"Judeo-Christian Values" is a Lie

[hgc]

As a Jew living in America, nothing sends shivers down my spine quite like hearing about Judeo-Christian values.

By some accident of history, Jews, who are a small minority here, are a somewhat protected class in the public sphere of the body politic. In any case, I know that the Christian crypto-theocratists are using the myth of religious values as an instrument of moral differentiation and exclusion, and they have amended their usual refrain to include Jews on the inside, out of political correctness. I don't like being included against my will in their lie, as I am reminded of that great foundation myth of Jewish tradition, the enslavement of Joseph's tribe's descendants in Egypt. I feel just as threatened as those currently on the outside (Muslims, etc.).

 

[Iacchus]

Well one can hardly consider oneself a Christian without taking into account the lineage of Judaism. But then again to deny that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, particularly if one were a practicing Jew, it's almost a foregone conclusion, it's going to entail some sort of conflict.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Seems like you're generalizing... and blowing the situation out of propotion. I personally believe most people could give a crap about the Religious Right and their agenda. In fact, they only serve to hinder themselves as church-going reaches all-time lows.

Perhaps it's our current President's influence?

Well, don't worry about "W". He's doing a fine job ending his political career.

 

[Beleth]

Well, don't worry about "W". He's doing a fine job ending his political career.

Unfortunately, he's not.

Time, and two elections, has shown that all you really need to further your presidential aspirations is to win the fundamentalist vote. George W. used his Fundamentalist beliefs to get his father elected, and he certainly used them to get himself elected. It's going to take a lot of political influence to get W elected out of office, and I don't seriously see Kerry having that kind of influence.

Sadly.

 

[espritch]

I feel just as threatened as those currently on the outside (Muslims, etc.).

Well, some Muslims seem to be trying to join the club. There was an editoral in my local paper a couple of months ago claiming that America's heritage is based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic values. In fact, putting that term in google came up with quite a number of hits, like this one:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7985.

The Islamics are pushing this terminology as a way to make Islam more accepted in the U.S. Of course the U.S. was founded more on the humanistic ideas of the enlightenment than on any religious values. But neither the people talking about "Judeo-Christian" values nor those talking about "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" values are likely to admit that fact.

Edited to add this little jem:

http://www.cephas-library.com/israel/israel_Judeo_Christian_Islamic_or _Abrahamic.html

"Islamic values are not only compatible with American values, they're almost identical. I, personally, believe the most Islamic country in the world is America, where we believe in freedom of religion, freedom of the press and equality of all."

Let's see...laugh or cry...laugh or cry...

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Unfortunately, he's not.

Time, and two elections, has shown that all you really need to further your presidential aspirations is to win the fundamentalist vote. George W. used his Fundamentalist beliefs to get his father elected, and he certainly used them to get himself elected. It's going to take a lot of political influence to get W elected out of office, and I don't seriously see Kerry having that kind of influence.

Sadly.

And that's why he lost the popular vote to a corpse?

Sorry, not buying it.

Clinton did NOT have the fundamentalist vote. The vote that wins the presidency is the moderate, middle ground vote.

Also, historically, any president with a weak economy has lost his re-election bid... Hoover, Johnson, Carter, and Bush. Clinton has scandal after scandal and got re-elected. Why? Great economy.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

As a Jew living in America, nothing sends shivers down my spine quite like hearing about Judeo-Christian values.

By some accident of history, Jews, who are a small minority here, are a somewhat protected class in the public sphere of the body politic. In any case, I know that the Christian crypto-theocratists are ...

Is it the wannabee theocrats who talk about Judeo-Christian values? I was under the impession that it was the liberal ecumenists.

And does not Christianity derive directly from Judaism in a way that other "Abrahamic" religions such as Islam and Bahai do not?

I can see the Jewish objection to the term "Judeo-Christian" based on the exclusivity of Judaism.

But I think the shivers down your spine are illusory. Keep an eye on the Christian crazies on general principles, but it is Muslim crazies who want to kill you right now.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Re: "Judeo-Christian Values" is a Lie

I can see the Jewish objection to the term "Judeo-Christian" based on the exclusivity of Judaism.

What we see is conditioned by what we know.

There is much that is oxymoronic about the term "Judeo-Christian", and little reason to view even nascent Christianity as having much to do with the Jewish sect marginalized by the gentile mission. The two things that characterized the latter were the deification of the messiah and the demonization of Judaism through the rapidly developed "replacement theology" of the early church. Even Shabbat was denigrated and dismissed in favor of "the Lord's Day" to avoid "judaizing" their worship.

 

[ceo_esq]

Re: Re: "Judeo-Christian Values" is a Lie

And does not Christianity derive directly from Judaism in a way that other "Abrahamic" religions such as Islam and Bahai do not?

I thought it did. I've always understood there to be a sort of fork in the Judaic family tree at the founding of Christianity, such that both modern Judaism and modern Christianity can legitimately claim some kind of continuity with pre-Christian Judaism.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: Re: "Judeo-Christian Values" is a Lie

What we see is conditioned by what we know.

There is much that is oxymoronic about the term "Judeo-Christian", and little reason to view even nascent Christianity as having much to do with the Jewish sect marginalized by the gentile mission. The two things that characterized the latter were the deification of the messiah and the demonization of Judaism through the rapidly developed "replacement theology" of the early church. Even Shabbat was denigrated and dismissed in favor of "the Lord's Day" to avoid "judaizing" their worship.

Yet Christians, particularly fundamentalists, for the last 40 years or so have been uncommonly decent to Jews, unlike previously.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but be more concerned with the folks who are openly calling for your destruction now.

