Talk:Charles Coughlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

	Judaism Portal Charles Coughlin is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Irish diaspora 2 Letter from Fr. Coughlin 3 Stop the revert war 4 New deal = far left? 5 New Deal = far left? 6 Surprising Discovery in Warren's book 7 Status 8 Comments on Status 9 Unprotecting 10 Editing Comments 11 Herbert Hoover 12 Reductio ad Hitlerum 13 reverted material 14 Coughlin's attacks on Jewish Bankers 15 WTF? 16 Is Couglin an exception? 17 Anon's last edit 18 this seems a little POV to me 19 Clean-up needed 20 universalism universal reconciliation Unitarian-Universalism agnosticism ignosticism 21 Australian comments and rebuttal 22 Antisemitism? No 23 Antisemitisim? Yes

[edit] Irish diaspora

The Irish link ought to point to Irish_diaspora. Franzeska 23:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letter from Fr. Coughlin

This doesn't sound too much like an encyclopedia article. Its not a good idea to ask the reader make a judgment based on one letter without knowing the context or even the accuracy.

Roadrunner 21:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The letter below proves that any accusation of "antisemitism" is false. It is not even anti-Judaism or anti-rabbinism, but in fact Fr. Coughlin very much recognizes that Jesus was Jewish, and that racism is false and wrong. He criticizes certain naturalistic tendencies among modern-day Jews. He does not call for "extermination" of Jewish "blood and race" anywere. On the contrary. He says one must choose the Jew Jesus!Smith2006 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you nuts? The letter drips with bigotry. Are you saying that Coughlin can't be accused of antisemitism because antisemitism is JUSTIFIED? That's hardly NPOV. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Below is a letter from Fr. Coughlin, from this author's collection. Readers are left to their own judgement of him.

Rev. Chas. E. Coughlin
Royal Oak, Michigan

February 2, 1940

H. B. Knape
Flushing, L. I., N. Y.

My dear Friend,

I am sending you accompanying this letter a copy of the "Rulers of Russia".

Undoubtedly you will derive much information from this scholarly work written by the Reverend Denis Fahey.

Having read the book, do not conclude that Jews are to be hated or that good Christians can be anti-Semitic, but recollect that, as Rabbi Samuel H. Goldenson of Temple Emanu-El, New York City has said: "Lack of faith on the part of the Jews, rather than anti-Semitism is the most serious problem facing Jewry today."

While it is regrettable that Jews are persecuted abroad, let us not condone any persecution of them at home. Moreover, let us try our level best to persuade the better class of Jews to cooperate with the better class of Gentiles in coming out publicly and courageously against all forms of irreligion and persecution.

Finally, let it be no shock to learn that the Oriental Freemasons, who operate particularly in Europe, are atheistic and are dominated by atheistic Jews and Gentiles.

There is no salvation for America without God. We are at the crossroads where we must accept either the Jew, Jesus Christ, or the Jew, Carl Marx.

Trusting that you will derive benefit from the weekly contents of SOCIAL JUSTICE magazine which are definitely pro-Christian and pro-American, I am

Cordially yours,

Charles E. Coughlin

---

[edit] Stop the revert war

ok, this revert war has got to stop. NYCExpat, I belive your edits are wrong. Caughlin was definately anti-semitic (Regardless of what this letter here says), and he was also a nativist (As per encarta). so please Try to cooperate here and back up your edits with NPOV sources. Bonus Onus 20:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bonus Onus, I have to agree with you, and I would also urge NYCEXpat to avoid using misleading edit summaries. He keeps removing points about antisemtism, etc. while stating that he is dealing with other issues, which just complicates the editing process more. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue of whether someone is or is not "nativist" or "anti-semitic" begs the question as to what these terms mean, what is the burden of proof, and who makes the judgement. The notion that an immigrant priest who opposed the KKK could be a "nativist" is absurd, regardless of what is in encarta. (Hey maybe the encarta people referred to this Wikipedia site)

The issue of whether or not someone supports the policies of Hitler and Mussolini similarly depends upon what we mean by "support" and "policies". Did Coughlin support the Holocaust, the VW or none of the above? What exists here is somebody's diatribe.

Coughlin was a major figure in the Thirties because he proposed an alternative to the New Deal that was neither right or left. His publication of the Protocols and other alleged anti-semitic acts constitute a very small part of what he was about. Amazingly, he is still a controversial figure who is reviled at every opportunity. That makes him even more interesting.

So, I will continue to monitor and edit this site until it reflects the objective truth about this man.

Facts do matter, and you have yet to provide sources, which makes your insertions suspect, especially as you clearly have a strong point of view. For example, your latest edit, that there was no Communist Party in the US in the thirties, was just plain wrong: (From the Columbia Encyclopedia:"In May, 1921, under strong pressure from the Third (Communist) International, or Comintern, the Communist groups in the United States were united as the Communist Party of America. The Comintern also forced a change away from revolutionary militancy to working through established labor organizations and developing a mass following. Accordingly, in Dec., 1921, the Communists organized the Workers party of America, as a legal, acknowledged organization, and by 1923 the underground party had ceased to function... in 1929 the party was renamed the Communist party of the United States of America."

Wikipedia has a policy against original research for exactly this reason - assertions are often wrong, and they certainly reflect point-of-view biases. Quality sourced material allows us to avoid wars over random assertions. Every source and biography on Coughlin mentions that he was increasingly anti-semitic after 1936, deleting that information (as you have done repeatedly, often with misleading change descriptions) is both dishonest and incorrect. If you want to expand the article to include more information about his early life or economic policies, go ahead. Just make sure that it is supported by reputable outside sources, and give those sources, either in Talk or in a reference section.

