HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Jewish Values and the Jud...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:33 PM

Jewish Values and the Judeo-Christian Tradition Do Not Belong to the Fundamentalist Right

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/jewish-values-and-the-jud_b_2757928.html


Menachem Rosensaft
Professor of law and son of Holocaust survivors

Posted: 02/25/2013 8:53 am

Over the course of the past five years, the once benign terms "Judeo-Christian values" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" have been turned into veritable cudgels against President Obama. A concept that was originally intended to represent a spirit of inclusiveness and tolerance has instead become a battle-cry of reactionary narrow-mindedness.

I found a recent op-ed article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to be especially disconcerting. In "Straying from our Judeo-Christian Roots," Robert M. Schwartz, an adjunct assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, sharply criticizes President Obama for his alleged "unwillingness to directly credit the 'Judeo' part of our Judeo-Christian tradition for the contributions it has made toward our way of life."

The most objectionable aspect of Schwartz's article is not the specious nature of his attacks on the president -- more on that below -- but his perpetuation of the canard that Jewish values and the Jewish and Judeo-Christian traditions are somehow the undisputed property of fundamentalist right-wing theologians and politicians.

Sixty years ago, on December 22, 1952, then President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower told the directors of the Freedoms Foundation that, "our government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal."

more at link

59 replies, 2958 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jewish Values and the Judeo-Christian Tradition Do Not Belong to the Fundamentalist Right (Original post)
cbayer Feb 2013 OP
JoDog Feb 2013 #1
Meshuga Feb 2013 #2
LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #3
cbayer Feb 2013 #4
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #5
cbayer Feb 2013 #6
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #9
cbayer Feb 2013 #10
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #11
cbayer Feb 2013 #12
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #13
cbayer Feb 2013 #14
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #22
okasha Feb 2013 #24
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #25
Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #38
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #42
Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #46
skepticscott Feb 2013 #47
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #48
Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #55
Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #56
cleanhippie Mar 2013 #59
okasha Feb 2013 #49
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #50
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #51
okasha Feb 2013 #52
Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #57
trotsky Mar 2013 #58
cbayer Feb 2013 #28
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #30
cbayer Feb 2013 #31
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #32
cbayer Feb 2013 #33
eomer Feb 2013 #35
cbayer Feb 2013 #36
trotsky Feb 2013 #40
Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #45
LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #7
cbayer Feb 2013 #8
Meshuga Feb 2013 #15
cbayer Feb 2013 #16
Meshuga Feb 2013 #21
cbayer Feb 2013 #29
eomer Feb 2013 #17
cbayer Feb 2013 #18
eomer Feb 2013 #20
cbayer Feb 2013 #26
eomer Feb 2013 #34
cbayer Feb 2013 #37
Meshuga Feb 2013 #23
cbayer Feb 2013 #27
skepticscott Feb 2013 #19
CJCRANE Feb 2013 #39
cbayer Feb 2013 #41
Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #43
cbayer Feb 2013 #44
CJCRANE Feb 2013 #53
cbayer Feb 2013 #54

Response to cbayer (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:04 PM

1. Whenever I hear

"Judeo-Christian values" and "Judeo-Christian tradition", my first response is, "I'm going to need you to back my 'Judeo' away from that 'Christian'. They are NOT the same thing!"

Shalom, y'all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoDog (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:29 PM

2. I concur

That is why I dislike the expression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:39 PM

3. I'm afraid that when I hear the phrase 'Judeo-Christian values' these days..

I tend to think 'Right-wing bigot, who dislikes the Muslims just a tad more than the Jews'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 03:48 PM

4. That's the problem. Do you think there is a better term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:31 PM

5. I think casting ethics in religious terms is in itself conservative and rightwing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:42 PM

6. How is it conservative and rightwing to cast ethics in religious terms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:22 PM

9. well there was this thing called the enlightenment

One of the remarkable results of that event in human history was the effort to separate ethics from strict hierarchical religious authority and control of the pre-enlightment world and instead incorporate it into a rational democratic system of self government. That effort is incomplete and we are still struggling with the conflict.

For example see: http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/320/hierenlt.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:29 PM

10. That's nice but does that necessarily mean that there should be no ethic associated with

religion? Does developing a secular ethic eliminate the religious ethic or could they just be complementary.

