Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 21: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Antisemitism Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:34, 10 August 2005 editVizcarra (talk \| contribs)10,395 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:24, 10 August 2005 edit undoJpgordon (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Administrators82,548 edits →Passion play redux Next edit →
Line 217:		Line 217:

	No, I didn't. The original title of the section was <nowiki>=== Modern passion plays ===</nowiki> if you didn't like it back then why didn't you change it just "passion plays" which I agree is more with accord with the article. I don't know why you have to be so contentious adding that type of remarks in the edit summary or with language such as "What the heck are you asking him to prove?" --] 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)		No, I didn't. The original title of the section was <nowiki>=== Modern passion plays ===</nowiki> if you didn't like it back then why didn't you change it just "passion plays" which I agree is more with accord with the article. I don't know why you have to be so contentious adding that type of remarks in the edit summary or with language such as "What the heck are you asking him to prove?" --] 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
			*I'm contentious because you've acted unilaterally. Let's try to build a consensus here before making radical changes in the meaning of the paragraph. It's unambiguous that the Passion Plays historically (and within my lifetime) portrayed Jews as deicides; you seem to be the only one here that has a problem with this fact. --]] 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:24, 10 August 2005

Earlier discussions have been archived or broken out to additional pages (note capitalisation):

Talk:Anti-Semitism (abuse) (Discussion of supposed abuse of the term "Anti-Semitism")
Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology) (etymology and usage issues)
Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology complete)
Talk:Anti-Zionism

Archiving again

I've archived the rest of the discussion. Not only is it wholly unproductive, it's utterly inappropriate, since NONE of what's been discussed in the past 5 days has anything to do with the article, rather it's almost all been about 1 particular user's antisemitism. This page is for discussing the Anti-Semitism ARTICLE, not about discussing the rationales or excuses or whatever that drive anti-semitism. Please note: the article does not discuss hairbrained ideas for what "causes" antisemitism, it merely describes the phenomenon. For the pathology, please argue at psychological disorder or whereëver such discussion is appropriate. It categorically is not appropriate here. Thanks. Tomer 04:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer,

ROTFLMAO! One user's 'anti-semitism'? What a cop out. So pray tell me, what exactly made those comments anti-semitic? Was it because something was said that a Jew didn't like?

My comments by the way are wholly appropriate and were a directed critique OF THE ARTICLE.

I've continually made the case that the article is completely faulty in not explaining that as 'anti-semitism' stands now, there is (a) no objective criteria, (b) there is no objective adjudicative framework or process nor is there an discussion on (c) who the final arbiters of what is and isn't anti-semitism is.

Moreover, the article should mention that if something said about a Jew is TRUE, it can NEVER be anti-semitic.

Without these acknowledgements, the article is immensely flawed and anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally feeble or intellectually dishonest.

I know, I know, we all really know what anti-semitism is, just don't let the Gentiles know. Anti-semitism is anything that a Jews deems it to be . And normally that occurs if a Jew thinks the comments/actions/thoughts speak unfavorably of a Jew no matter how true they are. The perfect example I presented was Jews cursing Mel Gibson's wonderful film "The Passion of Christ" as 'anti-semitic'. Another examples is Israel and World Jewry cursing the Pope as 'anti-semitic' for speaking ill of Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.

The funniest thing about 'anti-semitism' is that without or even the baseless charges of it, the entire World Jewish community would be weaker. Now it is an emotional kneejerk rallying cry, just like the Jewish College Professor from San Dimas, California that is now in prison for faking a hate crime where she said, "Neo-Nazi's vandalized her car".

The problem she faced was that her students saw her smashing her own car and spray painting "Kike!" on it.

Back to the main point. Are we going to fix the defects of this article or just continue ignoring the elephant in the room?

--Titus70AD 04:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Kerri Dunn (the "Jewish College Professor" you refer to) was Catholic; not a drop of the dreaded Jewish blood in her. You about done here? Jayjg 05:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, snap!

I want a discussion on the following to be added to the article. This is common sense.

For something to be characterized as 'anti-semitism' or 'anti-anything' it must first be UNTRUE. If it is TRUE than it can't be 'anti-anything' let alone 'anti-semitic'.

