness -- there can only be one criteria that's valid. If one identified themself as a Jew; And, then proceeds to act upon that identification by mitzvot and involvement with the community. The core of Jewishness is ethical monotheism. I'd have to take the position of Hillel and accept them as Jewish. Albert Einstein was as accepting as well. And that was when calling yourself a Jew marked you as a target to haters. Ultras and the Orthodox can have their own POVs -- but their religiousness doesn't grant them any divine powers. - Sparky 04:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No denomination of Judaism, even Reform, accepts this definition of Judaism. None. You are not describing Judiasm, you are describing your own religion, Sparkyism. This is not a joke. Even Reform Jews have a definition of Judaism! Gentiles who decide to follow the mitzvot (commandments) and who involve themselves with the Jewish community do not acutomatically become Jews; they are known as a Ger Toshav. This Hebrew term literally means "resident stranger", but is used to refer to gentiles who come to be a part of the Jewish community without converting to Judaism. They are also known as Noachides, followers of the covenant of Noah. Judaism has room for this because Jewish theology doesn't require that people convert to Judaism. RK 14:29, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

''Judaism does not characterize itself as a religion. Rather, Jews have traditionally thought of Judaism as a culture with its own history, language (Hebrew), ancestral homeland, liturgy, philosophy, set of ethics, religious practices, and the like.''

Can Judaism characterize itself? Does everybody agree what the word Judaism means, so that this sentence makes sense according to all definitions? Don't all religions have their own history etc? In short, I think this paragraph is entirely meaningless. Ezra Wax 05:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the paragraph is meaningless, but I am open to suggestions about how to improve it. Let's be clear about the point: the concept "religion" as a distinct institution or domain of human activity didn't really emerge until the Enlightenment; as something that first came into existence in the Middle East a few thousand years ago, Judaism simply does not fit easily into these categories.  Moreover, most of our readers are Christian or their ideas of what the word "religion" means is shaped by their belonging to Christian cultures; simply to identify Judaism as a religion invites un-useful comparisons.  I am not denying a religious element to Judaism (involving God and ritual), my point is just that Judaism is more complex.  For example, the Torah and the Talmud not only regulate how we should worship God, it includes tort law -- most English speaking readers would find it hard to understand what is religious about rules for what to do if your ox gores a neighbors ox.  And finally, we will reach a lonstanding debate on these pages: there are many Jews who are not religious but consider themselves fully Jewish.  I understand that there are other Jews who would reject them, or who would reject their view of Judaism.  But this is a dispute between different points of view and the article cannot take one point of view.  One purpose of this passage is to introduce Judaism in a way that will have room for all these points of view.  We can change it, but any change must continue to make room for all these points of view.  Now, what do you suggest? Slrubenstein


 * How about: The term Judaism can be used to refer to either the Jewish religion or to the Jewish people.


 * Judaism only refers to the cultural practices one must adopt as the one way ticket in order to become Jewish. However once one is Jewish one does not stop being Jewish if one stops practicing Judaism, one simply becomes apostate. The problem is that people associate the Hebrew nation with the Judaic religion. Before modern Israel there was only one way to become a Hebrew and that was throgh the adoption of Judaism. Now the situation is slightly more complicated. So unfortunately I do not think it is accurate to say that Judaism refers to the people because it does not. It only refers to the traditional way in which one can become a Jew besides through maternal descent.Zestauferov 04:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * this is a plausible position although I am not sure whether I agree with it. Whether I agree with it or not is of course irrelevant.  Wikipedia has to be NPOV and the position expressed by Zestauferov is but one point of view.  The article needs an NPOV discussion of various widely held, even if conflicting, points of view.  But the paragraph in question is not meant to represent one definitive point of view, it is not meant to give one definition since there is no one NPOV definition.  It is meant to introduce the article, and hopefully to introduce a presentation of different positions.  I think we should keep the paragraph in question but add expositions of specific positions, along with their context (e.g. "In the x century, y characterized Judaism as a religion.  In the a century, b characterized Judaism as a culture.  In the m century, n characterized Judaism as the beliefs and practices of a race" or whatever). Slrubenstein

Zestauferov: I don't think becoming a citizen of Israel can in any way be construed as becoming Jewish. Israeli Arabs would certainly not consider themselves Jewish. Ezra Wax

