Comments on Reut R. Cohen: Age old anti-Semitic stereotypes alive in Europe

Anonymous,

I’d like to be as clear as possi...

2009-02-12T12:54:00.001-08:00

Anonymous,

I’d like to be as clear as possible regarding your position of Jews and the possibility that they riled Christians, thereby bringing violence upon themselves. I do not care what one believes in as long as they do not attempt to convert others. If your defense of vicious pogroms and inquisitions against Jews who did not convert is that "Christians unconditionally loved their God," then it is quite possible this entire discussion may be a waste of time.

Under Roman rule Jews were often killed, at times by crucifixion. Jesus was among the thousands who were killed in such a fashion. Your assessment that Jews had a hand in his death is mere speculation. The Romans were the ones to kill him even if mainstream Jewry did not endorse his brand of Judaism. I remind you again that Jesus was a Jew with Jewish followers and only after his death did his disciples begin practicing a completely different brand of the Judaic faith. Under Jewish law, moreover, there is no motivation to kill Jesus.

When Christianity became the official religion of the Romans, the situation for Jews rapidly deteriorated. Christians viewed their favored political status as evidence of their favor with God. Christians viewed the Jewish Diaspora and their lack of political status as evidence of their lack of favor with God. Christians concluded that their new covenant was correct and the old covenant with the Jews was now voided. Therefore, Jews were not worthy of much respect.

Under Constantine, Christians were forbidden by law from converting to Judaism. On the other hand, Jews were encouraged to convert to Christianity. At times they were forced to do so. The Theodosian and Justinian Codes which were instituted in the fifth and sixth centuries prevented Jews from holding any governmental office. Many civil rights for Jews were eliminated. Building new synagogues was prevented and numerous acts of violence by anti-Jewish mobs were recorded.

The Catholic Church launched a series of nine holy wars from 1096-1272. The purpose of these wars was to march to the Holy Land and liberate it from Muslim "infidels." "Infidels" in the path of crusaders who refused to be baptized on the spot to Christianity were all killed. Arabs were massacred, including Christian Arabs who were mistaken for Muslims. Of course, along the way, thousands of Jews were killed because the Christians believed they were avenging Jesus. I suppose these Christians simply "unconditionally loved their God."

Over time, Christians found a number of things to accuse Jews of and thereby justify further persecution of them. Aside from the obvious accusation of Christ-killer, Jews faced charges of desecrating the Christian host, poisoning wells, and of killing Christian children for the purpose of Jewish religious rituals. Such accusations allowed authorities to marginalize Jews in terms of political power, social connection and economic relationships. Many of these ideas have been recycled among Islamo-fascists today. Saudi Arabian television shows, for example, portray Jewish rabbis killing Muslim kids and using their blood to create Passover Matza despite the Jewish prohibition against murder, eating blood, and adding anything to matza besides flour and water.

Antisemitism found both official and unofficial expression in the Christian world. Unofficial expression consisted of the daily sorts of discrimination which has afflicted members of despised minorities all over the world. At times, it even reached the point where mobs would begin killing local Jews. In Russia these actions became so bad that they received a special name for it, pogroms.

Official expression of antisemitism came from both religious and political authorities. Rulers denied Jews most of the basic benefits of citizenship, from serving in the government or the military, from becoming members of the various guilds, and so on. Just about the only public profession open to Jews was banking - something which, sadly, helped to develop the stereotype of Jews as money-grubbing and materialistic. This stereotype still exists today. Yet the stereotype, unfortunately, originated in Europe.

Antisemitism became so violent that Jews were simply expelled from countries completely: England in 1290, France in 1394, Germany in the 1350s, Spain in 1492, Portugal in 1496, Provence in 1512, and the Papal States in 1569.

Religious authorities were just as eager to establish their power over the Jews. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council of Rome decreed that Jews should wear special clothing, helping to increase their social, political and economic isolation because wherever they went, they would first and foremost be identified as Jews rather than simply other human beings. It also decreed that Jews were not allowed to leave their homes during Easter, could not employ Christian servants, and could not hold any public office.

Antisemitism was not just a function of the power and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. Even under Protestant governments during the Reformation, Jews suffered persecution.

I would like to acknowledge that the message of your savior, Jesus, was peaceful. I would not agree that the Christian church was inherently void of problems, however. After all, the church (historically) existed with feudal systems, demented kings/queens, and fascistic leaders.

The evidence shows that your denial that antisemitism or Jewish hatred existed in Europe is incorrect. I don’t understand why you repeatedly insinuate that I’m being simplistic or engaging in sophistry. My position is not meant to offend or hurt you. Today the church has become a very positive institution-- one that I can admire. I believe that you may have jumped to the defense of Christianity when it was unnecessary. I am not blaming the Christian faith for what happened to Jews. I am simply stating that antisemitism existed in Europe and under the church. Pointing this out does not make me anti-Western or anti-Christian.

I do not believe any group, including Christians, are inherently bad people. I believe people are naturally good and that the environment shapes their ideas and beliefs. I was an English major in college. Virtually ever piece of prose I read from the Middle Ages contained a line or two about Jews stealing, swindling or sexually violating maidens. Often times there would be very unpleasant descriptions of the physical appearance of the Jew. Christians in the Middle Ages were the product of their learning institutions and churches.

