Is spitting on a cross a good or bad action for a Jew?

Question

I'm confused -"Dishonouring Christian religious symbols is an old religious duty in Judaism. Spitting on the cross, especially on the Crucifix, and spitting when a Jew passes a church, have been obligatory from around AD 200 for pious Jews. In the past, when the danger of anti-Semitic hostility was a real one, the pious Jews were commanded by their rabbis either to spit so that the reason for doing so would be unknown, or to spit onto their chests, not actually on the cross or openly before the church. The increasing strength of the Jewish state has caused these customs to become more open again : The spitting on the cross for converts from Christianity to Judaism, organized in Kibbutz Sa'ad and financed by the Israeli government is a an act of traditional Jewish piety"
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/jewish/shahak.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/119620.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=2370-
http://hatchet-jack.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-jews-spit-on-christians.htm

Answer 1

I am a Lutheran and I personally don;t care if you disrespect a piece of wood. But you should realize that you say more for your self by actions such as these. If you want everyone to know you don't respect others beliefs then so be it.
You aren't hurting me you are disrespecting God.
You don't have to answer to me in the end, you have to answer to God.
Do you know what you will say at that time?

Answer 2

You can do whatever you want. But you should know spitting isn't a nice thing to do. Jesus didn't die on a cross.

According to Webster’s dictionary a cross is “a structure, typically an upright supporting a horizontal beam, anciently used in the execution of malefactors.” In the Bible the Greek word usually rendered cross is stauros. Its Latin equivalent is crux. Was the stauros or crux on which Christ died a traditionally shaped cross?

Yes, say spokesmen of Christendom, such as the Signs of the Times, October 23, 1956. It dogmatically states that the stauros on which Christ died was such a cross. In support of this assertion several authorities are cited, secular and religious. But what are the facts?

The facts are that authorities are not agreed that there is “no doubt” about the nature of the stauros on which Christ died and are not agreed that it was the traditionally shaped cross. The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1907 and 1942 editions, under the term “cross” states that Christ is “generally believed” to have died on such a cross, that at best it is only “by general tradition” that the matter is established.

As for religious authorities, one states: “The accounts of the manner of the crucifixion being so meager, any degree of certainty is impossible.”1 And another tells that “no definite data are found in the New Testament concerning the nature of the cross on which Jesus died. It is only the Church writers after Justin Martyr who indicate the composite four-armed cross as Christ’s vehicle of torture.”2

And concerning the terms stauros and crux we are told that ‘stauros properly means merely a stake.’ “In Livy [Roman historian shortly before Christ’s ministry] even, crux means a mere stake.” “The Hebrews have no word for Cross more definite than ‘wood.’”3
Clearly there is no Scriptural support for the traditional cross as a symbol of Christianity. Then how can its adoption by professed Christians be accounted for? It was borrowed from the surrounding pagans. It is another one of the many paganisms that the early apostate Christians adopted so as to appeal to the pagans and to be more like them. In this they followed the example of the Israelites who wanted a king so as to be like the nations round about. Thus Dr. Killen, in his Ancient Church, writes:

“From the most remote antiquity the cross was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honor by the Buddhists of the East; and what is still more extraordinary, when the Spaniards first visited America, the well-known sign was found among the objects of worship in the idol temples of Anáhuac. It is also remarkable that, with the commencement of our era, the pagans were wont to make the sign of the cross upon the forehead in the celebration of some of their sacred mysteries.”

Answer 3

Some spit, others curse....in the end of the day is still the same. All religions do down to the bottom is to create an extra gap between people, besides race, colour, ethnicity. Hence more hatred. Yes, there is helping others also, but wars in the name of religion are shadowing all the good deeds.
So religion is another plague on humanity. Faith is another thing though.

Answer 4

I am a religous jew and i don't spit at crosses. Even though one may not agree with another religon they shouldn't spit on it b/c if someone spit on the torah I would be affended so I wouldn't do it to htem. It is like the phrase in the torah that you shouldn't do to others what you don't want done to you.

Answer 5

sure, i'm sure there are jews out there who have not forgiven christianity for their history of injustice towards to the jews and who are immature enough to spit on christian religious symbols to show their anger. but religious duty? christianity didn't even exist when our religious duties were given to us by G-d. good try though.

Answer 6

Spitting on anything is sac Religious and as a small kid, I was told if I spit on anything, the devil would spit blood on me.

Answer 7

I've never heard of that in my studies of Judaism, so it's probably either very outdated or altogether false. If it is true (which I doubt) I'd say it's one of those things that's rarely practiced. I'd put it in either the "bad" or "stupid" category.

Answer 8

Spitting on things falls into the 'Bad Manners' category.

Therefore it would be bad.

Answer 9

its a sign of disrespect....it'd be like a christian spitting on the a menorah.....

Answer 10

its bad for anyone even an athisit because its just bad luck rude and bad carma