'Judeo-Christian' is misnomer?

[musicalchairs]

I've read on other message boards that this term does not make any sense. Jewish people have told me that because Jews and Christians do not honour the same sacred text (Torah and Christian Bible, respectively), have completely different religions, holidays, etc, this term is only crafted and used (erroneously) by Christians, never Jews.

And if someone says, 'well, the god of the OT is the god of the NT!' it's like saying 'Muslim-Christian tradition' in terms of an Abrahamic god.

Can someone enlighten me further on this, or point me to resources?

[Worldtraveller]

Actually, I prefer to use the term 'Abrahamic traditions' to emphasize the similarities. It simultaneously annoys all three of them. :D

I gotten into some fun discussions here at work with what I refere to as 'the redneck cubicle' 2 young earthers from diferent traditions, one Catholic, and the other one I'm not sure about....but every time they make some asinine statement about religion, I just ask them if they've figured who's going to whose hell yet and come talk to me when they figure it out....

When it comes to xianity, I prefer to highlight the disjunctions and differences. See how I am?

I don't really see what the question has to do with CSS though, seems more of a GRD topic.

Cheers,
Lane

[Toto]

It is a political term, not a theological one. It is used by people who want to invoke "traditional values" more than religious values, and in part to get around the church state separation issue.

People used to talk about the Christian "heritage" in this country. After the Holocaust in Europe, well-meaning Christians became embarrassed by their exclusivity and started talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition, to include Jews.

Muslims have proposed that the new term should be Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage, but this has not caught on.

I think that the term became popular in the Eisenhower years, when everyone had to believe in something, anything, and people wanted to think that all religions worshipped the same god and embodied the same traditional values.

The term does not make sense religiously. There is no Judeo-Christian religion. Jews and Christians have a different interpretation of God and a different theology. But that's only for people who take religious tenets seriously, which is a very small part of the population.

[musicalchairs]

I don't really see what the question has to do with CSS though, seems more of a GRD topic.

Cheers,
Lane

Yes, I most def posted in the wrong forum. Thx, mods for your patience.

[musicalchairs]

Thank you, Worldtraveller and Toto. Extremely helpful. How does invoking Judeo Xian get around CSS issues?

[Toto]

It doesn't, but some people think that as long as they are not supporting one particular religion, that they can get away with being pro-religious. The Supreme Court has not agreed (so far.)

[musicalchairs]

Sorry, I should have asked how one attempts to get around CSS using 'Judeo Xian'.

Thanks again.

Wonder why more Jews don't try to get this phrase knocked out of existence? Must be hugely annoying.

[Sarpedon]

I like to piss everyone off by referring to 'Our Greco-Roman Civilization.'

[Worldtraveller]

I don't think that they are sophisticated enough to actually be trying to get around any CSS issue. I think that the religious (politicians, particularly) who use the term in public are simply trying to sound inclusive.

It makes them sound more tolerant because they include the jewish segment of the population with that phrase. What they seem to not realize is that currently, the athiest/agnostic population is larger than the jewish population.

I'd bet, though, that the jewish voting block (if there is one) is more organized politically.

Cheers,
Lane

[StillDreaming]

I think that the term became popular in the Eisenhower years
That long already? In my perception it seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon, like the last 5 years or so. At least that was when I started noticing it and wondered where the hell it came from.

Could be that this is one of those things in which Europe lags 50 years behind the US, or that I just wasn't paying attention.

[trendkill]

People used to talk about the Christian "heritage" in this country. After the Holocaust in Europe, well-meaning Christians became embarrassed by their exclusivity and started talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition, to include Jews.I kinda thought "Judeo-Christian" was basically Christians' way of claiming continuity between Christianity and Judaism, i.e. Abraham and modern Christians follow the same religion, even though Abraham was Jewish.

Hmm, Wikipedia has a relevant article.

The first-known uses of the terms "Judæo-Christian" and "Judaeo-Christianity", according to the Oxford English Dictionary, are 1899 and 1910 respectively, but both were discussing the emergence of Christianity from Judaism. The term was first used with its current meaning in 1938, and was then used during World War II[2] to as an alternative to using the term 'Christian civilization' in light of Hitler's attacks on Jews and Judaism. Some argue that the term was invented in the United States in an attempt to create a non-denominational religious consensus or civil religion that, by embracing Judaism, avoided the appearance of anti-Semitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

[J-D]

I kinda thought "Judeo-Christian" was basically Christians' way of claiming continuity between Christianity and Judaism, i.e. Abraham and modern Christians follow the same religion, even though Abraham was Jewish.That's the way it's always sounded to me: implying that Judaism is only a preparation for, or rough draft of, Christianity. I think that would be an ideological affirmation for Christian believers, an insult for Jewish believers, and a historical inaccuracy for everybody else.

