Conference taveng::bagels

    The Vatican hasn't recognized either Israel or Palestine.  It has
    stated that it will recognize both states when their borders are
    defined.
    

>    Places where anti-Semitism have been strongest are the same as 
>    those where Catholicism has had most influence. 
    
>    Places where Christianity has broken away from Rome have always
>    been more tolerant towards Jews.

   Well, yes and no. I would agree that there is a strong streak of
   anti-semitism engrained in Christianity, and it tends to be
   stronger in Catholic than Protestant countries. But Italy (as
   opposed to the Vatican, which is, of course, a separate state!)
   seems to be much less anti-semitic than other Catholic countries -
   less than plenty of Protestant countries. The Russians have always
   been very anti-semitic - and they're not Catholic, but Russian
   Orthodox. 

   Muslim countries were more certainly more tolerant of Jews on the
   whole - but there were some horrendous exceptions - I believe
   Algeria was one. The Turks always seem to have treated the Jews
   well - but not the Christians. But that's another story.

   Complicated, isn't it?


   Marge

    Another one that doesn't really fit:
    
    Spain.
    
    VERY Roman Catholic, during and after WWII governed by a dictator,
    and Jews are not oppressed, there (to my knowledge). On top, during
    WWII, not only were Jews not harrassed, but they were allowed to
    enter the country and emigrate to the US on Spanish ships.
    
    Jewish culture in Spain around Columbus' times flourished.
    
    In Japan, on the other hand, anti-semitism is at its peak. What
    I'm asking myself, is how the European Roman Catholics / Christians
    can possibly have exported anti-semitism to THEM.
    
    Anti-semitism could be observed way before the times of Christianity
    (ref. the story of MOSES in ancient Egypt, or the Roman occupation of
    today's Israel, etc..), so it didn't emerge during Christian history,
    either. 
    
    What it boils down to, I think, is that anti-semitism and, if I may say
    so, "pro-semitism" is not Europe / Roman Catholic / Christian specific,
    leave alone "imported" to the US. It has ALWAYS existed, can be found
    EVERYWHERE, and is independent of religious beliefs. 
    
    We will have to look for something else, I'm afraid.
    
    "Is the current Roman Catholic's Church policy twds. Israel
    anti-semitic?" may be a question worth some discussions.
    
    "Anti-semitism could be a European / Roman Catholic / Christian
    import" is, simply, an emotional, unfunded accusation. 
    
    Complicatingly yours,
    
    Chris

    
>    Spain.
     
>   VERY Roman Catholic, during and after WWII governed by a dictator,
>   and Jews are not oppressed, there (to my knowledge). On top, during
>   WWII, not only were Jews not harrassed, but they were allowed to
>   enter the country and emigrate to the US on Spanish ships.
    
>   Jewish culture in Spain around Columbus' times flourished.
    
    
>   Anti-semitism could be observed way before the times of Christianity
>   (ref. the story of MOSES in ancient Egypt, or the Roman occupation of
>   today's Israel, etc..), so it didn't emerge during Christian history,
>   either. 
    
    
   Re Spain

   Yes, but . . . the Spanish Inquisition persecuted the Jews horribly
   in the 15th centure - in fact, 1492 was the date the Jews were
   expelled from Spain. Many Jews were forcibly converted - the famous
   Marranos. I have also heard (correct me if I'm  wrong) that it was
   only very recently that synagogues were allowed to exist in Spain
   at all. The Jews did flourish in Spain - but they were persecuted
   too. I believe Moses Maimonides had to flee Cordoba (a centre of
   Jewish culture) because of persecution.

   Re Christian anti-semitism

   I think that what is different about Christianity is what Hyam
   Maccoby has called the "demonization" of the Jews - in other words,
   the Church cast the Jews in the role of archetypal villain -
   inherently evil. Pre-Christian people did persecute the Jews - but
   was it because they were Jews, or simply  because they were
   conquered? The Egyptians weren't wonderful to any of their slaves,
   whether they were Jews or not. 