Is the link to someone's thesis proposal at Western Kentucky University? Has it been developed into a more coherent philosophy?

I still don't see how it makes it rightwing and conservative. If a GLBT activist group say that human civil rights are part of their religious principles and form their ethic, are you saying they are rightwing and conservative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:43 PM

11. No, there are ethics associated with religion, the phrase "judeo-christian values"

is, at least to my ears, and the poster upthread I think, part of the whole rightwing conservative dogma that is in turn the other half of the struggle to end the hierarchical authoritarian moral system of the pre-enlightentment world, the half that has been working diligently since the mid 18th century to preserve the pre-enlightment system.

Let's try a different but essentially identical phrase: "family values". Does that phrase ring a bell? Does the argument "but families do have values" seem a bit disingenuous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:55 PM

12. Family values was a phrase invented by the religious right, as far as I know.

But the terms "judeo-christian" seems more like it was co-opted by them and had already existed.

What do you think of the article and it's arguments to reclaim the term?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:01 PM

13. Again, it is essentially anti-secular.

As such I neither wish to claim it or reclaim it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:02 PM

14. I don't see it as anti-secular and support those religious groups that wish to reclaim it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:45 PM

22. You don't see "Judeo-Christian values" as anti-secular?

What the fuck do you think "Judeo" and "Christian" are referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:23 AM

24. Chill.

«Not secular»does not equal «anti-secular.»

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:12 AM

25. yeah actually this is pretty much a dichotomy.

judeo-christian (aka christian) values are authoritarian hierarchical and irrational,
secular values are democratic, egalitarian, and rational.

"liberal" churches modulate traditional christian values with secular values, rejecting some of the worst features of their belief system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:38 AM

38. What is a secular value?

What is the rootage? Who says so? Where did it come from? Is there just something deep in nature which establishes or decrees what is a value?

Traditionally Christian values include love, faith, hope, justice, compassion benevolence inclusion of the outsider, forgiveness, or as a text says, "love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, patience and self control." What is your basis for declaring that these values are,"authoritarian, hierarchical and irrational."?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #38)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:05 PM

42. Traditional christian values include burning witches.

Your bible hands down irrational edicts from an obscured divinity through self-appointed interlocutors. There is no guarantee that we humans arranging our own ethics will get it right, but at least we will not be pretending that we have a lock on what right is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #42)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:07 PM

46. to take the worse of any group's pracrtice

use it as a universal brand is what fundamentalism is all about. Religious bigots use it all the time.
Do you have any response to the questions I asked in 38?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #46)


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:23 AM

48. You cherry picked the pleasant ethical values.

And no, idiocy about where ethics come from are of no interest to me. My dogs have ethics, the cats, not so much. If it gives you pleasure to believe that Sparky, His Divine Irrelevance, handed down rules to you such as "do not eat your children", fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 05:19 PM

55. So much for intelligent ratrional conversatrion.


'If it gives you pleasure to believe that Sparky, His Divine Irrelevance, handed down rules to you such as "do not eat your children", fine.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:47 AM

56. Your "rartional" question was answered.


If you wish to imagine that your gap-god Sparky generated ethics, have fun with that. What was the agent of transmission? Stone tablets? Divine interlocutors? Is Sparky still active in the world? Or just back in the day?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:20 AM

59. intelligent ratrional conversatrion was forgone when "god" was introduced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:08 AM

49. And traditional secular values

include the Reign of Terror in France, the Cultural Revolution in China, Siberian concentration camps, secret state police, secret courts, all perpetrated by secular leaders who were authpritarian, hierarchical and, by your own definition, rational. This might suggest to a rational person that the problem lies not so much with whether an ethic is secular or religious as with its social and political context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:24 AM

50. Rational people also admit when they make mistakes, if they are ethical.

Wouldn't you agree? I mean, who wouldn't apologize and admit they made a mistake unless they lacked ethical morals and rational thought, right? Only one with little integrity and empathy would do such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #49)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:31 PM

51. Absolutely correct.

Indeed there is no guarantee that we humans will agree to a just system. At least we wont be deferring those choices to a non-existent divinity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:53 PM

52. So far, the number of purely secular governments/societies

that were/are also democratic is 0, which is pretty much the same number as theocracies that were/are also democratic. This suggests, again, that it doesn't really matter whether a society derives a humane ethical system from a religious or secular base. The important thing is that it have a humane ethical system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #52)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:48 AM

57. Oddly enough by law and constitution our government is both secular and democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:58 AM

58. All the values you list are secular values.

People came up with them, not gods.