Further, to characterize something as anti-semitism/anti-semitic, we must establish (a) an objective criteria, (b) an objective adjudicative framework or process and determine (c) who the final arbiters of what is and isn't anti-semitism is.

I've been told I need to reference a book to make this case but how can you reference what is obvious logic -- perhaps an undergraduate Business Law 101 book.

Without those three components AND a defense of "truth" the article is flawed and that should be mentioned in the article.

Without these acknowledgements, the article is immensely flawed and anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally feeble or intellectually dishonest.

Thoughtful, logical comments? Or just more obfuscation?

--Titus70AD 05:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtful: Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum

Logical: Clearly nothing I've said has sunk in. Likely because you're only talking, and not listening.

Obfuscation? WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:WIN

Tomer 05:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply, but then Tomer had to jump in, so I couldn't resist. You have brought up three issues of fact that you had with the article, all of which are not in the article: : (1) The Passion of the Christ, which the article does not call antisemitic (2) Complaints about Palestinians and the Pope, which is not in the article, and (3) Some false allegation of antisemitism by someone who isn't Jewish, which you blamed on the Jews, and which is not in the article. You have no factual arguments with the events described in the article and you seem to not show the slightest embarassment at being repeatedly incorrect. Usually people get bored by now... so, to all the other editors, can we please stop responding and get back to more interesting hobbies? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2,

I clearly stated my thesis - see the 4 points above (objective criteria, adjudicative framework/process, determination of final arbiters, truth as the ultimate defense to charges of 'anti-semtism').

I'm sorry if this was lost on you or you couldn't keep up. As far as the discussion on the Passion goes, that was simply to illustrate the above 4 points to demonstrate with empirical evidence why the 4 points are so crucial to determine what is anti-semitic and when it occurs.

Further, the Passion is just one example among many that prove my statement that often times (perhaps more often than not), 'anti-semitism' is simply anything that a Jew finds offensive or paints Jews in a bad light even if it is true. Again, I'm sorry this was lost on you or you couldn't keep up with the argument. Four points and empirics. Shouldn't be that hard.

--Titus70AD 08:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Titus: If you have something you'd like to see added to the article, write it up, and we'll discuss that. Nobody here except you is interested in discussion about your views, only about the article. What you're proposing is not inviting discussion about the article, you're proposing that we all sit around and waste our time discussing your views. Do that in a discussion forum. Please stop doing it here. Thanks. Tomer 05:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Tomer & All,

Apologies if I didn't follow the process properly. That was not my intention. I will write up the section I have proposed and submit for everyone's review.

Thank you. Titus70AD 08:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. In order to save yourself from wasting your own time, before you present your paragraph to us, go over Misplaced Pages: Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages: No original research and Misplaced Pages: Cite sources carefully (be especially careful about our distinction between primary and secondary sources), and make sure your proposed paragraph is in full accordance with these policies. This is not a threat, just serious advice, because if anyone thinks what you propose violates one of these policies, you'll be in for an argument — and if most people here agree that it violates one of these policies, it will just be rejected out of hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Thank you for the writing tips and guidelines. I will check these

links out.

--Titus70AD 02:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of anti-Semitism

It might also be worth pointing out that there are a number of formal definitions of anti-semitism, though most of the controversy is over the "new antisemitism" as opposed to the historical stuff in the article. In any case, I reproduced a couple below: --Goodoldpolonius2 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

ECRI definition

the definition used by the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance, which is part of the European Union, available here: :

ECRI, January 28, 2005 The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and / or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.

Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagines wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, of even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish Citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Wow. This definition of antisemitism is rather intense! I will note however that no where in this definition is there anything in specific about taking political action to ban Jewish practices (like circumcision) for ethical reasons. Nevertheless, such people have been accused of antisemitism and there is certain anxiety within such groups of being labeled this way. It is interesting that reasonable criticism of Israel is the only given example of a limitation in the definition. Sirkumsize 00:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Helen Fein definition

The EUMC and a large number of other sources site Helen Fein's (CUNY) definition: "A persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews."

Dietz Bering definition

Another common definition is Dietz Bering (Univ. of Cologne), who works from Prof. Fein's definition: "A summary of anti-Semitic belief is:) Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature:

Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective.
Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies.
Jews bring disaster on their “host societies” or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character."