   The Romans are sort of in between. Partly, they persecuted the Jews
   because the Jewish colony was in a continuous state of rebellion.
   It has been argued also that the fact that the Jews refused to
   worship the emperor was a threat to the legitimacy of the Roman
   Empire, and therefore the Romans were harder on the Jews than on
   their other colonies. But I don't really know enough about the
   period to say if this is true.


   Marge

    Red-faced he went to stand in the corner...
    
    Sorry, wrong time zone. I checked, and it appears as if the Jews
    in Spain were treated best during the Arab occupation. Does this
    sound reasonable?
    
    Apologisingly yours,
    
    Chris

>       less than plenty of Protestant countries. The Russians have always
>   been very anti-semitic - and they're not Catholic, but Russian
   
    "I am a Jew to every anti-semite, and that's why I am a real Russian!"
    
    				Eugene Yevtushenko
    

    Not to enter a rathole about whether anti-Israel is equivalent to
    anti-semitic, I heard on NPR that Arafat is expected to get a warm
    welcome in Spain, which recognized Israel only very recently (1986?)
    only because such recognition was required to join the EEC.

A few reactions/corrections to all the preceeding:

1. Maimonides fled Spain during fanatical MOSLEM, not Christian, persecutions
   of Jews.

2. I always believed that the demonization of the Jews as inherently untrust-
   worthy and deceitful and money-grubbing was a Christian invention, but then
   a few years ago I read the Koran and discovered much to my amazement
   that these canards are found repeatedly in the Koran!!

3. Antisemitism is in one sense a "racial" theory that comes out of the
   19th century and which is ANTITHETICAL to Christian thought, inasmuch as
   Christianity has always proposed to Jews that they convert and gain
   salvation. (Obviously racial theories are inherently opposed to 
   religious doctrines that recognize conversion. For this reason, too,
   Judaism cannot be "racist" in the exact sense of the term.)

4. Roman anti-Jewish writings do have in common with 19th
   century racial antisemitism the idea that Jews represent a health
   danger (leprousy, etc.).

5. Franco did save Jews... but let's be "frank" (sorry, couldn't resist):
   he was paid a FORTUNE of money for those visas! 

6. About Roman Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox (Eastern) Christianity:
   These questions are incredibly complicated, e.g. Holland had one of the 
   largest Nazi parties anywhere in Europe outside Germany at the
   outset of WWII. Yet a very high percentage of Dutch showed courage and
   decency towards their Jewish citizens, more than in, say, France (at least
   according to what I have read.) Does this have ANYTHING to do with
   the Dutch Church vs. French Catholicism ? Who knows? Of course some of
   the worst atrocities committed against the Jews were done by the Ukraineans,
   who are Orthodox Christians. Yet the Balkan peoples overall were better
   to the Jews than other Christians! The two countries which refused to
   abandon their Jewish citizens were: Denmark and Bulgaria. What do their
   religions have in common? Not much, as far as I can see.

-Zaitch

>                                                        Of course some of
>   the worst atrocities committed against the Jews were done by the Ukraineans,
>   who are Orthodox Christians.

Actually, the Ukrainians are Catholics (sort of) the recognize the supremacy
of the Pope.  That is part of the reason that the Ukraine has always been
restless under Russian domination.

Gavriel

    Your hypothesis also ignores the new world Catholic countries. 
    Ecuador is overwhelmingly Catholic, but was one of the few countries
    which allowed Jews in without charging for a visa.
    
    				Paul
    

    
A few years ago I attended a lecture given by a Catholic priest to a Jewish
organization. The subject was Catholic/Jewish relations. He mentioned that
one of the complicating factors in the relationship between Catholics and Jews
is the central role of Jews in the story of Jesus.

Despite the fact that Jesus and all his followers were Jewish, he did not 
receive widespread support among the Jewish community at large or the religious
establishment. This relationship lead to the depiction of the Jewish masses
and the Jewish religous establishment as the antagonists in the life of Jesus.
This is especially true during the later stages of his life when he preached
in the Jewish community. This negative depiction was exacerbated by the
accusations, many made by the Church, of Jewish responsibility for the
crucification and death of Jesus.

Jews who were therefore viewed by many uneducated Christians as villinous, were
not some far away group of people who lived long ago, but real people who
lived in their very midst.  This meant that the usual suspicion and dislike
of religous and ethnic minorities found among most peoples was made far
worse in the relationship between Christians and Jews.