It ain't Christians.

 

[Beleth]

The vote that wins the presidency is the moderate, middle ground vote.

Not these days.

Go to http://www.pbs.org and do a search for "The Jesus Factor". Read the transcript. George W. lost every listed demographic except the Evangelical vote, and he's the one in the White House. These days, that's all you need.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Re: "Judeo-Christian Values" is a Lie

I thought it did. I've always understood there to be a sort of fork in the Judaic family tree at the founding of Christianity, such that both modern Judaism and modern Christianity can legitimately claim some kind of continuity with pre-Christian Judaism.

Though this is historically correct and a leg upon which the "Judeo-Christian" concept stands, it's of little relevance to my argument -- for 2 reasons:

1) Throughout most of the history of Christianity, Jews were not treated or thought of as the progenitors or a branch of the family tree. As ReasonableDoubt points out, Christianity's early expansion was based on a complete break with its Jewish origins, even if the Hebrew bible was preserved has a holy text. Remember, the Christian sect, unlike its Jewish parent, was and is a creed-based community instead of a tribal-inherited tradition. It was seeking outside (of Jewish) membership, and as such needed to distance itself from Judaism, which had a not-so-great reputation in the Roman Empire. The current raproachment, which is definitely not of the religious ecumenical sort, is a political expediency.

2) This is not about history. It's about values. And the concept of religious values, as a practical application, is a myth and a scam of monstrous proportions. Human ethics and codes of behavior are a practical necessity of civilization, but they are constantly appropriated by religious authorities for the purpose of manipulation and control.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Judeo-Christian Values" is a Lie

Yet Christians, particularly fundamentalists, for the last 40 years or so have been uncommonly decent to Jews, unlike previously.

That's all very nice. Unfortunately, it has no relevance to my comments.

 

[MLynn]

It's my understanding that the 10 Commandments is what links the Judeo-Christian line of thinking.
I found this item at the ACLU:

http://www.aclu-tn.org/springsummervigil02-whose.html

 

[Doctor X]

Which "10 Commandments?"

Do they include the demand for child sacrifice?

--J.D.

 

[Iacchus]

Which "10 Commandments?"

Do they include the demand for child sacrifice?

--J.D.

Yes, consider the baby veal that you had for supper! Of course if baby veal were unavailable, I think baby lamb would fit the bill rather nicely.

 

[Iacchus]

2) This is not about history. It's about values. And the concept of religious values, as a practical application, is a myth and a scam of monstrous proportions. Human ethics and codes of behavior are a practical necessity of civilization, but they are constantly appropriated by religious authorities for the purpose of manipulation and control.

You see nothing ethical about saying The Law (the Sabbath) was created for man, and not the other way around? In other words what purpose does a law serve if only to create trangressors which need to be punished? Sounds rather rigid and inflexible if you ask me.

 

[evildave]

Actually, the capital punishment is specified for such transgressions, and among those were 'honor thy parents'. Unruly children were to be killed.

You see nothing ethical about saying The Law (the Sabbath) was created for man, and not the other way around? In other words what purpose does a law serve if only to create trangressors which need to be punished? Sounds rather rigid and inflexible if you ask me.

Questioning God's laws is also punishable by death.

To answer your question, it provides lots of ways to silence political dissent. You can always come up with a transgression that is worthy of maiming or killing someone with this system, so everyone knows to keep their mouths shut and stay in line. If you don't like the way god does things, you're a heretic, so you die. They get a regular supply of victims to demonstrate the state's power to the rest of the sheep in this manner.

 

[ceo_esq]

Though this is historically correct and a leg upon which the "Judeo-Christian" concept stands, it's of little relevance to my argument -- for 2 reasons:

You haven't made an argument, as such.

1) Throughout most of the history of Christianity, Jews were not treated or thought of as the progenitors or a branch of the family tree. As ReasonableDoubt points out, Christianity's early expansion was based on a complete break with its Jewish origins, even if the Hebrew bible was preserved has a holy text. Remember, the Christian sect, unlike its Jewish parent, was and is a creed-based community instead of a tribal-inherited tradition. It was seeking outside (of Jewish) membership, and as such needed to distance itself from Judaism, which had a not-so-great reputation in the Roman Empire.

To some extent, one would expect this to be true of any new theology attempting to assert itself. However, I think you're overstating the attempt to downplay the "Jewishness" of early Christianity. Regardless, though, the relationship of Christianity to Judaism (and a nuanced understanding of early Christianity as a part of the Judaism of the era) seem much discussed and widely accepted now among NT historians and among theologians - however much these things may have been obscured in the past.

The current raproachment, which is definitely not of the religious ecumenical sort, is a political expediency.

Why do you say it is definitely not a matter of ecumenism? The sources I've been able to find online tend to agree that the past few decades have witnessed the most intense period of Christian-Jewish ecumenical dialogue in 2,000 years (see, for example, this article on the subject by a UVa professor of religious history).

2) This is not about history. It's about values. And the concept of religious values, as a practical application, is a myth and a scam of monstrous proportions.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I have a feeling that the key to your meaning is the phrase as a practical application - since removing it from the sentence makes the assertion seem counterintuitive and/or overblown. Could you explain?

Human ethics and codes of behavior are a practical necessity of civilization, but they are constantly appropriated by religious authorities for the purpose of manipulation and control.

I suspect that the argumentation and evidence adequate even to begin to establish the second half of your assertion would take up a long thread all by itself. Could we settle for you explaining in a little more detail how you think this process is presently occurring with respect to "Judeo-Christian values"?