Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
There are few phrases more annoying or ridiculous than "Judeo-Christian." This is especially true when referring to anything prior to about 1980. I've actually heard people refer to the "Judeo-Christian" values of our founding fathers. Certainly those living in our founding period would find that phrase bizarre, as Christianity in that age was still profoundly anti-semitic (and many absolutely mainstream Christian preachers of the day railed against the ban on religious tests for office because it could actually lead to a - gasp! - Jew in office.
A perfect example of how idiotic and hypocritical this phrase is this application to be a coordinator for the "National Day of Prayer" put out by Shirley Dobson, wife of you know who. An excerpt from that application below the fold:
The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values.
But now look at the statement of belief one has to sign to be a coordinator:
I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God. I believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, his sinless life, his miracles, the atoning work of his shed blood, his resurrection and ascension, his intercession and his coming return to power and glory. I believe that those who follow Jesus are family and there should be unity among all who claim his name.
We're here to conform to a Judeo-Christian system of values. So naturally, no Jews are allowed. Very nice.
Comments
Well, apparently messianic Jew are OK.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 2, 2008 9:29 AM
I agree and disagree.
If used to mean "Christian", then "Judeo-Christian" is a misnomer.
However, I think it's fine where Jews and Christian's overlap.
Example, in my AP biology class in high school, in the introduction to evolution, my teacher took 15 minutes to explain the theories of the origin/development of life prior to Darwin.
The first was Aristotle's, then the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, followed by Lamarck, etc...
Here, it was obvious that "Judeo-Christian" meant a literalist reading of Genesis.
Posted by: Royale | April 2, 2008 9:30 AM
Ed, Ed, Ed; you're reading this all wrong. These people are being inclusive; they are a wonderful demonstration of how religion brings people together. They don't care about identity, only about belief. That's why it's called a "statement of belief". I'll bet they'd even accept an atheist who was willing to sign a statement saying that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, etc.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 2, 2008 9:35 AM
A cute quote from the sit to which you linked,showing all-too-clearly how vacuous their claim is about "Judeo-Christian" values:
"Our team is made up of extremely dedicated men and women who love and serve Jesus Christ and who have a heartfelt belief that prayer is the only hope for our country."
No "Judeo" in that statement - one can only assume "No Jews Allowed" is the (un)official motto of that orginization.
Posted by: Sergeant Zim | April 2, 2008 9:35 AM
Yup, Archy wrote a good post about this a couple of years ago.
Posted by: Coturnix | April 2, 2008 9:40 AM
It's not "Judeo-Christian" values. It's Judo-Christian values. Just remember, the bible story where Jesus goes to Vietnam, and rescues all of the forgotten American prisoners of war. Satan's forces had all sorts machine-guns and grenades, but could they kill Jesus? Were they competent enough to aim a gun and a blow Jesus' brains out? Were they competent enough to point several machine guns in Jesus's general direct and lay down enough lead to kill every living thing? Hell, no. But on the other hand Jesus didn't need all the guns, Jesus had his Judo-Christian values. A couple roundhouses of smite later, and communism fell like a ton of bricks.
Posted by: Thoracantha | April 2, 2008 9:57 AM
If they want to be nominally inclusive and all they should probably rename Christianity "Hellenized Judaeo-Zorastianism." It's a bit of a mouthful but it gives a clearer idea of what the religion is actually about with the "Judaeo" safely buffered between the "Hellenized" and the "Zorastrianism."
Posted by: Ericb | April 2, 2008 10:01 AM
In a fair number of cases where Jews and Christians overlap they also overlap with Muslims. Funny how they never included, isn't it?
Posted by: JC | April 2, 2008 10:06 AM
Ericb - You might have to change that to "Greco-Judeo-Zoroastrianism" or "Greek Judeo-Zoroastrianism", since "Hellenized" sounds too girly.
Posted by: Umlud | April 2, 2008 10:17 AM
JC, I've seen increasing numbers of references to "the Abrahamic religions" or "Abrahamic traditions" which references all three...
but you certainly would never find Dobson et al saying that...
