The Absurdity of the Phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’

Shalom Goldman has an essay at Religion Dispatches about the thoroughly ridiculous nature of the term “Judeo-Christian,” which rivals “family values” for the most irritating cliche used by the Christian right in this country. It’s meaningless tripe that ignores centuries of anti-Jewish persecution by Christians.

With the swing to the Right of the 1950s, American conservatives began to deploy “Judeo-Christian” in the fight against “Godless Communism.” Senator Barry Goldwater contrasted “Judeo-Christian understandings” with “the communist projection of man as a producing, consuming animal to be used and discarded.” Since then, “Judeo-Christian,” like most religious terminology, has been deployed most effectively by political conservatives.

In the 1970s Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority called for a return to Judeo-Christian values, implying that these values were an American standard that liberals had weakened. Falwell also included in the Moral Majority statement of purpose a call for unconditional support for the State of Israel, a state whose establishment or “rebirth” he and many fellow evangelicals saw as a sign of God’s hand moving in history.

Evangelicals and Jews Become Partners

Today, it’s commonplace for the Christian Right to invoke the idea of “Judeo-Christian values,” and for America to once again become “one nation under God.” Overlooking the pesky fact that that phrase was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, they insist that both the Christian and Jewish traditions were essential elements in the thought of the Founding Fathers.

Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute has even claimed that the Puritans were honoring the Jews of their day by giving their children biblical names—a patent absurdity to historians of Colonial America who point out that it confuses Puritan emphasis on Old Testament ideas with admiration for Jews. But for both Christian and Jewish conservatives historical accuracy is easily swept aside in favor of current ideological needs.

By the late ’90s Falwell’s notion of a “return” to Judeo-Christian values was adopted by the rest of the religious right whose leadership was determined to inculcate this idea in the next generation. “Generation Joshua,” founded in 2003 to get homeschooled children involved in politics, coordinates closely with the Republican Party. Its mission statement, according to Hannah Rosin’s 2007 book, God’s Harvard, is: “to ignite a vision in young people to help America return to her Judeo-Christian foundations.”

The absurdity of this phrase is at least doubled when used in reference to the founding fathers, to whom it would have sounded like gibberish. At the time of the American revolution there were around 2000 Jews in the entire country. And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one of the big fears expressed by conservative Christian preachers and pamphleteers was that the No Religious Tests clause would allow a Jew to become president, something they considered unthinkable. Judeo-Christian, indeed.

Between 2005 and 2008, Dennis Prager, the West coast media personality who identifies himself as an Orthodox Jew, published a 19-part series on “Judeo-Christian Culture.” In his introduction Prager wrote that:

[O]nly America has called itself Judeo-Christian… but what does Judeo-Christian mean? We need to know. Along with the belief in liberty—as opposed to the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity—Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries.

Reading Dennis Prager sent me back to Arthur Cohen’s 1969 essay. Scanning a text I’d read many times, I was reminded of Cohen’s point that although the use of “Judeo-Christian” seemed to signal a message of cooperation and ecumenicism, it was really a cover for an attack on the values of the Enlightenment; the very values that enabled Jews to enter Western societies.

America didn’t call itself Judeo-Christian, some conservative Christians in America have called it that. And despite their most fervent delusions and pretensions, they do not define America itself.

About Ed Brayton

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

  • DataWrangler

    Why have I never heard “judeo-christian” from a Jew?

  • Sastra

    In the New Testament Jesus put a little too much emphasis on the fact that His kingdom was not that of the earth, methinks. Thus, the need to bring in the Old Testament history of establishing Godly nations with sword and law. Harmonize the two ideas: Judeo-Christian.

    Because Jesus isn’t coming back and deep down they pretty much know it.

  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    Because Jesus isn’t coming back and deep down they pretty much know it.

    One thing you had to say for the Romans: when they killed ya, you stayed dead.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    The earliest found instance of “Judeo-Christian” in print comes from 1899, exactly 100 years after the death of George Washington.

    And at that time, it referred to the interim when Christianism was a sect within Judaism, over eighteen centuries earlier.

    Anyone who wants to refer to the overarching combination of monotheistic traditions rooted in the Abrahamic cosmology should properly talk about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (or, arguably, J-C-I-Mormon) ideology, but that yields a pander-value of ~zero.

  • mistertwo

    It’s a pre-millennialist thing. They think Jesus is going to land in Israel in 1988 (oops, that’s in the past) and the Jews are going to follow him this time.

    It was always bizarre to me as a “Restoration Movement” Christian when the Evangelicals wanted to have 10-Commandments displays everywhere. Somewhere in the New Testament it says that “The Law” was “nailed to the cross.”

    What I really don’t understand, though, is why they care, since they think they’re going to be raptured and not have to worry about it. What would be the point of trying to make this a “Christian nation”? Wouldn’t that just delay Jesus’ return? Seems like they’d want to hurry it up, so having more ungoldly people around is the way to go. If they would just hush up and quit trying to convert people, Jesus would come back and send them off to paradise.

  • khms

    #5 mistertwo

    What I really don’t understand, though, is why they care, since they think they’re going to be raptured and not have to worry about it. What would be the point of trying to make this a “Christian nation”? Wouldn’t that just delay Jesus’ return? Seems like they’d want to hurry it up, so having more ungoldly people around is the way to go. If they would just hush up and quit trying to convert people, Jesus would come back and send them off to paradise.

    When a policy of a group does not make sense in view of their official goals, it might just be a sign that their official goals are not their true goals …

  • theguy

    “the communist projection of man as a producing, consuming animal to be used and discarded.”

    Funny, I thought this was the modern capitalist ideal; i.e. Walmart; use employees as interchangeable cogs in a corporate machine, and when they can’t work any longer (old age, pregnancy, injury) replace them with another poor, desperate wage slave.

    Right-wingers may use the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” but I’d wager that most Jewish people in America share liberal values such as support for gay marriage, separation of church and state, and an economic safety net.

  • CJO, egregious by any standard

    It means conservative Christianity, without the Sermon on the Mount’s ethical interpretation of the Decalogue, and with an eschatological fetish for Israel.

    Somewhere in the New Testament it says that “The Law” was “nailed to the cross.”

    That’s Colossians 2:14, which belongs to the so-called Deutero-Paulines, which are regarded as “pious forgeries” in the name of Paul written late 1st c. Of course to a good Judeo-Christian, everything in the NT attributed to Paul was actually written by him, but I digress.

    That’s one of the standard translations, and it may be what the author meant, but it’s interesting that the Greek word most often used to mean “law” and by extension is the usual translation of Heb. “Torah”, nomos, does not appear in the passage. Literally, the Greek says “handwriting in the decrees” (dogmasin, “decrees, ordinances”), which the ESV translates “record of debt”.

  • sugarfrosted

    Historically, at least in the USA, Jewish values tended to be rather socialist; read the sweatshop poets for examples (in translation, if you have to) and in favor of the improvement of working conditions. Very antiwar, the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” was initially used in a case against Jews that were publishing propaganda agains the first world war. As well staunch support of civil rights. Many civil rights organization were founded by Jews, such as the NAACP. There are quite a few Jews that are like this, by less so now.

    Ignoring Christian persecution of the Jews is the goal of the phrase as well as to use the Jews as a token minority. The meaningless of the phrase comes up fairly often like in the case of Billo the Clown talking about the “Judeochristian tradition of Christmas.”