--Goodoldpolonius2 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New deal = far left?

I think this is a biased statement:

"the New Dealers who practised central planning and democratic socialism and the far left."

I think it is a bit over the top (and a personal opinion) to say that the new deal was central planning, socialism or of the far left. Perhaps it is possible to re-word this statement to provide the facts or even better link to the new deal page, instead of editorializing about it here.--Fluxaviator 06:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Deal = far left?

The New Deal was an experiment in central planning and democratic socialism. What did the blue eagle of the NRA stand for? What is the big deal in admitting this simple fact? The far left stood for one form of Communism or another, Trotsky or Stalin. The far left stood for the total expropriation of private property and the elimation of civil liberties. This was Communism in any form. There may have been New Dealers who were Communists, but the New Deal was not Communism. The New Deal was a valiant but inept attempt to deal with the crisis of the Great Depression.

Mr. Gdps asserts that I have claimed that the CPUSA did not exist in the Thirties. That is based either on a misreading of what I wrote, or a typo on my part. I believed that I wrote "The CPUSA did not exist in the Thirties?" as a question, not an assertion of fact. Of course the CPUSA existed in the Thirties.

NYC Expat

a large amount of the New Deal was just a watered down attempt to copy what the Germans and Italians were doing so successfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs)

Cite? JChap2007 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surprising Discovery in Warren's book

When I came upon this site my knowledge of Rev. Coughlin was based on a long-ago reading of Sheldon Marcus's book, an old copy of "Money, Questions and Answers" and general knowledge of Thirties America. I am now reading Donald Warren's book. First, GDPS misnames the book. It's actual title is "Radio Priest", and it is subtitled "Charles Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio". The book is a biased and sloppy history written by a sociologist. The subtitle is a giveaway. I assume it was chosen in order to attract a market in the post-Oklahoma bombing period when the book came out. The link to contemporary "hate radio" - whatever that is - (Rush?) is non-existent. Nevertheless the book contains some nuggets. The best yet was the relevation that the breach between Rev. Coughlin and FDR was not over the unsuccessful New Deal. It occurred on September 10, 1935, when he confronted FDR with evidence that the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, FDR's friend, neighbor, and the most prominient Jew in the administration, had sent money to the Mexican Communist Party. (pps. 86-69). NYCity Expat 04:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Status

What's the status on this page? it's been protected for nearly a month. Most admins will not let a page stay protected for over a month. --Woohookitty 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Status

The Rev. Charles Coughlin is an important and controversial figure from the Twenties through the early Forties. He was gifted speaker who stepped into radio in its early days and became a star. In the beginning his broadcasts were mostly religious. After America entered the Great Depression they turned to economic and political issues.

There are many theories about how the Depression was caused, why it continued, and how it could be solved. The Republicans, led by Hoover, believed in laissez-faire ecomics. The Communists believed in central planning and the abolition of private property. The New Dealers believed in a larger government, central planning, and spending to prime the pump. (Thus the New Deal led to the creation of the NRA, the WPA, the SEC, Social Security, the CCC and many other similar agencies.) The Reverend asserted that the Depression was a cash famine and that the New Deal would not succeed because it failed to strike at the fundametal cause of the problem, which was the existence of the central bank (the Federal Reserve) itself. He asserted that the Fed's very existence prevented the government from creating sufficient money by whatever means to prime the pump enough to make the water run on its own.

Thus, Coughlin gained enemies across the political spectrum, but he remained popular.

The early Twenties and Thirties was more then flappers, Prohibition and the Depression. The Communists were on the march. They were unihibited in the use of violence, and they hated Christianity. The Orthodox Christian clergy were massacered wholesale by the Bolsheviks. Wherever the Reds were strong Christians suffered.

So, when Coughlin discovered that one of FDR's closest advisors, cabinet member Henry Morgenthau, had sent money to the Mexican Communist Party he confronted FDR. Apparently he was not impressed with the response, and then broke with the President.

Thus, Coughlin gained more enemies, but he remained popular. When the Spanish Civil War broke out, Christians were once again massacred wholesale by the Reds. It should be noted here that the killing of the religious was not opposed by the Left here, including politically involved Jews. There were no defections from supporters of "Republican" Spain because of human rights violations.

Despite the New Deal, the Depression continued throughout the Thirties. 1937 was as bad as 1933. Folks began to loose faith in Roosevelt and the attraction of Communism here grew as the Depression continued.

The priest was a committed anti-Communist, even on the streets of New York, and he gained more enemies.

By the end of the Thirties it became obvious that the Democratic administration was intent on opposing Nazi Germany by any means, including a possible World War. Coughlin, like Lindbergh and most other Americans, opposed the future war. When the Jews complained about the Kristallnacht pogrom, Coughlin, and many others wondered why they didn't complain about the Communists anti-Christian pogroms.

In our time most folks see the Second World War as a necessary tragedy that prevented Hitler from conquering the world and killing all the Jews. Maybe that is true. Perhaps a series of events took place that are much more complex, and that the end result was not a necessary conclusion. Furthermore, perhaps FDR's, Churchill's, and Stalin's policies contributed to that horrendus dance of death, and that none of it was even forseeable, or possibly even likely, from before the beginning when Couglin and Lindbergh took their stands.

Nevertheless, Father Coughlin gained more enemies.

The priest was forced off the air in the fall of 1939. His publication was shut down in 1942. Despite all the accusations of sedition and incitements of criminality, he was never charged - even by his hostile enemies who were in power - with any crime.

He remained a parish priest until his retirement.

Now we must take a good look the entry here.

First of all, the title. The man was an ordained minister, and therefore is entitled to the honorific "Reverend". He is not here.

