Conference taveng::bagels

There's a book by Arthur A. Cohen called (something like) "The Myth of the
Judaeo-Christian Tradition."  I haven't read it so I can't comment on it.

I think anything that minimizes the differences between Judaism and
Christianity threatens Judaism because we're in an overwhelmingly
Christian milieu.  This is particularly obvious this time of year.

    It's a term that has meaning in a Christian context, because
    Christianity sees itself as continuation/successor/inheritor (depending
    on who you read) of Second-Temple Judaism.  It doesn't have meaning in
    a Jewish context because we see Christianity as something different
    from Judaism.  For a long time, Christianity saw itself as the
    "legitimate" Israel and Rabbinic Judaism as an "illegitimate" claimant
    to that title.  In the last half-century there has been a lot of
    re-thinking within Christianity and a "legitimizaton" of Rabbinic
    Judaism as an equally valid heir.  The most dramatic statement of this
    position was at the Vatican II Ecumenical Council, but it has been 
    put forward in different forms by a variety of Protestant denominations
    as well.
    
                                       Aaron

	I guess I've never run across the term to refer to any specific culture,
white or otherwise.  From all of my own experience, the term has more often
been used to refer to the fundamental common beliefs that form the monotheistic
religions of Judaism and Christianity.

	Without going into any of the others that might profess to be monothe-
istic, there is much common "theology" between the two.  I don't know of any
well-founded Christians, for instance, who "disbelieve", or find contradiction
with, the fundamental concepts of Judaism -- those presented in the Torah.

	In fact, it is usually very much the other direction: those same indi-
viduals perceive Christianity as an *extension* -- as part of the Messianic
promise -- of Judaism.  And it would actually be destructive to their own
(i.e., Christian) beliefs to contradict, or disagree with, any of those basic
tenets.

	In addition to the primary monotheistic belief, there is also the
"historic" aspect -- the creation of the world (and of mankind with a free
will), the various aspects of God (e.g., omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,
omnibenevolent, yet also just and fair), the promise to Abraham, the
giving of the Law, the various prophets, kings, miracles, etc., all of which
present a common thread.

	Again, this may be only my perception, but it is this "common thread"
that I have always thought of in terms of any reference to "Judao-Christian"
anything -- in other words, *beliefs*... not heritage, color, race, origin,
or anything else.

	It is also very possible that the term is being used by others -- either
correctly *or* incorrectly -- for whatever may be their own purpose.

	F

    RE:  .3
    
    Yes, this makes sense. To imply by the term, the common beliefs and
    concepts between the two religions, particularly when used by a
    Christian.
    
    It's not in my American Heritage dictionary, btw.  I'd be interested to
    see dictionary and encyclopedia references.
    
    This still leaves me concerned about Pat Buchanan's use of the term.   
    Buchanan contrasts "Judeo-Christian" with "multiculturalism".  
    
    Culture (according the American Heritage) is:  
    1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts,
    beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought
    characteristic of a community or population.
    2. A style of social and artistic expression peculiar to a society or
    class.
    
    If "Judeo-Christian" is defined as concerning beliefs only, then
    Buchanan is comparing apples and oranges.  But he is a professional
    writer and too canny to use words inaccurately.  Therefore, I think he
    is blurring the term's definition.  I don't expect to see Buchanan as
    president.  BUT I am concerned about his rhetoric as a representative
    of the right-wing, and about what this means for the Jews.
    
    I am also concerned about some Blacks' use of the term.  If they are
    rejecting their Christian upbringing, why not simply say so?  This does
    not give me a warm fuzzy, particularly considering the anger in their
    rhetoric.
    
    I really hope to see more interest in this issue.  It deals with
    American Jews relationship with the far right, and with our
    relationship with Blacks.
    
    I think that rhetoric is EXTREMELY important in politics.  If we let it
    go, we are relinquishing our role in the dialectics.
    
    Laura

Speaking of Pat Buchanan, I saw a small article in the Globe about William
F. Buckley's defense of him against charges of anti-semitism.  Apparently
Buchanan made some remarks that could be construed as anti-semitic.  Does
anyone know what these remarks were?

Hi, Laura...interesting topic!


from .0

>    I am starting this note to get people's reactions to the term
>    "Judeo-Christian" as in "Judeo-Christian heritage" or "Judeo-Christian
>    culture". I am particularly interested in the reaction of those in the
>    USA, where the term is widely bandied about.

Basically, my opinion is that the majority of people who use the term
"Judeo-Christian" usually know nothing about Judaism (since it's usually
only "christians" who use the term), and sad-to-say, usually know
little-to-nothing about true "Christianity" (in quotes because I personally
wouldn't like to see it called that, but that's another very long
story...perhaps I should publish a dictionary ;-)). 

Your paraphrase of Buchanan says:

>   "I want to preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage.  I do
>    not want it thrown out on the landfill of multiculturalism."