Causes of Antisemitism

If I'm reading one of Tomer's posts correctly, he's trying to tell us that an article on antisemitism is not an appropriate place to discuss the causes of antisemitism. Is this logical? When I look something up in an encyclopia do I not expect an explaination on thinking around the causes if applicable and even a history of such theories? Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. It is supposed to be more indepth than a simple definition of a phenoma. If there is a page I don't know about for the causes of antisemitism please tell me. Otherwise explain why theories about the causes don't belong here? Is it because the best theories on the subject are distasteful to Tomer? Isn't that against the policy of using[REDACTED] as a soap box? Sirkumsize 02:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The article should (and already does) discuss the causes of anti-semitism, but they should be from verifiable sources, not made up on the spot. Rhobite 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sirkumsize, I think this article does discuss the causes of anti-semitism. It is clear, however, that you are referring to your thesis that the root cause of anti-semitism is repulsion towards the practice of circumcision. You have not adequately proved that point, and every article I have read about any such link between circumcision and anti-Semitism mentions circumcision as just one aspect of what made the Jew different,and therefore an "Other" in many societies - nowhere is it listed as a primary cause.

For example, in Gilman's The Jew's Body, the author has chapters on racial anti-Semitism and its emphasis on many other aspects of Jewish physical difference, real or imagined; including feet, noses, voice, and propensity for disease. Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, thought that the eyes of Jews were "the sign of their difference, their potential pathology," for example. Freud certainly thought that circumsicion created castration anxieties, but he considered the primary cause of anti-Semitism deicide, and secondary causes the continued persistance of Jews, Jewish seperation from gentile societies, finally writing, in Moses and Monotheism, "The hatred of Jews is at the bottom the hatred of Christians."

I am not supporting any of these interpretations of anti-Semitism, as my personal preference is not semiotics or psychoanalysis, but I am pointing out that the circumcision thesis is not a primary one in the literature that deals with such matters. I understand that it is your theory, but it seems marginal in the literature, or even original research. It also lacks a consensus on this page, even more importantly. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah. What Sirkumsize is talking about now is my assertion that Kevin MacDonald's crackpot theories don't warrant inclusion here because the article isn't a discussion about the causes of antisemitism. The article is not a discussion about the causes of antisemitism, it's a description of antisemitism and tangible evidence of the pathology throughout recorded history, the impact it's had on various Jewish communities, the manifestations of antisemitism, and so on, but the main focus of the article is not on "causes" of antisemitism, especially not on crackpot theories about evolution (which is actually in itself a condescension to the rest of humanity, and simultaneously an excuse for rampant stupidity) per MacDonald, nor on Sirkumsize' pathological obsession with his penis and his projection therefrom as a "primary cause" of antisemitism. Tomer 04:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I would like to add that MacDonald does not in any way warrant a mention in this article, not just because of the focus of this article, but also because many, many scholars who we do not mention have dealt with the roots of anti-semitism, have theories are actually accepted by the academic community, and are not nearly as idiotic and neo-racist as those of MacDonald. If someone does start an article on the subject, I hope that the authors will do some reading on the generally accepted arguments, rather than just picking the most controversal and sketchy of all possible writers on the subject and blowing his contribution well out of proportion. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, I believe your assertion that my thesis about circumcision not being supported just isn't so. I've been doing some serious reading up on the subject and it is mentioned by many many authors since Freud. I am really really concerned by this communities apathy towards including it in the article. I think it is a reflection of our societies bias against taking the issue of male circumcision and its effects seriously. It also shows that this community is afraid of real academic discussion on the matter. I will also point out that I have had good references -- not just text -- that I added to this article deleted without provocation simply because they didn't sit well with Tomer's personal taste. Also I have been accused of personal attacks for the most minor infraction while you can see from above that its okay for Mr. Tomer to talk about my supposed obsession with my penis. What is with this double standard of conduct. A unattainably stricts standard for me and a second, rediculous loose one for Tomer. That's fair. I'll also note that the two words I added to the section on relgious antisemitism "or coincidental" were removed. I cannot even add two words to the article? Was there no consensus that political activities to ban circumcision -- a Jewish practice -- are coincidental and not related to antisemitism? Is it not clear yet that there is a problem here? Sirkumsize 07:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Roots of anti-Semitism

come have a look, and weigh in regarding the proposed redirect. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Passion play and anti-semitism