Posted by: CanadianChick | April 2, 2008 10:18 AM
I agree Ed, this has been a pet peeve of mine for some time.
Posted by: GH | April 2, 2008 10:32 AM
Personally, I think "Judeo-Christian" is insulting to Jews.
Posted by: writerdd | April 2, 2008 10:32 AM
Well Christians are really just perfected Jews. The phrase Judeo-Christian pays homage to that, reminds us where we come from and lets Jews know that they too can be perfected if they simply accept or Lord Jesus Christ as their savior.
Posted by: Ann Coulter (looking suspiciously like Abby Normal) | April 2, 2008 10:47 AM
It's tokenism.
"We've treated you like shit for about 17 centuries, but now that we've been shamed by that Holocaust thing, we'll let you be honorary Christians when it's politically convenient".
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 2, 2008 10:58 AM
"Judeo-Christian" was coined by the US Army in WW2 as a gimmick to defuse antisemitism in the ranks. Christians had banned Jews from communities, schools, and workplaces, forcing Jews to rely on each other for everything. The draft would bring Jews and Christians together for the first time for most of them, and the Army wanted to grease the skids in integrating the Army, rather than have separate Jewish and Christian unit.
(For blacks versus whites, the Army decided on segregation.)
There is no earlier mention of "Judeo-Christian" anywhere.
Posted by: About Three-Fitty | April 2, 2008 11:14 AM
I got it stuck in my head a while back that "Judaeo-Christian" means the only important chapters in the bible are Genesis and Leviticus.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | April 2, 2008 11:16 AM
Well Christians are really just perfected Jews. The phrase Judeo-Christian pays homage to that, reminds us where we come from and lets Jews know that they too can be perfected if they simply accept or Lord Jesus Christ as their savior.
I think it's mostly because they both have the same first books of the Old Testament, so therefore they both think that the most intelligent and thoughtful being in the universe wanted everybody to sacrifice goats and "anoint" stuff all the time. Nice try though "Ann Coulter"!
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God.
Why not just obtain salvation from all kinds of places and have an ongoing relationship with God whenevah? What a big jerk their God is!
I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God.
Wow that's a pretty stupid belief! Good grief.
Posted by: 386sx | April 2, 2008 11:22 AM
Not surprising from Shirley Dobson, especially since the whole existence of the "National Day of Prayer Task Force" is based on lies and misdirection, starting with their website's banner proclaiming that they are the "Official Website" of the "National Day of Prayer" (and has done for years).
The NDP is supposed to be an non-sectarian event, but the Dobsons have turned it into an all-but exclusive fundamentalist Christian event so successfully that 13 of the 27 of this year's state proclamations listed on their web site include mention of this year's "theme" and bible verse as defined solely by Shirley Dobson's sectarian organization:
http://www.ndptf.org/press_room/index.cfm
(Zacharias is a friend and favorite of the Dobsons and no doubt was anointed "Honorary Chairman" by them too.)
They used to at least make it clear in the small print somewhere that they are not the official organizers of the NDP, but I see that even that has now disappeared from their site replaced by weasel words about people of other faiths being welcome to do what they will in their own time.
Posted by: tacitus | April 2, 2008 11:29 AM
Hendrik Herztberg hit this nail on the head a while ago
-- "Antidisestablishmentarianism", Washington Diarist, The New Republic, September 16, 1985
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | April 2, 2008 12:00 PM
Shirley Dobson stated:
"God has assembled an elite force for this endeavor"
Now I tread lightly on this because I used to do it too but this is a possible example of using the Lord's name in vain like I said on another post. It does not mean cussing. It means putting God's reputation to something that He does not endorse. I am not saying God does or does not endorse this as a Christian. I am saying how does she know enought to say God is doing this? If it is to further the Religious Right agenda in American I really doubt it. Kings and Popes used to say stuff like this to get people to fall in line. We need to examine anyone who claims to speak for God and hold them to whatever teachings that they attest to for their concept of God.