More generally, even without that, it does seem to me to blur a distinction in the same way that the term 'Anglo-Celtic' does. I've never heard of anybody who actually was an Anglo-Celt, so the description seems misconceived to me. I suppose there are a very few people to whom the description 'Judeo-Christian' might apply, but when the term is used it's not usually those people who are being referred to, and I think adequate alternative terminology is available.

[naturalist.atheist]

I've read on other message boards that this term does not make any sense. Jewish people have told me that because Jews and Christians do not honour the same sacred text (Torah and Christian Bible, respectively), have completely different religions, holidays, etc, this term is only crafted and used (erroneously) by Christians, never Jews.

And if someone says, 'well, the god of the OT is the god of the NT!' it's like saying 'Muslim-Christian tradition' in terms of an Abrahamic god.

Can someone enlighten me further on this, or point me to resources?

In the current Christian environment it is more than just a political term. Certainly the Jews figured out they were not Christians some time ago. But for Christians it has always been a problem since there was no such thing as a Christian at the time of Jesus and he was most definitely a Jew. And Jesus in several places in the bible indicates that like many Jews of that time and today, he didn't think much of the gentiles.

It is further compounded by the very strong anti-Jew streak in Christianity that started within a few decades after Constantine died when those oh so loving Christians banned all other religions and seized their assets by decree of the emperor including Jewish temples and assets.

But there are several strains of evangelical Protestants that are very much into the rapture and that entire myth revolves around the Jews, so they like to think that they are somehow "spiritually" bonded with the Jews. There have been some rumors that Bush's Middle East policy was influenced by these evangelical Protestants in the hopes of hastening the end times.

I also think that the world Zionist movement has succeeded admirably at using the holocaust (which I certainly think happened) to drum up sympathy for the Jews. So many Christians are on a guilt trip from that, and it of course was used successfully on Truman to establish Israel. I say that the Jews used it to their advantage because the idea of reclaiming Israel was not a new idea at the time. It was simply the culmination of a movement that had started almost eighty years earlier. And certainly the Jews as a people suffered greatly but so did a lot of other people my family included (I am not Jewish.) And the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area and that is how the Jews repaid them. It is disgusting.

But even though the Jews may privately tell you that Judeo-Christian is a load of hooey, publicly they are all for it. They certainly like all those Christians going on their pilgrimages to the holy land. There are a lot of amusing stories about all the Christian nut cases that end up in Jewish mental hospitals. And the fact that so many of these Christian nuts influence American foreign policy to support Israel has not escaped them.

[J-D]

And the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area and that is how the Jews repaid them.Since there was no Nazi occupation of that area, you must have been misinformed.

However, Amin al-Husayni, the head of the Arab Higher Committee (the central political organ of the Arab community of Palestine), was a Nazi collaborator.

[Godless Dave]

It is a political term, not a theological one. It is used by people who want to invoke "traditional values" more than religious values, and in part to get around the church state separation issue.

People used to talk about the Christian "heritage" in this country. After the Holocaust in Europe, well-meaning Christians became embarrassed by their exclusivity and started talking about the Judeo-Christian tradition, to include Jews.


What Toto said.

[Malachi151]

One irony is that Christians use this to include Jews when they complain about atheists "foisting" secularism on the government, or atheists bring separation of church and state lawsuits, but in fact Jews have by far been the biggest group of people who have sued the government in SC&S cases, and who most often have complained about religious displays on got. property during Christmas, etc.

Christians try to act like it's them and the Jews vs. atheists, but in reality, Jews are more often on "our" side when it comes to SC&S.

[naturalist.atheist]

Since there was no Nazi occupation of that area, you must have been misinformed.

However, Amin al-Husayni, the head of the Arab Higher Committee (the central political organ of the Arab community of Palestine), was a Nazi collaborator.

Yes the arabs took the side of the axis during the war but certainly Jews were persecuted in Palestine but Palestinians also protected Jews during that period as well. I would certainly hope that Jews would be able to recognize that not everyone was out to get them. Even members of the Nazi party helped Jews.

[J-D]

Yes the arabs took the side of the axis during the warI made no such vague generalisation. I referred to the specific activities of one particular prominent Arab.but certainly Jews were persecuted in PalestineWhat are you referring to? Persecuted by whom? When?but Palestinians also protected Jews during that period as well.Again, what are you referring to? Which Palestinians protected which Jews from what, and when?I would certainly hope that Jews would be able to recognize that not everyone was out to get them.Then you should be very pleased by this (http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous/temp_righteous/temp_index_recently_honored.html).Even members of the Nazi party helped Jews.I have not heard of such an instance. Can you give details?