If one of your issues is that you think the term antisemitism should not be used, you should recognize that it has become an accepted term and I cannot change it. This is a term that is used today to describe hatred of Jews. There isn’t another term that is in use. We could start using convoluted sentences to describe hatred of Jews, but it is much more efficient to use an accepted term like antisemitism. If your ultimate point is that antisemitism or hatred of Jews is not prevalent or mainstream, then this is all the more reason why it must be condemned. However, the statistics show antisemitism to be a mainstream problem.

With best regards,
Reut R. Cohen

P.S. I am quite happy for you to post your opinions. However, I ask that you do not resort to ad-hominem and attack readers (i.e. their intelligence). I believe some of your comments were unnecessary.

Anonymous' last comment was accidentally deleted (...

2009-02-12T12:54:00.000-08:00

Anonymous' last comment was accidentally deleted (I was deleting a link to a spam website).

I am copying and pasting it below. My apologies for the inconvenience.

_____________________________
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Age old anti-Semitic stereotypes alive in Europe":

Reut and Thomas, I address both your comments separately below:

Reut,

"While Classical Anti-Semitism, Christian Anti-Semitism and Modern Anti-Semitism have their own basis, they also have roots that can be traced back to ancient times and share many characteristics. During the Holocaust, for example, the perpetrators needed to play upon ancient stereotypes (including the accusation that Jews murdered Jesus)."

-None of these have their roots in ancient times. If you are referring to the commonly quoted 'anti-Semitic' blurbs by the Roman historian Tacitus, who didn't seem to like anyone with the exception of the unrefined German peoples, you are just further demonstrating the simplicity of your point. Now... what was happening with the Jews during his time? Can you recall the events of 70 AD, which was the culmination of the anti-Roman subversion perpetuated by a sect known as the Sacarii, or Zealots, which eventually led to barbaric factionalism in Jerusalem--in which Jews were brutally killing each other--that was put down by the Roman assault of the city and the destruction of the Temple?

Or maybe you are referring to the Jewish debut on the world stage when the Seleucids were trying to homogenize the cultural and religious climate of their empire, and among that of other peoples, the Jews' ancient traditions were attacked. In which case it was the Romans who helped them fight the Greeks and win their independence.

Now, about the accusations of killing Jesus… In their rejection of his Messianic claim, they urged his execution by the Romans. This is known. They also urged the execution of St. James by Herod Agrippa and it was a Jewish mob that stoned St. Stephen to death (in fact, St. Paul was a willing accomplice to this 'hate crime' as it would be known in PC terms). This persecution of Christians by Jews was perpetuated even until after Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Julian the Apostate, who sought to destroy Christianity and bring back paganism found his greatest ally in the Jews, many of whom, during this period, burned down basilicas (St. Ambrose explains this in detail and names the specific events). It wasn't until after all of these events that Roman Christian laws started to become strict toward Jews, and we mustn't assume that these laws were unfair. Like the Jews of the Old Testament, Christians took their religion seriously and wanted to protect its dogma. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Jews were not indifferent to the Church and its teachings either, to assume that they were is foolish. There are plenty of examples of Jewish offenses toward solemn Christian rituals and against dogma--especially in editions of the Talmud, which a number of times needed to be investigated by bishops, whose charge it was to protect the Christian faithful from theological error. This was even done under the advice of a Jewish convert to Catholicism.

"In Europe (and the Middle East) differences between Jews and non-Jews led to separate social and religious lives. According to everything I have read and examined about the subject (including gospels and sermons), these differences and unwillingness for conversion caused fear and contempt of Jews."

-Yes, Jewish unwillingness to convert caused fear and contempt toward Jews. That’s a fair charge. But it isn't fair to say that this led to violence against Jews and its especially unfair not to ask why--to expect Christians to give their faith second place to the more profane aspects of living, as we do today--and indict Christians on this fact alone.

Ideally, Christians unconditionally loved their God. They couldn't help but to deeply appreciate his act of descending from up on high giving himself up for them--to atone for THERE wrongdoings and fallen nature. In imitation of this God they had a great understanding of love and believed in giving themselves up for their wives, children, etc. The Catholic civilization of the Middle Ages was not like ours. Catholics based their lives on serving each other and God. They didn't harp on economics and class struggle. Everyone believed in his or her proper place and envy was taboo.

Their feeling was that Jews in their rejection of Christ and his covenant was so incomprehensible and inconceivable that it could only be the result of obstinate pride. It is this feeling that is being conveyed in the sermons you refer to. To say that it's racism is naive. The Church Fathers, Doctors, and even heretics like Luther were speaking in purely theological terms. The common folk wouldn't understand race because they had no national consciousness. They lived on fiefs and villages in a political system that only understood property and the need to protect it.

"His writings described Jews as the anti-Christ and worse than devils. Jews were poison, ritual murderers, and parasites, he wrote, and they should be expelled from Germany. His view was that synagogues should all be burned to the ground, and all Jewish books should be seized."

