Languish.org

Article:

The President's First Insult

By Sha'i ben-Tekoa (http://www.americanthinker.com/author/shai_ben-tekoa/)

President of the United States of America Barack Obama had not been president for more than ten minutes when he slapped American Jews in the face (and by extension Israel and all Jews). Though he did it so subtly -- in plain sight and in front of the whole world -- no one noticed.

On January 21, 2009, about three-quarters of the way through his first inaugural address, after paragraphs of bromides about American greatness, he alluded to the menace of militant Islam:

QuoteFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.  We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.   We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth...

It has become customary in our time to speak of America as a Judeo-Christian civilization because the facts of history show that, so "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus" as a new formulation of the melting pot meme was a major departure.

In fact, although the settling of the original Thirteen Colonies was almost exclusively the handiwork of Christians from northern Europe, by the time of the American Revolution there were already six Jewish communities, one in each of the major colonial cities. Jews fought and died in the Revolution, and in 1802, when the military academy at West Point opened its doors, one of the first two volunteer cadets was a Jew.

Jews have been part of American culture ever since in the Military, Medicine, Science, Technology, Literature, Theater, Music, Movies, Television, Academe, Law, Journalism and Business.

Jews invented the nuclear submarine providing the United States its greatest line of defense in the Cold War. A German Jew invented jeans, the quintessential American garment. Although always a tiny percentage of the population, they have always punched above their weight in contributions to America.

Christians and therefore Jews too built the country.  In American cities every December, merchants decorate their shop windows with "Merry Christmas" & "Happy Hanukah" signs. The country has most definitely been a Judeo-Christian enterprise.

Muslims, by contrast, played no role in the making of America.  There is no evidence of a Muslim presence before the 20th century. Yet here on that January day was the brand new American President orating that the U.S. was "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus..."

In this formulation, the Jews have been bumped back to third place, elbowed, so to speak, aside by Muslims who take their place.  This recalls what happened in the 7^th century when their Prophet Muhammad told his followers that they had replaced the Jews as Allah's Chosen People.

Barack Obama during his campaign had vowed to "fundamentally change this country," and, in retrospect, this formulation was part of that effort.  The fundamental change would include the dispossession of the Jews of their second place in American culture and even downgrade them to the ranks of Hindus, whose tradition, like Islam, played no role in formrative United States history.

Indeed, Obama's next sentence continued, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," and this new formulation was surely part of that "new way forward" in the matter of Islam's role in American life.

Another feature of Obama's desired transformation was on display two and one-half months later -- on April Fool's Day no less -- when he was videotaped obsequiously bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia whose official title includes Guardian of the Two Mosques (alluding to the ones in Mecca and Medina).  This was a gesture one cannot imagine Obama ever executing before any other national leader -- let alone the prime minister of Israel.

And that bow was an offense against protocol and custom -- the Revolution had been not only a war of national liberation but a rejection of the very institution of monarchy.  American presidents do not bow down to kings  and thus it was doubly an insult, for this was no ordinary monarch but the potentate of the country where fifteen of the nineteen skyjackers on September 11, 2001 were raised and shaped by this king's religion, including 9-11's evil mastermind Osama bin Laden.

What Obama might have done was demand that the king show "mutual respect" by bowing down to him to beg forgiveness that some of his subjects had engineered that eruption of Muslim Hell on earth perpetrated against his fellow Americans.  In Israel in 1997, after a Jordanian soldier had murdered seven little Jewish girls, the king of Jordan crossed over the River to visit the grieving mothers and literally went down on his knees to express his sorrow and shame.  Obama should have asked the Guardian of the Two Mosques to do that too. Instead, there on view for posterity on YouTube is the President's protruding posterior.

Two months later, in June 2009, Mr. Obama made his first trip to the Middle East but snubbed Israel, America's long-time and most faithful ally.  He flew instead to Egypt where he delivered a speech at Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's oldest seminary, where Osama bin Ladin, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Sheik Ahmad Yassin and many other Muslim priests who preach the virtue of terror studied Islam and wallowed in its classical, Muslim-style Jew-hatred.

In his speech, Obama praised this religion beyond the boundaries of historical truth:

QuoteAs a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventions_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world).  It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe) Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance) and Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment)...And throughout history, Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam) has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.  I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States).  The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan%E2%80%93American_Treaty_of_Friendship).  In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli), our second President John Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams) wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."  And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, they have served in government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our Universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Beginning#Speech)  And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison), he took the oath to defend our Constitution (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), kept in his personal library.

This was the vandalizing of history.  In no way is it true that "...since our [America's] founding, Muslims have enriched the United States..."  As noted, their presence came quite late, and what enrichment could he have had in mind?