Prove me wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:46 AM

28. Whoa! Back off a little there.

Do all terms referring to religion feel anti-secular to you? Secular and religious matters are two different animals. If I refer to something that is solely secular, is that anti-religious? Of course not. Discussing the ethical roots of jews and christians has nothing to do with secular matters at all, let alone represent something anti-secular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #28)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:35 PM

30. Religious values are by definition not secular values. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:57 PM

31. On that we agree. That doesn't make either "anti" the other, just different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:24 PM

32. no. they are definitionally opposite.


Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics). Secular ethics comprises any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, such as humanism, secularism and freethinking.


secular values: derived from a not b. religious values: derived from b not a.

The fact that you do not understand, or are unwilling to publicly admit this is "interesting".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:55 PM

33. Dalai lama has been talking a lot about secular ethics lately.

He sees it as drawing the best from various belief systems, as well as non-religious sources. I like his description better than Wikipedia, but that's just me.

I am glad that you find me interesting, as well as stupid and cowardly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #33)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:13 AM

35. Yes, exactly, and he disagrees with Rosensaft, puts it exactly the way I would want to.

Excerpt from Beyond Religion, the Dalai Lama (bolding is mine):

Of course, many discerning people are aware of these problems and are working sincerely to redress them from within their own areas of expertise. Politicians, civil servants, lawyers, educators, environmentalists, activists and so on -- people from all sides are already engaged in this effort. This is very good so far as it goes, but the fact is, we will never solve our problems simply by instituting new laws and regulations. Ultimately, the source of our problems lies at the level of the individual. If people lack moral values and integrity, no system of laws and regulations will be adequate. So long as people give priority to material values, then injustice, inequity, intolerance and greed -- all the outward manifestations of neglect of inner values -- will persist.

So what are we to do? Where are we to turn for help? Science, for all the benefits it has brought to our external world, has not yet provided scientific grounding for the development of the foundations of personal integrity -- the basic inner human values that we appreciate in others and would do well to promote in ourselves. Perhaps we should seek inner values from religion, as people have done for millennia? Certainly religion has helped millions of people in the past, helps millions today and will continue to help millions in the future. But for all its benefits in offering moral guidance and meaning in life, in today’s secular world religion alone is no longer adequate as a basis for ethics. One reason for this is that many people in the world no longer follow any particular religion. Another reason is that, as the peoples of the world become ever more closely interconnected in an age of globalization and in multicultural societies, ethics based in any one religion would only appeal to some of us; it would not be meaningful for all. In the past, when peoples lived in relative isolation from one another -- as we Tibetans lived quite happily for many centuries behind our wall of mountains -- the fact that groups pursued their own religiously based approaches to ethics posed no difficulties. Today, however, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/beyond-religion-dalai-lam_n_1125892.html


Rosensaft is promoting the idea that we must have religion as a foundation for our nation or else we will be bad like the villainous "Communist world". The Dalai Lama said what I was trying to, that it is time to move to a more inclusive foundation, one of ethics that may be embraced by some religions but do not arise from or depend on religion, ethics that transcend religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #35)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:19 AM

36. I agree and like the Dalai Lama's approach to this.

The inclusiveness is what is appealing - the recognition that we share a value system, just express it differently. It is by no means exclusive of religion or he religious.