I think your fear is quite warranted.   What does "our" heritage mean when 
one of the two groups mentioned doesn't share the same vision?  If most 
Jewish people don't use the term...doesn't that say something?  Isn't the 
very concept of "Judeo-Christian" (understood in the way those terms are 
used today) an attempt at "multiculturalism"?

Now, I suppose it's possible for one to use the term from a position of
ignorance, which to me is much less harmful than the one who uses it to
hide his hatred of Jews and appear to be "moderate" because he is
"tolerant" of Judeo-Christian values (a la David Duke - who is neither
moderate nor tolerant).

>	However we are still distinct.

...as it's been since the calling of Abraham and will be 'til the end of 
time... ;-)

From .4

>    This still leaves me concerned about Pat Buchanan's use of the term.   
>    Buchanan contrasts "Judeo-Christian" with "multiculturalism".  

Ask Judah Maccabee about "multiculturalism"...

I'm not equating true Christianity with Antiochus Ephiphanes - 
although to our shame, the strongest witness the world got to see of 
"christianity" throughout most of the ages was quite similar in intent and 
tactics.  That (among other reasons) is why I have trouble with the word 
"Christianity" and the images the last 1800-plus years of "church" history 
has left in our minds  - but that's another long topic - one not likely 
suited for BAGELS, but one I'm glad to discuss with anyone offline.

Sadly, I think the trend is very dangerous...not just with Buchanan's 
rhetoric, and not just with the word "Judeo-Christian"...I mean, in 
Massachussets (where I live) a petition is being passed around for the 
purpose of putting David Duke on the presidential election ballot!  Not for 
taking him *off*, but for putting him *on*!

(For those of you who don't know him, David Duke was formerly the head of 
the Ku Klux Klan, a hate group in the US, as well as a "neo-"Nazi - he 
claims to be reformed and a 'born again christian', but to anyone with ears 
to hear, he hasn't changed a bit...).

I'm not normally a doomsayer, but I don't think the coming years in America 
(or *any* country other than Israel) are going to be welcome ones for Jewish 
people.

I hope and pray I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the same seeds that were
planted in Germany in the not-too-distant past have not only been planted,
but are sprouting here in the USA.  Today, it may be rhetoric and action by
the "lunatic fringe" - tomorrow, anti-Semitism could well be sanctioned and
applauded here by the masses.  I realize this may sound "alarmist" and I
don't intend it that way...but I think the signs are there for all to see. 
    
Thankfully, G-d has opened the doors to the Holy Land.  May His people arrive
there safely...soon....


Steve

    Re: .5
    
    He criticized U.S. support for Israel and Israel's treatment of the
    Palestinians, referring to the U.S. Congress as "Israeli-occupied
    territory" and similar remarks.
    
                

	RE: .4

�    It's not in my American Heritage dictionary, btw.  I'd be interested to
�    see dictionary and encyclopedia references.

	Laura,

	Webster's definition is "having historical roots in both Judaism and
Christianity".  While "historical" is certainly not necessarily the equivalent
of "theological", I think that much of what I was saying in .2 applies -- the
shared belief in historical events, which *in turn* generate many shared
theological beliefs as well (e.g., monotheism, character of God, man's sinful
nature, etc.).  As I said, when I think of the term "Judeo-Christian", I think
of that "culture" (to use -- or misuse -- an earlier term) who share -- pretty
much in totality -- those common beliefs.

�   If "Judeo-Christian" is defined as concerning beliefs only, then
�   Buchanan is comparing apples and oranges.

	Well, whether that *is* the definition or not, I'd *still* agree with
your assessment of Buchanan!  And not necessarily just Buchanan.  Perhaps the
biggest problem we have with *all* such situations today is attempting to make
everything fit "one picture" -- that is, make everything "apples", or everything
"oranges".

	F

  RE: Patrick Buchanan

  The current issue of The Jewish Press (Friday, December 13, 1991) contains
  the following op-ed article on Patrick Buchanan.  Reproduced below without
  permission.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  If You Liked Duke You'll Love Buchanan

  by Alan Dershowitz

  CAMBRIDGE, MA (JTA) -- Now that David Duke has been defeated in his
  Louisiana gubernatorial bid, a far more dangerous national candidate is
  sending up a trial balloon.  Seeking to capitalize on the feelings of some
  reactionary voters that President Bush is not far enough to the right,
  Patrick Buchanan has now taken a leave of absence from the Cable News
  Network to consider whether to challenge Bush in the New Hampshire
  Republican primary.  Duke has announced that he would consider supporting
  Buchanan for President, as has Gordon Liddy, who has written of his
  admiration for Hitler's ``German approach.''

  It is precisely because he was never a member of the Ku Klux Klan or a Nazi
  sign carrier that Buchanan, whose views on many issues are almost
  indistinguishable from Duke's, is so much more dangerous.

