Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I'm not very comfortable with the use of "Judeo-Christian culture"
    to describe the US because I do not believe the US culture to be
    either Jewish or Christian. Certainly not a combination of the two.
    
    I'm not that convinved it's a code pharse for white european though.
    I think it's an attempt to be inclusive, or at least more inclusive
    then, "Christian". For many of the people who use it it is more 
    inclusive language then they might be expected to use. Ie. Pat
    Buchanan.
    
    			Alfred

    Interesting question, Laura, and I appreciate your perspective.  I
    would rarely, if ever, use "Judeo-Christian culture" as I don't think
    there exists even a "Christian" culture per se.  Like you, I abhor the
    coded meanings when right-wing politicians and Christians use the term.
    
    However, thinking about, and using the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" 
    to refer to faith and beliefs is very important to me, especially when I am
    tempted by expressions of Christianity that veer rather far from faith
    in the "God of history."  I need to be reminded that Jesus was a Jew,
    held Jewish beliefs and thought-forms, etc.  I cannot understand my own
    faith without also trying to understand the Jewish faith -- especially
    the historical expressions of that faith.
    
    Too many terms have been co-opted by the religious right; I fight each
    attempt... "Born-again" has taken on a connotation that it did *not*
    have 20-30 years ago; "Christian" as defined in the notesfile of that
    name makes be cringe -- but I *refuse* to give up that identity!  If
    "Judeo-Christian" is offensive to my Jewish friends, I will try to use
    it carefully, so as to avoid or lessen its offensiveness.  
    
    But I don't see how I should give it up -- why let Pat Buchanan own
    it???
    
    Nancy

    Since Christianity views itself as the successor to Judaism, having
    derived most of its scriptures and religious traditions from the Jewish
    faith, I can see how the term might be inoffensive to Christians but
    offensive to Jews.  For Jews, nothing has superceded their religion,
    and there isn't the same perception of a logical relationship between
    the faiths that Christianity maintains.  While Christianity encompasses
    Jewish scriptures, Judaism does not encompass Christian scriptures.  I
    thus think it is easier for Christians to lump the two religions
    together than for Jews to do so.
    
    -- Mike

  Re 525.0  Judeo-christian as terminology

  My precepition is that the term is euphamistic.

  Its a short-hand sterilized way of saying :

  followers of the 10 commandments; church-synagogue goers; anti-gay; 
  anti-abortion; anti-secular humanist, The Lord is on our side, etc...

  
  However :

  does the "judeo" part simply mean that christianity has its roots
  in ancient judaism (exclusive of the modern judaism in America today)?

  If it does mean that, then why not use the term "christian".
  
  If not, and the term "judeo" includes the element of modern judaism in
  America, then the term is at worst patronizing (for whatever reason) to-
  ward American Judaism (who do not seem to want the attention).

  My judgement is that the patronizing aspect is what is intended , but
  that its a smokescreen ploy. The real intent, or the end product of
  the real intent, is to renovate the Constitution to include these
  "judeo-christian" values as the Law of the Land, that law being drawn
  from both the "judeo" and "christian" scriptures.

  
                   Hank

re Note 525.2 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

>     However, thinking about, and using the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" 
>     to refer to faith and beliefs is very important to me, especially when I am
>     tempted by expressions of Christianity that veer rather far from faith
>     in the "God of history."  I need to be reminded that Jesus was a Jew,
>     held Jewish beliefs and thought-forms, etc.  I cannot understand my own
>     faith without also trying to understand the Jewish faith -- especially
>     the historical expressions of that faith.
  
        While the above is true, it is true primarily when viewed
        from a Christian perspective.  I can see how from a Jewish
        perspective none of the above would apply or have the same
        connotation.

        Note how offended and defensive conservative Christians are
        when sects such as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses claim
        to worship the same God and call themselves "Christian".  Yet
        we Christians do the same thing to those of Jewish faith all
        the time, claiming that we worship the same "God of Abraham"
        even though we have many beliefs about that God that the Jew
        does not share.

        Bob

The word "Judeo-Christian" simply means "Jewish and Christian".

No more, no less.

/john

    re: .5, Bob,
    
    Since you quoted me, I should add that I was described primarily that
    way of thinking in my own faith and in my own faith community.  In
    other words, I was sharing *my* Christian perspective!  I was
    responding to Laurie *from my faith.*  I rarely use the term unless I
    am referring to Christian faith and tradition, which is based on Jewish
    faith and tradition.  Actually, I *don't* assume that Christianity is
    inherently "better" than Judaism -- just different.  I *value* the
    Jewish origins of my faith.
    
