Why Do Some People Think Questioning Judaism is Antisemitic?

[wizanda]

Considering how many times this has happened on this forum, think we should have a proper topic on what is antisemitism....

This topic is expanded from here; as got accused of being antisemitic again for questioning Judaism as a religion.

Antisemitism is a hatred of Jews as a people, making racists, and bigoted statements against them; not by questioning Judaism or its beliefs.

Too many times it is used as a defense, for anything that might make objective points about the religion or practises, that people don't necessarily agree with.

So what are your understandings of antisemitism?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Considering how many times this has happened on this forum, think we should have a proper topic on what is antisemitism....

This topic is expanded from here; as got accused of being antisemitic again for questioning Judaism as a religion.

Antisemitism is a hatred of Jews as a people, making racists, and bigoted statements against them; not by questioning Judaism or its beliefs.

Too many times it is used as a defense, for anything that might make objective points about the religion or practises, that people don't necessarily agree with.

So what are your understandings of antisemitism?

Antisemitism being critical about Israel or Judaism in any way , even the suggestion itself is antisemitism.?
David and Goliath .
Its seen as a perceived threat in an ever expanding world of Goliath (being the gentiles ) fear driven ?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Considering how many times this has happened on this forum, think we should have a proper topic on what is antisemitism....

I haven't seen it that often here, actually. What I have seen is opposition to bona fide anti-Semitic propaganda and falsehoods about Judaism and Jewish people. I have absolutely no problem with said opposition; I think it's necessary. Now, I think one could make a case that some people have a tendency to idolize Israel and call those who oppose it anti-Semitic, but like the arguments you mentioned, I haven't seen that very often here.

Antisemitism is a hatred of Jews as a people, making racists, and bigoted statements against them; not by questioning Judaism or its beliefs.

Too many times it is used as a defense, for anything that might make objective points about the religion or practises, that people don't necessarily agree with.

So what are your understandings of antisemitism?

My understanding of anti-Semitism is hatred of or discrimination against Jews based on their ethnicity or religion. When the term "anti-Semitism" is misused to include sincere and legitimate criticism of Judaism as a religion, I think it becomes akin to the misuse of the term "Islamophobia": it confuses criticism of a religion with hatred of or bigotry against people.

I think one has to keep in mind that there is a fine line between criticizing a culture or religion and criticizing people. Sometimes they overlap, but not always. For instance, to say that Judaism teaches hatred of non-Jews and that some Jews follow this strain of Judaism would amount to criticism of those Jews. In effect, making false statements about what a group of people believe can equal making false accusations against said group of people in a lot of cases. So yes, I think it can indeed be anti-Semitic for someone to make demonstrably false statements about Judaism.

Keep in mind that I didn't touch on the tangent about the term "Islamophobia" in detail because

1) that would be off topic
2) I think the etymology of the term and how a lot of people use the term are mismatched.

 

[wizanda]

Its seen as a perceived threat in an ever expanding world of Goliath (being the gentiles ) fear driven ?

Depends who says it; yet it does seem everyone jumps on the bandwagon straight away, even within a misuse of the terminology.

Antisemitism being critical about Israel or Judaism in any way , even the suggestion itself is antisemitism.?

Exactly, and are either of those antisemitism?

Think some of the Zionist extremism within Israel isn't Jewish; there are even whole groups of Jews who state it isn't Judaism, which has allowed such a thing.

Questioning Judaism isn't antisemitism either, and should be encouraged, not frowned upon; like it is the one religion in the world we're not allowed to talk about, as it makes us racists automatically.

I think one has to keep in mind that there is a fine line between criticizing a culture or religion and criticizing people.

Agreed, and hopefully we can come to a better understanding between us of where that line is; so that we can differentiate incorrect usage of the term.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Depends who says it; yet it does seem everyone jumps on the bandwagon straight away, even within a misuse of the terminology.

Exactly, and are either of those antisemitism?

Think some of the Zionist extremism within Israel isn't Jewish, there are even whole groups of Jews who state it isn't Judaism, which has allowed such a thing.