-This is the typical harsh language of Luther to illustrate a point. He used language of this kind to refer to the Pope and pretty much anyone who adamantly disagreed with him. If Hitler and any of his followers used this writing to justify their nationalist sensibilities, they would have been following in a tradition that began only with the rise of Nazism--the fact that they could have referenced the 400-year-old writings of Luther is immaterial. Besides all of this, Luther doesn't stand for all Christians, he was a particularly harsh personality in a time when Christian zeal was concentrated in a few other similar personalities such as Savonarola because it was lacking in most of Europe (this was during the rise of Absolutism and the Renaissance--a very profane period of time which demanded Church reform).
-------------------------------------------------------

Thomas,

When one refers to Medieval European anti-Semitism, it is another way of saying Catholic anti-Semitism (because no other ideological force prevailed at the time). I used the word innate in an analogous sense to illustrate the fact that Catholicism in its most traditional form (the form it retained throughout the Middle Ages) cannot produce hateful people--that is, Catholic society as far as Catholic dogma governs, cannot produce hatred. Forgive me for not using a term concise enough to your liking. And yes, the same ideology (that which is contained in Catholic teaching) that stipulates abstinence before marriage also produces loving people.

"Chief among the ‘Christian theological virtues’ you mention is the Christian value of faith (belief in God without/against the evidence). It is completely backwards to claim that faith, as opposed to reason and science (the very opposite of faith) was responsible for the advances made in the Middle Ages, as faith held science, and society, back a hell of a lot, i.e.; dissecting human corpses was banned for religious reasons for a long time, holding back the advances of biological and medical science. The advances of the Middle ages were made in spite of, not because of, Christianity."

-Chief among the Christian theological virtues is charity, or love (αγάπη in Greek). The complete opposite of faith, which incidentally, is the LEAST of the Christian virtues (hope being no. 2), is unbelief, or mistrust. Faith is in no way, shape or form 'opposed to reason and science.' If you knew anything about the High Middle Ages and the unprecedented intellectual explosion that produced the Gothic cathedrals, the universities and intellectuals such as Suger, John of Salisbury, St. Bernard of Clarveux, Peter Abelard, Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, you wouldn't have made such a statement. Thomas Aquinas actually wrote a five-volume work to prove that reason and faith were not incompatible (something Avarroes did the opposite of concerning Islam); you might have heard of it--it’s called the Summa Theologica.

Theology, unlike the natural sciences is concerned with the universal and depends on the use of the syllogism--which, judging from your method of argument--is unknown to you. Modern scientists use induction to produce vast amounts of data on particulars so that they can make assumptions--not conclusions--based on numbers and statistics. The belief that only experience can bring us closer to the truth (something which I believe is already right in front of us) causes modern thinkers to assume rather than to conclude, which inevitably leads to errors. This is why modern ideologies clash constantly and never reach a peaceful end. In modern times we make dialectic a way of life and therefore true civility is alien to us--only conflict is known. We therefore replace civility with superficiality to make up for the fact that arguments have a tendency to turn into fights without coherent exchange. Remember the old adage, "don't discuss religion and politics in polite company"?

The Church of the Middle Ages DID hold people back from certain things--that's right. They prevented scientists from continuing along the lines of pagan thought, which insisted that planets move around the earth because they have intellectual souls--or that vacuums could not possibly exist (which the Church felt contradicted the fact the God can make anything possible). The Church and its bishops oversaw every facet of intellectual life, whether legal, metaphysical, or scientific--so hardly anything could have developed 'in spite' of the Church during the medieval period. Copernicus composed the helio-centrist theory under Church auspices, and the Church sponsored its development despite the anti-Catholic stereotypes you might have bought into (Galileo was taken down not because of the Church's supposed anti-science position, but because he was attempting to overturn the Aristotelian tradition of the scholastic schoolmen by crossing over madcap from base science to theology. For more, you can actually read Einstein's preface to his work, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo).

"...Reut does not mention Medieval Christianity, or, I think, Christianity at all, she does however mention that there was a lot of anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages, which is true. This raises the question of why you thought it necessary to jump to the defense of Christianity, when it had not even been mentioned."

-What anti-Semitic ideas did Medieval Christians accept? And what Church teaching endorsed ant-Semitism? The Church definitely disagreed with the Jewish notion of the Unitarian Godhead and the universal priesthood of the Hebrew progeny, as well as the authority of the Rabbis and the inferiority of Goyim. Or perhaps you are referring to the Church's abhorring of the androgynous godhead the Cabbalists adhered to, or the rumors spreading around that Mary was a “hairdresser who played the harlot with carpenters” and that Jesus “practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray”. If all this is anti-Semitism, I guess you win this one. So please forgive the Church for protecting the dogma that defined Christianity as the greatest faith it has always been. Forgive the Church for upholding her legitimate authority as it was established upon the blood of the martyrs and the apologetics of the saints--for achieving religious supremacy without force or aggression and civilizing the rough European nations. Please forgive her for trying her best through the most honest and modest means of dialectic by the great doctors to uphold the teachings that achieved all of this in the face of the most poisonous ideologies, impressing such a love for Christ that the great nations she raised up protected her in the face of all odds. If because all of this ran counter to Jewish thought or interests, than, by all means she was guilty from the start.

It is necessary for me to jump to the defense of Catholic Christianity because in this post, Reut is acting as an unwitting pawn of a three hundred year intellectual movement designed to tear the Church down.

