|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Judeo-Christian article.|
|The article Christianity and Judaism was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 03 October 2008 with a consensus to merge the content into Judeo-Christian. After further discussion, the merge was rejected. See discussion.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Multiple issues?
- 2 Jewish vs Christian views of Creation
- 3 Allah is NOT the Stupid dog of the bible named yhwh
- 4 Validity of the term
- 5 The term Judeo-christian is a joke an oxymoron( Living Lie)
- 6 Hatnote, and scope of this article
- 7 "Judeo-Christian" = politically motivated weasel words
- 8 neutrality?
- 9 a few problems
- 10 Problematic opening sentence
- 11 Claims about the age of the term
- 12 "Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamism)" — what about the Mohammedans?
- 13 bad link on d Prager
- 14 Misleading Information in Section
- 15 Use of term in United States law
One of the problems listed at the top of the article is that it deals with "multiple issues".
Does this mean that it ought to be split into several different articles, each dealing with a single issue?
- No, by "multiple issues" it meant that the article was deeply flawed. Numerous problems needed to be fixed to bring it up Wikipedia standards. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of consensus on the meaning of the term and given that it is used currently in a variety of political contexts and not just in terms of theology, I think that a more helpful focus would be on the history of the term and the ideas represented by it in Europe in particular and how it was used by both philosemites and antisemites. A good source to look for the history of philosemitism and antisemitism and for a discussion of the role that the debate over Judaism's relationship with Christianity played in the Enlightenment's attitude towards Jews is Leon Poliakov's _The History of Anti-Semitism_. Another thing to consider is the way the term can be and often is used to deny any separate existence or uniqueness to Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Jewish vs Christian views of Creation
There is an article on Creation according to the Book of Genesis that discusses creation. There is a suggestion now to rename it and give it a Biblical name that may overlap with the New Testamant. I think that will mix differing views, but not being an expert on Jewish views, clarifications on that will be helpful here: Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#Requested_move_.28as_a_way_to_resolve_every_reasonable_concern.29
Allah is NOT the Stupid dog of the bible named yhwh
Do U think this YHWH יהוה whom
•Is A MAN ( אִישׁ ) of WAR Exodus 15:3-4 ,
• gave Mosses a STUPID DIVINE MOONING "Exodous 33:23
•then being beaten by man named Jacob after night long wrestle Gen 32:28.
what the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Validity of the term
Reading some of the above comments, I have the impression that many seem to question the validity of the term. This misses the point: The term itself is valid; individual uses of it may not be. (For instance, I originally landed on this page after reading a blog entry where someone explicitly equated "Judeo-Christian" with "Jewish Zionist", which is a gross misinterpretation of what the term means.)
There is sufficient and significant overlap, as well as a historical connection, which more than justifies the term, just like "Eurasian" or "Anglo-American" are perfectly valid terms.
The term Judeo-christian is a joke an oxymoron( Living Lie)
The term "Judeo-christian" is a joke(Living Lie) or an oxymoron ,because if one Religion that is "Christianity" praises Jesus Christ as LORD, the other one that is "Judaism" curses Jesus and considering him to be a FALSE (IMPOSTER) Messiah and illegitimate son of a whore. How come then you keep deluding yourself and others by fusing these two contrasting religions into one homogenous false concept/term that is called "Judeo-Christianity" ? JUST LIKE ICE AND FIRE. Plus if both Christianity and Judaism are Middle Eastern Religions and NOT Western ,(both originated from what you call it Middle East), then how come both " Gentile " Christians west with those Ashkinazi " GOYIM " Jews of Europian and Russian descents, keep claiming these two religions to be western ? ? ! ! ! ! ! Do not you feel shame of yourself that your so call civilization is entirely being founded and enslaved by an alien "mythical traditional lore /Folklores" that belong only to those that you call them sand wogs ? ? ! ! ! ! !
- Basically, most of what you said about the Jewish view of Jesus is wrong. Jews believe in worshiping god in all ways and that Jesus was a great teacher and a shining :example of faith in god, though they don't worship him as god (instead they worship god) they don't consider Jesus an impostor, but instead that he was a very righteous :and holy man that any person would think was the son of god, and that even if he was, it would not excuse worshiping him because god commanded them to worship none but :him. Also, Eastern religions are religions from east Asia (like Budhism, Shinto, and Taoism) western includes the Mediterranean and middle eastern areas.Hoyt596 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Ashkenazim are of Israelite descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hatnote, and scope of this article
Currently, the hatnote to this article reads:
- This article is about the values held in common. For a systematic contrast and widely diverging views between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism.
But actually (and in my view, correctly), that isn't the scope of this article, as it presently stands.