  • John Pieret

    I always thought Judeo-Christian meant “We’ve stolen your religion and you can’t have it back … though we’ll support Israel in hopes that it will be the scene of Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming when all True Christians™ (NOT unrepentant Jews) will be taken up to heaven.”

  • jonathangray

    “If the term judeo-christian means anything, it designates the longest and most famous war in history.” – Solange Hertz.

  • ehmm

    Thank you, it’s about time. I’m kind of surprised that the phase “Judeo-Christian” even goes back that far, but OK.

    It seems to me that, regardless of sect, the central, non-negotiable tenet of Christianity is that Jesus was sacrificed in some form or other and in that sacrifice comes the salvation of humanity. This is something that Judaism explicitly rejects. That makes the whole concept of “Judeo-Christian values” a non-starter to me. Also, Christian and Jewish concepts of my afterlife don’t really align either.

    Is Prager suggesting that the theocracies and autocracies of dark age and medieval Europe were, in fact, not Christian enough?

  • laurentweppe

    You know, a few days ago, someone managed to accidentally summarize to me everything that’s viciously wrong with the expression: at the beginning of the month of december, a french tribunal forbade a local assembly (Conseil Général, the assembly controlling the French equivalent to US counties) to display a Nativity scene in its building (yes: american politicians are not the only one trying to shove religious tribalism down the public’s throats). Cue the outrage from many who declared that it was merely a “festive” display with no religious intent at all (cause there’s nothing religious at all about ritualized displays of the birth of Jesus Fucking Christ). I asked some of the outraged people if they would have been so tolerant if instead of a nativity scene, the local assembly had decided to use taxpayers’ money to celebrate Aid el-Kebir. One guy (who identified as a proud atheist to boot) told me that it was not the same at all because France was a country with a Judeo-Christian culture and that therefore, Aid el-Kebir was Ab-so-lu-te-ly incompatible with France’s cultural legacy.

    Aid el-Kebir is a celebration honoring Abraham

  • laurentweppe

    I always thought Judeo-Christian meant “We’ve stolen your religion and you can’t have it back … though we’ll support Israel in hopes that it will be the scene of Armageddon, which will bring on the Second Coming when all True Christians™ (NOT unrepentant Jews) will be taken up to heaven.”

    Actually, it means “We used to pander to antisemites, but since we saw Hitler’s flunkies being hanged in Nuremberg after their country suffered the most crushing military defeat the world had known since the persian Shah pissed off Genghis Khan we decided to give pretend that (ashkenazi) Jews have always been welcome in the old-money-white-dudes country club, now let us concentrate on pointing accusatory fingers to these brown and black-skinned plebeians

  • Akira MacKenzie

    I always thought that “Judeo-Christan” meant “See, we positively mentioned the Jews! So we’re not really anti-semitic!”

  • colnago80

    Re Weppe @ #14

    Better get out while the getting is good.

    http://goo.gl/lmR2CG

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    I, being a more enlightened individual, ascribe to Judo-Christian values. Any communist or other non-believer who gets in my way gets thrown over my shoulder onto a soft protective floor matt. Take THAT.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Basically, “Judeo-Christian” means calling yourself a Christian while mindlessly enforcing all the Bronze-Age Old-Testament laws that Jesus said not to enforce so mindlessly. And of course demonizing and crucifying the next reformer who questions such mindless enforcement of the OT laws.

    So it’s really a bit of unintentional honesty by the Christofascists.

  • dingojack

    the communist projection of man as a producing, consuming animal to be used and discarded.”

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

    30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

    31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

    ” In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

    No wonder reality has a left-wing bias, god’s an old commie!

    Dingo

  • yellowhare

    The earliest found instance of “Judeo-Christian” in print comes from 1899, exactly 100 years after the death of George Washington.

    And at that time, it referred to the interim when Christianism was a sect within Judaism, over eighteen centuries earlier.

    The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ is much older than 1899. I have in my hand a book from 1883 which uses the phrase without apology or explanation.

    And while it can refer to a particular historical moment of religious hybridity, it was mainly used as a technical term (prior to the early 20th century) to refer to the particular (current) forms of Christianity in India, Egypt, Abyssinia, etc.

    Churches in these countries were thought to differ from Catholicism as a consequence of their having been directly evangelised by one of the original Apostles.

  • jonathangray

    laurentweppe:

    Actually, it means “We used to pander to antisemites, but since we saw Hitler’s flunkies being hanged in Nuremberg after their country suffered the most crushing military defeat the world had known since the persian Shah pissed off Genghis Khan we decided to give pretend that (ashkenazi) Jews have always been welcome in the old-money-white-dudes country club, now let us concentrate on pointing accusatory fingers to these brown and black-skinned plebeians

    Ironic that it seems to be dark-skinned hordes rather than white dudes who are now committing the majority of anti-Jewish violence.

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon: citations required.

    Dingo

  • jonathangray
  • dingojack

    Gee Jon-Jon can’t even read Jerusalem’s answer to WND for comprehension. I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya!

    @@ Dingo.

  • laurentweppe

    Gee Jon-Jon can’t even read Jerusalem’s answer to WND for comprehension. I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya!

    Muslim antisemities have become more visible in recent years, but as a rich white french guy, I can tell from personal experience that antisemitism is still alive and well within the white bourgeoisie: it’s just kept behind closed doors.

  • dingojack

    Here a gaggle of key-board warriors calling them selves ‘the Australian Defence League’ tried to stir-up a race-riot in the largely Muslim community of Lakemba, calling their two-hundred or so members to assemble at the Mosque and start the ‘war against the Muslims’. Guess what happened?

    Only two ‘white-power’ morons turned up (armed with Australia Flags and a bad attitude) and got themselves beaten up, citizen-arrested, before the cops came and hauled them away. They spent a lovely Xmas in isolation in prison.

    Couldn’t have happened to a dumber pair of knuckle-heads.

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Re Schweinehund @ #24

    The Jerusalem Post in no way, shape, form, or regard is comparable to the Whacknutdaily. As usual, the Schweinehund has a bone up his nether orifice.

  • dingojack

    Good come-back Potsie….

    Dingo

  • jonathangray
  • dingojack

    Hmmm – set the Way-back Machine for 10 years ago Sherman….

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    Does Rupert still ‘buy’ you plastic roses, Jon-Jon?

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    MUslim antisemitism is certainly a serious problem; but Muslims have got a very long way to go if they want to match the historical record of the Catholic Church in persecuting and killing Jews.

  • Pingback: What is “Judeo-Christian”? | Science Notes()

  • colnago80

    Re Nick Gotts @ #32

    Hey, let’s not let the Lutheran Church off the hook. The second greatest antisemite next to Hister was Martin Luther. Luther’s influence on nominal Catholic Hister was as least as great as any number of popes.

  • jonathangray

    laurentweppe:

    Muslim antisemities have become more visible in recent years, but as a rich white french guy, I can tell from personal experience that antisemitism is still alive and well within the white bourgeoisie: it’s just kept behind closed doors.

    Nick Gotts:

    MUslim antisemitism is certainly a serious problem; but Muslims have got a very long way to go if they want to match the historical record of the Catholic Church in persecuting and killing Jews.

    Why do I get the distinct impression that what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private or what “the Catholic Church” supposedly did centuries ago evokes a far more immediate & viscerally hostile response from you than Saracens killing Jews in the streets today?

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    “Judeo-Christian” just means “we’ve moved the Jews further down the list of people we’re going to eliminate once we have total power for the sake of short-term political expediency.” Right now, the list goes something like:

    1. Gays

    2. Muslims

    3. Atheists

    4. Wiccans, Hindus, and other assorted non-Judeo-Christians

    5. Jews

    6. Catholics, Mormans, and others who are not True Christians (TM).

    The Jews used to be higher on the list, but they’ve seen how that backfired for the nazis. Besides, conservative Jews, like conservative Catholics and conservative Mormans, are useful allies for the time being.

  • laurentweppe

    Why do I get the distinct impression that what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private […] evokes a far more immediate & viscerally hostile response

    First, it’s not what they supposedly think, it’s what they actually say in private.

    As for why: because I’ve seen way too many white guys faking sympathy toward victims of antisemitism in order to disguise their petulant anger at the fact that muslim plebeians cannot be openly treated like cattle and fucktoys anymore.

  • laurentweppe

    Why do I get the distinct impression that what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private […] evokes a far more immediate & viscerally hostile response

    First, it’s not what they supposedly think, it’s what they actually say in private.

    As for why: because I’ve seen way too many white guys faking sympathy toward victims of antisemitism in order to disguise their petulant anger at the fact that muslim plebeians cannot be openly treated like cattle and fucktoys anymore.

  • jonathangray

    As for why: because I’ve seen way too many white guys faking sympathy toward victims of antisemitism in order to disguise their petulant anger at the fact that muslim plebeians cannot be openly treated like cattle and fucktoys anymore.

    That confirms my impression, but doesn’t really answer why.

    1) Racist white guys exhibit fake sympathy for Jews and petulant anger because they feel they can’t be openly racist towards Saracens anymore.

    2) Meanwhile, Saracens are killing Jews on the streets.

    You seem more enraged by 1) than by 2). That strikes me as seriously disproportionate. It demands an explanation. What’s going on here? Is it just the fury of a progressive who knows deep down that the multikult experiment has blown up in his face but can’t bring himself to admit it?

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray,

    Why do I get the distinct impression that what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private or what “the Catholic Church” supposedly did centuries ago evokes a far more immediate & viscerally hostile response from you than Saracens killing Jews in the streets today?

    Because you assume everyone is a hypocritical scumbag like you. There’s no “supposedly” about the Catholic Church’s persecution and (frequently) mass-murder of Jews, nor about its support for the Nazis, and their puppets such as the Croatian Ustashe – which was considerably less than “centuries ago”, you lying streak of purulent filth.

    Meanwhile, Saracens are killing Jews on the streets.

    Having arrived in time-machines, no doubt.

  • dingojack

    Well a good start (for England at least) would be to improve the happiness of their population. How?

    a) pay teachers more and make their pay structure steeper (with performance bonuses)

    b) pay the unemployed more

    c) increase the progression rate on taxes

    This will lower GINI, improve social mobility and improve happiness.

    Dingo

  • Nick Gotts

    I’ll add a bit of personal background to my #39 – not that it will make the slightest impression on our “Catholic traditionalist” pusbucket. Up until my mid-20s I was pretty much unaware of “post-Nazi” antisemitism: I naively assumed, if I thought about it at all, that it was no longer an issue except among neo-Nazis. I then entered a long relationship with the daughter of Jews who had fled the Nazis, and many of whose relatives had died in the Shoah. She made me aware of its continuing significance, including among the left*; among other things through a book I still frequently recommend: That’s Funny, You Don’t look Anti-Semitic, by Steve Cohen. Since then I have made a point of speaking up in meetings of left and anti-war groups when either malevolent or merely thoughtless antisemitism makes itself evident. So I’m taking no shit from someone who would consign Jews, at best, to the status of second-class subjects in their longed-for Catholic theocracy.

    *She also noted that the more devoutly Catholic a country occupied by the Nazis was, the more enthusiastically it joined in the persecution of Jews.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Why do I get the distinct impression that what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private or what “the Catholic Church” supposedly did centuries ago evokes a far more immediate & viscerally hostile response from you than Saracens killing Jews in the streets today?

    Because you’re a lazy bigoted moron who makes things up to pretend no one else has any good reason not to agree with you?

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    According to the OED

    Judaeo-Christian | Judeo-Christian, adj. and n.

    View as:

    Pronunciation: Brit. /dʒuːˌdiːəʊˈkrɪstʃ(ə)n/ , /dʒᵿˌdeɪəʊˈkrɪstʃ(ə)n/ , U.S. /dʒuˌdioʊˈkrɪstʃ(ə)n/ , /dʒuˌdeɪoʊˈkrɪstʃ(ə)n/

    Forms: see Judaeo- comb. form and Christian adj. and n.

    Etymology: < Judaeo- comb. form + Christian adj.

    Compare post-classical Latin Judaeo-Christianus (1811 or earlier as noun, 1830 or earlier as adjective).

    In use as noun in sense B. 1 originally after German Judenchrist (1745 or earlier; 1825 in the passage translated in quot. 1837).

    A. adj.

    1. Chiefly Church Hist. Designating a church or community consisting of Jews who have become Christians, esp. while retaining many characteristic Jewish traditions and practices; belonging to or characteristic of such a church or community.Used esp. with reference to the very early Christian church prior to its spread among Gentiles, or to groups in the early church who in various ways resisted the loss or dilution of its Jewish identity. Cf. Messianic adj. 1b.

    1821 A. McCaul Let. 17 Oct. in Jewish Expositor Dec. 478/1 A Judæo Christian community, a city of refuge, where all who wish to be baptized could be supplied with the means of earning their bread.

    a1834 S. T. Coleridge Lit. Remains (1839) IV. 406 This enthronement of the souls of the Gentile and Judæo-Christian Martyrs.

    1867 C. F. Schaeffer tr. G. V. Lechler & C. Gerok Acts 392/1 in P. Schaff et al. tr. J. P. Lange et al. Comm. Holy Script.: N. T. IV. The Gentile church, which the apostle had founded, had just been cordially saluted by the Judæo-Christian church.

    1919 H. Rashdall Idea of Atonem. Christian Theol. 487 The Gentile Churches took over the sacraments and the elementary ideas about them from the Judaeo-Christian Church.

    1957 Musical Q. 43 21 The same isolationist trend appears later in the early Judaeo-Christian Church.

    2006 G. Vermes Nativity iii. 27 The doctrine embraced by the Ebionites, a Judeo-Christian community which survived well into the third/fourth century.

    2. Designating those religious, ethical, or cultural values or beliefs regarded as being common to both Judaism and Christianity; of, relating to, or holding these shared values or beliefs. Also more generally: relating to or characteristic of both Judaism and Christianity.

    1881 Dickinson's Theol. Q. Jan. 114/2 They have learned in their studies that pure and complete theism never existed, in a general manner, save in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    1899 Lit. Guide 1 Oct. 146/1 The total abandonment of the Judæo-Christian ‘continuity’ theory.

    1939 New Eng. Weekly 27 July 237/2 The Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals.

    1957 N. Frye Anat. Crit. 145 The appearance of the Judaeo-Christian deity in fire.

    1987 V. Mollenkott Godding vi. 95 America, predominantly a Judeo-Christian nation, is for the most part biblically illiterate.

    2006 N.Y. Mag. 15 May 82/3 First Things..argues for the reintroduction of Judeo-Christian values into the public arena.

    B. n.

    1. Church Hist. A member of a Judaeo-Christian church or community (see sense A. 1).

    1837 T. G. Repp tr. F. Lücke Comm. Epist. St. John 70 It might, indeed, appear that the true Messiahship of Jesus was really denied by the narrow-minded Judæo-Christians [Ger. Judenchristen].

    1886 Expositor 4 168 We must suppose..that these Judæo-Christians at Colossæ..were under other influences than those of the law of Moses alone.

    1975 G. Vermes Post-biblical Jewish Stud. iv. 38 Palestinian Jewry had disintegrated into the separate and rival groups of Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, to which were added in the first century of the Christian era Zealots and Judeo-Christians.

    2002 Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56 65 Aside from the possible veneration of these sites by Judeo-Christians from the earliest times, there is practically no evidence of a similar regard toward the other biblical sites on the part of the Christian community of the first three centuries.

    2. A person belonging to the Jewish and Christian traditions regarded collectively; a person having Judaeo-Christian values or beliefs (see sense A. 2); (in pl.) Jews and Christians collectively.

    1954 Chron.-Telegram (Elyria, Ohio) 3 June 14/3 The intellectual and moral monuments of the Greeks, the Romans, the Judeo-Christians, and our contemporary thinkers.

    1985 E. Scarry Body in Pain (1987) iv. 277 The intent here is not to credit Judeo-Christianity in the eyes of those who trust Marx's historical description, nor to credit Marx in the eyes of Judeo-Christians.

    2012 R. Breton Different Gods iv. 79 In general, there is a lower level of religiosity..among Judeo-Christians than among Muslims and members of other Eastern religions.

  • eric

    Is it just the fury of a progressive who knows deep down that the multikult experiment has blown up in his face

    How, exactly, has multiculturalism blown up in our face? Seems to me the multicultural west is doing pretty well both in terms of peacfulness (crime is down) and prosperity (life spans are up). I’ll take the multicultural US of 2015 over the the European Christian monoculture of, say, 1815 or 1715 any day of the week.

    In fact it seems to me that attempts to enforce a monoculture have historically been a major reason for violence. Its when we try and prevent multiculturalism that blood runs in the streets; not when we allow it.

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    There’s no “supposedly” about the Catholic Church’s persecution and (frequently) mass-murder of Jews

    Unless you can produce evidence of ecclesiastical authorities (popes, bishops etc) ordering the persecution and frequent mass-murder of Jews, you would do well to amend “the Catholic Church has persecuted/murdered …” to “Catholics have persecuted/frequently murdered …”. Or you might want to argue that “certain theological underpinnings of Catholic culture have inevitably, even if unintentionally, encouraged the persecution/frequent murder …”.

    Since then I have made a point of speaking up in meetings of left and anti-war groups when either malevolent or merely thoughtless antisemitism makes itself evident. So I’m taking no shit from someone who would consign Jews, at best, to the status of second-class subjects in their longed-for Catholic theocracy.

    I’m not offering you any shit to take. I’m asking:

    1) whether you agree that militant Muslims pose a greater immediate threat to Jewish life and limb in Western European counties today than Christians (of whatever stripe) or even neo-Nazis;

    2) whether you think that anti-semitism among leftist/anti-war groups tends to strengthen or facilitate Muslim anti-semitism in a way that right-wing anti-semitism doesn’t; and

    3) whether you would accept that the threat to Jewish life and limb in Western counties today from militant Muslim anti-semitism would not exist had it not been for the mass immigration made possible by the ideology of multiculturalism.

    She also noted that the more devoutly Catholic a country occupied by the Nazis was, the more enthusiastically it joined in the persecution of Jews.

    Would that include the devoutly Catholic country that gave birth to the Fascist movement (a political ideology that had a not-insignificant Jewish component, I believe)?

  • jonathangray

    eric:

    How, exactly, has multiculturalism blown up in our face?

    How about Moham gangs ensnaring white girls into sexual slavery in many British towns and cities? Or Mohams hatching terrorist plots against British targets on British soil? Or Mohams beheading British soldiers in broad daylight on British streets? Or the endemic Moham violence, particularly sexual violence, in Scandinavia? Or how about French rabbis advising French Jews not to wear skullcaps in public for fear of them being assaulted/killed by Mohams?

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon : citation required. (Actual, real figures from creditable sources thanks.)

    Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Ah yes, a bigot using acts of bigotry to “prove” that “multiculturalism” has “failed.” Without even bothering to define “multiculturalism” or “failure,” I should add. That really enhances your credibility. Not.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    1) whether you agree that militant Muslims pose a greater immediate threat to Jewish life and limb in Western European counties today than Christians (of whatever stripe) or even neo-Nazis;

    Given the increasingly overt Jew-bashing rhetoric I’m hearing from white people in Western Europe, I’m inclined to say No. (And it’s generally even worse in Eastern Europe.)

    2) whether you think that anti-semitism among leftist/anti-war groups tends to strengthen or facilitate Muslim anti-semitism in a way that right-wing anti-semitism doesn’t;

    How the hell would one verify something like that?

    3) whether you would accept that the threat to Jewish life and limb in Western counties today from militant Muslim anti-semitism would not exist had it not been for the mass immigration made possible by the ideology of multiculturalism.

    No, moron, it exited long before such immigration began, and has nothing to do with this (undefined) “ideology of multiculturalism” you keep blathering about.

  • jonathangray

    @dingojack:

    Rotherham

  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • jonathangray
  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon. Try again. Anecdote =/= evidence.

    Show me the evidence!

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    Raging Bee:

    1) whether you agree that militant Muslims pose a greater immediate threat to Jewish life and limb in Western European counties today than Christians (of whatever stripe) or even neo-Nazis;

    Given the increasingly overt Jew-bashing rhetoric I’m hearing from white people in Western Europe, I’m inclined to say No. (And it’s generally even worse in Eastern Europe.)

    So “Jew-bashing rhetoric” is a more immediate threat than actually killing Jews. OK.

    2) whether you think that anti-semitism among leftist/anti-war groups tends to strengthen or facilitate Muslim anti-semitism in a way that right-wing anti-semitism doesn’t;

    How the hell would one verify something like that?

    I’m asking for an informed opinion, not some kind of scientific “verification”. For example, one might speculate that Muslim anti-Western militancy could easily ride the coattails of leftist anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism (think George Galloway). Anti-semitism could feed into this via anti-Zionism. (Of course there is an anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism and anti-Zionism of the right.)

    3) whether you would accept that the threat to Jewish life and limb in Western counties today from militant Muslim anti-semitism would not exist had it not been for the mass immigration made possible by the ideology of multiculturalism.

    No, moron, it exited long before such immigration began, and has nothing to do with this (undefined) “ideology of multiculturalism” you keep blathering about.

    Militant Muslim anti-semitism did not exist in Western countries before such immigration began. Multiculturalist ideology (ethnic and cultural diversity seen as intrinsically desirable) is relevant insofar as it is a way of “selling” mass immigration to the indigenous population; an attempt to manage social tensions resulting from mass immigration; and a possible motive for encouraging mass immigration.