  When Duke argued that the Holocause never happened, he was castigated by
  the media for such ahistorical nonsense.  Meanwhile, Buchanan is the author
  of similar nonsense.  In a 1989 column, Buchanan exporessed doubts about
  whether Jews were gassed at Treblinka, citing as evidence the following:
  ``In 1988, 97 youths, trapped 400 feet underground in a D.C. tunnel while
  two locomotives spewed diesel exhaust into the car, emerged unharmed after
  45 minutes.''

  Asked by the New Republic where he got his misinformation about Treblinka --
  Jews were killed by pumping a variety of gases, including Zyklon B, into
  airtight chambers -- Buchanan responded, ``Somebody sent it to me.''  The
  New Republic, after investigating Buchanan's sources, concluded that ``much
  of the material on what Buchanan bases his column is sent to him by
  pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic cranks.''

  It was the sympathetic tendency towards the perpetrators of the Holocaust
  that led former Justice Department official Alan Ryan to comment:  ``Great
  numbers of people are asking themselves:  `Why is Pat Buchanan so in love
  with Nazi war criminals?' ''

  Not only does Buchanan support Nazi war criminals, he berates their victims.
  He has accused Holocaust survivors of exaggerating their suffering as a
  result of what he calls their ``Holocaust survivor syndrome,'' which, he
  claims, involves ``group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.''

  Buchanan has mocked the concerns of Jewish survivors of the Auschwitz death
  camp by stating that ``To orthodox Catholics, the demand that we be more
  `sensitive' to Jewish concerns is becoming a joke.''  Then, in a tone
  reminiscent of an incitement to a ninteenth-centure pogrom, Buchanan
  prophesied that the ``slumbering giant of Catholicism may be about to
  awaken'' against ``those who so evidently despise our church'' -- namely,
  the Jews.

  It should come as no surprise that Buchanan has allowed his column to be
  featured in Spotlight, a patently anti-Semitic and anti-black publication
  that championed David Duke.

  When Buchanan has been accused of anti-Semitism, as he recently was by The
  New York Times columnist Abe Rosenthal, his answer has been that the
  accusations were part of a ``pre-planned, orchestrated smear campaign'' in
  response to his criticism of Israel.

  It is a diversion unsupported by the record.

  Until recently, Buchanan was stridently pro-Israel and anti-Arab.  But when
  he started being accused of anti-Semitism, he cleverly began to turn against
  Israel, thus permitting him to claim that the accusations against him were
  being made in revenge of his anti-Zionism.  During the weeks leading up to
  the Gulf War, super-hawk Buchanan uncharacteristically opposed American
  intervention, blaming it on the Israeli lobby in Washington (which he called
  Israel's ``Amen corner in the United States'').  Despite the fact that the
  majority of Jewish senators and representatives voted against American
  intervention in the Persian Gulf War, Buchanan repeatedly referred to
  Capitol Hill as ``Israeli-occupied territory'' -- a not-so-subtle illusion
  to the canard of Jewish dual loyalty and undue Jewish influence.

  Buchanan's bigotry is not limited to Jews.  It extends to other minority
  groups, especially gays, who he believes cause ``decay of society.''  About
  gay bashing, he once wrote:  ``Amnidst the moral crud of the Weimar
  Republic, the Nazi bullies must have had a certain appeal.''

  As the New Republic has pointed out, Buchanan seems to have an ``affection
  for fascism.''  He has defended Franco, calling him a ``soldier-patriot,''
  and citing him as someone with whom he identified by the time he reached
  political consciousness.  Furthermore, while Buchanan acknowledges that
  Hitler was ``racist,'' he has also referred admiringly to the genocidal
  mass-murderer as ``an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in
  the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank'' and ``a leader
  steeped in the history of Europe.''

  Buchanan's uniform may be different than Duke's, but his affinity to fascism
  is quite similar.

---------

  Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard Law School.

Re:.9

I think that Dershowitz is (surprisingly) right on in his observations of Buchanan.

Buchanan's anti-zionism is not any indicator for sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
In any event I equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism, those who are supposedly
struggling for the existence of one state have no right to deny the existence of 
another.  None other than a former icon of mine during my young and impetuous
years, Fidel Castro, stated this is during a comparison of Israel's struggle 
with the Arab countries vis-a-vis Cuba's struggle vs. the U.S.

--David 

    It's pretty sad to see an article like Dershowitz', which engages in
    smears typical of a bottom of the barrel political campaign.  So
    Buchanan is condemned because "Duke would consider supporting him"? 
    Heaven fobid that a person be judged by his own actions I suppose,
    least of all the fact that Buchanan has publically disavowed Duke.
    
    It would be interesting to know where the 'sensitive' remark came from;
    could it possibly be when there was a campaign on to remove the
    memorial to non-Jewish, Catholic victims in the concentration camps?
    
