Talk:Martin Luther and antisemitism/Archive 1

Shortened the paragraph on antisemitism. If the entry as a whole is so short as it still is now it would give a very unbalanced view of Luther's life and teachings. The passage as well was to put into the context of the time.
 * There is no denying that Luther said what he said. It does not give "a very unbalanced view of Luther's life and teachings". That is what Luther taught. In does not sound nice to modern ears, but we shouldn't avoid the ugly bits of history. Of course his anti-Jewish teachings are by no means all or even a majority of what he taught -- but add more about the other bits, instead of deleting what he really said. So I am restoring the paragraph. -- SJK
 * That's not the issue. The task is to write an NPOV entry and give the subject a fair treatement in the space used. In the meantime the text in question is here


 * Yes, but you are damaging the article's neutral view by trying to hide the facts about this person. He spent years preaching that the Jews should be destroyed. This became the most imporant message of his life in his later years. Much of his work was about this topic.
 * No! Who said that?
 * It is a violation of NPOV hide his beliefs. This, simply put, is what the man believed in, taught and preached, and what his followers picked up and believed in also. Your removal of all context from this man's life and work destroys the tone and intellectual integrity of the article. Would you write an entry on Hitler that left out his writings on the Jews? (The comparison is apt;
 * Indeed
 * in the 1990s the Lutheran Church stated that some of their own teachings helped lead to the Holocaust, and they made this into an action by a public renunciation of these particular views. Surely we can not condemn the official Lutheran Church as hateful to the Lutheran movement.) RK

I agree with you RK, except for one thing -- which Lutheran church are you talking about? There are dozens of major Lutheran church bodies around the world, and hundreds of minor ones... -- SJK


 * Oh, crap, that's right. I'd better go look this up, and see what specific groups have to say on this issue. I was writing from memory, and forgot all about this fact. RK

62.202.117.xxx, whoever you are, stop deleting useful and true information just because you don't like it. If you think it gives an unbalanced view of Luther, go find some positive things to add to balance it out -- but don't delete stuff that's already there. -- SJK
 * you have your useful and true information under Christian anti-semitism and it's referenced from the article. Please stop copying information from one article to the other where a link will do and better do new research what else Luther did. As a non-historian you should be a bit more careful.

Why shouldn't we mention in detail Luther's antisemitism in both articles? Or if, we should only be mentioning it in one, surely Martin Luther is a better article to mention Luther's particular views, than elsewhere. And the "reference" you provide is very insufficent -- merely mentioning his "anti-semitism", without giving any background on the origins of his antisemitism, or giving the reader any idea of how antisemitic he really was. (Which is something I think is important -- antisemitism is at times an overused word, and if we are going to call someone an antisemite, we better be giving detailed examples of what they said which proves them to be as such.)

"As a non-historian you should be a bit more careful." Are you claiming to be a historian of Martin Luther? I'm putting the quote back in. -- SJK
 * No I'm not but I don't want to have such a short article which basically just comes out very unbalanced given the amount of text used. The information is there. This is a hypertext. People may just follow the link and we don't need copy/paste.

Firstly, how does it come out unbalanced? Luther said that. You might not like the fact that he said it (I certaintly don't), but the fact is that he said what he said. If it gives people a bad impression of the man, well, maybe that's the impression he deserves to have.

Secondly, if you think it is unbalanced in such a short article, then add more info, not delete it!

Thirdly, we have unlimited space here -- so there is no problem with replicating info on multiple pages. More importantly, the two pages have a different focus. Christian anti-Semitism is about Christian anti-Semitism in general -- it is not a place for the detailed treatment of the antisemitism of one particular Christian, Martin Luther. Martin Luther is. Of course, we don't have a detailed treatment here at the moment -- but leaving that quote under Martin Luther would hopefully encourage people to write about his antisemitism in more detail...

So, once more I'm going to be putting the quote back it. -- SJK

Herr Eloquence: It would seem that you desire to have your views made known as a right, not to mention seeming to give the impression of having the only right view in a discussion that would appear to have some shades of gray at this point.

For one thing, there is a bit of difference between anti-Jewish sentiments (that need to be placed into the historical and cultural context of Herr Doktor Luther's time) and anti-Semitism (coined circa 1882) of more recent history. There have been things written to suggest that what Luther said had little bearing on what Hitler said and did 400 years later, but they appear nowhere in the Wikipedia. There is no mention of Luther's forgiveness to Jewish assassins who attempted to kill him either, which is in the literature should one look. That might suggest that he very well would not have been a supporter of Hitler if he were alive then. Hitler used Scripture out of context, as well as the writings of Luther and others, to support his maniacal actions. Once again, no mention is made of that. No mention is made of the remarkable integration of Jews in Germany for so many years prior to the time of Hitler. So much for balance and objectivity in observations, no, conclusions stated more like fact than subjective opinions that show little in the way of research except perhaps for "selective research" at no great depth. There is a lot of that going around - watch a TV show, read a biased media account, and become an expert on subjects ranging from theology to history &hellip; even military strategy.