    So, if it offends Jews (and I know of interfaith activities where it is
    stressed as the basis for valuing both the commonalities and the
    differences), I will be careful when/how I use it.  
    
    I repeat that I do not intend to give up the limited and specialized
    use I have for it, just because the Pat Buchanans and George
    Bushes of this world use it as a code word for their own agendas!
    
    Nancy

    I always viewed the term "Judeo-Christain Tradition" as just a
    politicians term to try and appeal to everyone. It doesn't mean
    anything to me.
    
    Marc H.

    My take on this is that Judeo-Christian was another religiously slanted
    term for Western society, i.e. tradition.  I never thought the terem
    itself held a lot of meaning because although it attempted to include
    all of Western society, it limits itself by not included the influence
    of Eastern tradition in Western tradition.
    
    I understand the negative feeling that many Jews and Christians have
    toward the term.  It never seemed particularly meaningful to me since
    it seems to imply exclusivity rather than inclusivity.
    
    Nanci 

    My take on the term Judeo-Christian is that it is meant to describe the
    cultural and moral heritage that Western civilization is built upon.

    Since Christianity is derived directly from Judaism, and since our
    European forebears lived in a culture that was inextricably entwined
    with Christianity in terms of art, science, legal codes, philosophy,
    and so on.  Based on this, it seems to be quite reasonable to use the
    term Judeo-Christian to describe our cultural heritage. 

    Now, those Americans who do not claim, or don't want to claim European
    cultural heritage might take offense, and on a personal level, they are
    entitled to do so, I suppose.  But for them to decry the use of that
    term in describing our country's cultural roots, and however
    Politically Incorrect that term may seem to them, is to ignore the
    historical fact that our system of government, many of our core moral
    values, our philosophy, and the legal basis for the very nation are
    derived directly from the European heritage, and by extension, the
    Judeo-Christian root-stock from which the European culture grew.  
    
    Mike

    The problem with "Judeo-Christian" is that it incorporates Judaism
    under the same umbrella as Christianity, as if the differences between
    the two religions were trivial or unimportant.  Actually, to be more
    specific, I think many Jews perceive this phrase, used mostly by
    Christians, as expressing an unstated assumption of Christianity as the
    standard for describing both religions, with Judaism carried along for
    the ride because it is assumed to be so much like Christianity.  Jews
    take offense at this, and rightly so, because Judaism is a distinct
    religion with its own beliefs and traditions, and to subsume its own
    uniqueness under a common banner with a larger and more numerous
    religion, as if its unique characteristics didn't count, is to discount
    its own distinctiveness.  I think many Jews interpret
    "Judeo-Christian", no matter how well meaning, as coming from a
    perspective that assumes that "Jews believe many of the same things
    that we do, so we'll just put them under the same banner as us."

    -- Mike

    Good point, Mike.  Not being Jewish, I never thought of it in those
    terms.  Thank you for pointing that out to me.
    
    Mike

I repeat:  The word means "Jewish and Christian".

Substitute "Jewish and Christian" when you see it, and see if you still think
it's offensive, and ask yourself why.

/john

    Yes, I still think it can be offensive to Jews, for the reason I've
    already specified.
    
    -- Mike

Thank you, Laura, for entering this topic.

I've been pondering it for a few days now, and the term Judeo-Christian seems
to make a linkage which assumes an overriding commonalty.

But somehow the introduction of a third monotheistic faith which also claims
its roots in Abraham puts such a linkage into a very different light:

	Judeo-Moslem

	Judeo-Christian-Islamic

Interestingly, I tend to feel more attuned to the pacifistic faith of
professional pugilist Mohammed Ali than of military leader Mosha Dyan.
Not so in all things, of course.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    I don't understand what your point is.  I don't understand what's the
    inherent problem with "Judaeo-Christian". As John Covert has said, it
    means nothing more than Jewish and Christian.
    
    You will have to get into the content and context of something that is
    asserted or denied by a person or people using the term
    "Judaeo-Christian" in order for there to be a dialog about it.

re Note 525.16 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     I don't understand what your point is.  I don't understand what's the
>     inherent problem with "Judaeo-Christian". As John Covert has said, it
>     means nothing more than Jewish and Christian.
>   
>     You will have to get into the content and context of something that is
>     asserted or denied by a person or people using the term
>     "Judaeo-Christian" in order for there to be a dialog about it.

        Pat,

        You are certainly right -- there is nothing inherently wrong
        with the term "Judaeo-Christian".  The term might still cause
        problems to certain people, and we might wish to be sensitive
        to it.  The term might nevertheless be used by certain
        persons to an effect that is ignoble.  We might wish to be
        aware of that.