[Godless Dave]

Yes the arabs took the side of the axis during the war but certainly Jews were persecuted in Palestine but Palestinians also protected Jews during that period as well.

Protected them from whom? Palestine was controlled by the British for the duration of World War II.

[Mike Rosoft]

Even members of the Nazi party helped Jews.
I have not heard of such an instance. Can you give details?

That was easy. Oskar Schindler.


Mike Rosoft

[musicalchairs]

One irony is that Christians use this to include Jews when they complain about atheists "foisting" secularism on the government, or atheists bring separation of church and state lawsuits, but in fact Jews have by far been the biggest group of people who have sued the government in SC&S cases, and who most often have complained about religious displays on got. property during Christmas, etc.

Christians try to act like it's them and the Jews vs. atheists, but in reality, Jews are more often on "our" side when it comes to SC&S.

Very interesting, thank you. I will need to get some cases memorised the next time my evangelical xian family bitches about 'those secular humanists trying to get God out of our country, schools'.

[J-D]

Even members of the Nazi party helped Jews.
I have not heard of such an instance. Can you give details?

That was easy. Oskar Schindler.


Mike RosoftWell thanks. I hadn't realised Schindler was a party member.

His efforts are not, of course, unacknowledged, so I think the more general thrust of my questions to naturalist.atheist remains unanswered.

[dancer_rnb]

Very interesting, thank you. I will need to get some cases memorised the next time my evangelical xian family bitches about 'those secular humanists trying to get God out of our country, schools'.

A lot of the cases are brought by (drumroll).......OTHER CHRISTIANS!

[Virginia-American]

Personally, I like to separate out the Mormons and add the Baha'is, giving Abrahamic = Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormon-Bahai.

But yeah, it's a poilitical term used by those who'd like to say "Christian heritage" but figure it's not good to slight the Jews. Ask Katherine Harris.

[lpetrich]

I think that some people want to have some sort of Church of God the American. As in the belief that God Almighty is somehow an American citizen.

Susan Jacoby in her book Freethinkers suggests that this focus on "God" was an effort to find some lowest-common-denominator theology, though she doesn't get into the "God is an American" angle very much.

[naturalist.atheist]

Well thanks. I hadn't realised Schindler was a party member.

His efforts are not, of course, unacknowledged, so I think the more general thrust of my questions to naturalist.atheist remains unanswered.

Hey! Do your own homework.

A few Arabs did try to help the Jews. Nineteen Arab families saved dozens, maybe even hundreds of Jews. Zmira Mani wrote about an Arab named Abu Id Zaitoun who brought his brother and son to rescue her and her family. The Arab family protected the Manis with their swords, hid them in a cellar along with other Jews who they had saved, and found a policeman to escort them safely to the police station at Beit Romano.

I suppose everyone that doesn't respond to your incredulity must be wrong.

[J-D]

Hey! Do your own homework.I beg your pardon? If you think that something gives you the right to assign me homework, I suggest you get over yourself.

As to the link you posted:

(a) it refers, not to Arabs saving Jews from being massacred by Nazis, but to Arabs saving Jews from being massacred by other Arabs (and in 1929, which is before the Nazis came to power even in Germany)--and hence does not support your original assertion that 'the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area' (whatever 'that area' is supposed to mean);

(b) it is itself evidence that protection of (some) Jews by (some) Arabs is acknowledged by Jews, since you found it at a Jewish source.I suppose everyone that doesn't respond to your incredulity must be wrong.Did I say you were wrong? No, I said that the questions I had put to you were unanswered: which at that point was true.

If somebody says something, and I query it, and they don't answer, there may be all sorts of reasons for their non-response. I don't jump to conclusions about it. But if people don't give me a reason to believe what they say is correct (when I ask for one), that may leave me with no reason to believe that what they say is correct.

[naturalist.atheist]

I beg your pardon? If you think that something gives you the right to assign me homework, I suggest you get over yourself.

As to the link you posted:

(a) it refers, not to Arabs saving Jews from being massacred by Nazis, but to Arabs saving Jews from being massacred by other Arabs (and in 1929, which is before the Nazis came to power even in Germany)--and hence does not support your original assertion that 'the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area' (whatever 'that area' is supposed to mean);

(b) it is itself evidence that protection of (some) Jews by (some) Arabs is acknowledged by Jews, since you found it at a Jewish source.Did I say you were wrong? No, I said that the questions I had put to you were unanswered: which at that point was true.