And as for the early treaty with Tripoli (Libya): John Adams's statement was made after the repeated hijacking of American merchant ships and the cruel enslavement of their passengers and crews by the misnamed "Barbary Pirates."  That was a colloquial nickname for them; in reality, they were not pirates but the official navies of recognized Muslim powers.  Adams's statement had been an attempt to appease them in the hope they would honor the treaty they had just signed and thenceforth cease and desist from attacking American merchant ships (which they did not).

Likewise, Obama's reference to Thomas Jefferson was false.  The principle author of the Declaration of Independence and first Secretary of State purchased his Koran when in Paris in order to study the intolerable aggression being perpetrated against fellow Americans by these so-called "pirates" who Jefferson learned were in reality observant Muslims who justified their hijacking and enslaving of infidels with the jihad.

Jefferson spent five years in France after the Revolution as a trade commissioner, then ambassador.  That is when he bought his Koran, because almost every day of these years there were American hostages enslaved in North Africa that he struggled to but failed to liberate.  In this period, he even met in London with an ambassador from the Bashaw (pasha) of Tripoli, a predecessor of Muammar Gaddafi who demanded $100,000 not to begin hijacking American ships and enslaving all the people aboard.  Jefferson listened as the ambassador cited the jihad as the justification for this behavior.  That was in 1786.

Fifteen years later, as America's third president and still the country's No. 1 hawk for war with Islam, Jefferson went to war against Tripoli because he had no doubt that these "pirates" were not independent freebooters but self-described holy warriors/mujahideen who could only be subdued via military force majeure.  They were beyond reason.

By contrast, America's forty-fourth president, early in his first term, ordered his administration never to use the words "Islam," "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.

Then in November of his first year in office, on the Ft. Hood, Texas army base, a Muslim shouting "Allahu Akbar!" massacred thirteen fellow soldiers, which carnage Obama insisted had nothing to do with Islam.

And we have not even touched on his other, serial insults to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and by extension the people of the democratic State of Israel that elected him.

Barack Obama's affection for Islam and his Islamic habit of trashing historical truth have been right there from his first inaugural speech when he misdescribed American society by demoting the place of the Jews in it.

Finally, for any who doubt this critical portrait: remember, too, that the day after his first inaugural speech and that evening's series of inaugural balls and festivities, when he entered the Oval Office the next morning to begin work as president -- with the U.S. economy in a crisis not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s -- he asked that his first phone call as president be put through not to some expert on economics but Mahmoud Abbas, the Holocaust Denier and international Muslim terrorist criminal.

President Obama has been aggressing against the Jews in America and Israel since his first minutes on the job.  No wonder, then, in January 2015, he did not attend the mass demonstration in Paris after the massacres by Muslims of the Charlie Hebdo staff and four Jews buying food for the Holy Sabbath.

Sha'i ben-Tekoa's PHANTOM NATION: Inventing the "Palestinians"  (http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Nation-Inventing-Palestinians-Obstacle/dp/0991094913/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424468757&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=PHANTOM+NATION%3A+Inventing+the+%E2%80%9CPalestinians)as the Obstacle to Peace is available in Kindle or soft cover at Amazon.com.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_presidents_first_insult.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/the_presidents_first_insult.html)

That's not an insult to jews, that's an insult to non-believers.

We're more important than jews.

QuoteMuslims, by contrast, played no role in the making of America.  There is no evidence of a Muslim presence before the 20th century. Yet here on that January day was the brand new American President orating that the U.S. was "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus..."

Well it is.  We are a nation that contains those sorts of people.  He used the present tense.  The speech was made in 2009 and not 1909 so what does the 18th and 19th centuries have to do with anything?

QuoteThis was the vandalizing of history.

Oh for Godsake.  It was a politician kissing people's ass.  Bush also said these sorts of things and so will Obama's successor.  It is a counter-narrative to the US as a Crusader state enemy of Islam thing.

QuoteFinally, for any who doubt this critical portrait: remember, too, that the day after his first inaugural speech and that evening's series of inaugural balls and festivities, when he entered the Oval Office the next morning to begin work as president -- with the U.S. economy in a crisis not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s -- he asked that his first phone call as president be put through not to some expert on economics but Mahmoud Abbas, the Holocaust Denier and international Muslim terrorist criminal.

LOL any other reason he might want to talk to Abbas?

I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

"American thinker"? :lmfao:

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting,

It isn't hard to find people insulted by seemingly innocuous things.  Pity you and Siege seem to know many of them.

Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2015, 10:31:52 AM
"American thinker"? :lmfao:

Military intelligence is watching you buddy.

Well, the President has not sent any Jews to Polish Death Camps (yet).

Nobody likes a whiny Jewboy.

No mention of Pagans, :mad: yet Muslims are mentioned. THANKS OBAMA

I love the arrogance in the idea that he insulted the entire world, in plain site of everyone, and only this guy was smart enough to notice.

That is one explanation for his singular ability to see what the other 6 billion people missed, I guess....

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 10:54:19 AM
I love the arrogance in the idea that he insulted the entire world, in plain site of everyone, and only this guy was smart enough to notice.

That is one explanation for his singular ability to see what the other 6 billion people missed, I guess....

It's because Obama is sooooooo tricky when he's talking.

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 10:54:19 AM
I love the arrogance in the idea that he insulted the entire world, in plain site of everyone, and only this guy was smart enough to notice.

Well, he didn't claim that Obama was an effective insulter.

Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2015, 11:00:40 AM
Well, he didn't claim that Obama was an effective insulter.

Obamateur strikes again :(

Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2015, 11:00:40 AM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 10:54:19 AM
I love the arrogance in the idea that he insulted the entire world, in plain site of everyone, and only this guy was smart enough to notice.

Well, he didn't claim that Obama was an effective insulter.

The sad part is the Obama went to this trouble to insult the Jews, and even the Jews didn't notice!

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 26, 2015, 10:51:56 AM
No mention of Pagans, :mad: yet Muslims are mentioned. THANKS OBAMA

I thought he mentioned non-believers.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

It's not insulting (how?) but it is a polite fiction at best.

America is a Christian country and always has been.  Thankfully it is also a country that has placed great value on religious tolerance and diversity.  It is really too bad the author quoted in the OP completely fails to understand that.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 10:33:18 AM
It isn't hard to find people insulted by seemingly innocuous things.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 26, 2015, 11:38:36 AM
It's not insulting (how?) but it is a polite fiction at best.

Yeah, insulting was a bad choice of word on my part - "mildly annoying" would have been better :blush:

QuoteAmerica is a Christian country and always has been.  Thankfully it is also a country that has placed great value on religious tolerance and diversity.  It is really too bad the author quoted in the OP completely fails to understand that.

The mild annoyance, where I've seen it expressed, comes from people not liking having their identity co-opted and used for political purposes and the feeling that that is exactly what "Judeo-Christian" is used for, and typically not by Jews.

Glad to see Siege reverting to the genial moron schtick.  It was hard to avoid taking him seriously when he started posting seriously.  Hopefully he is over that.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

Then they probably don't understand that the "Judeo" in Judeo-Christian is a reference to the fact that the "Old Testament" was included in the Bible.  It is not a suggestion that the US is part Jewish and part Christian.  It is reference to the fact that the US is entirely a Christian nation and the Old Testament forms part of Christianity's Holy Book.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 12:22:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

Then they probably don't understand that the "Judeo" in Judeo-Christian is a reference to the fact that the "Old Testament" was included in the Bible.  It is not a suggestion that the US is part Jewish and part Christian.  It is reference to the fact that the US is entirely a Christian nation and the Old Testament forms part of Christianity's Holy Book.

:hmm:

I thought Judeo-Christian was a statement about the Jewish and Christian roots of western culture not a claim of any sort of religious purity.  Anyway any statement that refers to Jews and Christians either together or separately is going to offend somebody.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 12:22:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

Then they probably don't understand that the "Judeo" in Judeo-Christian is a reference to the fact that the "Old Testament" was included in the Bible.  It is not a suggestion that the US is part Jewish and part Christian.  It is reference to the fact that the US is entirely a Christian nation and the Old Testament forms part of Christianity's Holy Book.

Yes, I am sure that it American Jews who don't understand, and it is you that does understand.  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 12:33:14 PM
I thought Judeo-Christian was a statement about the Jewish and Christian roots of western culture not a claim of any sort of religious purity.  Anyway any statement that refers to Jews and Christians either together or separately is going to offend somebody.

You probably don't understand, either.

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
You probably don't understand, either.

If I did I would be explaining it rather than simply saying my thoughts on the matter.

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Glad to see Siege reverting to the genial moron schtick.  It was hard to avoid taking him seriously when he started posting seriously.  Hopefully he is over that.

I don't have an schtick. Please stop harassing me or I will report you to the moderators.

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 12:26:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 12:22:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

Then they probably don't understand that the "Judeo" in Judeo-Christian is a reference to the fact that the "Old Testament" was included in the Bible.  It is not a suggestion that the US is part Jewish and part Christian.  It is reference to the fact that the US is entirely a Christian nation and the Old Testament forms part of Christianity's Holy Book.