Slrubenstein: I suggest that we redefine the word religion when we use it. It is clear to me that Judaism is a religion in the sense that it is about Jewish interaction with God. If the Christian world has a narrower definition of what is considered interaction with God, then we simply have to be clear that Judaism considers everything to be an interaction with God. Ezra Wax

The sentence In the last two centuries the Jewish community has divided into a number of Jewish denominations; each has greatly different understandings of these principles are. should be corrected. As I am not sure what is intended I would like the person who wrote it to have a look. Two possible corrections can be made with quite different meanings: OR Vanderesch 16:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * In the last two centuries the Jewish community has divided into a number of Jewish denominations; each has greatly different understandings of what these principles are.
 * In the last two centuries the Jewish community has divided into a number of Jewish denominations; each has greatly different understandings of these principles are (delete it).

SLR: Judaism never accepted the existence of other gods. It only accepted that there were people who very mistakenly believed that they existed. Ezra Wax
 * Ezra, in Shmot Moses asks (rhetorically, "Who is like you, among the mighty?" meaning, what other gods are as great as ours? This is called henotheism (there are different gods, each nation has its own god, of course we think our god is the best and most powerful).  This is indeed a position Judaism came to reject in favor of absolute monotheism, but it is a view our ancestors once had. As monothesists of course we go back to such passages as in Shmot and interpret them in a monotheistic light.  Slrubenstein


 * Both the Even Ezra and the Ramban say that 'the mighty' refers to the angels. Ezra Wax
 * No doubt they sincerely believed so, as may you. But Rambam and Ibn (?) Ezra lived long after the Bible was written.  As I said, Jewish beliefs have changed over time.  I would never claim that Jews today are henotheistic. Slrubenstein
 * You are expressing a point of view that would not be agreed to by the above commentators. As such, you should note that it is so. Ezra Wax

Critics
Is there any objection to listing an example or two of critics to Judaism? It does not need to have a POV analysis attached to it but should show who the critics are. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 22:40, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism have no place on the Judaism website, and that is what these two links were.  I have no objection to the article covering conflicts between Jews and other groups (e.g. Christians).  I also think there is value to covering conflicts among Jews.  But as a culture that has been in the minority for virtually 2,500 years, it is inappropriate and offensive to have a section on "critics."  By the way, I wouldn't support a link on the "Christianity" page on "critics."  Can you imagine a link on the German page called "critics?"  Sure, the article can cover the Nazi period, or talk about current issues dividing Germans -- but that isn't the same thing as criticizing "Germany."  Of the two links I deleted, one was purely anti-Semitic.  The other was in my opinion a silly but certainly not offensive critique of a book by Telushkin.  It can't be represented as a critique of "Judaism," it is practically a book review.  Put it someplace else. Slrubenstein

Paul, what is your objection to "critical analysis" versus "analysis" for infidels.org? It is an accurate statement that the analysis does not agree with Judaism. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Texture, the point is that if you can allow any pov "criticisms" of one religion, ie. cosmotheism, then the same should hold true for Judaism.

Therefore, this link:


 * - Critics of current modern "Jewish/Zionist Supremacism" and the immorality of "Malignant Narcissism" and its typical lying hypocrisy and psychological projection

This link should be allowed as a "criticism" or you must remove the similar offensive pov links from cosmotheism.

- Criticism

The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce's Theology of Revolution by Brad Whitsel (Nova Religio) Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, by Mattias Gardell (ISBN 0822330717)

A Blemish on the Blossom: Pantheism and White-Supremacist Hate Groups by Esther Hugenholtz (Pantheist Index)

Pseudo-Pantheism (Encyclopedia4U)

---

Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion, within Wiki articles.-PV

I am not "allowing" slanderous links on the cosmotheism page. Two rights do not make a wrong. If you have a problem on another site, seek mediation -- don't take out your frustrations here. Slrubenstein

Aren't you? Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the cosmotheism page have been written by "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you? The problem is on THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA. The lying hypocrisy of your own "ilk" is responsible for this nonsense, and so it actually is YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Unfortunately, there is no effective medication for psychological projection on your and your own ilk's part, but, hope springs eternal!.-PV


 * This is pure anti-Semitism. I told you that I didn't do anything on the cosmovision page and you call me a Jew?  Go away. Slrubenstein

No, it is pure "lying hypocrisy", and only on your own part.

Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion, within Wiki articles.

I will only "go away", only when you and your own "ilk" also "demand" that those slanderous cosmotheism "criticism links" are also deleted as well.

Otherwise, no deal.

-PV

jew watch
regardless of how nutty its proponents may be, jew watch is a valid external link regarding critcism, heck, its the #1 google hit for "jew". I would think you'd prefer to take note, and se what these guys are saying. Anyhow I insist that its a valid link. Sam Spade 20:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * If being a popular site is our determinant than we should add links to porn sites too. "Jew Watch" is not a "critical" site, it doesn't add anything to debates on history, culture or theology. It's just Jew-hatred. AndyL 21:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I understand your POV, but you are sadly mistaken. Attempting to reduce the resources available to the reader reflects poorly apon the encyclopedia in general, and censorous editors in particular. Sam Spade 21:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "Jew Watch" is a site that Google themselves have stated they don't agree with - but they feel compelled to remain objective. It arguably doesn't belong.  Pakaran. 22:35, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Do I hear you to say that google'sPOV should be mentioned here (I could compromise on that)? Or is it that the wikipedia need not remain objective, as Google clearly intends to be (compromise on that would seem unlikely)? Sam Spade 22:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that the google ranking is not the first factor that should be taken into account. I'd treat Jew Watch as an accurate source on Judaism to the same extent I'd trust SCO on Linux.  Pakaran. 23:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

anti-semites
IMO anti-semite views have a place on this article as criticism and detractors have a place on nearly every other contentious article. Clearly no one thinks they should over run the page, but an external link? Lets be reasonable, and allow some 7th grade jew doing a report on judaism to have access to what sort of people have been persecuting his people, and what their rationales are. Sam Spade 23:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * anti-semitism is not of the same character as other forms of criticism and detraction. It is a repressive ideology, not a scholarly critique.  I agree with you that a 7th grader should be able to learn about the people who think she is a piece of dirt, but let her learn that from the anti-semitism article, not one on Judaism.  Put the links there. Slrubenstein

\ "Anti-Zionist" or "Anti Jewish-Supremacism", is actually more like it!

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."-George Santayana

For example, does one historical genocide ever justify another?

===Palestinian Holocaust and Genocide by Israel---1948-Present?


 * Palestinians are dying, unjustly, that is all that need to be said to act on this issue and change the situation. They live in poverty, unable to govern themselves and build themselves up as a nation due to the extremely strong restrictions that bind them. The anger of such groups as Hamas is understandable, but their use of terrorism hides the integrity of their cause. It is also understandable that Israel takes certain measures to protect their people from terrorism, but they are now destroying a race – they are committing genocide. It is only when these humanitarian injustices of Palestinians are solved and this unrecognized Holocaust is put to an end that the true path to peace in the Middle East can begin.

This has been an issue for well over 60 years but the international community as a whole has been unable to stop it: hence "Terrorism" and "Suicide Bombers"

-
 * 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 of: "Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 years" by Israel Shahak. From Booklist: 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.

--- ""Anti-semites"??????

INDEED!!!!

Are NOT the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE also SEMITES?????"


 * The term "anti-Semite" is a misnomer. Wilhelm Marr, The 19th century German racist who coined it meant it to apply to Jews and, it seems, didn't realise there were other Semites (or didn't think them important). In any case, because of its usage the term is understood to mean "anti-Jewish" and was coined with that definition arguing that something is not anti-Semitic because it's not anti-Arab is a fallacious argument to say the least. The reason for the misnomer, however, is just a matter of the racist who coined the term not being very bright (not atypical of racists. wouldn't you agree Vogel?)AndyL 00:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)



Of course, and completely regardless of whomever coined the term "anti-semite" it is a factual misnomer especially because the oppressed and dispossessed and murdered Palestinian People are also "SEMITES", so for any "Jewish-Zionist supremacists" to exclusively call their own critics "anti-semites", instead of "anti-Jewish-Zionist Supremacists", considering what they are actually doing to their own fellow brother "Semites" in Palestine, is the just height of their own quite typical lying hypocrisy and psychological projection.