        Bob

> The term might nevertheless be used by certain
>        persons to an effect that is ignoble.  We might wish to be
>        aware of that.

	Do you use it for ignoble effect? Is someone here using it to ignoble
	effect? Most words or phrases can be used to ignoble effect. Do we
	just throw out every phrase ever used to ignoble effect? 

	I don't understand the problem. I understand that it exists. I understand
	that some people use the term to imply "ignoble things." I don't
	understand why we should avoid using the word in a factual context. 
	(Which seems to be a strongly implied message here.)

			Alfred

    There isn't a dialog when a third party makes the complaint that we
    ought to remove "Judaeo-Christian" and "Jewish and Christian" from
    spoken and written conversation without a justification beyond
    sensitivity.

re Note 525.19 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

> without a justification beyond sensitivity.

        Do you really mean to say that "sensitivity" to others is
        never sufficient reason to modify our choice of terms in a
        discussion?

        Bob

    I am sure that well-meaning Christians who use the term
    Judaeo-Christian don't realize that the term is insulting to many Jews. 
    The unstated assumption of similarity between the two religions that is
    simply taken for granted, and the possibility of insult doesn't even
    enter into the picture when they use that phrase.  But it can be
    insulting nonetheless.
    
    If anyone is interested in a Jewish perspective on this question, I
    would suggest that they read topic 1141 in the BAGELS conference, which
    Laura pointed to in her base note.
    
    -- Mike

    Haven't read the whole string of replies...but I believe the term is
    used to describe the morality shared by the Jews and Christians based
    upon the Bible in total.
    
    jeff

re Note 525.22 by FATBOY::BENSON:

re "the morality shared by the Jews and Christians based upon the Bible in
total":
    
        Uh, Jeff, we don't get too far on that one!  It would seem to
        me that Jews and Christians disagree -- and it's a VERY
        fundamental disagreement -- on what the phrase "the Bible in
        total" means.

        Bob

    I don't believe that "sensitivity" is a self-justifying reason. In any
    case, a reason sensitivity to the word per se hasn't been demonstrated
    here.
    
    As for "insult", I often have discussions with Jews about moral
    tradition that use this word where it's just a word. 
    "Judaeo-Christian" is a frequently used word by former Mayor Ed Koch, a
    self-described liberal Jew.  Where does the notion of per se insult
    come from?

    As already pointed out, the insult comes from the way "Judaeo-Christian"
    joins together two different religions in a way that slights one of
    them.  "Judaeo-Christian" doesn't really say "Jewish and Christian"; it
    refers to a historically *Christian* culture in Europe and North
    America.  It thus says "Christian, which of course also includes
    Jewish".  But the "of course" is not really justified.  Judaism is
    unique religion, and to attach it to a primarily Christian cultural and
    religious tradition is to slight the uniqueness of Judaism; it is *not*
    Judaism, but Christianity which has been the primary religious force in
    European and North American culture.
    
    If anyone is really interested in understanding where the insult comes
    from, I would repeat my suggestion that it might help if they read
    topic 1141 in BAGELS.

    -- Mike

	I get the feeling that some people fail to understand why the term
"Judeo-Christian" might be a concern to some other people.

	It has been stated repeatedly that the hyphenation means nothing more
than simply "Jewish and Christian", and that the use of the term should be of
no particular concern to anyone.

	Be that as it may, there are apparently a few who feel the use of the
term may be misleading, if not an outright falsehood; that the Christian and
Jewish faiths and heritages may be sufficiently distinct to prompt us to
re-examine such an adjoinment; word union.

Peace,
Richard

>  "Judaeo-Christian" doesn't really say "Jewish and Christian"; it
>    refers to a historically *Christian* culture in Europe and North
>    America.  It thus says "Christian, which of course also includes
>    Jewish". 

	This may be what it means when you use it Mike, but it is not
	not what it means when I use it. When I use it it means the common
	things of both religions. Common tradition and common parts of the
	Bible. It implies overlap but not one being a subset of the other.

			Alfred

    Alfred, I agree that this is what people intend when they say it.  I
    also understand that the word was created out of an attempt at being
    inclusive.
    
    -- Mike

    
    		I have trouble when people use semantics as a means of
    changing thought processes.  When no insult is intended then why take
    offense?  As my mother used to say...its not 'what' you say but 'how'
    you say it.  Any word can be taken as an insult if it is intended that
    way so when we "play" this semantics game I wonder what the real agenda
    truely is.
    