:hmm:

But, you didn't know that?
That was the way I always understood it, until some amerijuddens told me it was some form of recognition of jews precense in America's funding.
i was like "what?".
Yeah, I know there was a bunch of jews in America back then, and that Georgia had a Sefaradi governor in 1800, but thats not how I understood the judeo-christian thing.

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

Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2015, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:16:13 PM
Glad to see Siege reverting to the genial moron schtick.  It was hard to avoid taking him seriously when he started posting seriously.  Hopefully he is over that.

I don't have an schtick. Please stop harassing me or I will report you to the moderators.

:lol:

Welcome back, schtick.  But remember, part of the schtick is denying that you even know what the word "schtick" means.  Don't go off-script.  :hug:

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
You probably don't understand, either.

Who does?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2015, 02:18:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
You probably don't understand, either.

Who does?

Only cRazy cAnuck.  And, perhaps, you, once  CC tells you what you think.

Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2015, 10:16:04 AM
Another feature of Obama's desired transformation was on display two and one-half months later -- on April Fool's Day no less -- when he was videotaped obsequiously bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia whose official title includes Guardian of the Two Mosques (alluding to the ones in Mecca and Medina).  This was a gesture one cannot imagine Obama ever executing before any other national leader -- let alone the prime minister of Israel.

And that bow was an offense against protocol and custom -- the Revolution had been not only a war of national liberation but a rejection of the very institution of monarchy.  American presidents do not bow down to kings  and thus it was doubly an insult, for this was no ordinary monarch but the potentate of the country where fifteen of the nineteen skyjackers on September 11, 2001 were raised and shaped by this king's religion, including 9-11's evil mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Yeah, Obama would never bow to another monarch.  Oh, wait... (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/11/on-president-obamas-bow-to-the-japanese-emperor-an-academic-friend-writes-that-both-the-left-and-the-right-are-wrong/)

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 02:27:31 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 26, 2015, 02:18:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:45:36 PM
You probably don't understand, either.

Who does?

Only cRazy cAnuck.  And, perhaps, you, once  CC tells you what you think.

Now you're really showing your true metal.  :cool:

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 01:29:23 PM
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)

The fact that the Christian God is a Jew, for one.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 02:33:17 PM
The fact that the Christian God is a Jew, for one.

But the Jewish one isn't.

I think the term is usually used when there is a desire to reference a common cultural/social bond that presumably arises from this common religious heritage. IE, Judeo-Christian values.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:34:10 PM
But the Jewish one isn't.

So?

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 02:35:19 PM
I think the term is usually used when there is a desire to reference a common cultural/social bond that presumably arises from this common religious heritage. IE, Judeo-Christian values.

Yeah, and I'm trying to figure out what that common cultural/social bond is, and what the common religious heritage is.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:37:08 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 02:35:19 PM
I think the term is usually used when there is a desire to reference a common cultural/social bond that presumably arises from this common religious heritage. IE, Judeo-Christian values.

Yeah, and I'm trying to figure out what that common cultural/social bond is, and what the common religious heritage is.

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?

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian) about it then this is a truly terrible term and should be avoided at all costs.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
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"

Well I always thought it was a reference to the Jewish and Christian roots of Western Civilization (of course not the only roots).  I guess I never thought of it as Christian propaganda but regular the idea of a cultural influence of using the Jew's scriptures for centuries along with, you know, having them physically present amongst us.  Neither of those ingredients are around for Islam.

QuoteThere'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.

I thought it was just a cultural descriptor not some kind effort to rewrite history or whatever.

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

In the context of Western Civilization it is, because in my understanding this is a cultural descriptor.

QuoteObviously, 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.

I don't think the intention is to de-emphasis anything where it would otherwise be appropriate to emphasis it.

QuoteObviously 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?

The term is not meant to exclude Islam where it is appropriate I don't think.  But again that is my understanding of the term.  It is interesting when one's assumptions are challenged.

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 02:39:22 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:44:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 02:39:22 PM
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.

Huh.

I am about as atheists as they get, and I certainly understand what people mean. Sometimes religious nutbars use it to refer to their own religion I guess, but that doesn't taint the term, so far as I know.

Different drummers and all that I guess. I never really considered the idea that the term itself was somehow emotionally loaded.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:44:18 PM
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.

Right.  It is used to justify it as an important cultural influence.  Thus not violating church and state blah blah.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 02:35:41 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:34:10 PM
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).

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
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?

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.'

