The President's First Insult

[crazy canuck]

It has nothing to do with narratives, imo, CC. It is a descriptive term, originally used by 19th century historians (who identified three pillars of Western culture - Graeco-Roman, Judeo-Christian and Celto-Germanic). I don't dispute that it may be (mis)used for rthetorical reasons but its origin is not ideological.

I agree.  I don't think it is ideological either.  But I do think the description is tied to the Christian narrative.

If anything, I would say it is a post-Christian narrative, as it subjectivises Christianity as one of many influences.

Except in this context (ie the European context) it is the dominant narrative so being the best of the lot isn't really giving much up.

[crazy canuck]

It has nothing to do with creating a joint narrative with the Jews as so many of our American friends are so eager to believe.  It has everything to do with the Christian narrative.

The first Christians were Jews.

Yes but try telling that to the Christians just a few hundred years later....

Doesn't change the fact that your interpretation of "Judeo-Christian as Christian narrative justification" is bullshit.

It isnt a justification. That is my point.  By the time "Judeo-Christian" was coined the "Old Testament" was firmly entrenched within the Christian narrative and had been for centuries. 

[dps]

It has nothing to do with creating a joint narrative with the Jews as so many of our American friends are so eager to believe.  It has everything to do with the Christian narrative.

The first Christians were Jews.

Yes but try telling that to the Christians just a few hundred years later....

Doesn't change the fact that your interpretation of "Judeo-Christian as Christian narrative justification" is bullshit.

It isnt a justification. That is my point.  By the time "Judeo-Christian" was coined the "Old Testament" was firmly entrenched within the Christian narrative and had been for centuries. 

Where did Seedy say anything about justification?

[crazy canuck]

It has nothing to do with creating a joint narrative with the Jews as so many of our American friends are so eager to believe.  It has everything to do with the Christian narrative.

The first Christians were Jews.

Yes but try telling that to the Christians just a few hundred years later....

Doesn't change the fact that your interpretation of "Judeo-Christian as Christian narrative justification" is bullshit.

It isnt a justification. That is my point.  By the time "Judeo-Christian" was coined the "Old Testament" was firmly entrenched within the Christian narrative and had been for centuries. 

Where did Seedy say anything about justification?

When he used the word

[Valmy]

I was not eager to believe that.  That was what I had read.  Again why would the Christian narrative need to include Jews? 

So as not to be accused of being exclusively Christian.  I suspect that many folks use "Judeo-Christian" as a fig leaf. 

That sounds like very recent sort of concern.

[Valmy]

Judeo-Christian is a term used in the US primarily during and after WWII to demonstrate the acceptance and integration of the Jewish people in the US and to distance the US from certain anti-mulitculturalists in Europe at the time.   I didn't read the whole article.  I got to the point where they said there was no evidence of Muslims in the US until the 20th century which is simply a lie.  There are believed to have been Muslims serving the US Civil War, http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=owZCMZpYamMC&pg=PA561&dq=Moses+Osman+america&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LRvwU78xiLfRBc-YgJgK&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=292&f=false and there are records of Muslim in the US before that.

Yes I did not really want to go there.  But yeah though they were not here in any great numbers of course.  I remember searching through the 1850 Census and finding some guy with an Arab name in upstate New York of all places.

But generally we are talking individuals, not communities.  So it seemed true enough that there was no Muslim presence.

[Sheilbh]

Reading more it looks like the reason the term is getting a bad reputation now is because social conservatives use it as a descriptor of their values.

Yep. It's very UKIP here. The ex Archbishop of Canterbury recently made this point. He was being told off by a conservative Christian about how many ideas of the social Gospel aren't in the Bible and he replied 'I can't find phrase Judaeo-Christian values anywhere in the Bible'

[Razgovory]

Judeo-Christian is a term used in the US primarily during and after WWII to demonstrate the acceptance and integration of the Jewish people in the US and to distance the US from certain anti-mulitculturalists in Europe at the time.   I didn't read the whole article.  I got to the point where they said there was no evidence of Muslims in the US until the 20th century which is simply a lie.  There are believed to have been Muslims serving the US Civil War, http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=owZCMZpYamMC&pg=PA561&dq=Moses+Osman+america&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LRvwU78xiLfRBc-YgJgK&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=292&f=false and there are records of Muslim in the US before that.

Yes I did not really want to go there.  But yeah though they were not here in any great numbers of course.  I remember searching through the 1850 Census and finding some guy with an Arab name in upstate New York of all places.

But generally we are talking individuals, not communities.  So it seemed true enough that there was no Muslim presence.

So there were no Muslim in the US except for the ones that are documented to have been here.  Fact is the article in the OP tells a lie.  Of course there was were also Muslims in the US who were slaves...

[Jacob]

I was not eager to believe that.  That was what I had read.  Again why would the Christian narrative need to include Jews? 

So as not to be accused of being exclusively Christian.  I suspect that many folks use "Judeo-Christian" as a fig leaf. 

That sounds like very recent sort of concern.

When it comes to meaning, recent concerns tend to be the most important ones.

[Martinus]

Were slaves actually Muslim as Raz claims or is this just another Raz-ism? I would assume those slaves who still kept a secret faith despite being force-converted into Christianity followed some form of animist/voodoo-like beliefs, not islam.

[grumbler]

Were slaves actually Muslim as Raz claims or is this just another Raz-ism? I would assume those slaves who still kept a secret faith despite being force-converted into Christianity followed some form of animist/voodoo-like beliefs, not islam.

I'm sure that some were Muslim.  The Slave Coast was just south of the first Muslim area of sub-Saharan Africa.

[Martinus]

Did they actually stay Muslim after coming to America, though? Animistic/shamanistic beliefs are pretty syncretic and capable of being observed side by side with Christianity (in fact, I assume it was the Christian slave owners who had a problem with African slaves observing African rituals - but slaves probably did not mind adding Christian rituals to their observance). Pretty sure the situation with Islam is different.

[Razgovory]

Did they actually stay Muslim after coming to America, though? Animistic/shamanistic beliefs are pretty syncretic and capable of being observed side by side with Christianity (in fact, I assume it was the Christian slave owners who had a problem with African slaves observing African rituals - but slaves probably did not mind adding Christian rituals to their observance). Pretty sure the situation with Islam is different.

Probably for a while, likely through a few generations, but in the long run no, it was stamped out.  However, there are Muslims recorded in North America prior to formation of the US and a few after.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-search-for-yarrow-mamout/2012/12/26/aba8ae7e-3d7b-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html  This guy is believed to have been a Muslim slave who was freed.

[Valmy]

So there were no Muslim in the US except for the ones that are documented to have been here.  Fact is the article in the OP tells a lie.  Of course there was were also Muslims in the US who were slaves...

Well yes if we take to a rigid extreme then sure.  Obviously there are few absolutes in history.  Is it a lie or simply an error based on the fact we are talking about very low numbers?

[Valmy]

Probably for a while, likely through a few generations, but in the long run no, it was stamped out.

While probably true you are guessing.  If there were large amounts of Muslims who were difficult to convert surely there would be some documentation about this?

However, there are Muslims recorded in North America prior to formation of the US and a few after.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-search-for-yarrow-mamout/2012/12/26/aba8ae7e-3d7b-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html  This guy is believed to have been a Muslim slave who was freed.

Indeed there were.  But out of hundreds of thousands of documented freed slaves there is only one?