  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray@45,

    Unless you can produce evidence of ecclesiastical authorities (popes, bishops etc) ordering the persecution and frequent mass-murder of Jews

    The following are drawn from wikipedia’s timeline of antisemitism. It is true that Catholic massacres of Jews generally lacked official sanction by members of the hierarchy, and that intermittent proclamations against the murder or robbery of Jews were made; but there is a pervasive pattern of denigration, accusation and persecution which could not fail to result (as it did) in repeated Crusader and civilian mob outbreaks of mass murder, as well as a number of mass slaughters and forced mass conversions directly incited by Churchmen, particularly in Spain.

    388

    A Christian mob incited by the local bishop plunders and burns down a synagogue in Callinicum. Theodosius I orders punishment for those responsible, and rebuilding the synagogue at the Christian expense. Ambrose of Milan insists in his letter that the whole case be dropped. He interrupts the liturgy in the emperor’s presence with an ultimatum that he would not continue until the case was dropped. Theodosius complies.

    415

    Jews are accused of ritual murder during Purim.[7] Christians in Antioch confiscate synagogue. Bishop Cyril of Alexandria forces his way into the synagogue, expels the Jews and gives their property to the mob. Prefect Orestes is stoned almost to death for protesting.

    418

    The first record of Jews being forced to convert or face expulsion. Severus, the Bishop of Minorca, claimed to have forced 540 Jews to accept Christianity upon conquering the island. Synagogue in Magona, now Port Mahon capital of Minorca, burnt.

    535

    The First Council of Clermont (of Gaul) prohibits Jews from holding public office.

    576

    Clermont, Gaul. Bishop Avitus offers Jews a choice: accept Christianity or leave Clermont. Most emigrate to Marseilles.

    589

    The Council of Narbonne, Septimania, forbids Jews from chanting psalms while burying their dead. Anyone violating this law is fined 6 ounces of gold.

    614

    Fifth Council of Paris decrees that all Jews holding military or civil positions must accept baptism, together with their families.

    681

    The Twelfth Council of Toledo, Spain orders burning of the Talmud and other “heretic” books.

    692

    Quinisext Council in Constantinople forbids Christians on pain of excommunication to bathe in public baths with Jews, employ a Jewish doctor or socialize with Jews.

    820

    Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, declares in his essays that Jews are accursed and demands a complete segregation of Christians and Jews. In 826 he issues a series of pamphlets to convince Emperor Louis the Pious to attack “Jewish insolence”, but fails to convince the Emperor.

    1078

    Council of Girona decrees Jews to pay taxes for support of the Catholic Church to the same extent as Christians.

    1179

    The Third Lateran Council, Canon 26: Jews are forbidden to be plaintiffs or witnesses against Christians in the Courts. Jews are forbidden to withhold inheritance from descendants who had accepted Christianity.

    1215

    The Fourth Lateran Council headed by Pope Innocent III declares: “Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.” (Canon 68)

    1222

    Council of Oxford: Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton forbids Jews from building new synagogues, owning slaves or mixing with Christians.

    1240

    Disputation of Paris. Pope Gregory IX puts Talmud on trial on the charges that it contains blasphemy against Jesus and Mary and attacks on the Church.

    1244

    Pope Innocent IV orders Louis IX of France to burn all Talmud copies.

    c. 1260

    Thomas Aquinas publishes Summa Contra Gentiles, a summary of Christian faith to be presented to those who reject it. The Jews who refuse to convert are regarded as “deliberately defiant” rather than “invincibly ignorant”.

    1264

    Pope Clement IV assigns Talmud censorship committee.

    1278

    The Edict of Pope Nicholas III requires compulsory attendance of Jews at conversion sermons.

    1279

    Synod of Ofen: Christians are forbidden to sell or rent real estate to or from Jews.

    1282

    John Pectin, Archbishop of Canterbury, orders all London synagogues to close and prohibits Jewish physicians from practicing on Christians.

    1391

    Violence incited by the Archdeacon of Ecija, Ferrand Martinez, results in the destruction of the Jewish quarter in Barcelona. The campaign quickly spreads throughout Spain (except for Granada) and destroys Jewish communities in Valencia and Palma De Majorca. Thousands of Jews are murdered or forced to accept baptism.

    1411

    Oppressive legislation against Jews in Spain as an outcome of the preaching of the Dominican friar Vicente Ferrer.

    1413

    Disputation of Tortosa, Spain, staged by the Avignon Pope Benedict XIII, is followed by forced mass conversions.

    1422

    Pope Martin V issues a Bull reminding Christians that Christianity was derived from Judaism and warns the friars not to incite against the Jews. The Bull was withdrawn the following year on allegations that the Jews of Rome attained it by fraud.

    1434

    Council of Basel, Sessio XIX: Jews are forbidden to obtain academic degrees and to act as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians.

    1447

    Casimir IV renews all the rights of Jews of Poland and makes his charter one of the most liberal in Europe. He revokes it in 1454 at the insistence of Bishop Zbigniew.

    1463

    Pope Nicholas V authorizes the establishment of the Inquisition to investigate heresy among the Marranos. See also Crypto-Judaism.

    1490

    Tomás de Torquemada burns 6,000 volumes of Jewish mansucripts in Salamanca.

    1506 April 19

    A marrano expresses his doubts about miracle visions at St. Dominics Church in Lisbon, Portugal. The crowd, led by Dominican monks, kills him, then ransacks Jewish houses and slaughters any Jew they could find. The countrymen hear about the massacre and join in. Over 2,000 marranos killed in three days.

    1553

    Pope Julius III forbids Talmud printing and orders burning of any copy found. Rome’s Inquisitor-General, Cardinal Carafa (later Pope Paul IV) has Talmud publicly burnt in Rome on Rosh Hashanah, starting a wave of Talmud burning throughout Italy. About 12,000 copies were destroyed.

    1555

    In Papal Bull Cum nimis absurdum, Pope Paul IV writes: “It appears utterly absurd and impermissible that the Jews, whom God has condemned to eternal slavery for their guilt, should enjoy our Christian love.” He renews anti-Jewish legislation and installs a locked nightly ghetto in Rome. The Bull also forces Jewish males to wear a yellow hat, females – yellow kerchief. Owning real estate or practicing medicine on Christians is forbidden. It also limits Jewish communities to only one synagogue.

    1558

    Recanati, Italy: a baptized Jew Joseph Paul More enters synagogue on Yom Kippur under the protection of Pope Paul IV and tries to preach a conversion sermon. The congregation evicts him. Soon after, the Jews are expelled from Recanati.

    1566

    Antonio Ghislieri elected and, as Pope Pius V, reinstates the harsh anti-Jewish laws of Pope Paul IV. In 1569 he expels Jews dwelling outside of the ghettos of Rome, Ancona, and Avignon from the Papal States, thus ensuring that they remain city-dwellers.

    1586

    Pope Sixtus V forbids printing of the Talmud.

    1593 February 25

    Pope Clement VIII confirms the Papal bull of Paul III that expels Jews from Papal states except ghettos in Rome and Ancona

    1608

    The Jesuit order forbids admission to anyone descended from Jews to the fifth generation, a restriction lifted in the 20th century. Three years later Pope Paul V applies the rule throughout the Church, but his successor revokes it.

    1775

    Pope Pius VI issues a severe Editto sopra gli ebrei (Edict concerning the Jews). Previously lifted restrictions are reimposed, Judaism is suppressed.

    1815

    Pope Pius VII reestablishes the ghetto in Rome after the defeat of Napoleon.