At the end, for sources, the book by Donald Warren is misidentified. It's true title is not "Father Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio". That is its subtitle. It's true title is Radio Priest. The nuance displays bias which is indeed present.

The article fails to represent the actual cause of Coughlin's breach with FDR.

The article states that his listeners were "nativists". In actuality, the KKK, a classic "nativist" organization, opposed Catholics at that time, and the Catholics, including Coughlin, would have opposed them.

The author goes on to state that Coughlin expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini. This is a deeply prejudicial statement that is not supported by the record. What policies is he talking about? Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler built the Volkswagen.

How much control did the priest have over his "followers" who supposedly stated "Wait until Hitler comes over here"?

Finally, if Father Coughlin was never charged with any crime, including sedition, why is the data concerning rightist radicals present?

What we have here is a diatribe and not a biography. The author insists upon the content he wants, and I disagree.

There may be no agreement.

So, perhaps this site should be perpetually locked down.

NYCity Expat 05:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

THOUGHTS ON THE MORGENTHAU CHECK

I was stunned to come across this story. It is mentioned by both Marcus and Warren. When I read Marcus's book long ago the matter had not stood out, but it does now. The incident raises several issues. How large a check was it? Did Morgenthau send the money on his own, or did he do it at the President's direction? The Marcus book contains a Coughlin quote on pages 99 & 100 that indicate that Morgenthau did it on his own and that this indicated "how far the Communists had infiltrated our government." Indeed it did. Neither book indicates the size of the check, but I bet that Coughlin told Marcus - and that Marcus told Warren - and that both writers avoided writing the amount of money involved. The issue is inflamatory, so inflamatory that both writers (neither of which like the priest) mention the incident but neither give the issue the attention it deserves.

The next issue is how the check came to Coughlin, and why.

Both books indicate that he got it from his bishop. An action like that does not just happen. Such a check doen not just happen to fall into the hands of the Catholic leadership.

Clearly, the leadership had Coughlin confront the President. At that time Coughlin was powerful supporter of the President. FDR's coalition contained a lot of Catholics who listed to the radio priest. I imagine that the Church wanted to know whether supporting the Communists was an official and secret policy of the administration, and if not, what would happen to the rogue Communist-supporting Treasury Secretary. The priest and the president spent 7 hours together. Morgenthau remained in office, and Coughlin launched his third party.

The fact that a wealthy Jewish plutocrat and cabinet member could support the Reds and still remain in office after being exposed must have provoked a great deal of thought.

24.149.41.40 03:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

I agree with User:Woohookitty (writing nearly a week ago!) that the page has been protected for far too long. It's a wiki, time to let people edit it again. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There is some disagreement over exactly when and how the reverend was forced off the air. Both Marcus and Warren mention the NAB censorship. However stations were permitted to honor their contracts and some did. As a result fixing a precise date of when he lost his major stations - and their audiences - or made a final broadcast to the last remnant of stations is difficult.

NYCity Expat 12:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

What considerations should apply regarding what is written here or anywhere else on Wikipedia?

[edit] Editing Comments

Should the contents of this page be merely what I or someone else wants, while each of us deny that our POV is being expressed?

Here are some thoughts. First consider that this is a short biography, and thus it needs to be succint.

The rules of evidence control what a jury hears in the courtroom, and they are important because the keep junk from polluting the minds of the jurors.

Here are a few rules:

1. Is the information relevant? Does it have probative value?

2. Is it material? Does it have some logical bearing on the subject?

3. Is it hearsay?

4. Is it conclusory?

5. Is it opinion?

6. Does it assume facts not in evidence?

7. Does it misstate evidence or misquote witnesses?

8. Is it speculative?

9. Is it confusing, misleading, ambiguous, or vague?

10. Does prejudice outweigh probativeness?

There are of course other possible obejctions but these few should give a reader tools to analyze what is written here and elsewhere.

Today I am going to remove the section that Coughlin sympathized with Nazism because it is conclusory, an opinion, it assumes facts that are not before us, it is speculative, confusing, misleading and vague, and because the prejudice created by the comment far outweighs the probative value of the remark.

NYCity Expat 04:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And yet you filled the page with your own conclusions, opinions, and claims, which also assumed facts not before us, was speculative, confusing, misleading and vague etc. Why don't you try your apologetics, err, edits on the Talk: page first. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Hoover

In the section "Growing anti-Semitism and radicalism," there is a quote ascribed to Herbert Hoover. As this appears in a paragraph concerning the FBI, I suspect that the actual source was not ex-President Herbert Hoover, but J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. B00P 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reductio ad Hitlerum

I am deleting the gratuitous Goebbels reference. We need to avoid language that runs along the lines of "Hitler liked dogs. Bill likes dogs. Therefore, Bill is a fascist." St. Jimmy 12:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's not making a statement it's just making a correlation with Nazi Germany and provides additional info. I thought that it was a great sentence.

71.131.185.95 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it's a "correlation." The question is what sort of correlation. If someone said, "Like Jeffrey Dahmer, Bill has homosexual tendencies" that would obviously be a scurrilous way of attacking Bill, not a means of giving information. I assure you that Goebbels and Coughlin were not the only two people in the world who noticed that irreligion, especially of the Marxist variety, was more common among Jews than among Gentiles at the time. If you have a source for the allegation that he reduced that observation to the words "Jewish plot", I will reconsider whether restoring a version of the sentence might be appropriate. St. Jimmy 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverted material

The line about Coughlin's allies attacking Jewish Communist targets is not POV, it is either a fact or not a fact. If the targets were both Jewish and Communist and were selected for that reason, talking about "perceptions" is silly. As for why the Goebbels analogy is inappropriate, that's already been discussed. St. Jimmy 02:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you about Coughlins allies attacking Jewish Communist targets and I changed it. It definitely was a POV of the Christian front and it can not be substantiated. I didnt realize it at first but once I did I changed it. For Goebbels I think it is a great sentence and should be included. This one sentence really explains a lot about Coughlin and his viewpoint. I believe that it explains why Coughlin, as a preacher, expressed sympathy for Nazi policies and why he would be anti semetic. There is a big hole in the article and there is really no connection on how a preacher would support Hitler and this sentence shows why someone like him would. The whole anti semetism part doesnt show Coughlings viewpoint and it's one sided. It just talks about him being anti semetic but doesnt tell why. Keep in mind it's only his viewpoint we are including and that is all. It's not stating it as a fact.