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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 02:48:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 02:57:09 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 01:29:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 02:54:56 PM
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?

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:57:18 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:55:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 03:00:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 02:54:56 PM
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.

Quote from: frunk on February 26, 2015, 03:05:07 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:55:19 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 03:08:27 PM
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 :hmm:

Also you made it sound anti-Islamic as well.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
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.

Quote from: frunk on February 26, 2015, 03:05:07 PM
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.

That a fact?  If it is that recent who was it who first used the term?  Let me check....

Looks like it might have been introduced by these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_for_Community_and_Justice

As the "National Conference of Christians and Jews" so I guess literally a 'Judeo-Christian' organization.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 03:08:27 PM
It seems to me that that lines up almost perfectly with what I said.

You make it sound like a casual "oh, yeah, and Judaism is nice too", rather than an intentional and pointed effort to consider the two religions as able to cooperate at a fundamental level.  Giving props or acknowledging roots is not the same thing.

It must be really hard to live with a skin so thin as the one from the OP's article.

Jacob: plus the Old Testament is read in most church services.  Biblical stories are repeated in Sunday schools.

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.

That is probably where the sense of 'co-opting' comes from.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 03:25:30 PM
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.

That is probably where the sense of 'co-opting' comes from.

Then the question becomes IMO whether the people using it need the permission of all, or even some, Jews.

I love ya Siege, but how in the hell did one of your 'Obama outrage' threads get this large?   :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 03:27:03 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 03:25:30 PM
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.

That is probably where the sense of 'co-opting' comes from.

Then the question becomes IMO whether the people using it need the permission of all, or even some, Jews.

I think written permission from one Jew covers it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 03:27:03 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 03:25:30 PM
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.

That is probably where the sense of 'co-opting' comes from.

Then the question becomes IMO whether the people using it need the permission of all, or even some, Jews.

Get?

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:44:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 12:22:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
I know plenty of Jews, American ones as well, who find the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing pretty insulting, and who do not think "the facts show that."

Then they probably don't understand that the "Judeo" in Judeo-Christian is a reference to the fact that the "Old Testament" was included in the Bible.  It is not a suggestion that the US is part Jewish and part Christian.  It is reference to the fact that the US is entirely a Christian nation and the Old Testament forms part of Christianity's Holy Book.

Yes, I am sure that it American Jews who don't understand, and it is you that does understand.  :lol:

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

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:37:08 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 02:35:19 PM
I think the term is usually used when there is a desire to reference a common cultural/social bond that presumably arises from this common religious heritage. IE, Judeo-Christian values.

Yeah, and I'm trying to figure out what that common cultural/social bond is, and what the common religious heritage is.

Its the Christian narrative that Jesus was predicted in the Jewish texts.   That is the whole reason the "Old Testament" is included in the Bible.  It gives the Gospels validity.  Otherwise it is pretty hard to explain why God arrived unannounced.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 02:54:56 PM
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.

Quote from: frunk on February 26, 2015, 02:42:50 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian) 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.  :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:08:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 02:54:56 PM
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.

And I am pretty sure Jews are still referred to as the killers of Christ.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:04:39 PM
Its the Christian narrative that Jesus was predicted in the Jewish texts.   That is the whole reason the "Old Testament" is included in the Bible.  It gives the Gospels validity.  Otherwise it is pretty hard to explain why God arrived unannounced.

The narrative that you are discussing would see no need to include Old Testament Judaism as something separate from Christianity since Christianity was the new Israel.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:31:21 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 01:29:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:12:41 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:08:59 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 02:54:56 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:44:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2015, 02:39:22 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:01:38 PM
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!  :D

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).

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:16:23 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:15:33 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:26:50 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:16:23 PM
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.  :lol:

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.

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:31:24 PM
The term was definitely not created by an American Jewish-Christian organization.  :lol:

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.

Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 04:11:41 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 26, 2015, 02:42:50 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian) 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.  :lol:

Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) and math (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) articles are generally well written, even if sometimes they aren't easily accessible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim%E2%80%93Skolem_theorem).

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:33:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:31:24 PM
The term was definitely not created by an American Jewish-Christian organization.  :lol:

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

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:24:47 PM
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?

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:33:17 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:33:17 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:31:24 PM
The term was definitely not created by an American Jewish-Christian organization.  :lol:

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.

For the reasons already stated.  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.

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

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

Ah cool ok now to find out what that was about.  As to your earlier question about 'Anglo-Saxons' what you said was always my understanding of the term.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:37:08 PM
According to Merriam-Webster, first English language use is recorded in 1847.

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

Which is why I specified modern usage, since it has a distinctly different development from previous usages such as Nietzsche and others.

