The President's First Insult

[Jacob]

But the Jewish one isn't.

So?

So, that supports that "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian move to co-opt legitimacy from Judaism and has little to do with common values. "Having a Jewish god" is not a shared value of Christianity and Judaism, and is thus not a Judeo-Christian value (at least if Judeo-Christian values are the common values of the two religions, as I have been told they are in this thread).

[Valmy]

So, that supports that "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian move to co-opt legitimacy from Judaism and has little to do with common values. "Having a Jewish god" is not a shared value of Christianity and Judaism, and is thus not a Judeo-Christian value (at least if Judeo-Christian values are the common values of the two religions, as I have been told they are in this thread).

What is the difference between 'co-opting' and being influenced by something?  And how do cultural values get legitimacy?  Does claiming something is a "Christian" value give it less legitimacy demanding some sort of search for legitimacy to occur?

[Valmy]

I just have a hard time seeing people 100 years ago, or whenever this term came about, saying 'we need to beef up the legitimacy of our Christian heritage, let's steal the mojo from the Jews.'

[Jacob]

Okay, Valmy and Berkut - I think I get it.

"Judeo-Christian" is a way for the the Christian West to acknowledge its Jewish roots. Sort of like an artist giving props to influential earlier artists - "we've got these Western values derived from Christianity, but we wouldn't have them without you Jews being around. Love you guys!"

And, I suppose, for Jews who are so inclined to embrace that and emphasize connections to the Western Christian derived culture.

[Admiral Yi]

So, that supports that "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian move to co-opt legitimacy from Judaism and has little to do with common values. "Having a Jewish god" is not a shared value of Christianity and Judaism, and is thus not a Judeo-Christian value (at least if Judeo-Christian values are the common values of the two religions, as I have been told they are in this thread).

You asked for a commonality, not a shared value, which, incidentally, I think there are a lot of.

[Jacob]

What is the difference between 'co-opting' and being influenced by something?  And how do cultural values get legitimacy?  Does claiming something is a "Christian" value give it less legitimacy demanding some sort of search for legitimacy to occur?

It's a fine (and often emotional) distinction, but I guess a key factor is whether the influencer and influencee agree on what's happening and how.

[Jacob]

So, that supports that "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian move to co-opt legitimacy from Judaism and has little to do with common values. "Having a Jewish god" is not a shared value of Christianity and Judaism, and is thus not a Judeo-Christian value (at least if Judeo-Christian values are the common values of the two religions, as I have been told they are in this thread).

You asked for a commonality, not a shared value, which, incidentally, I think there are a lot of.

"Having a Jewish god" is not a commonality either though. Only Christianity has one of those.

[Camerus]

The term refers to all members of the Judeo-Chritian religions. It means exactly what CC specifically claimed it does NOT mean, in fact.

Personally, I find the Judeo-Christian construction kind of weird.

I mean, I get "the Abrahamic Religions" alright... we've got Judaism, and the various branches of religions that have descended from Judaism, namely Christianity and Islam. That makes sense.

But what does Christianity have in common with Judaism that Islam does not have in common with Judaism? What's the special thing about Judaism and Christianity that puts them in a category together that does not include Islam?

From a Christian perspective, I can sort of see it... it's to emphasize that Christianity is developed from Judaism, and got it right. It's the same way Christians have the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament", but you won't generally hear Jews refer to the Tanakh as the New Testament for obvious reasons, and the reasoning is somewhat similar

There's also a bit of the "yeah, we persecuted you for more than a millenia, but we're cool now. We're bros" flavour to it.

But from a Jewish perspective? How is one offshoot of the Jewish faith more relevant and similar than another?

Obviously, geo-politically, there are some reasons to emphasize commonalities with Israel and the "Christian character" of the US, and de-emphasize the connections with Islam but that is pretty political.

Considering the Tanakh to be a sacred text and the prophets therein to be actual prophets is a commonality between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; as is the worship of a unitary single god. But what's the unique commonality between Judaism and Christianity, that is not also a commonality with Islam?

(and I'm not directing this just at you, Berkut)

I always saw it more of an inclusive recognition of the Jewish roots of Christianity, in contrast to the anti-Semitism that characterized most of Christianity's history.  However, it may be a rather hamfisted attempt at this.

I also think Judeo-Christian is probably more of a historic term, reflecting the greater presence of Jews than Muslims historically in America. But yeah, it may be a term that is increasingly dated.

One similarity I can think of off the top of my head between Christianity and Judaism that is different from Islam is that the text of the "Old Testament" remains unchanged, but the Koran is essentially a different text.

[Jacob]

I just have a hard time seeing people 100 years ago, or whenever this term came about, saying 'we need to beef up the legitimacy of our Christian heritage, let's steal the mojo from the Jews.'

Isn't that pretty much the original strategy of Christianity? "Judaism 2.0! All the authenticity of the original with many compelling upgrades!

Maybe that particular phrase came about a hundred years ago or whenever, but the concept is older than that no?

[Valmy]

It's a fine (and often emotional) distinction, but I guess a key factor is whether the influencer and influencee agree on what's happening and how.

Gotcha.

[frunk]

Okay, Valmy and Berkut - I think I get it.

"Judeo-Christian" is a way for the the Christian West to acknowledge its Jewish roots. Sort of like an artist giving props to influential earlier artists - "we've got these Western values derived from Christianity, but we wouldn't have them without you Jews being around. Love you guys!"

And, I suppose, for Jews who are so inclined to embrace that and emphasize connections to the Western Christian derived culture.

That's not really the impetus for the modern usage of the term.  It was used in the 40s and 50s to fight against anti-semitism, arguing that the two religions shared a common value system.

[Valmy]

I just have a hard time seeing people 100 years ago, or whenever this term came about, saying 'we need to beef up the legitimacy of our Christian heritage, let's steal the mojo from the Jews.'

Isn't that pretty much the original strategy of Christianity? "Judaism 2.0! All the authenticity of the original with many compelling upgrades!

Maybe that particular phrase came about a hundred years ago or whenever, but the concept is older than that no?

I think the difference is with the original strategy there would be no need to mention Judaism at all, since Christianity replaced it.

[Jacob]

Okay, Valmy and Berkut - I think I get it.

"Judeo-Christian" is a way for the the Christian West to acknowledge its Jewish roots. Sort of like an artist giving props to influential earlier artists - "we've got these Western values derived from Christianity, but we wouldn't have them without you Jews being around. Love you guys!"

And, I suppose, for Jews who are so inclined to embrace that and emphasize connections to the Western Christian derived culture.

That's not really the impetus for the modern usage of the term.  It was used in the 40s and 50s to fight against anti-semitism, arguing that the two religions shared a common value system.

It seems to me that that lines up almost perfectly with what I said.

[Valmy]

It seems to me that that lines up almost perfectly with what I said.

You made the term sound anti-Semitic rather than anti-anti-Semitic

Also you made it sound anti-Islamic as well.

[Admiral Yi]

So, that supports that "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian move to co-opt legitimacy from Judaism and has little to do with common values. "Having a Jewish god" is not a shared value of Christianity and Judaism, and is thus not a Judeo-Christian value (at least if Judeo-Christian values are the common values of the two religions, as I have been told they are in this thread).

If you're going with that narrow a definition, then: the ten commandments.