"A good reason for the word ‘anti-Semitism’ referring to anti-Jewish bigotry, is to prevent needlessly convoluted sentences like “The bigotry Europeans indulged in that Jews were the victims of”, when it would be simpler to say ‘The widespread European anti-Semitism’. "

-“The bigotry Europeans indulged in that Jews were the victims of” I referred to was a separate phenomenon than the theological differences and strife between Jews and Christians during medieval times--that is, it was not of the same principle that 19th and 20th century Jew hatred was based on. I chose not to use a single novel term to refer to the two you see. I was only careful not to use the word anti-Semitism because I generally don't like the term.

"When you say that ‘liberalism’ caused 19th and 20th Century anti-Semitism, are you talking about Classical Liberals, who supported Capitalism, or do you mean Liberals of the modern type, who support Socialism/a mixed economy?"

-By liberalism, I mean a wide range of materialist ideologies, which were all, based on the exaltation of the individual and the power of the all encompassing state--all of which have their roots in the humanism and absolutism born out of the Renaissance and Reformation. I am not indicting the great sciences that are commonly associated to this body of ideologies, but the ideologies themselves. I call them materialist because the prevailing principles of them are greatly influenced by and in great continuity with the thoughts of the Epicurean philosopher, Lucretius. You will find that the first great modern political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, makes many elusions to him. As Hobbes' ideas about human government were refined by Locke and Rousseau they began to develop into what we have today (with some slight modifications). The shortcomings of these philosophers' offspring gave rise to revolutionary ideas such as Marxism and the social welfare as a public policy. From here we see the outgrowths of nationalism and Social Darwinism--the final divorce from faith, hope and love (the theological virtues), which was followed by the evils of the 20th century, which we have already discussed.

You are indeed right about one thing. The exit of Christianity leaving a spiritual vacuum to be replaced by the state and its erroneous ideologies. People demand faith because speculations and assumptions are not enough to be contented--not for anyone except for gods, because being immortal they have plenty of time to play around, to trick, deceive and to satisfy their immediate corporeal desires as they laughingly watch mortals in their feeble state.

"What ‘evils’ did the Church step in to prevent? Dissection of corpses? Homosexuals getting married? Abortion? Those must be the evils to which you refer, because the Church certainly seemed happy to co-exist with feudal lords, despotic monarchs, Fascists and Nazis."

-Instead the most recent evils such as some of those you mention above, which sadly the Church has not had the power to repress through her humble reasoning above the loud cacophony of a few radical voices who claim to stand for mainstream liberty. I meant to refer to the earlier ones. The Church prevented and staved off the greatest of modernist errors since 1789 through years of constant persecution by the anti-clerical secular state. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius X had turned the Church into a safe haven against the awful fallacies that brought about the First World War. It was Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII and victim of so many abhorrent calumnies, who first recognized the errors of Nazism and warned the French and English governments about it before they gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler. It was he who urged the promulgation of the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (“With Deep Anxiety”) drafted by Pius XI--the first church document to criticize Nazism. "It was read on Palm Sunday from every Catholic Pulpit-before a single copy had fell into Nazi hands" (Church History In Plain Language, Shelly, p. 424). After he had become Pope he saved thousands of Jewish lives.

"Anti-Semitism means bigotry against Jews. The fact that the word originated in a certain context does not mean that the word can not be applied in other contexts, so long as the meaning of the word does not change"

-Anti-Semitism applies to the adherence of a eugenist theory that the Proto Indo European (PIE but also known as Aryans) race was superior to the Asiatic Semites. In the Second Millennium BC, The PIE swept down to take over India, Persia, Anatolia, and Southern Europe. The eugenists of the 19th Century who captivate the nationalist sentiments of that period were convinced that this superior race was watered down by defective genes. Part of strengthening their postindustrial mega states against their neighboring opponents, they, through utilizing the wonders of Darwinian SCIENCE, believed the nation needed to be genetically homogenized with premium stock. So anti-Semites believed that Semites needed to go. Somehow this term came to apply to all who have ever had their differences with Jews throughout 2000 years of history, and that is unfair; which brings me to teach you the structure of the basic syllogism you should have already learned in school,

-Major Premise: All men are mortal.
-Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
-Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Let’s try it with this subject,

-Major Premise: The term Anti-Semitism was invented to apply to eugenist and nationalist sentiments.
-Minor Premise: Medieval Christians were not eugenists or nationalists.
-Conclusion: Medieval Christians were therefore not anti-Semites.

"Unlike laws, words can be applied ex post facto."
-I'm not going to urge that you be arrested for using a term falsely, I will just disagree with you and expose your errors.

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same that is happening the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." -George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946.
----
Posted by Anonymous to Reut Cohen at February 12, 2009 12:02 AM

To Anonymous,

You say “Medieval Christians ...

2009-02-11T17:39:00.000-08:00

To Anonymous,

You say “Medieval Christians were incapable of being innately hateful”, but, Reut did not claim Medieval Christians were ‘innately’ anti-Semitic, but points out the fact that there is a history of European anti-Semitism. Also, for what it is worth, I agree with you that Christians are not innately hateful; no one is innately hateful, because to be innately hateful would mean you would have to be born that way, that your hatred were caused by your genes. The reason people hate or love the things that they hate and love is not genetics, it is the ideas they choose to believe, or passively accept from society. For example; someone raised in a devout Christian society will most likely have accepted the idea that sex before marriage is bad, and so would hate to have sex before marriage (that is, assuming they want to be what they think of as good). Their hatred of sex before marriage would not be ‘innate’, it would be a product of their ideas.