Jerry Jones 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the "Jewish plot" thing? Because if Coughlin merely stated that many Jews were leading society in the direction of atheism and Marxism, that is no more than what a lot of people on the right were saying at the time, and the line associating him with Goebbels would be scurrilous. Of course, maybe he really did use the exact words "Jewish plot" or "Jewish conspiracy", in which case the disputed line would have credibility. I would like to see some facts brought forward on this point. St. Jimmy 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

St Jimmy, you said in your edit summary for this edit that the "citation says nothing about Goebbels or "Marxist atheism in Europe". Was this citation the one you meant? If so, half of your claim seems to be false, since the cited page quotes Roy Carlson as writing that "He [Coughlin] made direct use of Goebbels’ speeches, quoting the Nazi almost word-for-word". So it is not scurrilous of us to associate him with Goebbels, although perhaps it would be more clearly NPOV for us to attribute this to Carlson. I agree this citation doesn't specifically mention "Marxist atheism in Europe". -- Avenue 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That was Jay that had that edit summary, not me. I concur that if the Goebbels reference is used is has to be attributed to Carlson and balanced by pointing out that the view of Jews as tending to be nonreligious and sympathetic to communism was common on the non-Nazi right, otherwise it is thoroughly POV. St. Jimmy 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you both for being confused about who said what. -- Avenue 09:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coughlin's attacks on Jewish Bankers

Added reference to Coughlin's attacks on Jewish Bankers and sourced to NYT. This seems like a good addition because it is the one thing that most people learn about him and his (in my view demented) beliefs in this regard may explain his broader anti-Semitism. --JChap 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

He didn't like Capitalism? was he a socialist?

A type of socialist, yes. St. Jimmy 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A "national socialist," one might argue. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Couglin an exception?

Is Coughlin an exception to the normal MOS rules since he was known colloquially as "Father Coughlin"? JoshuaZ 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's last edit

Is anyone else aware of the information just added by an anon? Does anyone have a citation for it? The anon added "In a unpublished letter to H. B. Knape, Coughlin regretted persecution of the Jews at home and abroad. He believed that the Oriental Freemasons from Europe were dominated by atheistic Jews and Gentiles and wanted to come out against all forms of irreligion and persecution. Coughlin further believed that there was no salvation for America without God, and people were at a the crossroads were they must accept either, "the Jew, Jesus Christ, or the Jew, Carl Marx."" JoshuaZ 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That "anon" is user:Jerry Jones/User:JJstroker, who was banned for a number of reasons. This article is a favorite of his. That particular text has been removed several times, but he keeps re-adding it. -Will Beback 04:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this seems a little POV to me

But Coughlin's biggest enemy was the FDR administration. They didn't want a popular radio announcer campaigning against them every week during the run up to the war. They decided that although the first amendment protected free speech, it did not necessarily apply to broadcasting, because the radio spectrum was a "limited national resource." New regulations and restrictions were created to force Coughlin off the air. For the first time, operating permits were required of those who were regular radio broadcasters. When Coughlin's permit was denied, he was silenced... for a time.

But Coughlin didn't give up without a fight. He worked around the restriction by purchasing air time and having his speeches played via record. However, having to buy the time on individual stations seriously reduced his reach and strained his resources. And while Coughlin's voice grew dimmer, the voices of his critics grew louder.

Anyone want to make it a little less 'Rah Rah? Carptrash 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the whole "silenced" section is not very encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.32.115 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Clean-up needed

I cleaned up the references, and added a reference where there'd been a cite-fact tag. However, most of the in-line citations do not appear in the references (and should). Almost none of the references are used as in-line citations (and should be). And some of the references are done in APA style (e.g., "(Boyea, 1995)") when they should be in-line. Cleaning up the references and adding in-line citations might help resolve some of the POV and other issues mentioned on the talk page here. - Tim1965 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] universalism universal reconciliation Unitarian-Universalism agnosticism ignosticism

Considering that Unitarianism is mentioned, these links should be here, @ least, if not on the primary page:

• universalism
• universal reconciliation
• Unitarian-Universalism
• agnosticism
• ignosticism

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian comments and rebuttal

The following passages were added to the article by anon 60.240.209.54, followed by the rebuttal from Jxmunro (talk · contribs), neither of which should be included in their current form. Since it seems to be controversial, let's develop a consensus here about what parts of this are needed before restoring any of it to the article, please. -- Avenue (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite criticism of his methods Fr Coughlin still has his defenders in Catholic Traditional church people in Australia. Fr John George, a retired priest in Sydney Australia, on the True Catholic discussion board [1] A traditionalist Tim (really Michael Webb) has this to say [2]:-

Others in Australian Catholicism take a different view of Father Coughlin .

Cliff Baxter, the Australian Catholic Journalist, writes in Catholica:

[3]

There is no doubt that the astounding popularity of Father Coughlin

with Irish Catholics in the United States was due to his honest

outrage over the betrayal of the American worker. While industrialists

grew rich the workers starved. Unlike Marxists, however, he did not

blame the ruling class, but concentrated upon blaming the Jews. He

also criticised the Jews for failing to oppose communism rigorously.

This mindset resonated with American working people who were seeking

the perpetrators of their plight.

Father Coughlin's philosophy also appealed to American isolationism.

The Marxists had said war was the working class of one nation killing

the working class of another. Father Coughlin was determined to keep

Americans out of a future war. We need to realise that the slaughter

of the working class in World War I over Britain's imperial interests

remained a vivid memory for many families who had lost sons in that

gigantic conflict.

This enormous grief was not confined to America. In Australia there

had been the successful anti-conscription campaign in WWI led by

Archbishop Daniel Mannix of Melbourne.

Father Coughlin's immensely popular broadcasts had a special appeal to

the huge isolationist, anti-war movement of the USA. So powerful was

it that President Roosevelt had to provide only sub rosa help to

Britain in response to Winston Churchill's appeals.. Only Pearl

Harbour brought America into World War II.

If we can accept Father Coughlin as being of good intent we also need

to recognize his terrible mistakes. His philosophy and world view

fitted perfectly with Hitler's Nazis. His tirades against President

Roosevelt's New Deal as some kind of Bolshevism must have been like

manna to the Nazis, as were his "Jewish conspiracy" theories.

The history of anti-Semitism in the United States is a long one,

despite the fact that Jews fought both for American independence and

for Abraham Lincoln and the Union in the Civil War. .Today's

pro-Israel, pro-Zionist lobby in Washington can to some extent be

traced as a reaction to this antiJewishness.

Aside from his misplaced "blame the Jews for our woes " tirades,

Father Coughlin misread the new Nazi Germany. Like so many of his time

(including many in Britain) he saw it as a young, vigorous bulwark

against Soviet Communism, which he saw as being either promoted or not

effectively opposed by Jews. (Remember, Jews were still regarded as

Christ-killers who stubbornly refused to accept Christ as Savior.)

Father Coughlin was not alone. The Sydney Morning Herald in an

editorial saw Kristallnacht as merely "youthful excesses" in the young

Germany.

Hindsight is a great thing and we need to be fair to Father Coughlin,

although there remains the image of a pro-Nazi demagogue. Perhaps a

Catholic dupe is fairer.

Father Coughlin is still a fascinating figure.

"Fr Charles Coughlin was a good priest who had the interests of workers at heart. Sadly in North America, particuarly the USA, the Americanist heresy was rife and poor Fr Charles had many opponents.

In Canada workers had more rights and wins in the workplace. The USA was a difficult battle ground for social doctrinally aware Fr Coughlin."

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY

1 I AM WRONGLY INTERPRETED TO BY CLIFF BAXTER BELOW-I REV FATHER JOHN GEORGE AM NOT AN ADMIRER OF FATHER COUGHLIN OR ANY NAZI SYMPATHIZER LET ALONE ANTI SEMITE-THAT DOES NOT IMPEDE ME FROM NOTING ACADEMICALLY SOME GOOD THAT MAY BE DONE UNDER PRO NAZI ELEMENTS[EG I HAPPEN TO RECOGNISE UNDER PETAIN IN VICHY FRANCE THE HOSPITALITY OFFERED TO THE CHURCH AFTER DECADES OF REPRESSION, BY THE THIRD REPUBLIC-I RECOGNISE THE POSSIBILITY FOR GOOD IN THE VATICAN-THIRD REICH CONCORDAT WHEREBY AS TESTIFIED AT THE NUREMBERG WAR TRIALS POPE PIUS X11 SENT OFFICIAL COMPLAINTS TO HITLER RE TREATMENT OF JEWS AND ABUSE OF CONCORDAT RE PERSECUTION OF CHURCH UNDER THITRD REICH-I ALSO RECOGNISE THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF THE LATERAN PACT MADE WITH FASCIST MUSSOLINI[REGULATING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VATICAN AND ITALY BOTH CONCORDATS STILL STAND EG AND IN VIRTUE OF THE 3RD REICH CONCORDAT STILL EFFECTIVE, HOLY SEE WAS ABLE TO REMOVE HANS KUNG FROM TUBINGEN AS CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN-I REGARD THAT AS AN EXCELLENT SIDE EFFECT-TO DEDUCE FROM THE ABOVE I AM ANTI SEMITIC OR GOD FORBID AN ADMIRER OF FR COUGHLIN IS OUTRAGEOUS AND LIBELLOUS-I SIMPLY MENTIONED HE WAS SEEN BY SOME AS A GOOD PRIEST SAYING MASS-VISITING THE SICK AND POOR AND SPEAKING UP FOR THE UNDERDOG

I SUGGEST YOU VET VERY CLOSELY THE EDITING OF JOURNO MR BAXTER IN FUTURE-I REGARD HIS GRATUITOUS COMMENTS AS AT BESTNEAR LIBELLOUS!Jxmunro (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)~

Father Coughlin also ministered to Jewish Catholics a lot. A fact unknown to many. To some ideologians however, conversion of Jews to Christianity is "antisemitic". They even make anti-Semites out of Sister Teresa Benedicta a Cruce (Edith Stein, born in Breslau) and Father Maksymilian Kolbe M.I. (who paid with his life for his hiding 3,000 Jews - and he was a critic of certain tendencies among Jews too). You cannot talk with biased ideologians of the Goldhagen and John Cornwell brands. Like Nazi historians, these only pursue political goals (e.g. destruction of traditional Catholicism, payings by the German state to Israel), not the search for historical objective truth. I guess the Supreme Rabbi of Rome, Israel (Eugenio) Zoller, was also an antisemite, as he converted to Christianity in July, 1945? Some people do not distinguish between criticism of certain Jewish behaviour (and I would never oppose criticism of whites' behaviour or of Western European policies!) and racism called antisemitism.Smith2006 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism? No