I don't really read this Rosensaft piece the way you do, but I am not that familiar with him. I thought he was just addressing this one term and how it had become distorted and misused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:24 PM

40. Dalai Lama's religious opinion on homosexuality:

"We have to make a distinction between believers and unbelievers," the exiled Tibetan leader said at a press conference yesterday in San Francisco. "From a Buddhist point of view, men-to-men and women-to-women is generally considered sexual misconduct."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Dalai-Lama-Speaks-on-Gay-Sex-He-says-it-s-wrong-2836591.php

Oh, he says it's OK for everyone else, but not for Buddhists. One wonders, then, if he thinks his religious views are the ones that should form the secular ethics on homosexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #30)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:03 PM

45. Taking a look at content, ideals and actions,

it seems to me that they considerably overlap. I celebrate every evidence of what you call secular ethics, particularly when they, and what i described as Christian ethics, are co-mingled. But then I'm not a fundamentalist of any sort. I celebrate these evidences of so-called secular ethics, no matter where they came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:13 PM

7. The problem is with the meaning, not with the word itself

While it could be used neutrally in a theological context, what it usually means when used politically is either Islamophobia, or right-wing social values, or both.

That is NOT to say that being either Christian or Jewish requires Islamophobia or right-wing social values! But it is often used to imply 'I'm a right-wing actual or cultural Christian, who hates both Muslims and secularists, and might just about tolerate a few Jews if they agree to gang up with me against the above'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:16 PM

8. That's basically what the article says. So, does phrase need to be reclaimed or does

another phrase need to be developed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:41 PM

15. Reclaimed by whom?

And another phrase needs to be developed to express what? It seems to me that this phrase has been created to push the myth that America was founded on these values (whatever the values the right wing is trying to push) and exclude other groups (Atheists, Muslims, etc.) as if they don't share "true" American values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meshuga (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:47 PM

16. By liberal/progressive Jewish and Christian people and institutions.

The term was created initially to combat anti-semitism, pointing out that christian values or ethics had developed from a Judaic base. Clearly, it has been co-opted and misused since then.

The article is about reclaiming it from the religious right, who have changed into something used as a weapon against progressive/liberal people of faith, Muslims, atheists and anyone else that disagrees with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:25 PM

21. I don't see use for it

We don't need this phrase to see that Christianity and Judaism share some common values and to co-exist with respect and in peace. However, Judaism and Christianity are very different and differences need to be respected. Regardless of the good intentions of its original context, the phrase often assumes that Judaism and Christianity believe in the same things and that is simply not true.

Christianity seems to focus on truth and ideology. Judaism values behavior (mitzvot) and belonging (heritage).

Judeo-Christian is perhaps a phrase that works better in the Christian context but it does not work too well in the Jewish context. Judaism is much closer to Islam than it is to Christianity and we don't need the term "Judeo-Islam" to see that we have similarities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meshuga (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:48 AM

29. I don't think he is necessarily arguing for any conflation of Jewish and christian belief systems.

In fact, he makes the argument that "judeo-christian" ethic is mainly "judeo" in origin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:06 PM

17. Not just the phrase; the idea is an expression of exclusion and even bigotry.

Look at this quote of Eisenhower in the article:

You speak of the 'Judaic-Christian heritage.' I would suggest that you use a term on the order of 'religious heritage' -- this is for the reason that we should find some way of including the vast numbers of people who hold to the Islamic and Buddhist religions when we compare the religious world against the Communist world.


It was, of course, during the Eisenhower administration that the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance and the reason was to claim superiority over Godless Communism.

At a family party recently my SIL said in passing that a person was being "a good Christian" when what she meant was "a good person". (The person's religion was unknown and not part of the discussion other than her remark.)

If you succeeded at reclaiming that phrase, would you be promoting, like Eisenhower, the idea that being non-religious is a social ill?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:14 PM

18. I agree that it has been misused for sometimes, that's why I think maybe a different term is needed.

It's exclusionary of both non-believers and believers whose perspective is different.

The author of the article feels quite strongly that its current use is a slap in the face to those that embrace what he considers a judeo-christian ethic. But perhaps the horse is too far out of the barn to be reclaimed by anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:25 PM

20. Yes, he feels it is a slap in his face and should be fixed to only slap the non-religious.

The real fix, obviously, is to look at people's ethics (or lack thereof) on their own merits and not conflate being religious with being ethical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:31 AM

26. I still don't see how this is a slap in the face of the non-religious.

Don't have jewish or christian belief system? So what.

Do have it, then how does it hurt the non-religious to try to work towards reclaiming the original definition.