    1858

    Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish boy whom a maid had baptised during an illness, is taken from his parents in Bologna, an episode which aroused universal indignation in liberal circles.

    1871

    Speech of Pope Pius IX in regard to Jews: “of these dogs, there are too many of them at present in Rome, and we hear them howling in the streets, and they are disturbing us in all places.”

    I’m not offering you any shit to take.

    Liar. You insinuated, without a particle of evidence, that I was more concerned about:

    what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private or what “the Catholic Church” supposedly did centuries ago

    than current murders of Jews by Muslim antisemites.

    I’m asking:

    You weren’t.

    1) whether you agree that militant Muslims pose a greater immediate threat to Jewish life and limb in Western European counties today than Christians (of whatever stripe) or even neo-Nazis;

    Yes.

    2) whether you think that anti-semitism among leftist/anti-war groups tends to strengthen or facilitate Muslim anti-semitism in a way that right-wing anti-semitism doesn’t;

    No; I don’t think Muslim antisemitism depends at all on antisemitism among leftist/anti-war groups (which does not in any way excuse such antisemitism); nor, currently, to any significant extent on neo-Nazi or traditionalist Catholic antisemitism. Many of its characteristics, however, borrowed from the neo-Nazis, Nazis and earlier far-right groups (belief in the “Protocols”, particular style of caricatures, holocaust denial).

    3) whether you would accept that the threat to Jewish life and limb in Western counties today from militant Muslim anti-semitism would not exist had it not been for the mass immigration made possible by the ideology of multiculturalism.

    Duh. If there were no Muslims in western countries, of course Muslim antisemites couldn’t kill Jews in those countries; and if Britain had expelled all known Catholics in the early 1970s, the IRA bombing campaign would not have been possible. But hate can’t be stirred up against some minorities (and all attempts to halt of reverse immigration have done this, you yourself being a clear example – you can’t even bring yourself to refrain from using contemptuous terminology for Muslims) without the likelihood of it affecting other minorities, and specifically, in most places, Jews. The far right are currently picking on Muslims (and to a growing extent, Gypsies and eastern Europeans) as the most convenient targets; but in the 1960s it was Afro-Caribbeans, and in the 1930s and before, Jews; and the Jews remain the central hate-figures for neo-Nazis, who systematically infiltrate anti-immigrant parties such as UKIP.

    Incidentally, mass immigration was not made possible by “the ideology of multiculturalism”, but by historical ties (which meant, for example, that many inhabitants of Commonwealth countries had the legal right to life in Britain) and economic forces, specifically, the demand for labour.

    She also noted that the more devoutly Catholic a country occupied by the Nazis was, the more enthusiastically it joined in the persecution of Jews.

    Would that include the devoutly Catholic country that gave birth to the Fascist movement (a political ideology that had a not-insignificant Jewish component, I believe)?

    It did not include Italy. Italy was unusual in three ways: Mussolini did not happen to be personally antisemitic to any great extent; it had a considerable history of anti-clericalism, due to Papal opposition to Italian unity, and in central Italy, actual experience of Papal rule; and by the time Italy was occupied by the Nazis, they were very obviously going to lose the war. Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Croatia were specific countries mentioned as I recall.

  • jonathangray

    It is true that Catholic massacres of Jews generally lacked official sanction by members of the hierarchy, and that intermittent proclamations against the murder or robbery of Jews were made; but there is a pervasive pattern of denigration, accusation and persecution which could not fail to result (as it did) in repeated Crusader and civilian mob outbreaks of mass murder, as well as a number of mass slaughters and forced mass conversions directly incited by Churchmen, particularly in Spain.

    Pagans despise Jews as weaklings, hence pagan anti-semitic discourse often has a sadistic undercurrent. Christians fear Jews for their strength. If that fear is justified (as I believe it is), denigration, accusation and persecution are understandable (if far from always justifiable) reactions. In any case, there are two sides to every story.

    You insinuated, without a particle of evidence, that I was more concerned about:

    what “the white bourgeoisie” supposedly thinks in private or what “the Catholic Church” supposedly did centuries ago

    than current murders of Jews by Muslim antisemites.

    That’s the cumulative impression I get from your remarks, yes. Mistaken or not, it was an observation rather than a jibe, hence no shit.

    I’m asking:

    You weren’t.

    Note present tense and colon.

    I don’t think Muslim antisemitism depends at all on antisemitism among leftist/anti-war groups

    Do you have an opinion on Mr Galloway?

    If there were no Muslims in western countries, of course Muslim antisemites couldn’t kill Jews in those countries; and if Britain had expelled all known Catholics in the early 1970s, the IRA bombing campaign would not have been possible.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the the avowed aims of the IRA did not include subjugating England under the dominion of hegemonic Catholicism.

    But hate can’t be stirred up against some minorities (and all attempts to halt of reverse immigration have done this, you yourself being a clear example – you can’t even bring yourself to refrain from using contemptuous terminology for Muslims) without the likelihood of it affecting other minorities, and specifically, in most places, Jews

    Some minorities seem to be doing a pretty good job of stirring up hatred against themselves. AFAIK there are no gangs of Sikhs and Hindus ensnaring white girls into sexual slavery. But If halting or reversing immigration is impossible with stirring up hatred against minorities, and if that hatred and its consequences are too high a price to pay for freedom from such depredations, not to mention freedom from a real and present anti-semitic danger, then what is to be done?

    Incidentally, mass immigration was not made possible by “the ideology of multiculturalism”, but by historical ties (which meant, for example, that many inhabitants of Commonwealth countries had the legal right to life in Britain) and economic forces, specifically, the demand for labour.

    Originally perhaps, although in later years the dogma of “diversity is strength” apparently did influence immigration policy.

    Italy was unusual in three ways: Mussolini did not happen to be personally antisemitic to any great extent; it had a considerable history of anti-clericalism, due to Papal opposition to Italian unity, and in central Italy, actual experience of Papal rule; and by the time Italy was occupied by the Nazis, they were very obviously going to lose the war.

    Perhaps one could add the papacy’s historic role as protector of the Jews.

  • jonathangray

    [“… is impossible without stirring up …”]

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Pagans despise Jews as weaklings, hence pagan anti-semitic discourse often has a sadistic undercurrent.

    Citation required. Which “pagans” are you talking about, exactly?

  • jonathangray

    @ Raging Bee:

    The seeds were planted in the late 19th century — certain passages in the writings of Wagner, Nietzsche and Ragnar Redbeard, and (perhaps) certain elements in Wagner’s music-dramas. It resurfaced in early 20th-century gnostic occultism (eg Theosophy, Alpha Galates and Thelema — see the passages in Crowley’s Confessions that deal with his Jewish acolyte Victor Neuberg). Filtered through the ‘esoteric National Socialism’ of Savitri Devi etc, it attained full strength in latterday cults such as the Process and the Order of the Nine Angles which were/are essentially pagan despite being decorated with ‘satanist’ iconography. It’s also a persistent (though largely unremarked) motif in the writings of William Burroughs, an éminence grise of modern occultism.