Chief among the ‘Christian theological virtues’ you mention is the Christian value of faith (belief in God without/against the evidence). It is completely backwards to claim that faith, as opposed to reason and science (the very opposite of faith) was responsible for the advances made in the Middle Ages, as faith held science, and society, back a hell of a lot, i.e; dissecting human corpses was banned for religious reasons for a long time, holding back the advances of biological and medical science. The advances of the Middle ages were made in spite of, not because of, Christianity.

So, while not ‘innately hateful’ of Jews, many Medieval Christians actually hated Jews because they accepted anti-Semitic ideas, which were a part of Christianity at that time. However, in her article, Reut does not mention Medieval Christianity, or, I think, Christianity at all, she does however mention that there was a lot of anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages, which is true. This raises the question of why you thought it necessary to jump to the defence of Christianity, when it had not even been mentioned.

A good reason for the word ‘anti-Semitism’ referring to anti-Jewish bigotry, is to prevent needlessly convoluted sentences like “The bigotry Europeans indulged in that Jews were the victims of”, when it would be simpler to say ‘The widespread European anti-Semitism’.

When you say that ‘liberalism’ caused 19th and 20th Century anti-Semitism, are you talking about Classical Liberals, who supported Capitalism, or do you mean Liberals of the modern type, who support Socialism/a mixed economy? If it is the latter, then I agree to an extent, but, if it is the former, I would like an explanation as to how supporting free markets leads to anti-Semitism.

“These materialist ideologies that replaced Christianity caused people to do terrible things--and the Church, in its old medieval tradition, was the only institution to consistently step in to stop many of these evils”

Actually, the opposite is true. The spiritualist ideology of Christianity caused people to do terrible things (ever heard of the inquisition, or witch burning?), and the materialist ideology of Classical Liberalism caused people to do great things, the supposed ‘materialist’ ideologies that caused mass death/genocide (Communists, Nazi’s, I’m looking at you) were simply religions that replaced God with the state, they still demanded faith etc.

What ‘evils’ did the Church step in to prevent? Dissection of corpses? Homosexuals getting married? Abortion? Those must be the evils to which you refer, because the Church certainly seemed happy to co-exist with feudal lords, despotic monarchs, Fascists and Nazis.

"Anti-Semitism is a eugenist phenomenon that is no older than the term itself. It can only be applied to skin-heads and Nazis."

Anti-Semitism means bigotry against Jews. The fact that the word originated in a certain context does not mean that the word can not be applied in other contexts, so long as the meaning of the word does not change (Excluding proper nouns). For example; 'food' is a relatively recent word, does this mean that the things people ate before the word 'food' was invented were not food?

Unlike laws, words can be applied ex post facto.

Stating that antisemitism existed in the Middle Ag...

2009-02-11T11:43:00.000-08:00

Stating that antisemitism existed in the Middle Ages is not name-calling. It is not slander or libel. In my post, I meant absolutely no harm to Europeans and Christians by putting the words “antisemitism” and “Europeans” in conjunction. Nor is there any way to conclude that I am promoting some sort of anti-Western thought. You are probably the first person I have encountered to suggest such a thing. I am very pro-Western and very much against the persecution of any minority group anywhere in the world. Posting about trends of violence and hatred has nothing to do with political correctness. Many Jews in Europe have been leaving Europe for Israel because of increased antisemitism. This is fact. I would much prefer that anti-Jewish attitudes did not exist at all. They exist, however, and reporting about them has nothing to do with a “perverted satisfaction”. I hope you can understand that I enjoy posting about the latest Israeli innovations far more than the latest poll which shows that 1/3 of Europeans believe Jews are responsible for the global economic meltdown. 40% believe Jews have too much control. This belief is ancient and this statistic in itself is rather sad.

To assert that Christians of the Middle Ages are “innately” good is an overly simplistic thing to say. Unfortunately, hatefulness is equal opportunity. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that Christians of the Middle Ages somehow lacked prejudices. That is impossible—for any group of people. This is unrealistic.

In your post you state that Jews had likely provoked attacks and that you cannot believe in universal Jew hatred. I agree with you that there are different kinds of antisemitism, but virulent Jew hatred has existed throughout history. While Classical Antisemitism, Christian Antisemitism and Modern Antisemitism have their own basis, they also have roots that can be traced back to ancient times and share many characteristics. During the Holocaust, for example, the perpetrators needed to play upon ancient stereotypes (including the accusation that Jews murdered Jesus).

In Europe (and the Middle East) differences between Jews and non-Jews led to separate social and religious lives. According to everything I have read and examined about the subject (including gospels and sermons), these differences and unwillingness for conversion caused fear and contempt of Jews.