    Inquiring minds might also wonder why an anti-Semite would ever be
    "stridently pro-Israel."
    
    re: "I equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism, those who are supposedly
    struggling for the existence of one state have no right to deny the
    existence of another"
    
    I must have missed Israel's acknowledgement of the existence of
    Palestine;  that's what I get for not keeping up with the news lately.
    
    And I don't suppose anyone could possibly object to a military
    occupation which not only engages in widespread land confiscation and
    destruction of homes and businesses, destruction of the educational
    system, torture of political prisoners (now reported even by IDF personnel,
    as readers of the New York Review of Books know), but denies the occupied
    every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights as well as the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights.
    
    

    It is high time we checked on talk.politics.mideast -- it must 
    be quiet now since Ms. K.Kolling decided to move her traditional Israel
    bashing parroting here on Bagel.
    
>    And I don't suppose anyone could possibly object to a military
>    occupation which not only engages in widespread land confiscation and
>    destruction of homes and businesses, destruction of the educational
>    system, torture of political prisoners (now reported even by IDF personnel,
>    as readers of the New York Review of Books know), but denies the occupied
>    every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights as well as the Universal
>    Declaration of Human Rights.
    
    Will we ever hear anything new from Ms. K.Kolling?  

.11>                                                                  So
.11>    Buchanan is condemned because "Duke would consider supporting him"? 
.11>    Heaven fobid that a person be judged by his own actions I suppose ...

Mr. Buchanan is being judged for his actions, which include the praise for
Hitler and the Nazis quoted in .9.  The fact that such comments do not bother
people like Ms. Kolling says a lot about their "anti-Zionism".

  The thing I found most odious about Buchanan in the article I posted
  was the Treblinka quote.

  In Alan Dershowitz's book _Chutzpah_ he claims that it was Pat Buchanan's
  love of Nazis which motivated him to engineer Ronald Reagan's visit to
  the Bitburg SS cemetary.

  -- Bill B.

>    Inquiring minds might also wonder why an anti-Semite would ever be
>    "stridently pro-Israel."

An anti-Semite might want to rid his country of Jews by sending them all to
Israel.  An anti-Semite with a religious agenda might believe that Israel
heralds Armageddon.  Finally, who knows?  The anti-Semitic mind is hard
to fathom.

    Re. 11:
    
    JUST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE!
    
    Israel did not want nor did it start the war of 1967! Egypt, Jordan, 
    Iraq and Syria attacked Israel, but Israel prevailed and reclaimed 
    the historic Judia and Samaria. 
    
    Since 1948 Judia and Samaria where under Jordan MILITARY occupation. 
    Why did not Jordan found Palestine in those territories for 20 years?
    
    During the last 25 years the standard of living of the Arabs of Judia 
    and Samaria has risen incredibly. This was done by the help of ISRAEL 
    and not by the money the Arab world donates to the terror 
    organizations.
    
    Israel is willing to give the Palestinians autonomy, but they want 
    every inch of Israel! 
    

Re 1141.0

>    Increasingly American Blacks view the Jews as the ultimate Whites with
>    power, privilege, and prestige; their hostility and misunderstanding
>    is dangerous.
    
I suppose that you are referring (at least in part) to the disgraceful
spectacle taking place in Blacknotes. If your comment can be taken to ask:
"Why do Blacks blame Jews for their victimization by Europeans?", the answer
is simple: because they can get away with it. No one in his right mind would
blame someone with real power for such a crime. I believe the word we're
looking for is 'scapegoating'. (By the way, this is the basis for the deeply
comic complaints about Israel's relations with South Africa which can be
found in Blacknotes and elsewhere. Imagine that you were a citizen of a
hypothetical country called the United States of America. Imagine further
that this country was South Africa's second largest trading partner - the
number one place having been taken by Japan of course, that this country had
carried on an open military alliance with South Africa in two very nasty
wars - in Angola and Mozambique - and even that, if  you want to believe
Seymour Hirsch - your country's intelligence agencies had tracked ANC
members for years and passed the information on to South African
intelligence  agencies. Would you denounce your country as the source of all
evil in the world? Not if you have a brain in your head you won't. Its so
much smarter to denounce a small, distant, country. One must admire the 
prudence show by such people, though not necessarily the courage.)
    

.0>    I have also seen the term used by Black Americans who are trying to
.0>    distance themselves from the so-called "Judeo-Christian" dominant
.0>    culture, and assert their identity with Africa.
.0>
.0>    ...
.0>
.0>    Increasingly American Blacks view the Jews as the ultimate Whites with
.0>    power, privilege, and prestige; their hostility and misunderstanding
.0>    is dangerous.

The observation in the second paragraph shows just how misguided the attitude
in the first paragraph is.  This new American black view of the Jews is nothing
more than the old, traditional European Christian view.  Rather than asserting
"their identity with Africa", this view is an example of how much American
blacks have adopted the "dominant culture".