It is no coincidence that the worst acts of anti-Semetic violence occured
around Easter in Christian Europe. This is because the story of the death
of Jesus and Jewish responsibility for it were preached at that time of year.

Improvement of this situation will occur as Jews and Judaism are depicted by
the Christian world not as villians or antagonists to Christianity, but as
part of the same religous family.  Much of Christian moral and ethical teaching
comes directly from its Jewish origions. Despite major theological differences
between Judaism and Christianity, there remains much in common.  A hopeful
sign was the visit of the Pope to a synagogue and his description of the Jews
as not only brothers of Christians but "elder brothers".

Simms     

    During WWII the Pope (not to mention everyone else) maintained 
    a deaf, dumb, and blind stance regarding the holocaust, at which
    time the Nazis also killed Catholics. 
    
    To date the Pope refuses to recognize the state of Israel.

    Bernice

    re: .0, .13
    
    If the Vatican does recognize the state of Israel, wouldn't this
    imply that the Church concedes a prophecy made in 'Revelations'.
    Essentially, that the (2nd) coming of the messiah depends on the
    Jewish people returning to and having a dominion in Israel?
    
    If so, then some ultra-orthodox sects in Israel have something in
    common with the Church.

    Vatican made a major statement on racism this week. (I think it
    was prompted by a study that Vatican either commissioned or
    conducted itself).
    
    Among the items of relevance to this conference:
    
    - Anti-semitism is heavily condemned, and is talked of as something
      inconsistent w/ dignity and humanity
    - Anti-zionism is condemned as well (looks like Vatican does not
      agree w/ UN resolution that brands zionism as a form of racism)
    - It was stated that in too many cases anti-zionism is used as
      a cover for anti-semitism (!)
    
    Looks interesting and encouraging.
    
                                      Alex
                                          

    [Note: for those of you who saw my original reply before it went
    'poof' ;^)...I've made some changes/additions and reinserted it here,
     at the request of a couple of Bagelers. I find it difficult to
     participate here, as I don't wish to cause controversy, but strongly
     feel that dialogue between us is *important*. Please, if you can
     help it, don't be quick to take offense as none is intended.]
    
    
    
  RE:    < Note 631.12 by CRUISE::SPEARL >
                          -< Christian anti_Semitism >-
    Simms,
    
    >Despite the fact that Jesus and all his followers were Jewish, he did 
    >not receive widespread support among the Jewish community at large or 
    >the religious establishment. This relationship lead to the depiction 
    >of the Jewish masses and the Jewish religous establishment as the 
    >antagonists in the life of Jesus. 
    
    >This is especially true during the later stages of his life when he 
    >preached in the Jewish community. This negative depiction was 
    >exacerbated by the accusations, many made by the Church, of Jewish 
    >responsibility for the crucification and death of Jesus.
                           
     I appreciated your entire reply, and wanted to comment a bit further
     on just this portion. I think it's important to recognize that
     in those days, the break that occurred between Judaism and what came
     to be known as Christianity, was facilitated by various factors,
     many of them political. The first major alienation and step of
     separation came, as I understand it from my readings of early
     Hebrew Christian history, when the Jews forced the followers of
     Jesus out of the synagogues with the addition of the 19th
     Benediction which, effectively, pronounced a curse upon them.
    
     The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the year 70 C.E.
     and the resulting dispersion of the Jews from the land brought
     about a national and religious crisis in the Jewish world. Two
     questions were raised that had to be answered: How can Judaism,
     deprived of the Temple and the sacrificial system, survive 
     religiously; and how can the Jewish people, scattered in a hostile
     Gentile world, survive nationally? The solutions were developed
     over a period of years: Biblical Judaism was set aside and replaced
     by Rabbinical Judaism, the rabbi replacing the priest as the leader
     of Jewish life and the synagogue became the center of Jewish life.
     