As for Martin Luther, he inspired the Christian masses. I am aware that he had been an ordained priest and disputed Church policy with respect to the sale of indulgences. Whether or not you like him is beside the point. At one time he was a supporter of the Jews. However, he became frustrated when they would not embrace his own religion. Martin Luther wrote bitter and hateful essays about the Jews. If you prefer I not call him an anti-Semite, I will call him someone who passionately hated Jews simply because they did not convert to his religion. His writings described Jews as the anti-Christ and worse than devils. Jews were poison, ritual murderers, and parasites, he wrote, and they should be expelled from Germany. His view was that synagogues should all be burned to the ground, and all Jewish books should be seized. This is pretty hateful stuff. Whether he was misguided or not makes little difference because he did inspire Europeans to act in a certain fashion against Jews. Antisemitic and anti-Jewish individuals throughout history may have been mentally unstable or misguided, but they caused quite a bit of damage.

In both Europe and the Middle East Jews "provoked" attacks because they resisted conversions in many cases. Under both Christian and Islamic rule, Jews found that they were restricted in what they could do and that their differences made them a target for hatred. There were most certainly good Christian and Muslim rulers who treated Jews with dignity and respect. Yet there were many who incited hatred against Jewish people.

Books on this subject:
- Christian Attitudes toward the Jews in the Middle Ages
- Christian Antisemitism
- The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity
- The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism

Please Note:
I do not necessarily endorse any of the books or authors I am linking to. However, these works explain anti-Jewish attitudes rather well. The authors are also respected scholars in their field.

The name calling I was referring to was related to...

2009-02-11T09:53:00.000-08:00

The name calling I was referring to was related to accusations of anti-Semitism against medieval Europeans. I don't get offended, nor do I believe in taking offense to this kind of thing, which is actually why I am engaging. The reason I don't agree with the term 'anti-Semitism' falls into the notion that I actually deny that the hatred you speak of ever existed. I really believe it is just sophistry.

I don't think in terms of minorities, persecution etc. This is all politically correct nonsense to coerce people into group think. There are also people who just enjoy playing the victim because it gives them some sort of perverted satisfaction, and in there sickness are willing to slander and defame other people.

In order for me to buy this concept of universal Jew hatred, I would be obliged to assume that Jews all throughout history, all throughout the world, in all these unrelated incidents were completely innocent and did absolutely NOTHING to provoke attacks or discontent, which is simply untrue. This is not to say that the few pogroms directed against them were justified, but they were certainly not motivated by irrational hatred. It is just like the simple minded pawn of modernity not to look further into it and find other causes.

In fact, my knowledge of history tells me otherwise. It wasn't irrational hatred but the bad custom of the bellicose Germanic clan mentality. While I sympathize with the sufferings of Jews during the Holocaust (and the attacks made against them in the Middle East today) and believe those to be unprovoked, I have a very hard time blindly believing that that such hatred of the Jews specifically persistency existed. It is stupid to believe so.

Martin Luther was not an anti-Semite, nor was he one who engaged irrationally, as it were, in 'classic anti-Semitism.' He probably wrote more seething things about the Pope than he did about Jews. He was a man in deep theological confusion who went as far as to deny the ancient sacramental nature of Church rituals. His correspondence with Jews probably lead to great disagreements.

I myself don't like him because I think HE was a liar, but his book title exudes the typical feeling about the medieval Jewish Talmudic teaching Churchmen had. Luther was learned in Hebrew, like many other Churchmen were in order to have debates with rabbis. These rabbis persistently mocked Christian theology and threatened Christian orthodoxy in their mingling with Catholics (The Jews in the Old Testament writings had a similar policy with regard to Canaanites, Assyrians, etc.). I don't know if you are aware, but Christianity DID begin as a Jewish movement, and hostility toward Christians by other Jews is well documented not only in the New Testament, but by the ante-Nicene fathers and by post Nicene doctors.

To play on the typical stereotypes about the Middle Ages is dangerous for the sake of Western Civilization. Most of it is lies and directed towards a number of motivations throughout the past five hundred years, ie. Protestantism, Humanism, Absolutism, Masonry etc. True scholars on the subject--including scholars of Jewish origins--don't subscribe to such ignorance.

I am Italian and Roman Catholic. This article does...

2009-02-11T01:25:00.000-08:00

I am Italian and Roman Catholic. This article does not offend me. It makes no sense to imply that the author is 'playing the victim' or slandering Europeans just for reporting facts. I have coworkers and distant family members who believe nonsense about Jewish world control. This is despicable and I am ashamed of these people who firmly believe in God but also believe they are morally justified in their contempt of Jews. The Romans killed Jesus, but many Christians and Catholics blame Jews. Who cares? Why blame Jews either way when Jesus was Jewish. Surely we should thank the Jews for giving us our religion.

These antisemitic or anti-Jewish beliefs are conspiracy theories and have led to far too much bloodshed. We should not make excuses for these nonsensical beliefs that have been around for ages. Even if the author would have said "European anti-Jewish bigotry" that sounds just as bad and inexcusable!

Anonymous 1 + 3,

Can you please point out w...

2009-02-11T00:52:00.000-08:00

Anonymous 1 + 3,

Can you please point out where anyone has engaged in name-calling against you? I didn't call you any names and don't believe in targeting readers in such a fashion. If someone did attack you personally, please accept my apology on their behalf.

