Defining Anti-Semitism: the Spanish Inquisition as an Exaggerated Instance

Awhile back I wrote a post defending Jews for Jesus, claiming that they displayed a genuine tolerance for ethnically Jewish peers, though a tolerance not in line with leftist multiculturalism.

But consider that J4J wholeheartedly accepts Jews as full-scale members of the Christian community. The Christian community that still comprises the bedrock of our country, once the domain of the insular "goyim", doesn't care anymore - as long as you make a sincere effort at adopting their beliefs. J4J isn't a "tolerant" institution in the vein of modern leftist; it's moreso a "tolerant" institution in that it will accept a congenial minority group as long as that minority group respects the majority's culture. J4J makes this demand explicit and that's perhaps what grates its opponents most.

The shrill opponents of Jews for Jesus often use the phrase anti-semitic (AS) to classify an organization that ironically welcomes Jews. But we shouldn't find this surprising given the grievance industry of multiculturalism - complaints on the grounds of discrimination usually prove successful.

In sum, the anger many Jews express about Jews for Jesus comes from an overly general definition of Jewishness, especially in the context of antisemitism (AS). Perhaps as a means of maintaining their dwindling numbers or as a way of showcasing their prodigious collective talents, Jews play rather loose with the definition of who actually qualifies as a Jew. In general, two main definitions of Jew exist: a person who believes in the Torah and a person, at least partially, descended from those of Jewish blood. The former is open to anyone, e.g. Shyne, and the latter comes from biological inheritance, with Jews undoubtedly a verifiable ethnic group(s).

Yet, professional rabble-rousers like Abe Foxman never actually distinguish between the two forms of AS. I've heard individuals like Foxman inveigh against both types of AS without noting the important difference, one of kind not type. In essence, anti-religious bigotry differs from anti-ethnic bigotry because the former entails disagreement with belief and not personhood. Belief is assuredly not intrinsic to personhood and disagreement or downright animus on account of belief should not be considered bigotry. This point is further supported by the notion that minority beliefs within the context of a larger homogeneous belief system, such as the religion of Judaism within American Christian culture, reflect a group's reluctance to participate fully within said society. By denouncing Judaism as a religion or, equivalently, denouncing Jews solely for believing in Judaism, the perpetrator merely expresses his own belief that another person(s) is wrong, especially important considering the irreconcilable inconsistencies between the two religions. Surely such a decry would not warrant the "two minutes of hate" directed at individuals like Ann Coulter.

Despite this rather obvious distinction, the Abe Foxmans of the world still conflate genuine AS with religious AS, the genuine version defined as enmity towards a Jew solely on the basis of his genetic heritage. (I won't get into collective animus or the more benign and possibly justifiable collective exclusion here, so let's stick with "hating a Jew because he was born a Jew" in discussing actual AS.) The anti-Jew from a religious standpoint is markedly different from the often irrational and spit-spewing actual AS because the former depends on something that can change. Basically, the religious AS will usually welcome the converted Jew as the Jewish convert expresses an authentic respect for the majority's traditionalism.

With that said, and what was initially the main point of the post, I contend that the Spanish Inquisition should not be exclusively regarded as anti-semitic. In sum, the Spanish Inquisition was a concerted effort by Spanish and Church power to ensure that Jews did not seek to undermine Spanish and Christian culture. In general, Jews were given the freedom to accept Christianity and live almost as full citizens within Spain, an explicitly Spanish Spain that did not tolerate cultural apostasy. Evidence follows.

The best piece of evidence for the notion that the Spanish Inquistion was anti-Jewish in a religious sense and not anti-Jewish in an ethnic sense comes after the initial attacks of the 14th century:

Thus after 1391 a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians. Many conversos, now freed from the antisemitic restrictions imposed on Jewish employment, attained important positions in 15th century Spain, including positions in the government and in the Church. Among many others, physicians Andrés Laguna and Francisco Lopez Villalobos (Ferdinand's court physician), writers Juan del Enzina, Juan de Mena, Diego de Valera and Alonso de Palencia, and bankers Luis de Santangel and Gabriel Sanchez (who financed the voyage of Christopher Columbus) were all conversos. Conversos - not without opposition - managed to attain high positions in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, at times becoming severe detractors of Judaism. Some even received titles of nobility, and as a result, during the following century some works attempted to demonstrate that virtually all of the nobles of Spain were descended from Israelites.

Note that these "new Christians" were afforded the privileges of ethnic Spaniards, with little opposition based on their genetic lineage.

The Alhambra Decree gave Jews the option to convert and become members of a unified Spanish Christian nation:

The king and queen issued the Alhambra Decree less than three months after the surrender of Granada. In it, Jews were accused of trying "to subvert their holy Catholic faith and trying to draw faithful Christians away from their beliefs." These measures were not new in Europe.

Some Jews were even only given four months and ordered to convert to Christianity or leave the country. Under the edict, Jews were promised royal "protection and security" for the effective three-month window before the deadline. They were permitted to take their belongings with them – except "gold or silver or minted money".

Ethnically Jewish Christian converts became such an entrenched part of society that their genetic inheritance persists today (though the paper has been questioned):

In December 2008, a genetic study of the current population of the Iberian Peninsula, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, estimated that about 10% have North African ancestors and 20% have Sephardi Jews as ancestors.

While some argue the Spanish Inquisition showcases political and papal power run amok, one could aver that the Spanish ruling class simply grew tired of a disjointed society with large numbers of Jews and Muslims stubbornly opposed to assimilation. The Christian intentions of the Inquisition illustrates the religious nature of the pogroms. This religious focus invalidates characterization of the Inquisition as genuine, ethnically-based antisemitism in which an individual Jew can do absolutely nothing, excluding even passionate expression of national or cultural loyalty, to exonerate himself for a purported genetic sin.

_______________________________________________________

Note 1: This is a nuanced argument regarding an always contentious subject. Please read it carefully before opining. It is obvious that I am downplaying only religious-based AS.

Note 2: I admit that this argument ignores some genuine ethnically-based antisemitism amongst the Spanish masses, but in general, as evinced by official decree and high intermarriage rates, this hostility was relatively rare

Note 3: It also goes without saying that I don't agree with killing people, for any reason.

Note 4: I purposefully focused my discussion on individual antisemitism and not group-related bigotry, e.g. "Jews started all the wars." This is another topic altogether and requires a different set of definitions, ideas, and historical background.