    
    Dave

    I think most people who use "girls" to refer to adult women don't mean
    to be insulting either, but many women are offended by this usage and I
    have made a conscious effort not to use the word in that way.  The
    issue is not that we attribute malice to people who use offensive
    terms, but that the terms often carry with them certain implicit
    assumptions that *are* offensive, and which the speaker might not have
    been aware of when they used the word.
    
    -- Mike

My wife uses "girls" to refer to her 40ish friends.

I'm offended by it.

But she doesn't listen to me on such issues.

    Well, all good Christian wives are supposed know that they should obey
    their husbands.  I'd let her know who's boss if I were you.
    
    -- Mike

    My daughter has used the same argument with me.  I have this rule in
    the house that no "put downs" are allowed.  I have seen her with her
    friends and they are calling each other stupid or some other put down.
    
    all the girls(PC since they are 11) have argue back that it is not a
    put down because no offense is taken.
    
    I have used the term Judeo-Christian.  This string has awaken me to how
    it can be an offensive term.  How many people would have to be offended
    by the term to make a proponent of the term not use it.
    
    Who determines whether a term is offensive.  The person using the term
    or the person impacted by it.  I think it is the person impacted by it.
    
    
                                  Patricia

    
    In my opinion this is an example of "multiculturalism" and its negative
    effects.  As all are separated into their various groups then
    everything common becomes an affront - even language.  It is a very sad
    state of affairs.  Political correctness shall make victims of every
    group in the world.  And every group will act like a victim demanding
    their restitution and special privileges.  It is an absurd turn of
    events.  But my belief is that our society of leisure is fast
    disappearing and such silly notions shall fade as survival becomes the
    norm.  
    
    jeff

re Note 525.34 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     In my opinion this is an example of "multiculturalism" and its negative
>     effects.  As all are separated into their various groups then
>     everything common becomes an affront - even language.  It is a very sad
>     state of affairs.  Political correctness shall make victims of every
>     group in the world.  And every group will act like a victim demanding
>     their restitution and special privileges.  It is an absurd turn of
>     events.  But my belief is that our society of leisure is fast
>     disappearing and such silly notions shall fade as survival becomes the
>     norm.  
  
        Jeff,

        Then may I conclude from the above that you don't mind
        evangelical Christians being bundled together with Mormons,
        Jehova's Witnesses, and various New Age cults under the title
        "Christian"?  After all, they have "a lot in common."

        Bob

 
  RE Note 525.29  Dave
    
> Any word can be taken as an insult if it is intended that
> way so when we "play" this semantics game I wonder what the real agenda
> truely is.
  
  some of the ultra_right_wing of those who have recently bantered the phrase 
  believe in the philosophy of a kind of biblical re-construction of the
  the Law of the Land and the Constitution. i believe the originator to be
  a man named Roshdoonay ? or something like that. "Judeo-christian" is their
  "signal" word. I believe they would require the death penalty for adultery,
  etc... I can document next week if anyone is interested.

  While i am a very conservative christian type, this is a very dangerous
  trend (imo).

                  Hank

    And here I was believing that the traditional moral values of the
    United States were formed by people who read and believed in the Old
    and New Testament.
    
    Now it's the "ultra right" 

    .35
    
    Very thought provoking question, Bob.  Thank you!
    
    Richard
    

     Re : 525.37 Patrick,


> And here I was believing that the traditional moral values of the
> United States were formed by people who read and believed in the Old
> and New Testament.
    
     Christians should warn not legislate against immorality.

> Now it's the "ultra right" 

     Facism:

     a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme 
     right, typically through the merging of of state and business leader-
     ship, together with belligerent nationalism. 
     American Heritage Dictionary.

     If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...

     Patrick, do you want your chidren or anyone elses children forced to
     go to "religious trainning"? do you think the Book of Leviticus should
     be used to determine what is a capital offense? as much as I am offended
     by the "abominations" which are capital offences in the Law of Moses,
     Israel was a theocracy, US of A is a republic/democracy and no amount of
     legislation and forced morality can make it a theocracy. God will take
     care of the sinners.

     Even at that, the "ultra_right_wing" reconstructionalists are in error;
     the only scriptural national mandate for capital punishment is murder.
     in Genesis 9:6 under the Noahic Covenant given to the gentile nations
     for as long as "the bow shall be in the cloud" :

     "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed,for in the
     image of God made He man".

     everything else...

     "vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay". 

        Hank

Re:  religious training

I force religious training on my daughter every day of the
week (and twice on Sundays!) :-)

In fact it's been so effective, she asked Jesus into her
heart on July 16.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    If you've "forced" religious training on your daughter every day,
    are you sure she invited Jesus into her heart honestly and openly,
    or possibly to please her dad?
    