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
For the reasons already stated.  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.

I was not eager to believe that.  That was what I had read.  Again why would the Christian narrative need to include Jews?  The concept was that they were false and that Christianity was the new Israel and true inheritors.  It was 'Christendom' not 'Judeo-Christendom'.  So I am curious if you are correct here.  Why was the term invented so late and what did it, in fact, refer to?  Color me curious.  I thought it was simply a cultural descriptor and not meant to be religious in nature.  As in the implication that Jews and Christians were somehow brothers in religion or something, but rather a root of Western Civilization.

Quote from: frunk on February 26, 2015, 04:48:08 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:37:08 PM
According to Merriam-Webster, first English language use is recorded in 1847.

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

Which is why I specified modern usage, since it has a distinctly different development from previous usages such as Nietzsche and others.

Ok then I bow out - because the word is still used in Poland in its "previous" meaning. I guess I shouldn't assume it is used to mean the same in the US. :P

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:50:59 PM
Ok then I bow out - because the word is still used in Poland in its "previous" meaning. I guess I shouldn't assume it is used to mean the same in the US. :P

Again, as far as I know, the word has the exact same meaning in the 'Anglo-Saxon' part of the world in contexts I had seen it previously.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:50:10 PM
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. 

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:50:59 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 26, 2015, 04:48:08 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:37:08 PM
According to Merriam-Webster, first English language use is recorded in 1847.

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

Which is why I specified modern usage, since it has a distinctly different development from previous usages such as Nietzsche and others.

Ok then I bow out - because the word is still used in Poland in its "previous" meaning. I guess I shouldn't assume it is used to mean the same in the US. :P

I think the fact of the matter is that you don't see the term used much at all, in the US, so maybe it is now (mis)used almost exclusively in the conservative Christian sense here.  I don't recall, for instance, ever having used it myself in any conversation except here and at EUOT.  :lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
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....

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:49:28 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:03:25 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:05:23 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:49:28 PM
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.

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 05:29:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:05:23 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:49:28 PM
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 05:21:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:03:25 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
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. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:59:13 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 05:21:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:03:25 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
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?

Quote from: dps on February 26, 2015, 06:45:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:59:13 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 05:21:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:03:25 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 04:47:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 04:42:54 PM
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 ;)

Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2015, 04:56:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:50:10 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2015, 05:14:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 03:25:30 PM
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' :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 07:53:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2015, 05:14:25 PM
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 (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...

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 07:52:11 PM

Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2015, 04:56:54 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 04:50:10 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 05:51:23 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Martinus on February 28, 2015, 06:01:09 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 03:44:14 PM
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?

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 08:46:57 PM
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?

QuoteHowever, 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?

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 08:50:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 03:44:14 PM
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.

I don't think if someone says there is no record of Muslims in the US prior to 20th century and responding "no, that's wrong, here are some" is somehow extreme.  There are plenty of Absolutes, for instance if the author wrote that there are no records of Muslims in the US prior to the 18th century and none in North America prior 15th, that would in fact be true as far as I know.  I would have no problem with the veracity of that statement.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 08:57:35 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 08:50:46 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 03:44:14 PM
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.

I don't think if someone says there is no record of Muslims in the US prior to 20th century and responding "no, that's wrong, here are some" is somehow extreme.  There are plenty of Absolutes, for instance if the author wrote that there are no records of Muslims in the US prior to the 18th century and none in North America prior 15th, that would in fact be true as far as I know.  I would have no problem with the veracity of that statement.

The extreme is to then say it is a lie.  The non-extreme response to say it is not true.  But lots of things in history are both true and untrue at the same time. 

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 08:53:48 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 08:46:57 PM
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?

QuoteHowever, 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 (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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Ibrahim_Ibn_Sori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Ibrahim_Ibn_Sori)  Here's another.  I have just doubled the number you knew about.  What exactly is your point here.  You never heard that some African slaves were Muslim before?

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 09:01:39 PM


The extreme is to then say it is a lie.  The non-extreme response to say it is not true.  But lots of things in history are both true and untrue at the same time.

In response to yet another diatribe against the Muslims I think "Lie" is good enough word.  I would use similarly strong words against other defamation.  For instance the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a Fraud, not merely untrue.

So is Valmy a bad guy now? I want to denounce his pinko Austin ways.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 09:03:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Ibrahim_Ibn_Sori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_Ibrahim_Ibn_Sori)  Here's another.  I have just doubled the number you knew about.  What exactly is your point here.