This article is not really focussed on an analysis of the values Judaism and Christianity hold in common. Rathe (and in my view appropriately, given its title) it is a discussion of the history and use of the particular phrase Judeo-Christian itself.
At Talk:Christianity and Judaism (section: Hatnote, and focus of this article) I have suggested that that article should be re-focussed, to become the top-level introduction to all aspects of relationships and comparison between Christianity and Judaism -- including, but not necessarily limited to, what may be common ground between the two faiths; where the two faiths may differ, both broadly and in detail; and also the historical nature of relations between the two faiths. Much the role in fact that the articles Islam and Judaism and Christianity and Islam set themselves.
Further discussion of this proposal is probably best followed up on the Talk:Christianity and Judaism talkpage, to centralise it in one place.
- This article has a standing need to merge Christianity and Judaism into it. This has already pass discussion but has not been done. See the box at the top of this page. As such the hatnote and the article needs to reflect broading the scope to reflect the added content. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- See full response on the talk page at the other article. The merge was discussed at length, and at length was agreed to be inappropriate after all (archived here). Interestingly, the view you yourself expressed at the time was: "Do not delete nor merge. --Carlaude (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)". -- Jheald (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. I don't have time to reread the whole discussion right now, but if you think a new WP:Consensus was achieved back then, you should remove the box and note doing so here, etc. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"Judeo-Christian" = politically motivated weasel words
The term mostly exists so that closet Dominionists can call for Christian theocracy without calling it Christian theocracy. Instead they claim to be supporting the values held by multiple religions, despite the objective fact that Jewish and Christian moral traditions have many distinct differences. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, not just Dominionists. Christian conservatives in general use the term to make themselves sound more inclusive than they really are. — Red XIV (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The premise that judeo-christian values are the fundamental moral values of the founding fathers is not a neutral premise, but a conclusion slipped in before the definition is addressed. I for one think the founding fathers as a whole shared moral values derived more from the roman and greek classics than the old testament. This is just one example. I think the article is pro-religion, and not neutral. Of course there is the oxymoron aspect as well. indeed the whole christian premise is that Christ brought a new and everlasting covenant based on his newly revealed moral values, and thereby separating permanently from the old values of the (jewish) old testament. Why else did He come? All in all, this article is not informative and should be stricken entirely.
a few problems
1) What Judaism and Christianity call the "Ten Commandments" is not the same. There is a large (but not total) overlap in the verses for both, but the differences in numbering, inclusion, significance, meaning, scope, and actionability are far greater than the words being the same. Even the (apparent) Christian view that the "Ten Commandments" are standards of ethics is mismatched to the traditional Jewish views. Removing the example from the first sentence would probably be good.
2) The organisation of this article is extremely poor. History and usage of the term is spread throughout several sections. Political and historical concepts are scattered. The information presented in several sections, most notably "Culture Wars", lacks coherency.
3) What, exactly, is the focus of this article? Is the "Judeo-Christian concept" to be defined and discussed, or is the term "Judeo-Christian" defined and discussed? If the focus is the former, I would vote for removing this article. However, if the focus is on the term and its usage, it makes sense to keep it. Most of the problems seem to be from this ambiguity.
Problematic opening sentence
The article should either be moved to Judeo-Christianity or the first sentence should be changed so that it describes a noun. The article, at the moment, begins:
- "Judeo-Christian is a term used in the United States since the 1940s to refer to standards of ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments."
This clearly refers to the term Judeo-Christian as to an adjective.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, therefore adjectives should not be used as catchwords. The article Jewish Christian begins with a similar sentence ("Jewish Christians is a term which appears in historical texts..."), also containing the words "is a term", but that refers to a noun, there.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now that You say it I also see it. I hope You would agree that the catchword should normally be perceived to be a nominalized adjective. That would, in German, be something like Das Jüdisch-Christliche, with capitals. The only reason why there is no difference from the spelling of an adjective, in the English, would be that in English also nouns are written with small letters.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Claims about the age of the term
Cut from article:
- It is only since the 1950s that the term "Judeo-Christian" has been applied to it, reflecting the growing use of that term in American political life. By some the term is used casually, simply as a commonplace term, or as an inclusive synonym for the religious.
This is unsourced and its appearance seems designed to make the original point that the whole thing was cooked up in recent decades and/or is merely a political term of art. If there is a reliable source which says so, by all means locate it. Then put the claim back into the article. But it seemed out of place where it was. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamism)" — what about the Mohammedans?
Well, not only it would have more concordancy if it was either "Judeo-Christianism (also Abrahamism)" or "Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamian)", but wouldn't a real synonym of Abrahamism necessarely be "Judeo-Christo-Mohammedan/Muslim"? --Extremophile (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
link to nothing, is it available somewhere else? needs to be modified or removed I am short on time and very busy
Misleading Information in Section
Use of term in United States law
It was unnecessary to put in any references to either of the two cases mentioned in this section ("Marsh v. Chambers" (1983) and "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" (2003 and 2005). BUT, having added them, it is the duty of Wikipedia editors to do so with honesty. They have not done this and furthermore left out the most important legal point - the strengthing of a real legal definition for an "American Civil Religion".