Father Charles Coughlin was nót an antisemite, as he never attacked the Jewish blood or race. The fact that he criticized sociologically described tendencies among certain groups of Jews, does not mean that this priest adhered to the Nazi hate myth of Blood and Race. Not at all. Also, I do not see how this can be part of the Wiki Judaism project, as Coughlin criticized the Talmud and Kabbalah and other less positive aspects of modern Rabbinic Judaism (which has little in common with original Temple Judaism of the High Priests and even original Pharisees' schools; as papal Knight David L. Goldstein proved, the famous convert from Rabbinism to the acceptance of the Messiah Jesus), only at few instances. Coughlin was a political speaker, not a race theoreticist. So please leave the "Antisemitism" Category out and invent a new category for e.g. "Critics of certain Jewish persons". Coughlin never blamed "all Jews" or "the Jewish race" for marxism or the excesses of usurious capitalism, did he? If so, provide quotes. I think the random accusations of "antisemitism" levelled against politically incorrect speakers like Coughlin, make a partisan word out of "antisemitism". This does no good, as the real racist and lethal hater-antisemites are no longer clearly identified, but thrown upon one dung heap along with mere political critics such as Coughlin. Also the connection of antisemitism with Catholicism is unscientific, motivated by anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bias, and not based on history. The fact that the popes in the past by the bulls like Et si Judaeis protected the Jews from angry anti-Jewish European populations, says all. It also proves, that antisemitism is a sociologically developed complex problem and certainly may never be blamed upon Christianity, such as hate propagandists Daniel Goldhagen *yes, the one also alleging all Germans are predestined mass murderers) and Costa try to do. Racism but also anti-Catholic bias, do not much good to society and world harmony at all. They certainly do not belong in an encyclopedia.Smith2006 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making argument based on original research, which is not acceptable for this encyclopedia. We have numerous sources that categorize the subject as an "anti-semite". More than that, he is a famous example of an anti-semite. When a person repeatedly refers to "the Jews" he isn't referring to certain Jewish persons, unless he subsequently names them. If you have reliable sources that say he wasn't anti-semitic we can include those as a minority viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Original research is not acceptable for this encyclopedia? What are you talking about? Only Propagandistic anti-Christian anti-Catholic demonization from certain Jewish lobby groups is allowed then? As for the use of "the Jews", Father Coughlin did not use the word (give sources) in that sense, while the Gospels do speak about "the Jews". And they were written by Jews. I guess the Gospels in the views of the vocal and powerful minority of anti-Christian hatred sowers should also be banned for "antisemitism" then?Smith2006 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt wasn't Jewish. Do you have a reliable source that syas Coughlin was not anti-semitic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. The idea that Coughlin is being "demonized" and that such demonization is coming solely from anti-Catholic Jewish lobby groups is risible. I seriously doubt that Coughlin's bishop was part of a secret Jewish conspiracy. Even simply reading the article will find numerous sourced quotations where Coughlin used "the Jews." I do not see the article trying to blame anti-Semitism on Christianity or on Catholicism specifically. It does, however, present well-documented historical facts about Coughlin, however difficult those facts may be for some to accept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As above, to remove the category on the basis of this letter is OR, because the letter is a primary source, and not a reliable secondary source.

Why no original research? In this particular case: to be a jew-hater was considered a bad thing and it is no wonder he wanted to distance himself from them. However, just because he said he wasn't one, that doesn't make it true. I bet I could find a quote from Hitler saying that he was a champion of Christianity. Should the cat "christian apologist" be stuck on his article? Stalin said he wasn't a totalitarian. Should that cat be removed? Jew-hate has been driven underground for many years, and it is rare to find someone who admits to it. If we restricted it to those who said "I am an antisemite", the cat would be very small indeed. This is why "criticising tendencies among some of them" is still often considered as hidden prejudice. I mean, not all Marxists are Jews. If he wanted to bash Marxists, why couldn't he just say Marxists? Why is the Jewish component important at all?

Coughlin saw the naturalism and materialism among Jews who had after 2000 years of rabbinism and Talmudic denial of the Messiah, lost supernatural faith, and saw these influences in Marxism. That does not say he did not attack goyim for their apostasy and later decadence and materialism either. Nor did Coughlin attack the Orthodox Rabbis of New York for instance. In fact, he somewhat cooperated with them and quoted them himself. Something an "antisemite" in the true sense of the word would never do. There is no proof that Coughlin hated Jews, and not at all that he hated Jews for blood or their race or their ancestors. On the contrary. Labelling this priest an antisemite lends a hand to anti-Catholic new prejudice, and also makes the real antisemites feel like partisans among other people who are not politically correct. I admit Father Coughlin could have spoken wiser at times, and I do not say he was a saint per se, but not an antisemite either. The latter claim is ridiculous.Smith2006 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler hated Christianity and hated the Catholic Church he left as a boy because he thought the Popes and the "Church of the Jew Paul of Tarsus and Peter" were "from Jewry". In fact, Hitler was a deist, with theologically liberal and occultistic views. You cannot find a quote from Hitler praising Christianity.Smith2006 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what you need to do is find a reliable secondary source which says he wasn't an antisemite, and then we can just have "alleged antisemite" or something. On the strength of this letter you've presented, the best you can do is say "Coughin said that he was not an anti-semite... yadda yadda". BillMasen (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hatred of Jews for their race and blood, their descendance. Coughlin clearly was no antisemite therefore. One could call him anti-rabbinic, or a Critic of post-Temple Jewry, or a Critic of post-Jamnia Judaism, or a Critic of certain jewish groups and their behaviour before and after the Modern Era's assimilation. But not "antisemite". If Coughlin was an antisemite, then Saint Paul himself was one too. Saint Paul was himself from a Pharisaic Jewish family, and yet said "the Jews are enemies as to the Gospel". But that is criticism of the Jews, not antisemitism not hatred of a "race", ethnicity or blood.Smith2006 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No Smith. You just give us your private opinion yet again, backed up by nothing more than your personal impressions. I notice you didn't respond to my point about Stalin saying he wasn't a totalitarian. Should that cat be removed? And you can bet I can find pro-Christian quotes from Hitler.