My point is that while I do indeed think that some African slaves were Muslims what you said is a guess.  That they were 'stamped out' after a few generations.  We just do not know how many of them were Muslims and how it was dealt with.  Ok more specifically I have researched this a bit and have not found much.

Also in the 1850 census there were freed individuals who were born in Africa.  Obviously there would have been a number of slaves who had been born in Africa and many of their children would have still been alive by 1865.  So one would think if Islam was something a significant number of slaves had, Islamic communities would have made themselves felt after emancipation.  Or maybe there were and we just have not found them yet.

Or maybe not for some reason I am not aware of.  Maybe it was somehow eliminated in the first or second generation?  Awareness of Islam as a potential barrier for converting their slaves to Christianity does not appear to be documented anywhere.  But surely it must have someplace.  But I don't know.

QuoteYou never heard that some African slaves were Muslim before?

Um...yes.  Saying 'while probably true' and 'indeed there were' indicates I doubt some slaves were Muslims?  I am aware of it, I am honestly interested in what is true and what is not.  That Moroccan being nabbed in Guinea is pretty damn amazing.

Having said all that it would be very convenient if Muslims had this long and important history in the US for helping to get young Muslims to embrace an American-Muslim identity so I hope a lot more research is done on this.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 28, 2015, 09:05:17 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 09:01:39 PM


The extreme is to then say it is a lie.  The non-extreme response to say it is not true.  But lots of things in history are both true and untrue at the same time.

In response to yet another diatribe against the Muslims I think "Lie" is good enough word.  I would use similarly strong words against other defamation.  For instance the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a Fraud, not merely untrue.

I think missing a rather obscure historical thing is different than the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.  I have already made my disagreement with the article in question pretty clear.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:10:23 PM
So is Valmy a bad guy now? I want to denounce his pinko Austin ways.

Raz will judge me and find me...unworthy.

I have to admit, V, that I don't find your ignorance of Muslim African slaves to be compelling evidence that they didn't exist. :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2015, 09:18:53 PM
I have to admit, V, that I don't find your ignorance of Muslim African slaves to be compelling evidence that they didn't exist. :hmm:

They clearly did exist, or rather I presume they existed.  I would like to know more about them and have been puzzled by my inability to find much.  If you know something please let me know.  I do not see anywhere where I have claimed I am ignorant so therefore they did not exist.

I'm puzzled too given that you have access to google. :P

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:10:23 PM
So is Valmy a bad guy now? I want to denounce his pinko Austin ways.

He's ashamed President Bush is from Texas.

Quote from: garbon on February 28, 2015, 09:23:01 PM
I'm puzzled too given that you have access to google. :P

Well fair enough I suppose.  Excuse me for asking questions about a subject I am interested in.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2015, 09:25:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:10:23 PM
So is Valmy a bad guy now? I want to denounce his pinko Austin ways.

He's ashamed President Bush is from Texas.

He should be ashamed at the state of Texas football. SHAMED

Go A&M

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2015, 09:25:39 PM
He's ashamed President Bush is from Texas.

But if I was a successful country music act I would keep that to myself.

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:29:48 PM
He should be ashamed at the state of Texas football. SHAMED

:weep:

QuoteGo A&M

You could have chosen a winner like TCU or somebody.

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 09:30:28 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2015, 09:25:39 PM
He's ashamed President Bush is from Texas.

But if I was a successful country music act I would keep that to myself.

Valmy owns all Dixie Chicks albums.

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 09:31:18 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:29:48 PM
He should be ashamed at the state of Texas football. SHAMED

:weep:

QuoteGo A&M

You could have chosen a winner like TCU or somebody.

TCU got a bit whiny there at the end.

One wonders if the animals foaming at the mouth about a black Prez (notwithstanding any other rhetoric about his incompetence) will be able to bring themselves to do anything else than foam at the mouth when the Nigger Prez is no longer Prez...?

I think 'foaming' is the way of the future.



G.

I thought maybe everybody would stop being insane after Clinton but I was wrong about that to.  We are here to stay for awhile unfortunately.

Wait until Hillary gets in, and then really watch the frothing begin.  At least the negro's got a dick.

They still think she killed Vince Foster.

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 08:53:48 PM
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?

Is there much documentation of the beliefs of slaves or their difficulties with conversion?

Quote from: Grallon on February 28, 2015, 09:36:49 PM
One wonders if the animals foaming at the mouth about a black Prez (notwithstanding any other rhetoric about his incompetence) will be able to bring themselves to do anything else than foam at the mouth when the Nigger Prez is no longer Prez...?

I think 'foaming' is the way of the future.



G.

I think that foaming is the way of your future, for sure, if the past is any indication. 