     This new form was unacceptable to Hebrew Christians because of
     their faith and conviction that Jesus the Messiah, by his 
     substitutionary death and resurrection, fulfilled the Mosaic Law. 
     These battles raged so that in 90 C.E. the nineteenth benediction 
     was added to the Shmoneh Esreh: "Let there be no hope for the
     apostates and let all the sectaries perish in a moment." [That's
     sectaries, not secretaries! ;^)]
    
     But even with these controversies, the Hebrew Christians continued
     to live among the Jews while they continued to emerge as a distinct
     element in the community. Though they were less trusted, a partial
     reconciliation did come about that allowed them to co-exist relatively
     peacefully.
    
     This led up to the events between 132 - 135 C.E., which were to
     change the course of Hebrew Christianity for a long time to come,
     to the detriment of Christian coexistence with the Jewish community.
     This is the time that the second Jewish revolt against Rome occurred,
     under Bar Cochba. The Hebrew Christians at first joined in fighting side
     by side with their Jewish brethren, identifying themselves nationally
     with this national cause. If Bar Cochba's banner had continued
     to be strictly political and national, the history of Hebrew
     Christianity might have been radically different. However, Rabbi
     Akiba's declaration of Bar Cochba as the Jewish Messiah introduced
     the element of religion and the Hebrew Christians pulled out of
     the war since they refused to acknowledge Bar Cochba as the Jewish
     Messiah.
    
     The result was tragic, and it was at this point that a complete
     break took place between the Jewish Christians and the rest of
     the Jewish people. I've read that it was Bar Cochba, and not Paul
     [Saul], who is to be credited for turning Christianity into a "Gentile
     religion". Jewish Christians, from this point on, were ostracized.
     Non-Christian Jews were to hve no dealings with Hebrew Christians;
     even if a Jew were dying, he was to refuse help from a Hebrew
     Christian doctor.  
    
     Nevertheless, Jews still continued to turn to Christ despite the 
     growing separation, and there is evidence of this in Jewish writings 
     of the Talmudic period, where Hebrew Christians were referred to 
     most often as Nazarenes. These writings continued to deliberately
     widen the gulf between the Jews and the Christians. 
     
     I think you will admit that in that day it didn't contribute to
     harmony to declare that the "Nazarenes are worse than the Gentiles: 
     Gentiles, and those that keep small cattle and those that breed the 
     same are neither helped out of a pit nor cast into it. The heretics 
     and the apostates and the informers are cast in and hot helped out." 
     [ref. Tos. Baba Mezia, ii. 33]       
     
     There were other factors, of course, that complicated relationships.
     Jerusalem, rebuilt, became off-limits for all Jews, including Jewish
     Christians, which made Jerusalem into a "Gentile city", and the
     Jerusalem church became a Gentile church.
    
     That was the beginning of the wall that continued to grow, fed by
     distrust, anger, misunderstandings. Both sides contributed to
     the climate that allowed these things to grow. This in no way
     is intended to be an exoneration of the blindness of the Christian 
     religious establishment, for there is no exoneration to be found,
     except for the faithfulness of those Christians in history who 
     refused to follow that path and chose, instead, to support the Jew
     at great cost to themselves (e.g. 10% of the population of Dachau
     consisted of Christian clergymen of various denominations, including 
     Roman Catholic priests. All were there because of their opposition
     to Hitler, or for hiding Jews.]
                                   
     How misunderstandings and distrust can continue into the
     modern age is beyond me. Even as a child I was told strange tales
     about Jews that I could not understand *and did not accept* [that
     they need the blood of Christian children for their passover meal
     preparations, etc.]. Don't ask me why I wouldn't believe it, at
     a young and tender age. I just didn't. It was stupid to me. How
     adults can believe such things is beyond me. Ignorance is not
     the reason. I was ignorant, too.
                                     
     But I'm rambling. The point I wished to make was that as Rabbinical
     Judaism developed, and thereafter, the Rabbis were very adept
     at esuring that the distance between Jews and Christians increased.
     I know the intentions were good, but there is a downside to that
     as we have come to see.
    
     Many in the Christian community are coming to appreciate the Jew
     as never before, and Fundamentalist churches are emphasizing the
     message of loving the Jewish people and supporting Israel [maybe
     some other denominations are doing so too, but I'm most familiar 
     with Fundamentalist views and practices]. Concurrently, there is 
     also rising anti-semitism among fringe groups, based on non-biblical 
     teaching, that causes me concern that spiritual blindness is once 
     again on the upswing.
                  
