Religion

Meshuga

(6,182 posts)

21. I don't see use for it

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:25 PM

Feb 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jewish Values and the Judeo-Christian Tradition Do Not Belong to the Fundamentalist Right [View all] cbayer Feb 2013 OP

Whenever I hear JoDog Feb 2013 #1

I concur Meshuga Feb 2013 #2

I'm afraid that when I hear the phrase 'Judeo-Christian values' these days.. LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #3

That's the problem. Do you think there is a better term? cbayer Feb 2013 #4

I think casting ethics in religious terms is in itself conservative and rightwing. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #5

How is it conservative and rightwing to cast ethics in religious terms? cbayer Feb 2013 #6

well there was this thing called the enlightenment Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #9

That's nice but does that necessarily mean that there should be no ethic associated with cbayer Feb 2013 #10

No, there are ethics associated with religion, the phrase "judeo-christian values" Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #11

Family values was a phrase invented by the religious right, as far as I know. cbayer Feb 2013 #12

Again, it is essentially anti-secular. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #13

I don't see it as anti-secular and support those religious groups that wish to reclaim it. cbayer Feb 2013 #14

You don't see "Judeo-Christian values" as anti-secular? Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #22

Chill. okasha Feb 2013 #24

yeah actually this is pretty much a dichotomy. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #25

What is a secular value? Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #38

Traditional christian values include burning witches. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #42

to take the worse of any group's pracrtice Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author skepticscott Feb 2013 #47

You cherry picked the pleasant ethical values. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #48

So much for intelligent ratrional conversatrion. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #55

Your "rartional" question was answered. Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #56

intelligent ratrional conversatrion was forgone when "god" was introduced. cleanhippie Mar 2013 #59

And traditional secular values okasha Feb 2013 #49

Rational people also admit when they make mistakes, if they are ethical. cleanhippie Feb 2013 #50

Absolutely correct. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #51

So far, the number of purely secular governments/societies okasha Feb 2013 #52

Oddly enough by law and constitution our government is both secular and democratic. Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #57

All the values you list are secular values. trotsky Mar 2013 #58

Whoa! Back off a little there. cbayer Feb 2013 #28

Religious values are by definition not secular values. NT Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #30

On that we agree. That doesn't make either "anti" the other, just different. cbayer Feb 2013 #31

no. they are definitionally opposite. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #32

Dalai lama has been talking a lot about secular ethics lately. cbayer Feb 2013 #33

Yes, exactly, and he disagrees with Rosensaft, puts it exactly the way I would want to. eomer Feb 2013 #35

I agree and like the Dalai Lama's approach to this. cbayer Feb 2013 #36

Dalai Lama's religious opinion on homosexuality: trotsky Feb 2013 #40

Taking a look at content, ideals and actions, Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #45

The problem is with the meaning, not with the word itself LeftishBrit Feb 2013 #7

That's basically what the article says. So, does phrase need to be reclaimed or does cbayer Feb 2013 #8

Reclaimed by whom? Meshuga Feb 2013 #15

By liberal/progressive Jewish and Christian people and institutions. cbayer Feb 2013 #16

I don't see use for it Meshuga Feb 2013 #21

I don't think he is necessarily arguing for any conflation of Jewish and christian belief systems. cbayer Feb 2013 #29

Not just the phrase; the idea is an expression of exclusion and even bigotry. eomer Feb 2013 #17

I agree that it has been misused for sometimes, that's why I think maybe a different term is needed. cbayer Feb 2013 #18

Yes, he feels it is a slap in his face and should be fixed to only slap the non-religious. eomer Feb 2013 #20

I still don't see how this is a slap in the face of the non-religious. cbayer Feb 2013 #26

He promotes the idea of a broad religious foundation, contrasted with the Godless "Communist world". eomer Feb 2013 #34

Interesting analysis and really changed my perspective on this. cbayer Feb 2013 #37

What would be a better use for the phrase in your opinion Meshuga Feb 2013 #23

It's not a phrase I would use or identify with, but I think the author makes a decent case. cbayer Feb 2013 #27

I think, fundamentalist Protestant skepticscott Feb 2013 #19

I always thought the "Judeo-" part refers to the Old Testament. CJCRANE Feb 2013 #39

I always felt it was shorthand for saying that since Jesus was a jew, christianity sprung from cbayer Feb 2013 #41

wiki indicates that modern usage Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #43

Right, I had read that as well and thought it was an attempt cbayer Feb 2013 #44

But my hunch is that today's christian fundies CJCRANE Feb 2013 #53

Good point and I hadn't thought of it that way. cbayer Feb 2013 #54