"Judeo-Christian __________"

[hatzel]

So basically I'm not entirely enamoured with the term "Judeo-Christian." Whilst I acknowledge that there may be some worth in occasionally speaking of a 'Judeo-Christian' tradition or a 'Judeo-Christian' culture (though this often seems to be synonymous with either 'Abrahamic,' inclusive of Islam, or merely 'Christian'), there are obvious limitations. Mainly that it implies an artificial unity between Jewish and Christian cultures where no such unity exists, that Judaism is just Christianity without Jesus, reducing Jewish cultures to a mere precursor to Christianity (without then extending this to calling Christianity a precursor to Islam), that Christianity remains 'justified' through its firm basis in Judaism etc.

But mainly I just hate it when far-right Christian Islamophobe dipshits are all "we have to conserve Europe's Judeo-Christian culture! Islam is encroaching! Those pesky Muslims want to obliterate Judeo-Christian culture! We have to protect it!" and then to 'achieve' this they go calling for loads of laws that would impact Jews as much as they would Muslims. Oh, thanks for saving that Judeo-Christian culture, mate...

So yeah that's what I think but what do yous think?

[Sasha]

What do you mean? Pogroms are a fine Judeo-Christian tradition and so is bloodlibel...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Actually the Christian tradition of blood libel has historically been aimed against the Jews. Jewish people ought to contemplate that when sizing up overtures from the Christian right, and to my experience they don't trust fundies, other than the Likudnik types, whore are hopeless fools.

[Sasha]

I know, it was a joke...

[eyeheartlenin]

"Post-neoist" Hatzel is exactly right. The two religions, Judaism and Christianity, had separated, as the early Christians left or were expelled from synagogues, in the first century CE, as mentioned in John, chapters 9, 12 and 16.

Meanwhile, the debates of the period between the 1st cent. BCE and 2nd cent. CE, that were to produce the Mishnah, were going on, and, subsequently, rabbinic commentary on the Mishnah was accumulating, in the process that created the Talmud, so that Judaism of that period differed radically from 1st and 2nd century CE Christianity, which had taken a totally different path.

All that means that the strange expression, "Judeo-Christian," attempts to join into one thing, two distinct religious streams. The proof is that Jews created rabbinic Judaism, and Christians created Trinitarian theology, and it is difficult to imagine two schools of thought more totally different from each other. So "Judeo-Christian" refers to something that was not real.

[manic expression]

My conception of Judeo-Christian religion always included Islam. Muslims have always said that they worship the same god as the other peoples of the book, their philosophical foundations are essentially the same and they've usually been relatively tolerant towards Jews and Christians (oftentimes more than Christians have).

The idea of a Judeo-Christian culture is absurd. In terms of philosophical heritage or ritual traditions, sure I can see that, but that's about where it ends. The culture of Christian peoples draws heavily from Islamic realms almost without exception. Let's see what came to Christian Europe through Muslim hands: Drink coffee? Islam. Play chess? Islam. Use paper? Islam. Benefit from irrigation? Islam. Sat on a boat with a triangular sail? Islam. Read something influenced by ancient writers? Probably Islam.

So yeah, it's crap. Ironically I think the modern conception of "Judeo-Christian" has far less to do with religion than one might think. The boundaries of so-considered European Europe was set by the boundaries of Christianity, but it was the beginnings of the industrialization of Europe that truly made the dichotomy real. Before the 1700's Christians saw in Islam a worthy but materially equal adversary. Only after it became apparent that Muslims were unable to keep up with Christian realms scientifically and above all militarily did the division solidify, a myth that the ruling classes of Europe and their right-wing thugs are still trying to struggle with today.

Add in the fact that Christianity in Europe is mostly a silly old joke that no one cares too much about and it becomes a bit more clear that this is very far from a religious division. Indeed, the most outspoken anti-Islamic bigots across Europe have been atheist. That particular head in the hydra of anti-Islam deserves special attention only for its abject hypocrisy. A hack like Hitchens focused his hateful bile on (a cheap stereotype of) Muslims and ignored Christians who did the exact same things...his only goal was the subjugation of Muslims to western will, the fault-lines of religion merely served as a most convenient proxy to argue for derision and degradation. Truly, it is the legacy of the atheist right-wing to be just another in a long line of hate-filled preachers stirring up suspicion against non-Christians.

In the end, Christian peoples and Islamic peoples are hardly so foreign to one another, and the sooner everyone realizes that the better. The present anti-Islam hysteria is your standard run-of-the-mill nativist anti-immigrant bigotry combined with 300 years of Christian Europe seeing Islam as an inferior, decrepit, backwards mess...additionally combined with a previous 1,100 years of Christian Europe shaking in its boots over growing Islamic successes. Then, though, as now, it is all of it illusory. Christians and Muslims have always found plenty of common ground whenever they had not been hounded by the agents of chauvinism and bigotry, and even in spite of those petty peddlers of prejudice we see that convivencia endures well enough.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand he term "Judeo-Christianoinly came to be used in its modern sense after the Second World War.