If somebody says something, and I query it, and they don't answer, there may be all sorts of reasons for their non-response. I don't jump to conclusions about it. But if people don't give me a reason to believe what they say is correct (when I ask for one), that may leave me with no reason to believe that what they say is correct.


And along with doing your homework read my posts. I acknowledged that Nazis did not do it directly. That Arabs did it. And during the war they did side with the Nazis even under the British rule. That is because prior to the war the Zionist had already started their takeover of Palestine for several decades.

Think any dang thing you want when people don't respond to your interrogations. Nothing is stopping you from looking for yourself.

[J-D]

And along with doing your homework read my posts. I acknowledged that Nazis did not do it directly. That Arabs did it. And during the war they did side with the Nazis even under the British rule. That is because prior to the war the Zionist had already started their takeover of Palestine for several decades.

Think any dang thing you want when people don't respond to your interrogations. Nothing is stopping you from looking for yourself.I did read your post. The words I cited: 'the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area'--are your exact words from an earlier post.

How am I supposed to look this up for myself when you still haven't explained what you meant by 'that area'? Here's a Google search (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22that+area%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) for 'that area'. Not much use, is it?

If we try a Google search using the terms Nazi, occupation, Palestinians, and Jews, this (http://semitism.net/2007/04/17/arab-honored-for-saving-jews-under-nazi-occupation/) is the top hit. It doesn't match what you're saying in two respects: it's not about Palestinians protecting Jews from Nazis, and it's about recognition by Jews, not non-recognition.

But maybe that's not what you had in mind. Maybe you had something else in mind. And maybe you have some reason for not telling us what you had in mind. Maybe you have some reason even for not telling us your reason. And I will think whatever dang thing I want about that: your permission is supererogatory, thanks.

[naturalist.atheist]

I did read your post. The words I cited: 'the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area'--are your exact words from an earlier post.

Did you read the post after that? What are you trying to accomplish here?

[Condraz23]

Muslims, Christians, and Jews all worship the same god, but they worship him in very different ways. The original Abrahamic religion was Judaism. Christianity was basically a modified form of Judaism and Islam was a radical break from Christianity. The theological beliefs of Christians and Jews are very similar. If Christianity had not become so popular, it would've been nothing more than another obscure Jewish sect.

[J-D]

Did you read the post after that? What are you trying to accomplish here?I am trying to obtain clarification of your meaning. It's no good suggesting that I research it for myself: it is what you meant by what you posted that I am trying to find out, and there is no way to do this except ask you. If you won't answer, I can't find out.

You posted the words: 'the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area'. When you posted that, what did you mean by the words 'that area'?

[naturalist.atheist]

I am trying to obtain clarification of your meaning. It's no good suggesting that I research it for myself: it is what you meant by what you posted that I am trying to find out, and there is no way to do this except ask you. If you won't answer, I can't find out.

You posted the words: 'the poor Palestinians harbored and protected Jews during the Nazi occupation of that area'. When you posted that, what did you mean by the words 'that area'?

Certainly you do not think that there were not Nazis and Nazi collaborators and sympathizers that did not also try to help and protect Jews? No matter where that might be during that period?

[J-D]

Certainly you do not think that there were not Nazis and Nazi collaborators and sympathizers that did not also try to help and protect Jews? No matter where that might be during that period?What did you mean by the words 'that area'?

[naturalist.atheist]

What did you mean by the words 'that area'?

The middle east. Okay, now I answered your question. So answer mine.

Certainly you do not think that there were not Nazis and Nazi collaborators and sympathizers that did not also try to help and protect Jews? No matter where that might be during that period?

[J-D]

The middle east. Okay, now I answered your question. So answer mine.

Certainly you do not think that there were not Nazis and Nazi collaborators and sympathizers that did not also try to help and protect Jews? No matter where that might be during that period?If you read what I posted earlier, you will notice that I never denied that party members had protected Jews, I only confessed my ignorance and asked for examples--and I was given one (although not by you), Oskar Schindler (who I knew about but had not realised was actually a party member).

The point you are making now, however, is irrelevant to your earlier claim of instances where Palestinians protected Jews from Nazis, which you have still failed to substantiate.

And will you now acknowledge that your reference to an alleged Nazi occupation of the Middle East was inaccurate?

[Joan of Bark]

I believe the term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" is on the way to respectability and common use, as Muslims make gains in numbers and influence in the west.

[naturalist.atheist]

If you read what I posted earlier, you will notice that I never denied that party members had protected Jews, I only confessed my ignorance and asked for examples--and I was given one (although not by you), Oskar Schindler (who I knew about but had not realised was actually a party member).