Find your secondary source. If you just revert again, I'm taking this to the admins. BillMasen (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No you cannot find any quotes. And please do try to find them. You have a secret hidden agenda here. Which includes the demonization of Christianity and the silencing of certain politically incorrect critics. Your bias has nothing to do with historical objectivity. You must prove Father Coughlin to be guilty of "antisemitism" and support of "the policies" (and not, as it is: only for some of the early policies). Nobody is guilty beforehand. You and others make the accusation. Coughlin was never condemned or accused for antisemitism in court or in a canonical court of the Church. One is innocent before proven guilty. Antisemitism is a huge stain still, especially if flasely attributed.Smith2006 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Smith, do you have any source which clearly says the subject was not anti-Semitic? We've asked before. The subject is so well-known as an anti-semite that the categorization is appropriate. Also, you keep adding the word "early" to limit his rationalization of the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. What do you mean by "early"? Pre 1945? Pre 1939? Pre 1929? What? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Coughlin did not attack the Jewish race or demonize it. Prove that first. I do not care what ADL anti-Catholic publications claim and put into media propaganda practice!

Which makes you what -- an antisemite defending another antisemite? A self-confessed religious bigot defending the bigotry of others? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did Coughlin say that Jewish genes are evil and to be hated? Where did he claim áll Jews were to be blamed and to be harmed? Where did he speaks about áll Jews in his opposition to Communism? Since when is criticism of certain groups of Jews and not of all the Jews, antisemitism (which is: racism)? Prove this first. Father COughlin himself explained he was no antisemite, and every court should admit he was not. The letter above already proves it. A category "People accused of antisemitism" or "anti-Judaism" would be fine with me, and still controversial. But not antisemitism and linking him to Hitler and other racist theoreticists.Smith2006 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitisim? Yes

The short article on antisemitism in the The Oxford Companion to United States History has this long mention of Coughlin. By comparison, other individuals are only mentioned in passing.

• During the Depression-wracked 1930s, the presence of Jews among President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's advisers resulted in opponents of the New Deal labeling it the “Jew Deal.” In 1938, as Hitler's power increased in Germany, a Roman Catholic radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, denounced Jews and encouraged his followers to join him in a “Christian Front.” Coughlin's attacks intensified over the next four years. In 1942, after the United States had entered World War II, Roosevelt threatened to jail Coughlin for sedition and Coughlin's superiors silenced him. But Coughlin was not alone. Anti-Semitism in the State Department, the corporate world, and the public at large played a role in Washington's hesitant response to the desperate plight of European Jews persecuted by the Nazis.

Here are excerpts from short biographies:

• By the late 1930s, his speeches were increasingly shrill. Listeners detected anti-Semitism and demagoguery in his broadcasts--elements that had appeared occasionally before, yet now were becoming more vocal and more frequent. What had in the past, for example, been occasional references to "Shylocks" and international financial conspirators undermining the country became an outright assault against "Communist Jews"; Coughlin also borrowed from the speeches of German Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. He opposed American entry into World War II vehemently, arguing that Jews had been responsible for bringing the nation into the conflict.
  • St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. 5 vols. St. James Press, 2000.

• As the 1930s wore on, however, Coughlin concentrated more and more on Communists and Jews as the source of societal and economic problems. Eventually, his rhetoric embraced a program that was anti-Semitic and fascist. He advocated a corporate state under which most political institutions would be demolished.
  • Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Gale Group, 1999.

• Charles Edward Coughlin was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church and a populist leader who achieved fame through his radio broadcasts, and notoriety for his anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi stance in the years leading up to World War II. ... Initially focusing his attack on Communism, Coughlin gradually drifted into anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism. ... Through his radio speeches and books, Coughlin continued to promote anti-Semitism, and ardently opposed the entry of the United States into the war, even after the attack on Pearl Harbor.'
  • Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999.

• In his weekly radio broadcasts, he ranted against President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he called a "liar" and "anti-God," against imagined Communists and all Jews.
• Made Anti-Semitic Statements. Coughlin briefly kept his promise to stop broadcasting, but was back on the air in 1937. Increasingly, anti-Semitic remarks began to creep into his weekly broadcasts. In addition, his newspaper Social Justice became a vehicle for messages of prejudice and hate. Coughlin accused Jews of introducing Communist international banking and declared that comedian Eddie Cantor was one of the most dangerous Jews in America. Jews, he said, had caused a world economic crisis and had drawn the United States into World Wars I and II. Jews wanted world power, declared the priest. He also claimed that Franklin Roosevelt was Jewish.
• Supported the Nazi Party. If Coughlin's sermons and publications became increasingly anti-Jewish, they also became increasingly pro-Nazi. When World War II began in Europe in 1939, he immediately backed the German dictator. He went so far as to describe Nazism as a "defense mechanism against communism." Coughlin's anti-Semitic remarks were quickly defended by organizers of the Christian Front, a pro-Nazi group.
  • American Decades. Gale Research, 1998.