I believe we may disagree, but I like to think that people can disagree without taking personal offense in a discussion when there is no reason to. I do feel some of your comments, both in your first and last post, needn't have been quite so accusatory. I am not libeling Europeans. Also, your implication that posting an article about antisemitic trends makes me as bigoted as people who harbor anti-Jewish views is an unnecessary comment to make. Deducing that I am anti-Western because I am posting on anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish attitudes is also incorrect. I have also posted about the persecution of Christians and other minorities. Personally, I find needless hatred directed against any group to be repugnant.

The ADL may be an advocacy group but their study was a scientific one. Do I endorse their organization? Not necessarily. I just found their study interesting and worthy of sharing because it was conducted fairly.

It appears that you take issue with the term antisemitism because it originated in the 1850s. Would you prefer that academics and groups begin using a term such as "Jewish hate" or "anti-Jewish bigotry"? While I understand your position about the origin of the term, hatred against Jews has existed in Europe consistently. That cannot be denied. Even people like Martin Luther who supported the Jews at one point eventually turned against them. He wrote a rather vulgar essay entitled "The Jews and Their Lies" in 1543. To their credit, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rejected Luther's anti-Semitic writings in 1994. Yet there are, unfortunately, some Christians (and Muslims) who harbor antisemitic (or anti-Jewish) attitudes against Jews.

I believe you recognize that the term "antisemitism" which was founded by Wilhelm Marr has become accepted to describe Jewish hatred. Yet you should also realize that this will not be changed simply because you feel the term should only apply to neo-Nazis. If you’d like to argue why this term should not be used and another one should be adopted, perhaps you should begin to aggressively pursue this issue (write articles, etc). Unfortunately, simply being frustrated with me for using an accepted term to describe hatred of Jews won’t change anything.

The point of this post was not to attack Christians. I don't think a single of my Christian readers felt I was attacking their religion or heritage. Neither did European friends of mine feel that I have snubbed them. I posted a link to this on my personal Facebook account and the reaction was dismay and concern. No one took my post to be anti-Western, anti-Christian or anti-European. The point was simple and everyone understood-- a certain percentage of Europeans still harbor ancient anti-Jewish stereotypes. These stereotypes, which many still believe, spurred violence against Jews.

As for Jews and liberalism, as I am not a European Jew I can only speculate about the tendency of European Jews who support leftist causes. I strongly believe, after discussions with Ashkenazic Jews, that they truly believe leftist causes are a socially inclusive and fair to all people. They believe they are fair to people of all faiths and creeds.

I am Middle Eastern Jew, so I am probably not what most people -- both Americans and Europeans -- think of when they consider Jews. Typically speaking, the community I am from tends to lean a bit more to the right. Menachem Begin, a Likud leader, found that most of his support was from the Middle Eastern Jewish community in Israel. The point I am trying to make is you'll find different political tendencies among different groups (including Jews). Perhaps history and collective conscience of groups has something to do with this.

With best regards,
Reut R. Cohen

First of all, the ADL is an advocacy group not an ...

2009-02-10T23:37:00.000-08:00

First of all, the ADL is an advocacy group not an independent pollster. Second, I don't wish to break out 2,000 years of history (at the moment anyway), but 'anti-Semitism' has become known as this peculiar phenomenon that manifests itself in so many different forms it can't possibly exist as one principle. That is why I made the point I made. You are throwing around a word that carries with it such a potent indictment that is simply unfair. These academics you speak of, JR, have turned the term into a crass euphemism because they throw it around and never explain it. Many academics also justify Hamas' and Hezbollah's violence against Israel and deny its right to defend itself.

The culture of the Middle Ages produced the most civilized and genteel society in history based on the Christian theological virtues. Medieval Christians were incapable of being innately hateful. To libel Europeans with such a malicious charge of being innately 'anti-Semitic,' whatever that is, since the Middle Ages is just as bigoted and hateful as your are accusing them of being. Not one of you can claim to know a thing about the Middle Ages; I know this, because of the anti-intellectual and simplistic arguments you make (not to mention the name calling).

The bigotry Europeans indulged in that Jews were the victims of in the 19th and 20th Centuries was the product of liberalism (which European Jews greatly endorsed since the 17th Century) and nationalism. The demand for the state to homogenize society caused hatred for anyone who was different. These materialist ideologies that replaced Christianity caused people to do terrible things--and the Church, in its old medieval tradition, was the only institution to consistently step in to stop many of these evils. This was all despite its major loss of power.

Anti-Semitism is simply a loaded term without a clear definition. For one to use the same definition that they apply to Nazis and Islamists to ancient Romans, Medieval Europeans, etc. is essentially weak.

Reut pretty much said anything and everything I wo...

2009-02-10T21:47:00.000-08:00

Reut pretty much said anything and everything I would have said, but there is one thing I want to add. The roots of European anti-semitism go back to the Romans. The attitudes and policies they enacted towards Jews echoed throughout history and has deeply influenced modern day European anti-semitism. So Mr. Anonymous you are right. It DOESN'T have its roots in the Middle Ages, it has it's roots much further back, in the Roman era.

"Anti-Semitism is the swollen envy of pygmy minds....