     Sigh.
                  
     I think that whatever numbers there are among the Christian community
     that are reaching out to the Jew with sincerity and commitment
     should be acknowledged; it would be better, still, if the Jewish
     community tried to meet us half way in dialogue and efforts at
     mutual understanding. I know there are some interfaith dialogue
     groups around the country, but I don't know how active or how
     effective they are. At any rate, I think it's important just to
     talk, and build a trust, one-on-one.
                        
     Shalom,
    
     Irena
                                         
    
     
     

    Irena,

    A big problem with your analysis is that it ignores or disregards many
    of the fears that exist today amongst Jews. You speak about
    fundamentalist groups that seek to love the Jew, but not about how they
    seek to convert the Jew as well. I know you sincerely desire that
    we trust each other, have mutual respect for each others faiths,
    and even love each other. I don't think your goal can ever be realised
    while missionary activity continues, and creates new mistrust.
    
    Malcolm

    Malcolm,
    
    >A big problem with your analysis is that it ignores or disregards many
    >of the fears that exist today amongst Jews.
     
    I didn't intend to address the fears that exist today. They are
    well known. I did wish to point out that the estrangement and
    distance between Christians and Jews is not entirely created by
    one side, as the little history that I know seems to show. I
    think it helps to to understand where we are today, and where
    we might be headed tomorrow if we take a look at how we got here.
    
    >You speak about fundamentalist groups that seek to love the Jew, 
    >but not about how they seek to convert the Jew as well.
                           
    >I don't think your goal can ever be realised
    >while missionary activity continues, and creates new mistrust
     
     I'm not that idealistic, Malcolm. ;^) I just think it's worth the effort
     to work toward understanding, one-on-one.
    
     You see, I can cope with lack of trust, and accept it as fruit
     of the past, and go on from there. What I have difficulty with is 
     hatred and animosity. *That* is what I feel should be eliminated, 
     where possible. 
     
     The hatred that exists between the Jew and Christian,
     while not all-inclusive, is shared by people on both sides. I
     think the place to start is one-on-one, developing relationships,
     testing, proving and, eventually, trusting as far as one feels
     able [and willing] to trust. This will vary from individual to
     individual, but *wanting* to do this is the first, and important,
     step.
    
     You see, it's hard for me to understand what significance there 
     is in the actions of the Pope or the Vatican for you if you don't
     trust the R.C. Church, or believe what the Vatican says. [Personally,
     *I* have problems with trust in this area ;^)]   
     
     Of course, if you feel that the Vatican has ulterior motives,
     then I can see where you'd want to know what they're doing and
     try to figure out why. 
    
     We're off the topic. The above paragraph was an attempt to
     bring it back. ;^)                                        
    
     Irena                  
    
     

    Re. .18
    
    >it's hard for me to understand what significance there is in the
    actions of the Pope or the Vatican for you if you don't trust the
    R.C. Church or believe what the Vatican says.<
    
    Although this question was not addressed to me I feel I must respond.
    
    From any standpoint the Pope, as spiritual leader of the Catholic
    Church, "significantly" affects the viewpoint of millions of people.
    This being the point of fact, his failure to accept the existence
    of the State of Israel is unequivocal.
    
    Bernice

    Bernice,
    
      And although your reply was addressed to Irena, I hope you don't
    mind a quick interjection from me. I, too, feel that the Pope is
    in error in not recognizing Israel. However, as a former Roman Catholic
    of some 21 years I feel that you are giving him too much in the
    way of influence over Roman Catholics.
    
     The Pope will do and say as he wishes but unless he issues some
    form of decree on the matter no one is obliged to agree with it,
    Catholic or not. Even if there is some form of official statement
    made, it is mainly up to the individual whether or not to comply.
    Yes, there are those who will blindly accept anything that any Pope
    says, but it has been my experience that these are few (and getting
    fewer). 
    