The point you are making now, however, is irrelevant to your earlier claim of instances where Palestinians protected Jews from Nazis, which you have still failed to substantiate.

And will you now acknowledge that your reference to an alleged Nazi occupation of the Middle East was inaccurate?

Simply because you do not know doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It is not my job to educate you. That is your job.

The actual world is a very complicated place. There were Jews that were Nazis and supported Nazis and there were Nazis that helped Jews. Labels like Nazi and Jew do not begin to cover the amazing complexity of human beings. As for Nazis in Palestine:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248081,00.html

And certainly you must also realize that not all Nazis were Germans. Just like the term Christian, if you call yourself Christian then *poof* you are Christian. The same goes with Nazis.

Oh and if you had read my posts you would have known that I acknowledged that Germans did not actually occupy Palestine. But for some strange reason you are obsessing on that one sentence. As if your entire world view depended on it. It is very odd.

[DMC]

"But that's only for people who take religious tenets seriously, which is a very small part of the population."

I love that statement. It says so much while saying so little. How often do we see the 86% number for believers, yet so few of them know what they claim to believe, and even fewer actually take it seriously enough to lose sleep over it.

[anders]

'Judeo-Christian'. I first thought that this must be a direct correspondence to the Swedish 'judekristna'.

Wrong. I now realize that it refers to an American use of the label.

The Swedish phrase invariably means early Christians who were born Jews, to distinguish them form 'heathen' converts. I have never seen anything similar to refer to inherited tradition or the like; this would in the very rare cases you encounter it, be 'Our Christian background' or 'Our Lutheran tradition' or something similar. Personally, in a mail to the person teaching my current religious studies course I recently referred to the Mideast set as "the tri-non-une Abrahamistic religions" ("tre-o-eniga" vs. triune "treeniga"). I expect her reaction to be none or an acknowledging benevolent smiley.

[J-D]

Simply because you do not know doesn't mean that it didn't happen.You are stone death to straw men, aren't you? Why don't you try responding to what I actually say, not to your own confabulations?It is not my job to educate you. That is your job.But it is not my job to defend assertions made by you. If you can't do it, then they stand open to dismissal.The actual world is a very complicated place.No shit, Sherlock. There were Jews that were NazisCan you give examples, I wonder? And if you lack the ability to do so, do you have the moral ability to acknowledge the fact? and supported Nazis and there were Nazis that helped Jews. Labels like Nazi and Jew do not begin to cover the amazing complexity of human beings.Again, no shit, Sherlock. And again, lay off the straw men. As for Nazis in Palestine:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248081,00.htmlThe point at issue was whether there were ever any Nazis in Palestine. The point at issue is that you referred, erroneously, to a Nazi occupation of the Middle East, and are now exhibiting a lack of the moral fortitude to acknowledge your error.
And certainly you must also realize that not all Nazis were Germans.Did I say anything to the contrary? Why do you think it necessary to point this out to me? Was I not the one who made the first reference on this thread to an example of an Arab Nazi collaborator (al-Husayni)? Are you trying to set up another straw man? Just like the term Christian, if you call yourself Christian then *poof* you are Christian. The same goes with Nazis.I deny the assertion in both cases, but again it has no relevance to the point at issue.Oh and if you had read my posts you would have known that I acknowledged that Germans did not actually occupy Palestine.I have read your posts, and this is the first one in which I see that directly acknowledged.But for some strange reason you are obsessing on that one sentence. As if your entire world view depended on it. It is very odd.The reason is indeed a strange one: it is your obfuscatory evasiveness, and the strangeness of it is not my fault.

Your reference to an alleged Nazi occupation of the Middle East was made in connection with an assertion that Palestinians protected Jews from Nazis. You have not yet produced an example of this. However, if that was not your main point, you could easily say: 'I was wrong about that, but that's not my main point, my main point is: ...'--what is your main point, anyway?

[naturalist.atheist]

J-D do you feel better now?

[J-D]

J-D do you feel better now?Yes, I love demolishing shoddy reasoning. It's one of the main things I come to this board for.

[naturalist.atheist]

Yes, I love demolishing shoddy reasoning. It's one of the main things I come to this board for.

You da man!

Feel better now?

[J-D]

You da man!

Feel better now?If your question is whether it makes me feel better to have you say that to me, the answer is: No, it doesn't.

[torquemada]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam come from the same polluted place: semitic religion. It really doesn't matter whether you call it Judaeo-Christian, Abrahamic, or whatever. This religion with a universal God concerned with the minute doing of man is ridiculous and pernicious.