Ed stated:
"We're here to conform to a Judeo-Christian system of values. So naturally, no Jews are allowed. Very nice.'
Good point! What is really is is a term for zenophobic Christian white people who want all the heathen, foreignors, gays, marxists... to go away and let them live in peace in the country God gave them. Now I am not saying they are bigots like some would or racist. I think Barak described it well as far as whites and blacks in his race speech.
NO WONDER NO ONE WANTS TO GO TO CHURCH INCLUDING ME. EMBARRASSED TO CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN AGAIN. The very essense of unity in the Bible is unity in diversity. Ephesians chapters 1 and 2 are clear on this. Most of the harm done by Evangelical Christians has been done mixing Western Culture and traditions with the message of Jesus. News at 10 alert: America is no longer a bunch of English church goers! But some will never get this and continue to paint the God that they say is with them as a racist by their actions.
I think there is a parable about someone praying next to someone else about how great he was and how glad he was not to be the scumbag that was praying next to him. The scumbag prayed one sentence: God have mercy on me I am a sinner. Jesus said that the latter went home justified. If God does exist(I understand most here would not agree) maybe the elite force He is assembling looks a little different than the one she is talking about?
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 2, 2008 12:16 PM
"Well Christians are really just perfected Jews. The phrase Judeo-Christian pays homage to that, reminds us where we come from and lets Jews know that they too can be perfected if they simply accept or Lord Jesus Christ as their savior."
What do you call that, being chosen again?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton | April 2, 2008 12:16 PM
My little CD-ROM "Webster's Dictionary" shows a date (presumably for earliest known citation, though no source is given) of 1899 for "Judeo-Christian".
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 2, 2008 12:28 PM
Reference.com sayeth:
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 2, 2008 12:36 PM
Ah, Judeo-Christianity. While I've never been to a Judeo-Christian church, I'd have to say that it's the best faith for promoting religious bigotry without appearing overtly anti-semitic that I've ever seen. Much better than Abrahamism.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | April 2, 2008 1:05 PM
Hey, just think how quickly the Dobson' money coffers are being filled by endorsed state religion.......
Posted by: RAM | April 2, 2008 1:14 PM
Posted by: AL | April 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Taken at face value the Bible clearly shows that Jesus was a believing, practicing, observant Jew. His objection to the Pharacees had more to do with them being illegitimate according to Jewish law because they were selected and installed by the Romans, as part of the Roman occupation government, than their ruling being doctrinally unsound according to Jewish law and custom. In this light much of the preaching of Jesus has to be seen as less of an objection to the temporal world and the Judaism of his time than an objection to Roman occupation.
The American occupation of Iraq has used similar methods of replacing existing, accepted and legitimate sources of authority with ones more cooperative to our goals. Many Iraqis see these US selected factotums as illegitimate.
The whole mythological progression of Jesus to Christ, and the slitting off of Christianity as a sub sect of Judaism, was an even that happened most of one hundred years after the story line says Jesus was crucified.
In this light Jesus, presumably the head and center figure of Christianity, was, is and shall remain a Jew. Jesus never renounced his Jewish belief or even once used the term Christ. The term Christian would only come into being well after he was gone.
What does it mean when the central figure of worship for all Christians is a Jew? Christians claim to want to be like Christ. Wouldn't admitting your a Jew be a good first step? How can Christians segregate themselves from, or hate, the belief system of the central figure they worship?
Sounds to me like it isn't the atheists and Jews who are confused. It is the Christians who have this love/hate thing going on.
Their need to separate from the Jews but still worship a Jew. The need to hate anyone not like them but worship a figure who preached love and acceptance. The need to support a bloody occupation in Iraq when their central iconic figure was vehemently against the superpower of his day occupying the same region.