    Unsurprisingly, this current is militantly anti-Christian, Christian monotheism being conceptualised as a Jewish virus designed to weaken the healthy Aryan peoples and destroy their indigenous heathen folkways.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Sorry, but none of your citations but one refer to actual pagan spiritual leaders who have had real effects on the history of pagan movements and communities (and even that one was kinda vague — what did Crowley actually SAY about that one particular Jew? Did it apply to more than one Jew?). Wagner was a musician, Nietzche was a philosopher, and none of the pagan groups I’ve met with or heard about since 1990 had anything bad to say about Jews. (There are Norse-pagan groups that are explicitly racist, but the rest of the pagan community refuse to talk to them, including other Norse-pagans.) Certainly nothing that would compare to the wild hateful ravings of a certain Christian leader named Martin Luther.

    You’re accusing people I know of saying things I’ve never heard them say. Your allegation of pagan antisemitism is pure fucking bullshit.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Unsurprisingly, this current is militantly anti-Christian, Christian monotheism being conceptualised as a Jewish virus designed to weaken the healthy Aryan peoples and destroy their indigenous heathen folkways.

    There are plenty of pagan critics of Christian and Jewish religious doctrine; but I’ve never heard anyone “conceptualize” Christianity that way.

  • jonathangray

    Sorry, you don’t get to restrict paganism to whichever vanilla brand you’re familiar or comfortable with.

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon – and you don’t get to define ‘paganism’ as being whatever wacky and non-standard definition you choose.

    The question boils down to this: do I believe someone who has actual experience and knowledge about a subject, or someone who clearly has neither?

    Decisions, decisions.

    Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Sorry, Jon-Jon, you don’t get to LIE about people you clearly know nothing about.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Sorry, you don’t get to restrict paganism to whichever vanilla brand you’re familiar or comfortable with.

    Apologies for the double-take, but did you actually say I “don’t get to” talk about my own experience of paganism in response to your stupid lies about the same subject? Because that’s all I did — no “restriction” involved.

    jonathangray, you’re nothing but a willfully-ignorant, uneducable, lying bigot. If you don’t like how we respond to your halfwitted hate-filled lies, than kindly go fuck yourself.

  • jonathangray

    I asserted there was a particular type of pagan anti-semitism that was radically distinct from the hostility to Jews and Judaism historically shown by Christians.

    You demanded examples. I provided them.

    That they don’t meet your criteria for “spiritual leaders”, or that none of your pagan acquaintances “since 1990” are of that type, or that you may not consider that type to be representative of ‘mainstream’ paganism, is irrelevant.

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon – Except they aren’t actually pagans (as generally accepted, by definition) — you forgot that part.

    Dingo

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Excuse me, you lying putz, but my direct observation of how REAL pagans really behave IS relevant. As is the fact that your “examples” do not support any of your assertions. I’ve never known any kind of pagan — even a Norse pagan — to cite either Wagner or Nietzsche as leading-lights of pagan doctrine, or as founders of pagan groups, because they were neither. And no history of any branch of paganism that I’ve read so far mentions either of them as being influential in any way. And you still have yet to tell us what Crowley actually said about Jews in general. You’re nothing but a lying religious bigot, and you’re not even competent enough to make yourself sound credible for even ten seconds. This is a grownup blog, and you don’t have the chops to participate.

  • jonathangray

    dingojack:

    they aren’t actually pagans (as generally accepted, by definition)

    A generally accepted definition of paganism is any religion that is not one of the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions. So they are pagan.

    Raging Bee:

    … I’ve never known any kind of pagan … no history of any branch of paganism that I’ve read so far …

    Maybe your experience is limited. What do you think of Julius Evola or Alain de Benoist? I’m sure you’d agree they are pretty influential neopagans.

    And you still have yet to tell us what Crowley actually said about Jews in general.

    You’re supposed to be the expert on paganism. Aren’t you familiar with his writings?

    You’re nothing but a lying religious bigot

    Very well — in a spirit of ecumenical reconciliation

  • dingojack

    “A generally accepted definition of paganism is any religion that is not one of the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions”

    Citation required.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    Or rather, since it’s a supposedly ‘a generally accepted’ definition: citations required (at least enough to show such a position is the ‘generally held’ opinion: ie well over 90%)

    Dingo

  • jonathangray
  • Nick Gotts

    jonathangray@60,

    Pagans despise Jews as weaklings, hence pagan anti-semitic discourse often has a sadistic undercurrent. Christians fear Jews for their strength. If that fear is justified (as I believe it is), denigration, accusation and persecution are understandable (if far from always justifiable) reactions. In any case, there are two sides to every story. [empphasis added]

    Nice of you to confirm in your own words that you are indeed an antisemite. That aside, citations for your generalizations are, as usual, missing; and your later attempts to justify the claim about “pagans” just expose more of your ignorant prejudices.

    Mistaken or not, it was an observation rather than a jibe, hence no shit.

    It was a jibe, liar. The kind you have made repeatedly.

    Do you have an opinion on Mr Galloway?

    I loathe him, perhaps even more than I loathe you.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the the avowed aims of the IRA did not include subjugating England under the dominion of hegemonic Catholicism.

    No, but their operatives were overwhelmingly Catholic, so expelling all Catholics would have prevented the bombing campaign; and there certainly are Catholics with exactly that aim. They often call themelves “Traditionalist Catholics”.

    Some minorities seem to be doing a pretty good job of stirring up hatred against themselves.

    Spoken like a true bigot. The crimes of members of a minority are not the responsibility of that minority as a whole, and hatred aimed at a minority, rather than those members of it who commit hateful acts, is always the responsibility of the haters.

    But If halting or reversing immigration is impossible with stirring up hatred against minorities, and if that hatred and its consequences are too high a price to pay for freedom from such depredations, not to mention freedom from a real and present anti-semitic danger, then what is to be done?

    Rigorous and impartial enforcement of the laws against violence, sexual coercion, child abuse of any kind, incitement to racial or religious hatred, and racial or religious discrimination in education, employment and housing. Ending any state funding for religious schools, and enforcement of minimal standards of education on privately-funded schools. Social and economic policies designed to ensure adequate educational, housing and employment opportunities for all, and greater economic equality (which correlates with lower levels of most social ills). An immigration policy which sets an annual limit on total immigrant numbers, and is non-discriminatory with regard to race, religion and country of origin (there are complications on the last point due to membership of the EU, but certainly those from all non-EU countries should be treated equally).

    although in later years the dogma of “diversity is strength” apparently did influence immigration policy.

    [citation needed]

    Perhaps one could add the papacy’s historic role as protector of the Jews.

    *Guffaw*.

    1553

    Pope Julius III forbids Talmud printing and orders burning of any copy found. Rome’s Inquisitor-General, Cardinal Carafa (later Pope Paul IV) has Talmud publicly burnt in Rome on Rosh Hashanah, starting a wave of Talmud burning throughout Italy. About 12,000 copies were destroyed.

    1555

    In Papal Bull Cum nimis absurdum, Pope Paul IV writes: “It appears utterly absurd and impermissible that the Jews, whom God has condemned to eternal slavery for their guilt, should enjoy our Christian love.” He renews anti-Jewish legislation and installs a locked nightly ghetto in Rome. The Bull also forces Jewish males to wear a yellow hat, females – yellow kerchief. Owning real estate or practicing medicine on Christians is forbidden. It also limits Jewish communities to only one synagogue.

    1558

    Recanati, Italy: a baptized Jew Joseph Paul More enters synagogue on Yom Kippur under the protection of Pope Paul IV and tries to preach a conversion sermon. The congregation evicts him. Soon after, the Jews are expelled from Recanati.

