The President's First Insult

[crazy canuck]

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

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

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

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

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[frunk]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Valmy]

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.

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.

[derspiess]

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. 

[grumbler]

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.

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. 

[crazy canuck]

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

The first Christians were Jews.

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

[crazy canuck]

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

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

[Razgovory]

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

[CountDeMoney]

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.

[Martinus]

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.