Posted by: Art | April 2, 2008 2:50 PM
If I might jump in here, I've always understood Judeo-Christian as representing the Christian tradition, which obviously has its roots in Jewish tradition. Judeo-Christian values are thus the values that have been embraced by the tradition, which effectively makes them Christian values unless (as mentioned by others) construed rather broadly. The reason, then, for not saying something like "Judeo-Islamo-Christian values" (or some other order) is that Christians don't come from an Islamic tradition, only from Jewish.
All else aside, I'd think that at least someone would give them credit for recognizing the important part that Jews had in helping develop these so-called "Christian values." After getting the shaft for so long, Jews deserve some respect for being God's chosen people for a couple of millennia.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 2, 2008 3:25 PM
And that, Art, is why I LOVE referring to Jesus as "the rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth," when talking to my Southern Baptist relatives (rabbi in the sense of "teacher" rather than religious leader). They cannot deny I am right, but they hate admitting he was a Jew.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM
Actually, the founding fathers knew a good deal about Judaism and wee surprisingly not anti-Jewish, given the times. A good book to read which includes a few pages on this subject is "The Founders on Religion" by Hutson.
LB
Posted by: Lind | April 2, 2008 4:54 PM
I've been interested in a couple of weird philo-Semitic trends on the Christian Right: a trend to purchase Jewish devotional products for Christian worship and the rise of a "Dual Covenant" idea which Hagee has flirted with, but Falwell rejected.
Posted by: Bartholomew | April 2, 2008 6:23 PM
You won't find a pastor more rabidly pro-Israel than John Hagee. He can't wait for all but 144,000 Jews to be slaughtered in the coming Apocalypse as he does all he can to hasten the coming of the End Times.
Posted by: tacitus | April 2, 2008 7:06 PM
I sometimes use the term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" to describe the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving concept of God, for purposes of theology or philosophy of religion. (For the record, one of the best theistic arguments, in the J-C-I sense, in all of philosophy was made by Islamic scholars.) I'm not a big fan of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" in general, though.
Posted by: KKairos | April 2, 2008 7:50 PM
Art
I have always been confused by the concept of Christian anti-Semitism. Whenever some Christian says anything even remotely anti-Semitic within my hearing, I point out to them that Mary was Jewish. That usually sends them into a frothing rage. Works especially well with Catholics.
Posted by: Malcolm | April 2, 2008 7:53 PM
A couple of previous posters have hit on an important point: christianity actually has virtually nothing to do with judaism. It shares far, far more with Greco-Roman religions than it does with judaism. For examples, polytheism (despite the tortured logic of the trinity not actually being three individuals but it really is but it really isn't), and a god visiting a mortal woman and impregnating her, thus producing a demigod as offspring. I suspect that Jesus, as a good jew, would have been mortified if he had known his followers would claim he was a god after he died. Christians reject great gobs of the old testament, plus great gobs of the putative words of Jesus. It's really a bastard religion, true to no roots with no philosophical basis. But they make great real estate and used car salesmen.
Posted by: Mark P | April 2, 2008 8:09 PM
I tend to throw Christeo-Mormon right back at them.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 2, 2008 9:22 PM
This reminds me of one of my favorite lines by Mike the Mad Biologist, which goes something like, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing "Judeo-" about a nativity scene. I should know; I'm a Judeoist."
Posted by: Turcano | April 2, 2008 10:36 PM
Hey Turcano - maybe Jesus was a black belt. He was a Judo Christian. :) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 2, 2008 11:44 PM
The whole mythological progression of Jesus to Christ
Wait a minute, I thought Christ was his last name.
You know;
Joe and Mary Christ show up at the temple with their little boy, Jesus.
Bystander 1: Hey, he doesn't look much like his father.
Bystander 2: Shhhhhh! They always bring wine.
Posted by: TomMil | April 3, 2008 12:55 AM
I thought Christs were fundies, they always bring a whine. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 3, 2008 1:47 AM
For some reason, I found myself poking around that site and found this little gem
nationaldayofprayer.org DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OF OR THE RESULT OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL IN THIS SITE IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, OR OTHERWISE.
