The President's First Insult

[Martinus]

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)

Judeo-Christian effectively means European. Both Judaism and Christianity (as a religion that developed from Judaism) influenced European culture, as it is understood as a distinct civilisation. Islam did not play the role of that kind.

[crazy canuck]

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.'

Correct.  They didn't come to that conclusion 100 years ago.  They decided that when the Bible texts were being decided.  As I am pretty sure you know, there was a significant movement that thought that no Jewish texts should be included.  Also it wasn't that long ago that Jews were still referred to as the killers of Christ and so it is a bit comical to hear people like Berkut claim the phrase "Judeo-Christian" was meant to give a bow to the Jewish traditions and not simply the Christian narrative.

Um actually the term seems to be invented by a Jewish-Christian group in the 20th century.  So it is not comical at all to make that claim since that was, seemingly, the whole point of it.

um, I was referring to when the decision was made to "beef up the legitimacy of our Christian heritage" and "steal the mojo from the Jews".  The term itself is one which addresses the Christian narrative and reminds Christians that within that Christian narrative lies the decision made back when the Bible was created that the Jewish Texts do form part of Christianity.

[Martinus]

I don't understand what there is to figure out.

You don't know what people mean when they use the term "Judeo-Christian values", for example?

Not really, no. It seems to be synonymous with "conservative Christian values" most of the time, often in relation to posting the Ten Commandments in public places or otherwise introducing Christian symbols into official contexts in the US.

Yes, pretty much. It means Christianity and those parts of Judaism that were coopted/shared with Christianity.

[grumbler]

I agree.  If anyone is confused as to what the phrase Judeo-Christian means they should not, for example, be allowed to teach.

And the moral is that you should definitely not teach! 

[Martinus]

Incidentally, it may mean a different thing in the US, but I would be surprised if it meant that "Christians and Jews were present at the foundation of the US" when it is said that "the US is a Judeo-Christian nation".

As I said before, the term is widely used in Europe and here at least it is used to mean the distinct European mix of Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures (further influenced by Germanic one). Admittedly, it may mean something else for Anglo-Saxons, since their culture diverged at some point and developed along different lines (the Graeco-Roman influences were much weaker).

[Valmy]

um, I was referring to when the decision was made to "beef up the legitimacy of our Christian heritage" and "steal the mojo from the Jews".  The term itself is one which addresses the Christian narrative and reminds Christians that within that Christian narrative lies the decision made back when the Bible was created that the Jewish Texts do form part of Christianity.

Then why is it comical that it was introduced to 'bow to Jewish traditions' and then you claim it was done to remind Christians about the contribution of Jewish traditions?  And, again, the term was created a Jewish-Christian organization so not an entirely Christian narrative.  Indeed I think one can see the Jewish influence on Western culture without a 'Christian narrative' of some kind.

[CountDeMoney]

Marti & the Canucks, live and reactionary, for a limited time! Tickets going fast--check for availability!

[grumbler]

Judeo-Christian effectively means European. Both Judaism and Christianity (as a religion that developed from Judaism) influenced European culture, as it is understood as a distinct civilisation. Islam did not play the role of that kind.

Indeed.  For a period there, the distinction between Jews and Christians was not clear; early Christians thought of themselves as a reformed Jewish sect.  As you say, Islam didn't play a role; indeed, hadn't arisen yet.  The term Judeo-Christian may not have been coined (in English, anyway) until much later, but the concept is very old.

[Martinus]

um, I was referring to when the decision was made to "beef up the legitimacy of our Christian heritage" and "steal the mojo from the Jews".  The term itself is one which addresses the Christian narrative and reminds Christians that within that Christian narrative lies the decision made back when the Bible was created that the Jewish Texts do form part of Christianity.

Then why is it comical that it was introduced to 'bow to Jewish traditions' and then you claim it was done to remind Christians about the contribution of Jewish traditions?  And, again, the term was created a Jewish-Christian organization so not an entirely Christian narrative.  Indeed I think one can see the Jewish influence on Western culture without a 'Christian narrative' of some kind.

The term was definitely not created by an American Jewish-Christian organization. 

It is present in historical books in German, Polish, French, Italian etc. as early as 19th century, and as grumbler said the concept is older than that.

[Valmy]

The term was definitely not created by an American Jewish-Christian organization. 

It is present in historical books in German, Polish, French, Italian etc. as early as 19th century, and as grumbler said the concept is older than that.

That is what my, admittedly, limited research had drawn up.  Links please on the earlier origins if you would.

If the concept was so old then why were Jews so persecuted in Europe for ethnic reasons?  Seems a strange thing to do for people considered foundational to one's culture.

[frunk]

It's a paraphyletic grouping, which reduces its utility but doesn't make it completely useless.

On the other hand if we judge something by the wiki article about it then this is a truly terrible term and should be avoided at all costs.

That's just telling us to avoid Wikipedia at all costs. 

Science and math articles are generally well written, even if sometimes they aren't easily accessible.

[Martinus]

The term was definitely not created by an American Jewish-Christian organization. 

It is present in historical books in German, Polish, French, Italian etc. as early as 19th century, and as grumbler said the concept is older than that.

That is what my, admittedly, limited research had drawn up.  Links please on the earlier origins if you would.

If the concept was so old then why were Jews so persecuted in Europe for ethnic reasons?  Seems a strange thing to do for people considered foundational to one's culture.

According to Merriam-Webster, first English language use is recorded in 1847.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judeo-christian

[grumbler]

Incidentally, it may mean a different thing in the US, but I would be surprised if it meant that "Christians and Jews were present at the foundation of the US" when it is said that "the US is a Judeo-Christian nation".

As I said before, the term is widely used in Europe and here at least it is used to mean the distinct European mix of Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures (further influenced by Germanic one). Admittedly, it may mean something else for Anglo-Saxons, since their culture diverged at some point and developed along different lines (the Graeco-Roman influences were much weaker).

Along a related line, it strikes me that Old testament names (such as Benjamin, Sarah, David, or Abigail) were very popular in 18th and 19th century America, indicating that people identified pretty strongly with those stories.  Is this true in Europe (in your case, Poland), as well?

[grumbler]

That is what my, admittedly, limited research had drawn up.  Links please on the earlier origins if you would.

If the concept was so old then why were Jews so persecuted in Europe for ethnic reasons?  Seems a strange thing to do for people considered foundational to one's culture.

I think that it is the tyranny of small differences.  Jews knew enough to "know better" than still worshiping the "old ways."  Their failure to "modernize" was seen as more insulting than such failure was for people who didn't know better.

[Martinus]

No, not really. Coming to think about it, I am beginning to think that the term may have gained popularity in Europe more as a negative (and only later started to be used by Christian conservatives in a positive sense). 19th century in Europe was the era of romanticism - with people going back to Germanic, Celtic and Slavic roots (hence old-Slavic names in countries like Poland; names like Siegfried and Wolfgang in Germany etc.) Nietzsche loved to use the word "Judeo-Christian" to mean "slave" morality etc.