The two cases are quite different, but they treated as if they are the same circumstance. TThis might be understandable if all that was available in regards to "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" were the Appellate court decision (which was after the District Court ruled in favor of Simpson in 2003). A great deal more information is available.
Read this for a real look at how this section of the article is quite biased.
There comes a point at which leaving out information becomes a way of intentionally inserting bias. It is hard not to see this happening in this instance (unless you do not want to see what is in front of you).
FACT - "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" had been previously decided in favor of Simpson by the District Court. I was not even allowed to say that in an edit to the article. So much for neutrality at Wikipedia. Tell an unpopular truth, and you get told to go to the forums.
Again, this article handles "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" as being somehow the same as "Marsh v. Chambers" (1983). By mentioning them both in this manner, it is misleading. Yet the two are blurred together as if they are the same and they are not (far from it). The difference are important and relevant, especially as they lead, one step at a time, to a new legal concept in the USA - that of a legally accepted and defined "American Civil Religion". The US has an official religion now, as created by those two (very different) cases, and as reinforced by a number of other cases, since the 1983 decision. This new "American Civil Religion" also touches strongly on the concept of the Rise of the Radical Right in the USA (Conservatism, Fundamentalism) in the USA and its effects on changing the law of the land.
Previous to this, government was NEVER (as stated in the Bill of Rights) supposed to place its weight behind any specific religion or religious concept. However as of 1983, the concept of "Judeo-Christian" took on a legal meaning with the acceptance by the Supreme COurt of an "American Civil Religion". This was (and still is) big news.
- How are the cases different (why is this important)?
"Marsh v. Chambers" (1983) involved a legislative body in Nebraska that hired a particular minister (a Presbyterian) to offer prayers over a sixteen-year period. They did not intentionally exclude anyone based on their religion. This was not found to be unconstitutional because the individual was chosen, not any specific religious tradition. Mo tradition was excluded by intent. He was essentially hired to work within his profession (minister, plumber, electrician, etc).
The case "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" starts with the fact that Chesterfield County opens all of their meetings with a prayer. A prayer which is supposed to be ecumenical, open to many ministers to perform. That changes everything. No single person was hired to do this task. It means that they ought to be legally bound to treat all clerics equally, save that they do not. In their case they stated that they had no duty to be open to any religion that was not within the American Civil religion - and I quote from the board :
The Board in Chesterfield County argued that :
Not only is the American civil religion monotheistic, but...its monotheism is consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of divinity...a monotheistic divinity [and] upheld practices that are consistent with Judeo-Christian religious practices, such as belief in a rational God, belief in a Sabbath or day of rest, and recognition of Christian holidays. ... In contrast to the American civil religion, Wicca is polytheistic and pantheistic.
Serious Points of Difference
The fact that the "Marsh" case recognized that those people present and involved BELIEVED in a monotheistic divinity, and that they had a common set of religious beliefs among them, and that many other people in the USA also hold some/many of these religious beliefs (at least to some extent), does not mean that the Supreme Court said that everyone has to believe the same thing to get equal treatment under law; or that these beliefs are actual fact; or that those who believe otherwise can be mistreated freely based only on their religion. The court did not state that this "American Civil Religion" was supposed to get a special dispensation or any kind of preference either. The main reason for the decision in "Marsh (1993)" was the fact that it was simply an "at will employment" situation, and not a situation that was open to the participation of any local religious cleric who applied (which is the situation in the Chesterfield County case- save that they secretly held the right to reject anything not close enough to their own personal beliefs).
The "Simpson V. Chesterfield" case is seriously different from that of "Marsh (1983) and at its core, it is about the right of a government body to openly discriminate; about the right of a government body to treat people differently based on their religion. It boils down to these ideas/questions :
Do the members of the the Chesterfield County government like and/or respect a specific religion? Is it a monotheistic religion of the sort that they are comfortable with?
Where the answer is no; for instance in : Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Native American beliefs, neopagan/Wicca, new age, Santeria, Voodoo - they maintain the right to say NO to any cleric. They would (by this policy) allow the Dalai Lama to open their local county meetings. This makes their choices NOT one of "ecumenical" prayers.
I know this has been long, but the point here is to make it plain that there is a large difference between the two cases. They cannot be ethically lumped together as they are in this article (although it can be done unethically of course) and also that these two cases have created a serious change in US "bench law" in regards to legal forms of religious discrimination in the USA.