Questioning Judaism isn't antisemitism either, and should be encouraged, not frowned upon; like it is the one religion in the world we're not allowed to talk about, as it makes us racists automatically.

Agreed, and hopefully we can come to a better understanding between us of where that line is, so that we can differentiate incorrect usage of the term.

Out of the box , I only ever question critised Judaism when I became aware of two things , my own ideals of Jewish where destroyed , they just the same as all of us , capable of just as much .

 

[rosends]

What was said on the other thread was that you were ranting against Judaism. When you say things which misrepresent Judaism, or deny its validity (such as, in that thread "
So if Rabbinic Judaism substantiated we don't need to follow the Torah anymore, then by all means...") then you are saying things that are against Judaism. Then, when another person made a comment which tied certain attitudes to manifestations of anti-semitism, you decided to defend the word "anti-semitism" as referring to bias against all people you see as descended from Shem. This is historically inaccurate if one researches the origin of the term. No one, AFAICT, on that thread called you anti-semitic.

 

[Tarheeler]

Considering how many times this has happened on this forum, think we should have a proper topic on what is antisemitism....

This topic is expanded from here; as got accused of being antisemitic again for questioning Judaism as a religion.

Antisemitism is a hatred of Jews as a people, making racists, and bigoted statements against them; not by questioning Judaism or its beliefs.

Too many times it is used as a defense, for anything that might make objective points about the religion or practises, that people don't necessarily agree with.

So what are your understandings of antisemitism?

You might want to get your eyes checked; I never accused you of anything.

 

[wizanda]

What was said on the other thread was that you were ranting against Judaism.

I didn't rant against Judaism, was saying some of the Laws come from our Barbaric past, and hopefully we're evolving out of it.

When you say things which misrepresent Judaism, or deny its validity (such as, in that thread "So if Rabbinic Judaism substantiated we don't need to follow the Torah anymore, then by all means...") then you are saying things that are against Judaism.

That doesn't misrepresent anything, the Torah Laws could be seen as barbaric; the person asked didn't i mean laws in place, and was merely saying that these laws are still in place, unless Rabbinic Judaism decided to say they weren't.

Then, when another person made a comment which tied certain attitudes to manifestations of anti-semitism

The person was clearly wrong, using the word antisemitism for questioning a religion, and not saying anything about Jews as a people.

you decided to defend the word "anti-semitism" as referring to bias against all people you see as descended from Shem.

Admit i was wrong to have combined the terms...Sorry for using a word as its meaning, rather than an applied meaning.

You might want to get your eyes checked; I never accused you of anything.

Never said you did.

 

[rosends]

I didn't rant against Judaism, was saying some of the Laws come from our Barbaric past, and hopefully we're evolving out of it.

No, you misrepresented the entirety of the religion.

That doesn't misrepresent anything, the Torah Laws could be seen as barbaric; the person asked didn't i mean laws in place, and was merely saying that these laws are still in place, unless Rabbinic Judaism decided to say they weren't.

See, again, you are claiming that Torah law is something, but you are wrong. In terms of Judaism, there was no such thing as a law which simply existed in the written text until later on it was moderated or changed. The "Torah Law" was always based in the combination of the written and oral laws, so there was no change. When you claim that rabbinic Judaism (later on) decided to change things you are misrepresenting the religion.

The person was clearly wrong, using the word antisemitism for questioning a religion, and not saying anything about Jews as a people.

It seemed to me that the person was saying that he sees anti-semitism often as connecting people who display certain attitudes. He never mentioned you.

Sorry for using a word as its meaning, rather than an applied meaning.

You mean you used it for your invented meaning rather than for its intended and historical meaning. OK.

 

[Tarheeler]

Never said you did.

Nope, just set it up to when someone follows the link where you state you've been accused, it's to my post.
But, hey, it's alright. Nice to know what kind of guy I'm conversing with.

 

[wizanda]

Nope, just set it up to when someone follows the link where you state you've been accused, it's to my post.
But, hey, it's alright. Nice to know what kind of guy I'm conversing with.

Edited it so it points to the accuser, sorry was just trying to follow from where had said i would start a new thread....no offense meant.

No, you misrepresented the entirety of the religion.

Why not take it back to that thread, and debate your accusations then.

When you claim that rabbinic Judaism (later on) decided to change things you are misrepresenting the religion.

I've not misrepresented anything, Rabbinic literature is still being written...Rabbinic literature that exists, has dates after the Torah was written, therefore has the capability to rescind previous Laws .

He never mentioned you.

Talk about being pedantic.... See i never mentioned 'you' in that sentence, so it could be about anyone.

You mean you used it for your invented meaning rather than for its intended and historical meaning.

At least this is on topic; the word is anti Semite, therefore with most words they are defined by their meaning; i didn't make up the term anti or Semite.

I already apologized, as it caused more confusion...Yet i meant every word i said; as sick of seeing racism hidden under a religious umbrella.

 

[Tarheeler]

Edited it so it points to the accuser, sorry was just trying to follow from where had said i would start a new thread....no offense meant.

It's appreciated.

 

[rosends]

Why not take it back to that thread, and debate your accusations then.

Because YOU started a new thread predicated on the reaction to your statement.

I've not misrepresented anything, Rabbinic literature is still being written...Rabbinic literature that exists, has dates after the Torah was written, therefore has the capability to rescind previous Laws .

You misrepresent Judaism by stating that it was in one state based on only written law and then it was changed after the fact by rabbinic Judaism. Can you point to a law that was rescinded?

Talk about being pedantic.... See i never mentioned 'you' in that sentence, so it could be about anyone.

Sure, and if I felt that it was about me, I would say something to you, not start a whole new thread about what is happening "too many times".

At least this is on topic; the word is anti Semite, therefore with most words they are defined by their meaning; i didn't make up the term anti or Semite.

Words are defined by their meanings? How novel. So you just have to keep assigning the wrong meaning to it enough times and it will begin to be defined in a new way. Or, one could use the word properly.

 

[wizanda]

Because YOU started a new thread predicated on the reaction to your statement.

Started a new thread to differentiate the topics....

Sure, and if I felt that it was about me, I would say something to you, not start a whole new thread about what is happening "too many times".

Did say something, yet that isn't anything to do with the topic, and this is even further from it, and thus creates a whole new topic, since clearly this seems to be an issue.

You misrepresent Judaism by stating that it was in one state based on only written law and then it was changed after the fact by rabbinic Judaism.

No i didn't, said that unless Rabbinic Judaism chose to remove the Torah, which it hasn't....

Sorry yet you've clearly got issues with reading comprehension.

Can you point to a law that was rescinded?

therefore has the capability to rescind previous Laws

In other words, Rabbinic literature could state, 'that stoning people to death is no longer practical in a modern world, as it would be seen as inhumane', this would then rescind the Laws of the Torah saying that we've got to do so.

Didn't say anything about it already doing, as I've not studied them...

Maybe if there are things like that, you could be so kind as to post them in the other thread, to help show how Judaism has evolved.

 

[rosends]

In other words, Rabbinic literature could state, 'that stoning people to death is no longer practical in a modern world, as it would be seen as inhumane', this would then rescind the Laws of the Torah saying that we've got to do so.

I'll try to help you focus because that seems to be a difficulty for you.
You just gave an example which exhibits precisely the misrepresentation which you persist in making. Rabbinic literature cannot state that stoning is impractical in a modern world. It also cannot not rescind any laws. Your problem is that you don't understand what the torah told us to do in the first place so you have decided that rabbinic Judaism rescinds what you (erroneously) think. So your entire system of presenting an opinion on Judaism is based on a mistake, one that you repeat.

 

[Tumah]

That doesn't misrepresent anything, the Torah Laws could be seen as barbaric; the person asked didn't i mean laws in place, and was merely saying that these laws are still in place, unless Rabbinic Judaism decided to say they weren't.

I've not misrepresented anything, Rabbinic literature is still being written...Rabbinic literature that exists, has dates after the Torah was written, therefore has the capability to rescind previous Laws .

In other words, Rabbinic literature could state, 'that stoning people to death is no longer practical in a modern world, as it would be seen as inhumane', this would then rescind the Laws of the Torah saying that we've got to do so.

Didn't say anything about it already doing, as I've not studied them...

You keep saying that you're not misrepresenting Judaism. And then you go and misrepresent Judaism. Considering how @rosends keeps trying to correct you, I can only conclude one of two options:
1. You have critical thinking issues.
2. You are purposely misrepresenting Judaism in your posts in order to overtly or subtly criticize it.

The way to figure out where you stand is to consider whether you can differentiate between how you perceive Judaism and how Judaism perceives itself. If you are capable of making that differentiation then there is strong likelihood that you are acting out of malicious intent.

You may also want to ask the Jew who keeps telling you that you're misrepresenting Judaism, where exactly you are mistaken in your representation.
Again, that would be assuming you're in category one.

 

[wizanda]

You just gave an example which exhibits precisely the misrepresentation which you persist in making. Rabbinic literature cannot state that stoning is impractical in a modern world. It also cannot not rescind any laws.

This is why you should go back to the previous topic to debate it, those are suggestions based on that some of the Laws in the Torah wouldn't fit into a modern world...

Thus it was a suggestion of how it could fit, if Rabbinic literature allowed it, based on the hypothetical question of what is 'in place'.

You literally don't have a clue on what is being said, and then just continue arguing for the sake of it.

Understand that nothing can be added or taken from the Torah, was merely suggesting that if Rabbinic literature did do that, it would make it fit into a modern world, and thus change what was 'in place'.

you're misrepresenting Judaism

He has completely misunderstood where this is coming from, it was based on this post, within this thread, which was only a hypothetical question to change what Laws were in place....

Though I'm aware Judaism doesn't do that; yet it was only an idea, which is why I've always posed the question with 'if'.

 

[rosends]

This is why you should go back to the previous topic to debate it, those are suggestions based on that some of the Laws in the Torah wouldn't fit into a modern world...

Thus it was a suggestion of how it could fit, if Rabbinic literature allowed it, based on the hypothetical question of what is 'in place'.

You literally don't have a clue on what is being said, and then just continue arguing for the sake of it.

Understand that nothing can be added or taken from the Torah, was merely suggesting that if Rabbinic literature did do that, it would make it fit into a modern world, and thus change what was 'in place'.

He has completely misunderstood where this is coming from, it was based on this post, within this thread, which was only a hypothetical question to change what Laws were in place....

Though I'm aware Judaism doesn't do that; yet it was only an idea, which is why I've always posed the question with 'if'.

Swing and a miss, yet again. Ask yourself, why would people take umbrage with how you speak about Judaism. maybe the answer is that you continue to misrepresent Judaism and portray an ignorance of it. You started a new thread to defend yourself against a charge which was not actually made, except by your inference. So I am pointing out your behavior that might have prompted the charge or other charges similar to it. That makes it relevant to this thread. If you don't want to discuss what criticism of religion qualifies as what precise form of speech, don't start a thread about it.

 

[wizanda]

So I am pointing out your behavior that might have prompted the charge or other charges similar to it.

You're just argumentative, and trying to find reasons to accuse.... You didn't get the point, and continuously act like you're superior, if you were right in the slightest I'd apologize, and concede the statement; yet since you're just arguing, and without showing evidence it is a waste of time.

Yet thank you, you've shown me why some people see questioning Judaism as antisemitic; when this is common within communication with some Jews, when they speak to people like they're all ignorant, without showing or explaining to them where they're in error.

 

[Tumah]

Yet thank you, you've shown me why some people see questioning Judaism as antisemitic; when this is common within communication with some Jews, when they speak to people like they're all ignorant, without showing or explaining to them where they're in error.

You just gave an example which exhibits precisely the misrepresentation which you persist in making. Rabbinic literature cannot state that stoning is impractical in a modern world. It also cannot not rescind any laws. Your problem is that you don't understand what the torah told us to do in the first place so you have decided that rabbinic Judaism rescinds what you (erroneously) think. So your entire system of presenting an opinion on Judaism is based on a mistake, one that you repeat.

A little more misrepresentation to round out a fine conversation, I see.