Thats right, they do not 'MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS... REGARDING THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY'
Or in other words,'everything on this site may be a steaming pile of bovine excrement and we won't be responsible if you are stupid enough to believe us'
Yes, I know its probably just a standard disclaimer but I have astrange sense of humour.
Posted by: Matt | April 3, 2008 7:59 AM
"We've treated you like shit for about 17 centuries, but now that we've been shamed by that Holocaust thing, we'll let you be honorary Christians when it's politically convenient".
Yes but only so long as we keep up an acceptably high output of dead Arabs.
Posted by: Ian Gould | April 3, 2008 8:12 AM
"Taken at face value the Bible clearly shows that Jesus was a believing, practicing, observant Jew."
Actually, for some Christians it isn't quite so clear-cut. I have known them to perform some typically elaborate verbal gymnastics to show that Jesus was not a Jew, but--somehow--a Christian.
In fact, one former supervisor of mine--who was, to be fair, a "Mel Gibson Catholic"--responded to this dilemma with "Jesus wasn't a Jew. He was a white person."
That's a quote. Results not typical.
But Christ on a stick! That's a ghastly sort of thing to say.
Steve "It was quite easy to get him fired." James
Posted by: longstreet63 | April 3, 2008 11:01 AM
Since today is the 40th anniversiary of Martin Luther King's death, and since there's some discussion here involving influences on Christianity and what to call it, I figured I'd post a link to a paper written by King on the subject in 1950:
The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 4, 2008 10:31 AM
Ed, I'm with you this weasel word "Judeo-Christian."
But tell it to the Court. Marsh v. Chambers (US Supreme Ct., 1983) 6-3 holding (Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, dissenting) that "[w]eighed against the historical background, the facts that a clergyman of only one denomination has been selected by the Nebraska Legislature [463 U.S. 783, 784] for 16 years, that the chaplain is paid at public expense, and that the prayers are in the Judeo-Christian tradition do not serve to invalidate Nebraska's practice."
More recently, Simpson v. Chesterfield Board of Supervisors [Ct. of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2005] upheld the exclusion of a Wiccan from a list of approved public meeting invocation givers that included Jews, Christians and Muslims: "The Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, not a single faith but an umbrella covering many faiths. We need not resolve the parties' dispute as to its precise extent, as Chesterfield County has spread it wide enough in this case to include Islam. For these efforts, the County should not be made the object of constitutional condemnation."
Or tell John McCain, who repeatedly, um, invokes "Judeo-Christian" values to justify a variety of positions (it's handy that way!). For instance, in Kalamazoo January 13, 2008:
Posted by: Daniel Murphy | April 5, 2008 3:22 PM
I missed this earlier:
Some problems here:
1. Christ is merely a derivation of Gk. christos, which just means 'anointed one.' The word that Jesus, who almost certainly spoke Aramaic, would have used was - surprise, surprise - Messiah, which means the same thing.
2. In Matthew 16, Jesus asks the disciples who people say he is, and Simon Peter's notable answer is "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (vs.16). Jesus' response is to bless Peter and tell the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Christ.
3. Even if Jesus had never used the term 'Christ,' it would prove nothing about the attribution. If you were trying to show that the title Christ (that's what it is) should never have been given, then showing that he didn't call himself Christ doesn't make the attribution any less appropriate.
4. Christianity was built off the fact that there was new revelation from the God of Judaism - why should Jesus have to renounce his Jewish belief? It doesn't even make sense.
Oh, and this one's a gem:
1. Christians =/= Marcionites.
2. I'd like to hear precisely what "great gobs" of the OT Christians reject, as opposed simply to saying that the parts are not applicable to them as residents of a different culture and a different era.
3. You mean those "putative words" that aren't authoritative in the least? Oh yeah, right, those. But to be fair, the Jesus Seminar accepts a lot of those "putative words" - it's just that they're pretty much way on the fringe in that regard.
That's about all I can handle responding to at the moment.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 5, 2008 4:27 PM