Loren Goldner somewhere makes the case (disagreeing with Edward Said) that "the West"and the Islamic world are not even distinct civilizations but are both subsets of a single western civilization. Both were influenced by Greek thinking, both Islam and Christianity have far more in common with each other than do South Asian and East Asian cultures.

The term is used by US "culture warriors" as a form of right wing nativism and bigotry.

[Rafiq]

Well, to be fair, Islam is quite Alien all together to mainstream Christianity and " Judaism". Though, I'm not particularly knowledgable in regards to Judaism, anyway.

The over all ethical framework of Islam is hardly "abrahamic".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well, to be fair, Islam is quite Alien all together to mainstream Christianity and " Judaism". Though, I'm not particularly knowledgable in regards to Judaism, anyway.

The over all ethical framework of Islam is hardly "abrahamic".

How so? Historically Judaism, Christianity and Islam are considered the three main "Abrahamic" religions. They are based on a moral framework. All three are based on a set of scriptures.They have a view of a personal monotheistic God working though history. This is much different than the "dharmic" religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others.

Judaism and Christianity obviously share parts of the Old Testament/Torah.The Jewish/Christian bible stories, are in the koran.

The laws of Islam are debated and decided on by communities of scholars, the ulema.The precepts of Judaism and applications of the Torah , the Talmud, Mishnah, etc, have been debated on and decided by communities of rabbis.In Christianity the Church, the "community of believers" is considered to be the "body of Christ", the presence of god on earth.

All three religions are different but intersect in different ways. They are different directions of the Abrahamic tradition, a personal god who elivers a moral code which is developed though history.A main difference that I can see is that Islam does not as fully recognize a seperation between church and state. This was a long, painful development for Christianity though.

[hatzel]

I might say that I'd sooner speak of a 'Judeo-Islamic' tradition than I would of a 'Judeo-Christian' one. This may, of course, be influenced by experience in Europe as co-minorities and the not so uncommon occurrence of Jews and Muslims fighting alongside one another for the same cause - e.g. against attempts to outlaw religious practices or against far-right groups. But even trying to engage on a purely religious level, there seems to be a bit more common ground between Judaism and Islam than there is between Judaism and Christianity. Or at least a greater possibility for mutual understanding.

That isn't to say that I don't think there is a great deal of friction here, but considering the Christian claim to community with Judaism doesn't actually go all that much deeper than "well we've got your book at the start of our book (but to be honest we don't really care that much about that bit) so that means we're like bros, right?" I don't feel the Judeo-Islamic connection is any weaker.

When coming from the Christian side it seems a lot more logical to make this kind of Judeo-Christian connection than it does when coming from the Jewish side, presumably because Christianity has very obviously made itself indebted to Jewish traditions by utilising the texts in establishing its heritage - of course a Jew has no need to feel any such connection. And the use of the texts seems - from the Christian perspective - to imply some continuity of ideas, that there's a similar philosopho-theological basis. This is used as much in interfaith dialogue as it is in any political endeavour, with Christians approaching Jews often assuming that they'll basically agree on everything until Jesus gets a mention.

Sometimes this does basically make sense: for instance, one might think one can speak of 'the Judeo-Christian creation story,' given the fact that the words are (obviously) exactly the same in Bereshit as they are in Genesis. For me it might make a bit of sense to use 'Judeo-Christian' in this context, though a brick wall is hit directly afterwards; if I were to point out that the Talmud teaches that there were 974 generations before Adam, a Christian would (rightly) claim that we're not talking about the same narrative any more. The words may be the same but the understanding differs. To continue on a couple of pages chronologically, I often see (even in actual proper published books as much as on crappy internet forums) 'the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin'...excuse me? There's nothing Judaic about that, as it is completely absent from the Jewish tradition! Again, the basis is the same - the books of Moses as written - but the understanding is drastically different. This continues throughout the whole faith.

It then becomes problematic to claim that there is any real affinity between Judaism and Christianity, that they share a philosophico-theologico-ethico-whateverical framework, as many (post-)Christians seem to suggest. Whether they do this for malicious purposes (oh yeah let's fight Islam side-by-side go team!) or venerable purposes (oh yeah let's all be friends interfaith dialogue's where it's at!), it's still creating this false image of Judaism in relation to Christianity, suggesting that there is this underlying similarity that will instantly be noticed when discussion starts. Though in reality telling the same stories with the same names doesn't exactly imply anything but a superficial agreement.

I certainly find a number of points of contact with Christians/-ity and wouldn't want to suggest otherwise. But I never take these similarities of outlook for granted, I don't engage under the assumption that we'll see eye-to-eye. That would be terribly foolish.

[pluckedflowers]

It's a silly construct with no basis in history. More importantly, even if there ever were separate "civilizations," there's only one civilization now: Capitalist.