Vizcarra has made a change I'd like discussed. The former wording asserts that the passion plays was used to arouse hatred of local Jews; the newer wording says that the passion plays sometimes happened to arouse hatred of local Jews. The difference is rather critical. Let's leave aside the fact that the former version should qualify itself at least to make it clear that the passion plays were neither always nor only used for arousing anti-Jewish sentiments; can it be fairly said that there was (sometimes? often?) a deliberate and specific intent to incite such sentiments? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If we keep "passion plays have traditionally been used to incite hatred towards Jews" implies that a religious tradition of Christians (that is still popular to this day) was used mainly for hatred. Thus implying that Christians are indeed evil people. I can't deny that in the past some people may have used them to incite hatred. I mean, nowadays a lot of people use religion as an excuse to incite hatred towards blacks, jews, gays, muslims etc. However, the purpose of passion plays is to remind people about Jesus suffering (according to Christians beliefs) and not to avenge him or to blame anybody. Saying that because some have used it such different purposes contrary to the Christian belief of forgiveness not only does not make sense but is also a horrible generalization. --Vizcarra 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is an article about anti-Semitism. Certainly, there was a considerable amount of anti-semitis in the best-known of the passion plays. In fact, here's a quote from the 2000 Oberammergau play booklet: "We must nevertheless admit that this Passion Play, too, contributed in various ways to prepare the soil which eventually yielded the terrible harvest of the extermination of the Jews." --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That is a comment about the Oberammergau Passion Plays in specific not in general about passion plays. And it contributed because it inspired Hitler to think very bad things about the Jews. The song Helter Skelter by the Beatles inspired George Mason to kill a few other people. Shall we say that the song has traditionally inspired the murders of people and that the game Doom incites students to kill their classmates? (see Columbine High School massacre). --Vizcarra 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going back to my original question. Why was the anti-semitic material inserted into the Passion Plays? Was it simply a reflection of the feelings of the populace, or was it a deliberate socio-political act of the plays' producers? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Which anti-semitic material? --Vizcarra 21:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? Or are you unaware of the historical anti-semitic content in passion plays in general, and the Oberammergau one in particular? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a serious question. I'm obviously familiar with the Oberammergau since I've mentioned it already. I assumed "Why was the anti-semitic material inserted into the Passion Plays?" referred to plays in general. What was the anti-semitic material? --Vizcarra 22:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Semitic material is the charge of deicide against the Jews as a people, and their collective guilt for the death of Jesus. This has historical been a pretense for violence against Jews and anti-Semitism. The Second Vatican Council said as much in 1965 in the Nostra Aetate. Goodoldpolonius2 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is charging the Jews as a people in the plays? Plays quote Mathew 27:25 "25Then the people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’" which refers to the specific crowd, not all Jews. The article, before your edits already spoke about "the pretense for violence against Jews" without generalizing all plays and all Christian communities. Could you quote Vatican II? --Vizcarra 22:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted

"These plays blame the Jews for the death of Jesus". These plays tell the New Testament version of the last hours of Jesus. The plays is focused on Jesus' life not on blaming anybody.

"as Christianity Today stated, "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian and Holocaust survivor Eliezer Berkovits concluded, 'the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history'.""

Christianity Today stated that coment by Eliezer and then challenged his position by writing: "But neither the New Testament nor The Passion of the Christ is about Jewish deicide or revenge. Each is about God placing the iniquities of us all on his one and only son, who suffered unspeakable brutality to redeem his estranged children." --Vizcarra 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, your reversion criteria is totally ridiculous, this was not out of context at all, Christianity Today is obviously not calling for anti-Semitism, it is clearly saying that passion plays have been used to incite anti-Semitism historically, but that it shouldn't be used for that anymore. The second sentence you quote does not challenge Eliezer's position, it is the same position of the article itself, in fact, the next sentence begins "Now is the time for Christians to disavow the history of Passion-linked hatred" To quote the ENTIRE full last section of the article from Christianity Today:

The Pope may have had the Slovakian papal nuncio in mind when making his remarks about the "lulled consciences" during World War II. When asked in 1942 to intervene on behalf of Jewish children slated by the Nazis to be deported to concentration camps, the nuncio refused. "There is no innocent blood of Jewish children in the world. All Jewish blood is guilty. You have to die. This is the punishment that has been awaiting you because of that sin ," he replied. Deicide, which means "to kill God," is the foremost "erroneous and unjust" interpretation of Scripture that has incited so much hostility. In Passion plays, a difficult forum for conveying the theological nuance of humanity's collective culpability, the Jews have often become an inviting target.

Unfortunately, deicide has not been the lone charge directed collectively against Jews. As recently as the early twentieth century, pogroms sometimes erupted during Holy Week in Eastern European nations when rumors spread about Jewish crimes. Inflamed by outlandish accusations, such as the claim that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzo bread for Passover, unruly gangs searched out Jews to kill and maim.

This style of pogrom dates back to the First Crusade. Until this point European Jews largely eluded organized violence, but marauding crusaders on their way to the Middle East in 1096 stopped to slaughter Jews in the Rhineland. One crusader's account recalls, "Behold we journey a long way to seek the idolatrous shrine and to take vengeance upon the Muslims. But here are the Jews dwelling among us, whose ancestors killed him and crucified him groundlessly. Let us take vengeance first upon them. Let us wipe them out as a nation."

Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian and Holocaust survivor Eliezer Berkovits concluded, "the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history." But neither the New Testament nor The Passion of the Christ is about Jewish deicide or revenge. Each is about God placing the iniquities of us all on his one and only son, who suffered unspeakable brutality to redeem his estranged children. Now is the time for Christians to disavow the history of Passion-linked hatred and show Jews "how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ" (Eph. 3:18).

Now can you explain why you keep removing this material? Goodoldpolonius2 22:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I already explained it and will explain it again:

I'm challenging the remark that "These plays blame the Jews for the death of Jesus".
Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and the claim that "'the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history'" cannot possibly be substantiated. Prove it before before adding such a controversial statement. --Vizcarra 22:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. First, you are ignoring the article above, which you accused me of quoting out of context, and which was clearly in context. Now you are asking for other proof as well? Well, deicide was a common charge in pasion plays:

"Deicide, which means "to kill God," is the foremost "erroneous and unjust" interpretation of Scripture that has incited so much hostility. In Passion plays, a difficult forum for conveying the theological nuance of humanity's collective culpability, the Jews have often become an inviting target." --Christianity Today
"The Jew, historically the object of derision and animosity, became the living incarnation of Satan. Holy Week, the week beginning with Palm Sunday and culminating with Easter, became a particularly dangerous time for Jews, as Christians perpetrated violence against Jews living in their communities. Given these developments, which, along with New Testament interpretations, were incorporated into the production of Passion plays, it is understandable that these plays evoked intense feelings of hatred by Christians toward Jews. Belief that the Jews killed Christ became translated into action against his killers. As Passion plays kindled latent rage about the supposed deicide by the Jews, they had an important role in perpetuating anti-Semitism. Since Passion plays historically have resulted in violence and negative attitudes towards Jews, we must be particularly careful in this time of increasing anti- Semitism to make sure that we do not continue or reinforce the mistake of blaming Jewish people for the death of Jesus." Boston College's A VIEWER’S GUIDE TO CONTEMPORARY PASSION PLAYS
The most pernicious aspect of Passion plays is the repetition of the charge of deicide, that is, that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. The charge of deicide lies at the core of Western antisemitism. The history of physical attacks on Jewish communities stemming directly from Passion plays is well documented. In the years since Rabbi Krauskopf wrote his book there have been significant advances in relations between Jews and Christians and some Christian communities have become aware that the Passion narrative has historically generated anti-Jewish sentiment and violence and are careful about how those narratives are presented in plays and in liturgy. Judaism Spring 2002

As for the New Testament issue, I was simply quoting the article, and am happy to use the quote without the New Testament section, though this is a common view.Goodoldpolonius2 22:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