      I, myself, would like to give people more credit, most people
    tend to want to think for themselves. I am more concerned with the
    anti-semetic propaganda being put forth as "news" by such media
    establishments as the Boston Globe. The Pope can give his opinion,
    but the media can distort and even conceal the truth and not many
    will catch it.
    
      As Irena stated, one-to-one dialogue is a good way to start.
    
    Gil 

    Re. .20
    
    Gil, I believe the dogma of the Catholic Church to be more
    rigid than you say it is.  If one chooses to defy its edicts,
    he is excommunicated, not encouraged to "think for himself".
    
    The Pope, as head of the church, is the difinitive word, he
    represents the Catholic Religion's stand/point of view/opinion.
    I'm quite sure his refusal to accept the State of Israel 
    influences or attempts to influence more than a few Catholics
    and more than a few non-Catholics around the world who might 
    be inclined to be anti-Israel in the first place.
                                                    
    Bernice

    RE: 631.16

     >I think you will admit that in that day it didn't contribute to
     >harmony to declare that the "Nazarenes are worse than the Gentiles...

    There are aspects of Judaism that we generally prefer to ignore--or at
    least not to display to the outside world.  A number of years ago I
    spent some time on the staff of one of the Jewish community relations
    organizations and in that capacity I was a member of a Catholic-Jewish
    liaison committee where we tried to educate each other in order to
    reduce prejudice and conflict.  We spent time, among other things,
    looking at Christian doctrines that fostered anti-Semitism and the
    Catholic members (all clergy and religious) were sincerely concerned
    with modifying the way in which these things were taught, for they
    recognized that words are not neutral, they reflect and shape
    attitudes.

    I assumed that I didn't have to worry about Jewish teachings; after
    all, we were the objects of prejudice, not the perpetrators.  However,
    the process of sensitizing Christians to things that could offend, or
    lead to bias against Jews, also sensitized me to Jewish teachings and
    attitudes about non-Jews.  Unfortunately, I found a lot of negative
    stereotyping and hostility.

    I came to two conclusions:

    1.  Had the positions of Christianity and Judaism been reversed and we
    had become the majority, I am not sure that we would have behaved
    better toward Christians than they toward us.  (There would have been
    some differences, for ideological reasons, but different is not
    necessarily better.)

    2.  These attitudes hurt us more than they hurt Christians, because
    xenophobia forces one to define oneself at least partly in terms of the
    outsider, which is a negative form of definition.  To the extent that
    we can free ourselves of prejudice, it frees us to concentrate on what
    is positive in Judaism.  To the extent that our prejudice is the
    product of their prejudice, it represents a victory for anti-Semitism.

    Note that I am not talking about being justifiably angry about ill
    treatment or being concerned about preventing future oppression.  As
    Irena and many other Christians have made clear,  we have their support
    in combating anti-Semitism in the Christian community.  We need to
    defend ourselves vigorously against such prejudice.  We also need to be
    honest with ourselves and, as Hillel said, not do unto others what we
    do not wish to be done to us.

                                        Aaron

    RE: 631.16

     >The result was tragic, and it was at this point that a complete
     >break took place between the Jewish Christians and the rest of
     >the Jewish people. I've read that it was Bar Cochba, and not Paul
     >[Saul], who is to be credited for turning Christianity into a "Gentile
     >religion".

    A nit:

    Although there were several areas of conflict between Jews and
    Christians, my reading of history is that by the time of the Bar Kokhba
    revolt, the separation was, for all practical purposes, complete.  What
    happened then undoubtedly exacerbated it, and the Jews may very well
    have gone out of their way to be hostile, but I don't think this can be
    seen as THE final break.  By that time, I believe that the majority of
    Christians were already Gentile, and therefore barred by Jewish law
    from being considered part of the Jewish community.
    
                                        Aaron

    Further nits:
    
    The Jewish community was spread all around the Mediterranean basin
    even before the time of Jesus, so mechanisms for operating without
    the Temple were already being defined (had been defined?  Does
    someone in here know?) well before the destruction in 70.
    
    Since there is a sect called Nazarene or Nazorean that predates
    Jesus, it is unclear to me that the objections to "the Nazarenes"
    mean that these are objections to Christians.  Again, does anyone
    know?
    
    						Ann B.