Please do keep it up; there is no poster on the board bar The Brain who is funnier than you, and the fact that he is being deliberately funny keeps your amusing statements in a class of their own. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 02:18:24 AM

Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2015, 08:53:48 PM
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?

Is there much documentation of the beliefs of slaves or their difficulties with conversion?

I'm trying to think of who would create any official documentation, and coming up blank.  Slave-owner diaries, maybe?  Anyone know if hose have been thoroughly researched?

Quote from: grumbler on March 01, 2015, 01:46:16 PM
I'm trying to think of who would create any official documentation, and coming up blank.  Slave-owner diaries, maybe?  Anyone know if hose have been thoroughly researched?

I'd guess that'd be the only sort of documentation. Maybe diaries and letters by the ministers who were preaching to slaves.

I've always found the Christianisation of slaves slightly odd. I'd love to know more.

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 01, 2015, 01:52:08 PM
I'd guess that'd be the only sort of documentation. Maybe diaries and letters by the ministers who were preaching to slaves.

I've always found the Christianisation of slaves slightly odd. I'd love to know more.

I'm not sure that there were ministers preaching to slaves, per se.  I know that in colonial Williamsburg, the churches had a slave section (no pews; the slaves stood throughout) where the household slaves would be brought to listen to the same sermon the household was hearing, and that they were charged (and given time to) then pass on the lessons of the sermon to the slaves who weren't in attendance.  That was a pretty urbanized environment, though.  Maybe, in the countryside, this wouldn't work and there were actually sermons delivered directly to the slaves.  Like you, I'd like to know more.  I'll see what i can dig up from talking to my college or APUS-teaching friends.

You are correct that there is no denying the oddity of the slaveowner's simultaneous legal assertion that slaves had no more rights than any other farm animal, and their religious assertion that they had a Christian duty to save the souls of their slaves.

See the works of Rebecca Anne Goetz, Travis Glasson, Chris Brown.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 01, 2015, 11:01:11 PM
See the works of Rebecca Anne Goetz, Travis Glasson, Chris Brown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0)  :hmm:

http://history.columbia.edu/faculty/Brown.html

He's even a skinny black guy.

Quote from: Oexmelin on March 01, 2015, 11:01:11 PM
See the works of Rebecca Anne Goetz, Travis Glasson, Chris Brown.

Danke.  The first, in particular, seems to have focused on just this question.  Not sure it is worth $50 to find the answer, though!

Quote from: Grallon on February 28, 2015, 09:36:49 PM
One wonders if the animals foaming at the mouth about a black Prez (notwithstanding any other rhetoric about his incompetence) will be able to bring themselves to do anything else than foam at the mouth when the Nigger Prez is no longer Prez...?

I think 'foaming' is the way of the future.



G.

Didn't you foam a bit about about Dubya and his "theocracy"?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2015, 09:46:05 PM
Wait until Hillary gets in, and then really watch the frothing begin. 

LOL GRANNY STATE

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:29:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2015, 09:25:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:10:23 PM
So is Valmy a bad guy now? I want to denounce his pinko Austin ways.

He's ashamed President Bush is from Texas.

He should be ashamed at the state of Texas football. SHAMED

Go A&M

No, he's ashamed of this: http://college.usatoday.com/2015/03/01/u-of-texas-fraternity-goes-unpunished-for-border-patrol-party/

Quote from: derspiess on March 02, 2015, 11:03:29 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:29:48 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 28, 2015, 09:25:39 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2015, 09:10:23 PM
So is Valmy a bad guy now? I want to denounce his pinko Austin ways.

He's ashamed President Bush is from Texas.

He should be ashamed at the state of Texas football. SHAMED

Go A&M

No, he's ashamed of this: http://college.usatoday.com/2015/03/01/u-of-texas-fraternity-goes-unpunished-for-border-patrol-party/

I like Nachos.

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 02:35:41 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 02:34:10 PM
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).

I'll tell you the big diff between christiniasm and islam:
Christains have a full copy of the Tanakh in their Bible, and even though I might disagree with some of the translations and interpretations, they do have a full version of it, while Islam in their Quran does not include the jewish and christian bibles, and instead have a retelling, suppossely by Mohammed, in which he consistenly changes the narrative, even confusing several of the people in the Tanakh, like Joseph the forefather, son of Jacob, with Joseph the husband of Mary in the christian bible.

Islam claims to be the last revelation and the last covenant, and if they had included in their Quran full versions of both the jewish and christian bibles, islam would truly be a religion of peace. But they don't and therefore they are a completely new religion that pays lip service to older religions, and its tenants are rather the principles of an state religion than a personal religion.