• He also concentrated on the fancied internal menaces of Communists and Jews (who seemed interchangeable in Coughlin's thinking). Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, he announced, were bulwarks against "Jewish-Communist" power in Europe. Coughlin enunciated a program for an anti-Semitic, fascist-style corporate state, under which established political institutions in the United States would virtually disappear.
  • Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.

• But a combination of his pro-fascist Christian Front affiliations and his vehement anti-Roosevelt and anti-Semitic tirades brought him increased criticism.
  • Obituary notice Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2002.

• But, as the anti-Jewish Adolf Hitler was consolidating his power in Germany and set to begin World War II, Coughlin began to spout anti-Jewish notions....
• In 1938, Coughlin stunned the U.S. public when he suddenly began to voice antisemitic sentiments in his radio addresses. Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews, who are sometimes called Semites. (Hitler and his Nazi Party had been implementing anti-Jewish regulations in Germany since the early 1930s.) Although he never openly admitted to being an antisemite, Coughlin spoke in code words, blaming Jews for the Great Depression and other problems. He published in his newspaper Social Justice a false story about a Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world. He lashed out against evil "international bankers," blaming them for the country's problems. He played to the age-old stereotypes that many people believe about Jews. (A stereotype is a distorted, one-sided image of a person or idea; stereotypes about Jews include the belief that they are secretly trying to take control of the world's money supply.) While there were others who were more forceful in their charges against Jews, none had Coughlin's huge audience.
• Coughlin was a strong believer in the isolationist (non-involvement in other countries' affairs) movement of the 1920s and 1930s, which opposed involvement in European wars, and a large percentage of Americans shared his belief. He was an admirer of Benito Mussolini, and spoke out in favor of Adolf Hitler. Coughlin called Hitler's persecution of the Jews "a defense mechanism against Communism" because, he said, the Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution that established the Communist Party in Russia, and they were trying to do the same thing in Germany.
  • People of the Holocaust. U*X*L, 1998.

• In 1938, Coughlin accused the Jews of being responsible for all the nation's ills. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," an account of a purported Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world, appeared in Social Justice. Henry Ford had published this same forged document more than a decade earlier. In a particularly outrageous speech, Coughlin defended Nazi actions against Communism and accused the Jews of financing the Russian Revolution. His newspaper even reprinted excerpts from the speeches of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
  • Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement 10: 1976-1980. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995.

There are eight sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sixty years ago, Catholic social teaching was publicly and explicitly applied to a wide range of policy proposals and political initiatives. Not all of these applications turned out to be sources of pride for the Church in the long run (see the chapter, for example, on Father Charles Coughlin and his anti-Semitism), but the Church's leadership was not as limited then as it is today by an overriding emphasis on a single issue such as abortion.
  • "FDR, the Vatican, and the Roman Catholic Church in America, 1933-1945" Timothy A Byrnes. Presidential Studies Quarterly. Washington: Dec 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 4; pg. 902, 2 pgs

• Henry Ford and the Rev. Charles Coughlin, the infamous Radio Priest, put Detroit on the map before World War Two as the US capital of anti-semitism.
  • "HISTORIANS IN THE STREETS: Life in the Ruins of Detroit" by Bill McGraw, History Workshop Journal Oxford: Spring 2007. Vol. 63, Iss. 1; p. 288

• Maria Mazzenga, The Catholic University of America, considered "To Condemn or Not to Condemn: Father Maurice Sheeny, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and the Nazis." She examined the origins of the 1938 Catholic University of America anti-Nazi broadcast and its connection to the antisemitism of Father Charles Coughlin.
  • THE EIGHTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. The Catholic Historical Review. Washington: Apr 2008. Vol. 94, Iss. 2; pg. 283, 24 pgs

• The Wikipedian collectivity must temporarily "lock" controversial entries because of vandalism and "edit wars" in which articles are changed and immediately changed back, such as an effort by NYCExpat to remove any references to Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitism.
  • "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" Roy Rosenzweig. The Journal of American History. Bloomington: Jun 2006. Vol. 93, Iss. 1; pg. 117, 30 pgs

And so on. That last source should give us cause for concern - the efforts to remove this material have been reported on previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And Smith 22006 just reverted to his whitewashed version again, on the basis of a dubious distinction between anti-Semetism and anti-Judaism not generally used by mainstream historians. This is getting tiresome. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

==Antisemitism? No! == Because "mainstream" historians work for controlled institutions of universities of either Marxist, liberal or Protestant persuasions, or by guilt-ridden Catholics who were brainwashed into anti-Catholic, anti-historical ideology. Antisemitism is a well defined ideology in fact, even if some historians (or rather propaganda mongerers) do not admit that. Coughlin was no antisemite. He never used racism in his works, nor did he call all Jews communists, which is an interpretation by propagandistic Marxists wanting to share in the "sacred victim" status of the post-1945 Jews due to the Shoah. So-called "Catholics" who are liberals and marxists in disguise parasyting at Catholic universities, are no sources. Give me Oxford and Cambridge historians who provide proof that Coughlin believed that the Jewish biological race or ethnicity was "evil" and to be hated. For that is what Antisemitism is. Just because some Reform Rabbi and Israeli lobbyists cry out "antisemitism" with every criticism which does not please them, does not mean that religious criticism (anti-Judaism) or political criticism (anti-Zionism) constitute the racist ideology of antisemitism. By applying it to Coughlin you exalt the real evil antisemites out there. It will come back at you.Smith2006 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with and despise what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, that is not our problem. You just have to find a "non-calumnous" reliable source, or leave it alone. BillMasen (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)