Dear Karen's reply to mine was exactly was what I expected.  The rationale for
all of the wars against Israel was not for the existance of a Palestinian state,
but for the obliteration of Israel.  This business of justifying it all for the 
establishment of Palestine is nothing but a crok of you-know-what.

I have first hand experience of seeing anti-zionists for what they really are.  The
trick they use is using whatever mask is available, be it marxism or what is 
currently in vogue.

--David

    Off of the digression...
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with .0 that "Judeo-Christian" is an oxymoron! 
    And I don't concede what (I think) .3 does, that there's something in
    common between the two religious traditions that the term describes. 
    The term simply means, "Christian", while it deigns to acknowledge that
    Christianity plagiarized Jewish holy texts before totally
    misinterpreting them!  The _meaning_ of the texts (the semantics, as it
    were) differs totally, while the form (syntax) is the same.  
    
    J-C as a term is a bit like rabbit-elephant stew.  One rabbit, one
    elephant.  It's used by Christians who want to impress _each other_
    that they "love" Jews.  And, as David Duke himself said after his
    Louisiana defeat, he thinks Jews exist only to be converted.  That's
    what he and Buchanan think.
    
    BTW, given the choice of a million Englishmen and a million Zulus, I'm
    not at all sure that Virginia would be better off with the former...

     Re: .11

>>   re: "I equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism, those who are supposedly
>>   struggling for the existence of one state have no right to deny the	
>>   existence of another"
>>
>>   I must have missed Israel's acknowledgement of the existence of
>>   Palestine;  that's what I get for not keeping up with the news lately.

     American Heritage Dictionary: Palestine - Region of SW Asia, on the
     E shore of the Mediterranean.  
     
     The only "state" I found on the Eastern shore of the Mediterranean
     after consulting several modern Atlases was the soveriegn state of
     Israel. Didn't you think that Israel acknowledges her own existence?
     
     Maybe you meant the state which occupies what used to be called
     'eastern Palestine',   but I think Israel recognizes Jordan too.
     
     Or maybe I'm the one whose been missing out on the news. If there's
     another Palestine somewhere, let me know. I'd like to visit.
    

re: 11:
    
    Inquiring minds might also wonder why an anti-Semite would ever be
    "stridently pro-Israel."

Karen brings up an interesting point. As I recall, there are Christians
who believe that their Messiah will return after the Jews are converted to
Christianity, and the Jews must first return to Israel before that can happen.

    And I don't suppose anyone could possibly object to a military
    occupation which ...  denies the occupied
    every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights as well as the Universal
    Declaration of Human Rights.

International Law is a messy topic.  It may first be pointed out that
American citizens are denied rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights -- it was never ratified by the U. S. Congress -- and
rights granted under the United States Constitution only apply to United
States citizens and, in some cases, non-citizens when they are under United
States jurisdiction.  United States citizens do not enjoy these rights
when travelling in other countries.

Furthermore, the legal rights and responsibilities of an occupying power
are set forth by the Geneva Conventions.  To simplify, the military authorities
are responsible for carrying out the civil and criminal codes that pre-existed
the conflict.  If Israel were to use civil authorities, it would constitute
a claim of annexation, rather than occupation. The pre-existing civil code
for the occupied territories was, in general, the British Mandate codes.

There has never been a soverign Palestine (in modern times) -- the only
modern states that could be said to take on that role are Jordan (80%
ethnically Palestinian) and Israel.  The Enclycopaedia Brittanica 11th
edition (published shortly before World War I) does not even give borders
for "Palestine."

Martin.

    re: .22
    
    >As I recall, there are Christians who believe that their Messiah will
    >return after the Jews are converted to Christianity, and the Jews
    >must first return to Israel before that can happen.
    
    No doubt, there are some who wear the label "christian" whose desire
    for the Jews to return home is nothing less than thinly veiled
    anti-semitism and seperatism, and there are some who wear the same label 
    whose "support" of Israel and Zionism is nothing more than a "signpost" 
    on their personal eschatalogical road to "armegeddon".
    
    However, there are *many* believers who, without ulterior motives, simply
    pray that the words of the prophets be fulfilled speedily in our days.
    
    G-d Himself is the One who determined to scatter and re-gather His
    chosen people.  That some support the ingathering for the wrong reasons
    (or even the *right* reasons for that matter) doesn't detract from this 
    fact, nor should it cast doubt in the eyes of those called to live in 
    the Land.
    
    My 2 shekels ;-)
    
    Steve
  

    (A rathole, but an interest of mine)
    
    The US Constitution recognizes rights, rather than granting them.  
    The rights exist before the government does, and are not in the 
    legitimate power of the government to define or limit.
    
    Further, the document says clearly that the list (the "Bill of Rights")
    is not an exhaustive one, and that other rights exist and are "reserved"
    (retained) by the people and the states.
    