- "deicide was a common charge in pasion plays" so is the charge that Jews are as a group guilty of deicide. But neither accusation is sustainable, no matter how old the accusations are.
  - Huh?--Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes.--Vizcarra 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      - I don't know what you mean, but if you mean that deicide is false, well, I agree with you. But false doesn't mean people didn't believe it. Heck, they even believe it now, 20% of Europeans blame the Jews for killing Jesus.
- None of the quotes you have included can sustain the argument that plays blame Jews from deicide although they all conclude that passion plays did in the past caused anti-semitic sentiment, which was the original argument before your last edits.
  - "The most pernicious aspect of Passion plays is the repetition of the charge of deicide" seems pretty straightforward to me. Are you saying that the Jews were not blamed for deicide? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    - What I'm saying is that you cannot possible prove that, I'm not saying that they were blamed or not. --Vizcarra 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      - What the heck are you asking him to prove? That passion plays historically blamed the Jews for deicide? Of course they did. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        I don't think that lowering the level of this discussion will help in any way. I am sure it is clear what I'm asking to be proven that passions blamed the Jews for deicide. Misplaced Pages is not about people's opinions but as facts Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms --Vizcarra 00:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        I know, and it's a fact that the Passion Plays portrayed the Jews as deicides. It's not something that needs to be "proven"; it's a simple historical fact. Here's a pretty good article on the issue of Passion Plays and anti-semitism, from passionplayusa.net. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        I fail to understand how you are calling a straightforward answer a weasel word, the sentence couldn't be more clear, but you want other sources, howabout: "As the dramatic story of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, the passion play has for centuries been powerful and popular entertainment - on stage and screen - in the Christian world. But historically, productions have reflected negative images of Jews and the long-time church teaching that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for Jesus' death. Violence against Jews as "Christ-killers" often flared in their wake." from the CS Monitory or "S uch exegetical niceties, however, eluded the Christians who pioneered the Passion as theatrical entertainment back in the Middle Ages. What came to be called Passion plays were harder edged than the Gospels, dropping Jesus' earlier teachings on tolerance and love to focus on his moment of supreme self-sacrifice. They also imbibed the malignant anti-Jewish spirit of their age, when peasants believed that Jews mixed the blood of Gentile children into Passover matzos. Consistent with such prejudice — and with the black-hat, white-hat needs of early dramaturgy — Passion plays presented Jews as money-grubbing Christ killers, a dramatic rendering that enjoyed a centuries-long run." from . This couldn't be more clear and well sourced. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- "As for the New Testament issue, I was simply quoting the article" yes you were quoting the article but as this "as Christianity Today stated Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian" which is misleading since they are only quoting Eliezer Berkovits. --Vizcarra 23:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  - The quote was not misleading, it is Christianity Today that said "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive..." and then they quote Berkovitz. Read the article, you are the one misinterpreting, the article ends with the call "Now is the time for Christians to disavow the history of Passion-linked hatred." They do not quote Berkovitz to refute him, merely to say that this is not what the New Testament should be about. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    - I already read it. Your version was misleading, because you only mentioned that CT quoted Berkovitz after the "Outbreaks" remark. Exactly I agree to disavow the passions from their linked hatred based on erroneous interpretation of the purpose of the plays. --Vizcarra 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      - It only did quote him after the outbreaks remark, the line: "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive" IS NOT FROM BERKOVITZ, it is from the author of the Christianity Today article. It is not Berkowitz's opinion, which follows after the quote. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Passion play redux

User:Vizcarra has now changed the title of the section. I've reverted it back. This article is about historical anti-semitism, and passion plays played a significant role in the history of European anti-semitism. If Vizcarra wants to write a section on modern passion plays, he's welcome to, but that's not what we're talking about here. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't. The original title of the section was === Modern passion plays === See here if you didn't like it back then why didn't you change it just "passion plays" which I agree is more with accord with the article. I don't know why you have to be so contentious adding that type of remarks in the edit summary or with language such as "What the heck are you asking him to prove?" --Vizcarra 17:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm contentious because you've acted unilaterally. Let's try to build a consensus here before making radical changes in the meaning of the paragraph. It's unambiguous that the Passion Plays historically (and within my lifetime) portrayed Jews as deicides; you seem to be the only one here that has a problem with this fact. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)