    1566

    Antonio Ghislieri elected and, as Pope Pius V, reinstates the harsh anti-Jewish laws of Pope Paul IV. In 1569 he expels Jews dwelling outside of the ghettos of Rome, Ancona, and Avignon from the Papal States, thus ensuring that they remain city-dwellers.

    1586

    Pope Sixtus V forbids printing of the Talmud.

    1593 February 25

    Pope Clement VIII confirms the Papal bull of Paul III that expels Jews from Papal states except ghettos in Rome and Ancona

    1608

    The Jesuit order forbids admission to anyone descended from Jews to the fifth generation, a restriction lifted in the 20th century. Three years later Pope Paul V applies the rule throughout the Church, but his successor revokes it.

    1775

    Pope Pius VI issues a severe Editto sopra gli ebrei (Edict concerning the Jews). Previously lifted restrictions are reimposed, Judaism is suppressed.

    1815

    Pope Pius VII reestablishes the ghetto in Rome after the defeat of Napoleon.

    1858

    Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish boy whom a maid had baptised during an illness, is taken from his parents in Bologna, an episode which aroused universal indignation in liberal circles.

    1871

    Speech of Pope Pius IX in regard to Jews: “of these dogs, there are too many of them at present in Rome, and we hear them howling in the streets, and they are disturbing us in all places.”

    With “protectors” like that, who wouldn’t feel safe and secure? And “protectors” like Pius XI, who signed the Concordat with Hitler, and Pius XII, who was instrumental in negotiating it, never excommunicated a leading Nazi for their crimes, nor issued a plain condemnation of Nazi war crimes and genocide, and under whom the Vatican helped many leading Nazis escape justice in 1945.

    #76

    “I am experiencing nIb’poH. The feeling I have done this before.”

    Unsurprising, since you never have anything new or surprising to say.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    A generally accepted definition of paganism is any religion that is not one of the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions.

    That’s an extremely ignorant and simplistic “definition” that also includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. — and neither pagans nor any of those other groups accept being so stupidly lumped together with other traditions that have such widely-different histories, cultures and beliefs. That “definition” once again shows that you’re a bigot who can’t tell “those people” apart from one another.

    The definition we pagans accept is much narrower, and is more along the lines of “polytheistic religions that were prevalent in the now-Christian West before Christianity.” And even that’s pretty vague, since it includes everything from Hellenic to Egyptian to Celtic to Native-American. And then there’s the Norse and African-Diaspora traditions, which intersect with the nebulous “pagan community” without calling themselves “pagans.”

    Maybe your experience is limited. What do you think of Julius Evola or Alain de Benoist? I’m sure you’d agree they are pretty influential neopagans.

    Never heard of either of them — none of the pagans I’ve known have ever mentioned them, and neither have any of the histories of paganism I’ve read so far.

    And since nothing you’ve said shows any experience of actual pagan persons, you really can’t pretend MY experience is “limited.”

    You’re supposed to be the expert on paganism. Aren’t you familiar with his writings?

    YOU made the allegation about Crowley, so it’s YOUR job to back it up, not mine. Your refusal to do so strongly implies you’re bluffing. This is, in fact, the THIRD time you’ve been asked for a citation and failed to deliver.

    I am experiencing nIb’poH. The feeling I have done this before.

    That’s no surprise — you keep on repeating the same old bigoted horseshit no matter how many times it’s shown to be wrong.

  • jonathangray

    Raging Bee:

    That’s an extremely ignorant and simplistic “definition”

    Ignorant and simplistic or not, it is an accepted definition.

    that also includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

    Well, yes. Those are pagan belief systems.

    That “definition” once again shows that you’re a bigot who can’t tell “those people” apart from one another.

    No it doesn’t. I’m perfectly capable of distinguishing between types of pagan.

    Never heard of either of them — none of the pagans I’ve known have ever mentioned them, and neither have any of the histories of paganism I’ve read so far.

    If I asked a member of some American evangelical snake-handling sect what he thought of the theology of Suarez or Cajan, he would probably reply that he’d never heard of them and neither had any of his snake-handling brethren. Would he be justified in therefore dismissing Suarez and Cajan as irrelevant, marginal figures in the history of Christianity? Obviously not.

    YOU made the allegation about Crowley, so it’s YOUR job to back it up, not mine. Your refusal to do so strongly implies you’re bluffing.

    If you knew for a fact that I was “bluffing” instead of merely suspecting it, you could easily refute my claims. Could it be that you aren’t that familiar with Crowley’s writings? If so, that’s one more reason to disregard your claims to be any kind of authority on the subject, since Crowley is (by your own admission) a significant figure in the history of modern neopaganism.

  • jonathangray

    [Cajetan]

  • dingojack

    Jon-Jon — a definition proposed by whom, where and when, exactly?

    Nope, those religions mentioned are not Pagan by any measure I can find, but you have expert evidence to back your assertion, right?

    I’ve never heard of snow?’ That’s your best response? You need to gather much more actual evidence methinks!

    This is how it works: if you make a bold claim, you have to provide evidence to support it, nobody else has to do your work for you. Provide the direct, sourced quotation, or we’ll simply assume our null hypothesis, you’re full of shit, will stand unchanged.

    Dingo

  • jonathangray

    a definition proposed by whom, where and when, exactly?

    The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1950:

    pagan, n. & a. Heathen; unenlightened (person).

    heathen, a. & n. (One who is) neither Christian, Jewish, nor Mohammedan; (n. pl. collect.) the —; unenlightened person

  • jonathangray

    Nick Gotts:

    Nice of you to confirm in your own words that you are indeed an antisemite.

    Of course I’m an antisemite, by your lights. I’m not particularly bothered to refute the charge because “antisemite”, like “racist”, “fascist” or (from the right) “cultural Marxist”, has long ceased to be a conveyor of meaning and become a generic means to signal moral disapproval.

    It was a jibe, liar.

    Believe what you like. My giveashit-o-meter isn’t registering.

    I loathe him, perhaps even more than I loathe you.

    I need to up my game.

    No, but their operatives were overwhelmingly Catholic, so expelling all Catholics would have prevented the bombing campaign;

    But since their actions were not motivated by their religion, that would be an arbitrary and hence unjust measure.

    and there certainly are Catholics with exactly that aim. They often call themelves “Traditionalist Catholics”.

    Tradcats don’t rape and kill in an attempt to achieve that aim. We’re a religion of peace.

    The crimes of members of a minority are not the responsibility of that minority as a whole

    It’s the culture, stupid.

    Rigorous and impartial enforcement of the laws against violence, sexual coercion, child abuse of any kind, incitement to racial or religious hatred, and racial or religious discrimination in education, employment and housing. Ending any state funding for religious schools, and enforcement of minimal standards of education on privately-funded schools. Social and economic policies designed to ensure adequate educational, housing and employment opportunities for all, and greater economic equality (which correlates with lower levels of most social ills). An immigration policy which sets an annual limit on total immigrant numbers, and is non-discriminatory with regard to race, religion and country of origin (there are complications on the last point due to membership of the EU, but certainly those from all non-EU countries should be treated equally).

    In other words, the usual liberal wish list from outer space.

    [citation needed]

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

    With “protectors” like that, who wouldn’t feel safe and secure?

    Two sides to every story. And even the Jewish Encyclopedia acknowledges that ” the popes have always condemned, theoretically at least, acts of violence against the Jews, and forcible baptism.”