    So in terms of the US's fundamental philosophy of government, people in
    other countries _do_ have the same rights as American citizens, and so
    foreign governments which restrict the right of free speach, etc. are
    wrong rather than merely different.
    
    That's theory, of course, and doesn't often drive day-to-day practice.
    
    Other countries operate on different legal theories, in which the
    rights are granted, and so are limited, and so on.
    
    		-John Bishop

	Although the original discussion has wandered off into (sometimes
heated) debate of Middle East politics, I'd like to respond to .20, since
it was, in turn, a response to a note of my own.

� And I don't concede what (I think) .3 does, that there's something in
� common between the two religious traditions that the term describes. 
 
	First, remember that the term is not my own; the originator had asked
for a common definition, and even the Webster's I have defines it as noted.

	However, I don't understand that there's nothing "in common between the
two religious traditions" when, by my own definition, the term *defines* ONLY
those things which *ARE* common between the two!!  I'm confused!

	There is the same historical root in both religions; there are many of
the same basic theological beliefs (I won't re-list them all -- see the earlier
reply); and one thing I *did* forget to mention, but which has since been noted,
is that it is not entirely historical -- regardless of the details, each is
still awaiting a Messiah who will come to "plant His feet on the Mount of
Olives" and "make His enemies His footstool".

	I am fully aware that there are a myriad of differences in interpreta-
tion, in semantics, and so forth; my answer was -- and is -- that *I* use the
term to refer to those things -- historical events, fundamental concepts, or
prophetic futures -- which *are* recognized by both traditions.  To say that
these common things are not "common" is the oxymoron!

	(BTW, I think it's interesting to note the number of replies of the
form "Well, Christians believe..." or "It was invented by Christians to..." or
something of that note.  Shouldn't we get a *Christian* to answer those things?
Or is it easier to defend one's own position by being the interpreter of
another's position as well?)

    Thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion.  It has
    certainly given me an opportunity to work through some issues for
    myself.  
    
    As a sidebar, a noter in Womannotes posted a reply to a discussion of
    theology and used the terms "Judaeo-Christian God" and "Judaeo-
    Christian bible" (referring to Exodus).  I put a short reply stating
    that I found the term offensive.  An interesting discussion followed,
    veering off into the "politically correct".
    
    Nobody here in BAGELS disagrees that the use of the term by Buchanan
    and some Black ideologues is reprehensible.  
    
    But still at issue is the basic term itself, when not misused.  I
    understand the arguments that have been put forth, supporting the
    term's validity.  I cannot find any gaps in their logic.
    
    Here's what it comes down to for me:  Since Christianity became a State
    religion and the dominant religion in Europe, Christians worked hard to
    convert and absorb, or expell the Jews, in many cases.  We have
    struggled to maintain our identity, culture, and religion.  This has
    been very difficult in the USA, where the temptations of assimilation
    have been overwhelming, as attested by our declining numbers.  Those of
    us who hold fast to our Judaism want to remain distinct.  We do not
    want to be absorbed into an amorphous mass culture.  
    
    As I have seen in replies in Womannotes and in a discussion of
    Jewish kids and Christmas in Parenting, there is a remarkable lack of
    understanding of our need for identity, and of the vast differences
    both culturally and religiously.  People don't realize how painful it
    is for us to "lose" brothers and sisters to the dominant culture. 
    
    We have all heard nasty slurs used against Jews and other minorities,
    both stereotypes and bad names.  They are offensive at the gut level. 
    "Judeo-Christian" is offensive for a different reason, one that is more
    intellectual.  It requires an effort to understand why it is a problem.
    
    Laura

    re:.25
>	However, I don't understand that there's nothing "in common between the
>two religious traditions" when, by my own definition, the term *defines* ONLY
>those things which *ARE* common between the two!!  I'm confused!

    No, it doesn't, it only pretends to!  It is used to imply commonality
    where little if any exists.  What's in common is too little to have a
    word for.  In that sense, Judaism is closer to Islam.
    
>	There is the same historical root in both religions; there are many of
>the same basic theological beliefs (I won't re-list them all -- see the earlier
>reply); and one thing I *did* forget to mention, but which has since been noted,
>is that it is not entirely historical -- regardless of the details, each is
>still awaiting a Messiah who will come to "plant His feet on the Mount of
>Olives" and "make His enemies His footstool".

    Theologically wrong, and I speak as one who _has_ studied New Testament
    (academically).  The historical root of Christianity is Hellenic
    thought.  In particular, it is a death-oriented religion created by the
    intermarriage of Jews and Hellenes in Roman Palestine.  Judaism comes
    from a Babylonian strain of legalistic monotheism, and is little
    concerned with death.  The Christian "Messiah" is one who leads people
    to the Afterlife.  The Jewish Moshiach is simply an Anointed King here
    on Earth, who will lead people the way the Lord wants.  The semantics
    are very, very different!  That's why it's silly to ask a Jew if he's
    "saved" -- we save at banks.  When we're dead, it's bye-bye, not hello.
         fred

re .27:

> When we're dead, it's bye-bye, not hello.

Are you implying that Judaism doesn't have the concept of an afterlife?
That's certainly incorrect.

    RE. 28
    
    Reply .27 is very correct in his statements about modern day Judaism.
    It is a combination of what Christian people call the Old Testament and
    the Bablyonian (sp) religion.  There is a big difference between
    Judaism and the Christian religion.  However, in the USA fundimentalist
    Christians try to say Judaism is closely related to Christian religion.
    In the USA it is the fundimentalist that push for the government to
    help support Israel.  This is based on the fundimentalist idea that
    modern day Judaism worships the same God.  However, as .27 stated, 
    Judaism does not look for, nor never has looked for a Christ as is
    known by Christians.  
    
    
                                  Marshall

    With Bill Barabash's permission, I have cross-posted 1141.9 in the
    NEW_HAMPSHIRE notes file, where it appears as not 1973.41.  This
    file is located on node CNOTES.
    
    1141.9 duplicates an article by Alan Dershowitz exposing Pat
    Buchanan's history of anti-Semitism.
    
    I have cross-posted to NEW_HAMPSHIRE to a string discussing the 1992
    election.  Many Republicans and right wingers are active in this file.  
    1973.41 is already generating some heat, though not much light -;)
    (There are also many moderates and Democrats active in the file.)
    
    My intention with regard to the snotty replies (ex. "Alan Dershowitz is
    a cry baby") is to ignore them.  I think the writers sound foolish
    enough without my pointing that out.
    
    If someone comes up with a substantive rebuttal to Dershowitz's 
    assertions, it will be worth discussing.
    
    I would recommend that BAGELS readers follow this string and consider 
    replying as necessary.  This is not a comfortable situation, but one
    which affects us all.  I have stuck my neck out in a very conspicuous
    place, my hands are cold and sweaty, but I feel I have done the right
    thing.
    
    Thanks,
    Laura

    "Right Wing and Republican" do not automatically make the views of
    people anti-semetic, and more than "liberal and democrats" make them
    friends of Israel. Please stick to the issues and avoid blanket
    political labels.
    
    Eric

It seems to me that the real problem is not the phrase "Judeo-Christian" but
the use which Christians make of it, or more precisely, the use they make of
Judaism.

Just the term "use" is enough to indicate a problem. The German philosopher
Kant - from a good Pietist background - tried to discover the fundamental
principle underlying all morality; he concluded  it was the obligation to
treat people as ends in themselves, not merely as means. An obligation which
Christian treatments of Judaism almost always fail to meet.

One of the very peculiar things about Christianity is its tendency to define
itself at second hand, by reflection as it were. Christianity defines itself
as the successor religion to Judaism - or to the Old Testament if you like.
Christianity claims to be what it is because it claims to stand in a certain
relationship to what it is not.

As an immediate consequence, a Christian must define Judaism in order to
define Christianity. Needless to say, the definition of Judaism is carefully
crafted to reflect positively upon the splendor of the definer. Generally,
to tell the sad truth, an imaginary Judaism is constructed (usually bearing
no discernible relation to the real thing) and then used as a straw man in
arguments designed to prove the superiority of its successor. As an example,
St. Paul and Judaism as a religion of "Law". This is hardly a proper way to
treat real living human beings. Jews were not placed on this earth to function
as extras in someone else's movie; we are an end in and of ourselves, just 
like everyone else.

As an aside, this gives rise to an experience I think that every American
Jew will recognize, the hallucinatory experience of discussing Judaism with
an American Christian. Since one's definition of Christianity depends on
one's definition of Judaism, different definitions of Christianity require
different definitions of Judaism. So, you never quite know who the person
you're talking to thinks he's talking to. You have an idea, of course,
because you have a rough grasp of the different definitions of Judaism which
go floating through the Christian world; but its hard to guess which one
this guy is using, and new ones do turn up. Your co-conversationalist isn't
going to tell you, because he assumes you know, that's what you are after
all and you should know what you are. The experience is bizarre beyond
words, talking to someone who thinks he's talking to you and trying to guess
who he thinks he's talking to.

But, back to the original subject, the uses to which Christians put Judaism.
Let me mention just two.

1. Aplogetics. It is a standard technique of Christian apologetics to
present Judaism as Christianity without Christ. Now, Christianity without
Christ doesn't make very much sense since Christ, after all, is the point of
Christianity. So, Christianity without Christ is clearly waiting for,
pointing toward, Christianity with Christ. Therefore, Christianity is part
of the divine plan, legitimated, forecast, by what went before. A fine story
with a good plot, one which has sold fabulously over the years. Total
nonsense though. Judaism is not Christianity manque, its a different affair,
quite consistent in its own way and on its own terms.

2. Projection. If you want to know what Christians think is wrong with
Christianity, its easy to find out, just look at what they say about Jews.
Its nice to have an Other onto which one can project one's failings; as
Christianity defines Judaism as its Other, its difficult to resist the
temptation to put this Other to its traditionally use. Classic examples of
this can be found in Wommansnotes were it is declared that the denigration
of women entered Christianity from Judaism. Christianity is about 1900 years
old, I would think enough time has passed so that we may consider Christians
responsible for Christianity.

re .31:

Right-wing Republicans are more likely to vote for Buchanan than are
left-wing Democrats.  They're also less likely to pay attention to
Dershowitz, and more likely to pay attention to William F. Buckley, Jr.,
who has also come to the conclusion that Buchanan is an anti-Semite.

Re: .37

Your analysis is quite cogent and compelling. However, the following
paragragh left me somewhat perplexed.

>As an aside, this gives rise to an experience I think that every American
>Jew will recognize, the hallucinatory experience of discussing Judaism with
>an American Christian. Since one's definition of Christianity depends on
>one's definition of Judaism, different definitions of Christianity require
>different definitions of Judaism. So, you never quite know who the person
>you're talking to thinks he's talking to. You have an idea, of course,
>because you have a rough grasp of the different definitions of Judaism which
>go floating through the Christian world; but its hard to guess which one
>this guy is using, and new ones do turn up. Your co-conversationalist isn't
>going to tell you, because he assumes you know, that's what you are after
>all and you should know what you are. The experience is bizarre beyond
>words, talking to someone who thinks he's talking to you and trying to guess
>who he thinks he's talking to.

When I have discussions with persons of another faith, my _a priori_
assumption is that they probably have wild prejudices and mis-
conceptions about Judaism (as do, unfortunately most Jews themselves,
having grown up in a Christian milieu without an intensive Jewish
education). What those particular fantasies are make no difference 
- they must all be dispelled.

The most common question always posed to me when I'm on reserve
duty is, "exactly what role does Jesus play in Judaism?" Last
year a chaplain's assistant asked me quite innocently how the
blood is prepared before it's mixed with the Passover matzas.

Where does one start? The best thing to do is forget *them*;
just be you. 

Jem

    RE: .38, "Right-wing Republicans" will make their voting decisions on
    the various issues and how they match the individual voter's philoso-
    phies and ideas, just as "left-wind Democrats". If one of those issues
    is to find an anti-semetic candidate, then the voters is a bigot, plain
    and simple. Each candidate has their own agenda on the issues and
    voters will weigh ALL the issues before making their decision (hopeful-
    ly), and decide which issues have what importance. Though there are
    some "one-issue" voters, they are in the minority. 
    
    If Buchanan represents 90% of their views on economic, social, military,
    etc. issues, but his religious views are not a match, then the voter
    must decide where the priorities lie.
    
    My whole point is that conservative Republicans would be more likely to
    back Buchanan because of his stand on many more issues than his claimed
    "anti-semetic" views. Remember, back in the 60's and 70's, it was the
    left that represented the anti-semetic views. Political views alone do
    not put someone on one side of this fence or the other.
    
    Eric

re .40:

If you convince a right-wing Republican who's not a bigot that Buchanan *is*
a bigot, then he may not vote for Buchanan.  If you convince a left-wing
Democrat that Buchanan is the Messiah, he still won't vote for him.  My
point is that it *does* make a difference whether you're talking to RWRs
or LWDs.

    RE: .41, the whole purpose of my original reply in .31 was in response
    to an implication in .30 about Republicans and "right-wingers".
    Buchanan's stand on this particular issue is probably of little
    significance to most people in New Hampshire and the rest of the
    country. It would hurt him with Jewish voters, but probably have little
    effect with the rest of the voting population. 
    
    You're correct that a left-wing Democrat would never consider Buchanan,
    but its not much of an issue for the right-wing Republican voter, who
    demographically is probably not Jewish in the first place (though there
    are some Jewish conservatives, they are definitely a minority of Jewish
    voters). My point is that the anti-semite label will probably mean
    little to those who would consider Buchanan in the first place. This
    does not make them anti-semitic themselves, only that their political
    agenda had different priorities.
    
    Eric

	Is it time to break this into two notes?  I'm getting dizzy, flipping
from a (seemingly) more religious-based discussion of the backgrounds of
Judaism and Christianity, then the political implications of Buchanan and his
erstwhile supporters...

	8^)

    RE:  .43
    
    The basenote discussed Buchanan's use of the term "Judeo-Christian", as
    well as its use by some blacks.  The religious-based replies were in
    fact a digression (not that I didn't welcome them), rather than the
    other way around.  The basenote was about politics and inter-group
    relations.
    
    Laura (basenote author who ought to remember! -;) )