2009-02-10T19:38:00.000-08:00

"Anti-Semitism is the swollen envy of pygmy minds." -Mark Twain

Dear anonymous,

I wonder what you find ques...

2009-02-10T15:41:00.000-08:00

Dear anonymous,

I wonder what you find questionable. Is it the fact that people find attacks against Jews repugnant? Or do you find the use of the term antisemitism wrong for reasons of its origin? Antisemitism has to do with Jewish hate. The last person I encountered who got hot and bothered over the use of this term to describe Jewish hatred was Ward Churchill, a plagiarist who supports the destruction of America. He sounded like an utter fool because he thinks that Arabs, since they are also semites, need to have the term applied to them. The term antisemitism, as you probably know, originated to explain hatred of Jews and has been used since then.

Now, most professors and organizations refer to anti Jewish hate as antisemitism. I suppose one could say "Contempt of Jews" or "Jewish hatred", but the accepted term is "antisemitism". To imply that someone is stupid for using an accepted term is very stupid-- and rather rude of you.

The end of your comment is pretty hostile as you group together Jews and Muslims when you suggest Jews who complain of antisemitism have some hidden agenda. I'd much rather prefer that Jews are not targeted in hateful acts instead. Can you believe it? Jews actually... don't enjoy being persecuted! I would rather not be called a "f*cking Jew" on my campus or have swastikas drawn on my dorm room. But when it happens, I have a right to complain about it. It would be the same if you were attacked. You would have a right to ask that actions are taken to prevent it again whether you're attacked because your Christian, Atheist, Jewish or Buddhist. It would be much nicer to post a story about how antisemitic ideas are no longer a problem. This is just not the case. There is no agenda and no one is playing the victim.

"Playing the victim is a pathetic strategy....make...

2009-02-10T15:17:00.000-08:00

"Playing the victim is a pathetic strategy....makes your fight look trivial."

Your comment is fairly pathetic. antisemitism literally deals with hatred of Jews. You can argue over the semantics and origins of it. The point still remains that Jews are the recipients of specific attacks in Europe. There is no excuse. These antisemitic or anti-Jewish beliefs have an origin in the Middle Ages. They didn't come out of thin air in the 1850s. Throughout the Middle Ages Jews were persecuted because they were different. During the Holocaust Hitler didn't just argue that Jews were genetically different, he garnered support by exploiting peoples' anti-Jewish sentiments. Jews were also persecuted in the Middle East under Arab rule. A lot of European anti-Semitism has been adopted by Islamofascist governments. Go to Egypt or Jordan. I was in Egypt a few months ago. You'll see "Mein Kampf"-- a bestseller-- in the window of bookstores.

I am more inclined to publish comments if they inc...

2009-02-10T15:00:00.001-08:00

I am more inclined to publish comments if they include a name. However, your comment was a bit different and I'd like to respond.

I am not anti-Western and you'll find it difficult to locate Jews who have a negative opinion of Western ideals. Israel is a fairly western nation, for example. It is silly of you to deduce that I am playing the victim by reporting the findings of a recent study. I am concerned about my Moroccan Jewish friends in France who have been the recipients of religious hate crimes. I am concerned that antisemitism is on the rise in Europe. No one is asking for special treatment-- just an end to meaningless hatred.

This commissioned report found that over 33% of Europeans believe that Jews are responsible for the collapse of the world market. These beliefs that participants of the survey harbored had everything to do with the age old stereotype that Jews control the world.

Antisemitism is a term coined by Wilhelm Marr. The conception of the term focused on the supposed racial, as opposed to religious, characteristics of the Jews. Basically, people wanted to explain their Jewish hatred in a more scientific way. This term has come to explain hatred of Jews. You cannot deny the existence of antisemitism because people still subscribe to the thinking that Jews are genetically different and that Jews manipulate the entire planet. It's not merely hatred, but specific hatred or dislike directed against a specific group. There have been dozens of attacks against Jews in Europe and reports have all indicated that antisemitism (or bigotry, as you like to call it) is alive and kicking.

Antisemitism still exists today. Cartoons from the period of the Holocaust have been recycled in the Arab world. Age old stereotypes about Jews still exist. Attacks against Jews in Europe the highest today since WWII.

If you find this post "defaming" than this is clearly your problem.

"Clearly European anti-Semitism, which is deeply i...

2009-02-10T14:27:00.000-08:00

"Clearly European anti-Semitism, which is deeply illogical and rooted in empty hatred, hasn't changed very much since the Middle Ages."

It doesn't bode well for your cause to liberally throw defaming terms such as 'anti-Semitism' whenever the ADL reports on the uneasiness of European-Jewish relations. If you would like to use the word 'bigot,' that would be fair enough.

Anti-Semitism is a eugenist phenomenon that is no older than the term itself. It can only be applied to skin-heads and Nazis. It had its run in the late 19th century till 1945 and it is simply not main stream; it never really has been and it certainly does not have its roots in the Middle Ages. This is true no matter how simplistic a an education about the Middle Ages you might have received in this post-revolutionary environment.

The Muslims in Europe and America play a similar card except they slander by applying the term 'Islamophobe' which is silly. Playing the victim is a pathetic strategy. Watching two opposing sides use it against Europeans and Westerners in general makes your fight look trivial.