A gentleman here on the list has been known to quote the late fiction writer Harlan Ellison, "We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it's nothing. It's just bibble-babble..." That is one of the problems we face when we start opining on subjects we may only have a small knowledge of not to mention prejudices of various sorts that hinder objective observation and learning that may take not a few years. I make no pretence to be a world-class scholar in any subject area, but I think that I have been around long enough to see superficiality being passed off as being substantive.

So that I may not be accused of anti-Semitism myself, let me point out that I am originally from the "Lower East Side" of New York City and that my father knew Hebrew better than probably anyone presently on the list. I am very aware that the Western European Jew did not seem to have a high regard for the Eastern European Jew and both would look down their noses at say a Jew from the Sudan. As to Herr Eloquence, I lived in Germany too once upon a time as well as two of my relatives in a later period closer to the present. They saw more of the self-inflicted guilt of some people who were not old enough to know the "Beatles" let alone Hitler. By the way, recent statistics show that Germany is now the preferred place to immigrate to by Jews, religious or not, over and above Israel and the U.S. which was stated in the popular media the other day.

In any event, there was more than one Reformation (see, "The European Reformations" published a few years ago) that were concurrent, but by the age of the Enlightenment, and thereafter, the various denominations, particularly the confessional ones, had few in the pews so that by the time Hitler came along the churches were not very full including those of the Roman Church. Hitler helped create a "union church" where no particular doctrine was adhered to except for his form of socialism. Not much unlike the Post Modern Era today were everyone has a path to the truth, but then everyone has their own truth as there are no absolutes, at least according to some.

BTW, theft is to deprive the rightful owner of what belongs to them under law and the profit derived there from. Is it any wonder then that they have international copyright laws despite opinion to the contrary that would deprive someone, or some entity from earning a living?

In any event, the publishers, etc. that have the copyright on "Luther's Works [American Edition]" may not bother about it, but I suspect that the folks at Libronix Digital Library System that put it on CD-ROM for them may not appreciate the copyright infringement.

Lastly, there are various denominations (quite a few actually around the world) that use the word Lutheran (something Luther objected to himself) in their title, but not all that many that adhere to the Lutheran Confessions and Symbolics (see the "Book of Concord") in their totality. Many, if not most, are in no form of fellowship whatsoever. Dr. Hermann Sasse was, amongst other things, somewhat of a Luther scholar, and immigrated to Australia after WWII. One might want to read his works to get a better handle on confessional Lutheranism (see the Luther Seminary, N. Adelaide were he taught - they have a web site I am pretty sure) although some of the more recent translations of his writings were done in the U.S.(especially good is "The Lonely Way" in two volumes published not long ago by CPH Publishing, St. Louis, Missouri, USA). Questions regarding confessional Lutheranism may also be addressed to http://www.lcms.org and their two seminaries in the U.S. Should Herr Eloquence be interested in the church that now represents confessional Lutheranism in Germany, you might want to contact the Selbständige Evangelisch - Lutherische Kirche (SELK) at http://www.selk.de for questions regarding Luther and his so called anti-Semitism. If you are near Oberursal, the Lutherische Theologische Hochschule is located there or you can take a look at their web site at http://www.lthh-oberursel.de and start asking questions and perhaps achieve some balance. Otherwise you may start counting step by saying left, left, left, and left with no rights.

Lastly, I have found in my lifetime that what you get free is rarely free of some payment even if it is just loss of intellectual depth. "You get what you pay for" as someone once said (if I check for copyright, I will lose all of this). Let the encyclopedia reader beware ... and be discerning. Don't take my word for it, take the time to research, compare sources, and be careful of your presuppositions even if it may take a few years.

Best Regards ... despite the difference of opinion. P.E. 20 June, 2003.

--

P.E., the article does not even mention Hitler, so your rant is entirely off-topic. In fact the article states that "Luther initially preached tolerance towards the Jewish people, convinced that the reason they had never converted to Christianity was that they were discriminated against." What you want to do, however, is to remove actual writings of Luther because you think they shed a bad light on him. This is not acceptable, of course. As for the copyright, I have contacted the site owner, and here's what he has written back:

Copyright II
Works published before 1964 needed to have their copyrights renewed in their 28th year, or they'd enter into the public domain. Some books originally published outside of the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, under GATT. Works from before 1964 were automatically renewed if ALL of these apply:
 * At least one author was a citizen or resident of a foreign country (outside the US) that's a party to the applicable copyright agreements. (Almost all countries are parties to these agreements.)


 * The work was still under copyright in at least one author's "home country" at the time the GATT copyright agreement went into effect for that country (January 1, 1996 for most countries).