Perhaps where someone's ethical basis comes from is not that important, but if you feel yours has been kidnapped, then I don't' see the harm in trying to straighten that mess out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #26)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:56 AM

34. He promotes the idea of a broad religious foundation, contrasted with the Godless "Communist world".

Here is Rosensaft's main premise (bolded by me):

Schwartz conveniently neglects to mention that during a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, on April 6, 2009, President Obama said that, "one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." In other words, far from seeking to replace America's spiritual roots with anything, the president's understanding of our nation's religious identity is fully in line with the views expressed by President Eisenhower decades earlier.


And he lays out the views of Eisenhower as follows:

Sixty years ago, on December 22, 1952, then President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower told the directors of the Freedoms Foundation that, "our government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal."

President Eisenhower never endorsed one form of religiosity to the detriment of any other. Indeed, five years later, Eisenhower wrote to his brother Milton that,

You speak of the 'Judaic-Christian heritage.' I would suggest that you use a term on the order of 'religious heritage' -- this is for the reason that we should find some way of including the vast numbers of people who hold to the Islamic and Buddhist religions when we compare the religious world against the Communist world.


Rosensaft embraces (and says, approvingly, that President Obama embraces) Eisenhower's views that "our government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith" and that what makes us superior to "the Communist world" is our religious foundation. He feels slapped by being left out by the narrowing of the foundation but apparently doesn't notice (or doesn't care) that his broader foundation is still not broad enough. He feels insulted that only right-wing religious people are included as "the good people" and insists we should redefine so that all religious people are included as "the good people" who make our country great. He broadens only far enough to include himself and then stops. He commits the same sin that he complains about, he just stops at a different circle of inclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #34)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:25 AM

37. Interesting analysis and really changed my perspective on this.

I missed that on my initial readings, but can see it better now.

Are you familiar with him? Is this his general position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #18)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 07:41 AM

23. What would be a better use for the phrase in your opinion

I see no use for it. If we need the phrase to avoid the the issue that demanded its original use then we would be in trouble, don't you think?

Yes, Christianity had roots in Judaism and Judaism has been influenced by Christianity since Jews have lived in Christian societies for a long time. But people need to understand that differences are okay especially when we live in a diverse society.

This phrase distorts and it is useless. There are Jewish values that are likely contrary to Christian values (i.e., Jews are not required to love their enemy, Jews dont turn the other cheek, etc.). In other words, the terminology could distort Christianity as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meshuga (Reply #23)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:36 AM

27. It's not a phrase I would use or identify with, but I think the author makes a decent case.

I think he is saying that all christians and jews are tainted by the phrase because it was co-opted by the religious right to mean something very different.

It happened with "christian" as well. There was a time when people associated christian with progressive/liberal causes - the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement. Then the religious right proclaimed that they were the only true christians and they were pretty successful.

Since many non-christians apparently bought it, many make broad brush assumptions about all christians and have developed prejudices against them, being unable to distinguish between the religious right and everyone else.

Some christian groups are working hard to get the pendulum to swing back, and I think this may just be a part of that process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:17 PM

19. I think, fundamentalist Protestant

who would just as soon see all Jews roast in hell, but is afraid to piss them off because he needs the Holy Land for his Armageddon, so he's gotta throw in a "Judeo" whenever he can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:04 PM

39. I always thought the "Judeo-" part refers to the Old Testament.

The OT was adapted from Jewish scriptures. I don't enough about them to know how closely they resemble them but I assume there are many differences and the Christian interpretations are also very different from Jewish ones.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #39)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:33 PM

41. I always felt it was shorthand for saying that since Jesus was a jew, christianity sprung from

Judaism and that they are closely related.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #41)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:09 PM

43. wiki indicates that modern usage

simply inserted "judeo" in the phrase "christian values" after WWII because of the holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:14 PM

44. Right, I had read that as well and thought it was an attempt

to link the two to combat anti-semitism.

Which makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:02 PM

53. But my hunch is that today's christian fundies

use the term because they prefer to focus on OT concepts like the laws in Leviticus, and the 10 commandments (in fact they don't really want to talk about the meanings of the 10 commandments, it's just that they want to put on them display on public property).

Of course, I'm sure there's a lot of more "liberal" stuff in the OT that they choose to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:45 PM

54. Good point and I hadn't thought of it that way.

Speaking of the things they choose to take out of the OT, have you seen the letter to Dr. Laura?

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-2945.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread