But my pink triangle is still at the dry cleaners...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

mnehr said

Maybe we should split this thread?

That's fine with me.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

rmthunter said

an historical, descriptive term which does, indeed, have currency and a generally accepted meaning.

Generally accepted by who?

[Redlass]

Well, when it comes to that, I'd just as soon they leave Christianity out of it too because it has far more to do with their personal political agenda than it does Christianity. But the more then can pull on both faiths, the more validity the ideas are likely to have.

I'm afraid, though, that we will both be unsuccessful in asking people not to take God's name in vain and use it for their political gain.

Then again, perhaps I should be more optimistic.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Well, when it comes to that, I'd just as soon they leave Christianity out of it too because it has far more to do with their personal political agenda than it does Christianity.

I agree, though I've been deliberately refraining from saying anything like that because I've been trying to avoid saying what I think Christians think or what I think Christians should do, as it's not my place to say that (and I'm turning over a new leaf here). And that's why I've been focussing on the Jewish end of things. When, for example, Prager said that both Jews and Christians who believe in divine inspiration embrace being meanies, I objected just to his characterization of Jews, figuring I'd leave it up to the Christians here to object to what I assumed was Prager's equally wrong-headed view of them.

[hymie[$]]

Neither Orthodox nor Conservative Judaism will ordain gay rabbis. In general, rabbinical candidates are expected to be sexually conservative anyway. In theory, it's supposed to be no sex until marriage. In our own community we have a case where a male Orthodox rabbinic student fathered a child with a female Conservative rabbinic student. He got kicked out of his school. (She got to be ordained.)

[AuntieEmma[$]]

hymie said

Neither Orthodox nor Conservative Judaism will ordain gay rabbis.

And the Orthodox won't ordain women, which I guess is a whole other topic.

What I was trying to get at, though, was that any prohibitions that exist or have existed against homosexuality in Judaism are not CENTRAL to Judaism in the way that they appear to be to some of the Christian moralists. When Bob says that "condemning homosexuality is a pretty strong thread through the whole of Judaeo-Christian thinking," that implies a kind of equivalency that I don't think is there.

When conservative Christian moralists talk about values, it seems to me that they often shrink the whole broad universe of virtue and sin down to the smaller field of sexuality, or even more narrowly, they focus exclusively on homosexuality and abortion, as if nothing else was as important. I don't think that's the case in any branch of Judaism, and I don't think it ever has been.

[emeleel]

When conservative Christian moralists talk about values, it seems to me that they often shrink the whole broad universe of virtue and sin down to the smaller field of sexuality, or even more narrowly, they focus exclusively on homosexuality and abortion, as if nothing else was as important.

Bridgette and I were discussing this topic via PM. One thing I told her is that I think this phenomenon is true because everything else that USED to be considered sinful by the public at large has been set aside as perfectly fine and dandy and nobody blinks at it anymore. Cohabitation, immodest clothing, filthy language, drunkenness, adultery, it's all par for the course these days and so popular that it's no longer "cool" to rail against it anymore. Homosexuality and abortion are just about the only really hot topics that are *left*. It's not that they are better or worse topics, just that they're pretty much the only things up for debate these days. (In general.)

[hymie[$]]

Notice that being against homosexuality and abortion requires nothing from the congregation - no action, no commitment, no sacrifice. Of course that's going to be popular.

[wivabef]

AuntieEmma said

and also some threads I've been seeing on liberal blogs where liberal Christians say they believe that "good" Christians follow the words of the Sermon on the Mount, while "bad" nut-fudgy rightwing Christians follow the words of the Old Testament.

A ha! That's the problem! You've gotta stop reading those liberal blogs!

(FWIW, I stopped reading politically slanted blogs long ago...they all tend to lean on the side of nutfudgidom)

[wivabef]

AuntieEmma said

Maybe this is what it comes down to --- remember the anti-war slogan "Not in our names!"? It's kind of the same thing with this. If someone wants to say that homosexuals are nasty, or that terrorism is a punishment for feminism, or that founders of this country wanted to establish a Christian theocracy -- well, ok fine, everyone is entitled to their wacko opinions, but don't bring the Jews into it! Not in our name, please.

And, again, as a christian I would say "not in my name, either."

I kind of like that the term judeo-christian bothers you because now you can see how the very, very general term christians being lumped in with the minority nutfudges bothers me. I know it shouldn't, but it does. I don't mind when "extremist" gets tacked on, that sets me apart.

[wivabef]

I've come up with an good analogy of judeo-christian.

New England.

Definitely not England.

Definitely not New, anymore.

But still, a term.

I don't see "judeo-christian" as including jewish people. I see judeo-christian as describing the very broad group of christians who incorporate both the old and new testament.

I probably am wrong at this perception. It's a derivative to me.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

wivabef said

And, again, as a christian I would say "not in my name, either."

I kind of like that the term judeo-christian bothers you because now you can see how the very, very general term christians being lumped in with the minority nutfudges bothers me.

I can certainly see where it would bother you if that happened, but does it happen? Is anyone actually lumping all Christians together?

I know it shouldn't, but it does.

Why shouldn't it? If I were you (though I'm not), it would bother me.

I don't mind when "extremist" gets tacked on, that sets me apart.

It's hard to find a term that is precise enough to distinguish different groups without offending anyone who might be participating in the discussion. I've been leaning towards "Dominionists," but maybe that's too narrow.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

wivabef said

I don't see "judeo-christian" as including jewish people. I see judeo-christian as describing the very broad group of christians who incorporate both the old and new testament.

Yes, that's exactly it. It's a term used to describe the thinking of certain Christians. But it sounds like it applies to Jews, and when people see Christians referring to the "Old Testament," they imagine that there's an overlap there with Judaism, and then Jews get blamed (by the left) or praised (by the right) for various ideas that have little or nothing to do with Judaism, and that in some cases are actually the polar opposites of Jewish thought.

[drmomentum[$]]

I ain't giving up the term "New England."

Sorry, folks.

[wivabef]

drmomentum said

I ain't giving up the term "New England."

Sorry, folks.

Well, as a new person, myself, I really don't like being associated with England. But, I will respect your "recent british" nature.

BTW...

GO SOX!

[drmomentum[$]]

WOO-HOO!

[mnehr]

Speaking of "Judeo-Christian Values", I found an interesting reference in the Jewish World Review of all places.

JewishWorldReview.com said

The case for Judeo-Christian values: Nature must not be worshipped

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It is almost impossible to overstate how radically different the Jewish Bible thought was from the thought of the rest of its contemporary world. And it continues to be, given how few societies affirm Judeo-Christian values and how much opposition to them exists in American society, the society that has most incorporated these values.


Among the most radical of these differences was the incredible declaration that G-d is outside of nature and is its creator.


In every society on earth, people venerated nature and worshipped nature gods. There were gods of thunder and gods of rain. Mountains were worshipped, as were rivers, animals and every natural force known to man. In ancient Egypt, for example, gods included the Nile River, the frog, sun, wind, gazelle, bull, cow, serpent, moon and crocodile.


Then came Genesis, which announced that a supernatural G-d, i.e., a g-d who existed outside of nature, created nature. Nothing about nature was divine.


Professor Nahum Sarna, the author of what I consider one of the two most important commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, puts it this way: "The revolutionary Israelite concept of G-d entails His being wholly separate from the world of His creation and wholly other than what the human mind can conceive or the human imagination depict."


The other magisterial commentary on Genesis was written by the late Italian Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto, professor of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "Relative to the ideas prevailing among the peoples of the ancient East, we are confronted here with a basically new conception and a spiritual revolution . . . The basically new conception consists in the completely transcendental view of the Godhead . . . the G-d of Israel is outside and above nature, and the whole of nature, the sun, and the moon, and all the hosts of heaven, and the earth beneath, and the sea that is under the earth, and all that is in them — they are all His creatures which He created according to His will."


This was extremely difficult for men to assimilate then. And as society drifts from Judeo-Christian values, it is becoming difficult to assimilate again today. Major elements in secular Western society are returning to a form of nature worship. Animals are elevated to equality with people, and the natural environment is increasingly regarded as sacred. The most extreme expressions of nature worship actually view human beings as essentially blights on nature.


Even among some who consider themselves religious, and especially among those who consider themselves "spiritual" rather than religious, nature is regarded as divine, and G-d is deemed as dwelling within it.


It is quite understandable that people who rely on feelings more than reason to form their spiritual beliefs would deify nature. It is easier — indeed more natural — to worship natural beauty than an invisible and morally demanding G-d.

What is puzzling is that many people who claim to rely more on reason would do so. Nature is unworthy of worship. Nature, after all, is always amoral and usually cruel. Nature has no moral laws, only the amoral law of survival of the fittest.


Why would people who value compassion, kindness or justice venerate nature? The notions of justice and caring for the weak are unique to humanity. In the rest of nature, the weak are to be killed. The individual means nothing in nature; the individual is everything to humans. A hospital, for example, is a profoundly unnatural, indeed antinatural, creation; to expend precious resources on keeping the most frail alive is simply against nature.


The romanticizing of nature, let alone the ascribing of divinity to it, involves ignoring what really happens in nature. I doubt that those American schoolchildren who conducted a campaign on behalf of freeing a killer whale (the whale in the film "Free Willy") ever saw films of actual killer whale behavior. There are National Geographic videos that show, among other things, killer whales tossing a terrified baby seal back and forth before finally killing it. Perhaps American schoolchildren should see those films and then petition killer whales not to treat baby seals sadistically.


If you care about good and evil, you cannot worship nature. And since that is what G-d most cares about, nature worship is antithetical to Judeo-Christian values.


Nature surely reflects the divine. It is in no way divine. Only nature's Creator is.

Source: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0605/prager062105.php3

[AuntieEmma[$]]

mnehr said

in the Jewish World Review of all places.

I never heard of it, but at first glance, it looks like it might be right-wingy (they have Ann Coulter and other assorted wingnut stars in their link list).

[mnehr]

I've read them for a while, I see them referenced by both sides.. I thought they were pretty mainstream and has a mix of political thought..
They have a lot of dems and libs as well including Ed Koch, Nat Hentoff, Jon Stewart and Dick Morris. I believe "Insight" contributors are chosen based on their articles and not whether someone labels them a "leftwingnut" or "rightwingnut"..

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Matthew -- I just went back and took a look at the site again, and the article you quoted was written by Dennis Prager!!!! Sheesh.