 * The work was first published abroad, and not published in the United States until at least 30 days after its first publication abroad.

If you can prove that one of the above does not apply, AND if you can prove that copyright was not renewed, then the work is in the public domain.

Research at the Library of Congress shows that only a handful of the volumes in the series "Luther's Works" had their copyright renewed. Volume 47, which contained "On the Jews and their Lies" is not one of them. There is no evidence "Luther's Works" was published first outside the United States. Thus [the] work is in the public domain.

If you can restore the link to the article, I would appreciate it. I think for a condemnation to have any credibility, it must be based on hard facts, without even a hint of distortion, omission, or falsification.

The site owner has also added a public domain notice to the article, so I have restored the link. --Eloquence 11:50 21 Jun 2003 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________

Luther and Antisemitism III
Herr Eloquence, I must first say that I am frustrated, not with you, but with the fact I failed to save my response that was lost because for some reason it did not auto-save. Multiple interruptions did not aid the situation either. I very much regret the loss as I sincerely think that at least some of the content might have been of some degree of help to you.

In any event, I did not think that I was ranting as you suggest or even remotely bombastic. Further, you state, "the article does not even mention Hitler." That is quite true. However, since we know which "Holocaust" is mentioned in the article, how does one separate it from its progenitor namely Hitler? The Austrian fellow from a dysfunctional, non-Lutheran family. His bizarre biography is available from different sources online (caution - discernment in reading as some have been embellished or detracted from).

You next make the following accusation, "What you want to do, however, is to remove actual writings of Luther because you think they shed a bad light on him. This is not acceptable, of course." To disregard what Luther may have said in error would be wrong. However, where did I make any such request or anything remotely close to that? I don't think anyone has, but I will try to read more of the content above to determine if such was said at all. Your accusation of my wanting to remove something is baseless. However, I do not see you being fair on balance. The article is incomplete and biased. It mentions a synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). There are some whom no longer call the ELCA Lutheran based on various actions taken by the leadership in recent years that they consider not in accord with the Lutheran Confessions and Symbolics as may be found in the "Book of Concord" (which not all synods using the term Lutheran adhere to completely, e.g. some of the Scandinavian synods). Nevertheless, that is another issue. What that synod said in 1994, right or wrong, does not encompass the view of all in its wording. I find it interesting that something that the article author had available to him is curiously absent, or perhaps he did not realize that he had the information giving him the benefit of the doubt. The following is a statement by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in 1983:

"Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195)." The full text may be found at, http://www.lcms.org/cic/luther.html. Now, that information might, if made available, place the article in better balance and not help promote discord. I would suggest reading and digesting each resolution found at the aforementioned web site.

"Luther's Works" comes in a few different editions, such as the Weimar Ausgabe (edition), which is in 65 volumes in German (1883) and the St. Louis edition of around the same period (1881) of some 24 volumes. As to the question of copyright of the "American Edition of Luther's Works (known as the AE)," I don't know how I got into that issue. However, you make claim that Volume 47 of the AE did not have its copyright renewed. Now, the AE was 54 volumes, but now has a 55th volume that is the index to the series. Does it not seem strange that a publisher would exclude volumes when applying for copyright? That is why I looked and guess what, the title page of Luther's Works, Vol. 47, The Christian in Society, IV contains the following: "Copyright© 1971 by Fortress Press. All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise with the prior permission of the copyright owner." Its Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is listed as 55-9893 and the ISBN is 0-8006-0347-8. Now, doesn't that evidence a valid copyright under U.S. copyright law? I think that the Rev. Bob Smith is also a knowledgeable person in that area having acquired a Master of Library Science quite a while ago. I know Bob, and he has always been up to date on such matters and is well acquainted with the Library of Congress, etc.

BTW, Luther's invectives against the Jews were largely ignored at the time and the sale of them poor. It is regrettable that he said some things, but one must also consider the times when they were written, the "Middle Ages, full of superstitions, etc. It is no excuse, but again I would look at Luther in his totality and not selectively to serve agendas.

That is all I have to say on the subject. Those who are wont to study further should do so and attempt to remain objective and discerning.

I almost forgot, the CD-ROM edition of recent vintage is copyrighted as well.

Best regards, PE  21 June 2003


 * P.E., we are the victims of a mutual misunderstanding. You seem to believe that I wrote the entire current article about Luther. That is not the case. Wikipedia is written in a collaborative process -- anyone, including you, can edit a page, and we strive towards a neutral point of view (NPOV), presenting all arguments and attributing them to their adherents. If you look at the page history, you will notice that quite a few people have edited the article -- you can view who made which change as well. I did not write the bit about ECLA. I think it should stay, but other views should be presented, too.


 * So please feel free to present the viewpoints of other congregations in the article. Just click "View article" and then "Edit this page" to do so. --Eloquence 00:27 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)