    Karen
    
    p.s. Btw, I support you in your choice of religious training in your 
    own home.  

  
  RE 425.40  Collis,

  But *you* did it not the state, reconstructionists believe in the union
  of church and state.

  Hank

    What edition of the American Heritage Dictionary includes "...of the
    extreme right"?  My edition which is the Second College Edition of 1982
    does not include "...of the extreme right".

    Ultra right and fascism are your labels.  If you believe that you can
    score a point here with an inflammatory label, you're mistaken. The
    style of your note is stuffed with self-righteousness.

    Your questions are absurd.  No one yet identified here advocates of
    what you list in 525.39 as part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.  My
    God is a God of love and mercy.  Jesus came for salvation of sinners
    not the righteous.

  Re 525.43 Patrick

> What edition of the American Heritage Dictionary includes "...of the
> extreme right"?  My edition which is the Second College Edition of 1982
> does not include "...of the extreme right".

     July 1987, pg 255.

> Ultra right and fascism are your labels.  If you believe that you can
> score a point here with an inflammatory label, you're mistaken. The
> style of your note is stuffed with self-righteousness.

     I'll accept your label, if you'll accept mine.

> Your questions are absurd.  No one yet identified here advocates of
> what you list in 525.39 as part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. 
  
  Ok , I'll get documentation (if I can), of course the "judeo-christianizers" 
  are not going to publicly reveal their full agenda.

> My God is a God of love and mercy.  Jesus came for salvation of sinners
> not the righteous.

  So is mine... law precedes grace

  tomorrow...

                    Hank

  

  Re 525.43 Patrick,

  "inflammatory label" : my apology, after thinking about this, I realize
  that it looks like im equating "family value" people with fascism, thats
  not the case, i used the term "ultra_right_wing" meaning such groups as
  the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan nation, Children of God...etc, many of which
  espouse biblical reconstructionism and use the term "judeo-christian" as
  a ploy for their racism, etc. my concern is that they are growing here
  and abroad and  and that their doctrine (at least "reconstructionism") is 
  affecting the more moderate "right_wing".

                       Hank

Re:  .41

  >...or possibly to please her dad?

Yes, she desired to please her dad - although not the dad
you're thinking of.

Re:  .42

Agreed.  I just wanted to mention another aspect of "forced
religious training" which is not only good, but commanded
by the LORD God.

Collis

    But the term Judaeo-Christian has been in use as a descriptor of our
    western culture for quite a long time by some very reasonable and
    learned people.  The idea being that our culture is born of an amalgam
    of both traditions.  Surely you don't attempt to equate everyone who
    uses that term with people like those Aryan Nation and KKK kooks.
    
    Mike

    There's a worldview that presents two (or more) conspiracies for world
    domination.

    One is the New Age or Secularism and with it the goal of the
    elimination of Christianity from society and culture and the other
    conspiracy is the imposition of a form of Christianity which denies
    personal freedom and the dignity of the individual.

  Re  525.47  Mike,

> Surely you don't attempt to equate everyone who
> uses that term with people like those Aryan Nation and KKK kooks.

  No certainly not, but sometimes the unsuspecting pick up these terms 
  (such as judeo-christian) not knowing that they have a weighted
  signifigance put upon them by (as Patrick says) conspirators, etc
  thereby tainting themselves by giving apparent credence to the
  doctrine of the supremists (or whatever).

                 Hank

    Well, Laura, care to comment on the responses to your .0?

Michael the Archangel is an example of Jewish and Christian (Judeo-Christian)
heritage:

	  "In the name of the Lord, God of Israel!  May Michael be
	   at my right hand and Gabriel at my left, before me Uriel
	   and behind me Raphael, and above my head -- the Divine
	   Presence of God."

/john

    Gee, this has been a spirited  ;-)  discussion!
    
    I was out for 4 days (weekend and Rosh Hashanah) and had system
    problems for 2 days, so that's why I didn't check in before now.
    
    I already expressed my opinions in BAGELS 1141, the basenote and one or
    two replies, so I don't have anything new to add at this point.  But I
    have enjoyed seeing this community's points of view.
    
    For those who maintain that "Judeo-Christian" is a valid historical
    term, I would  add the caveat that not only has there been an
    active interchange with the Moslem world over the centuries (the origin
    of our numerical system, medicine, and much else), but that Europe's
    roots in particular include the Greek and Roman civilizations which
    antedated Christianity.
    
    In fact, much of the inspiration for the US Constitution was the Greek
    "demos" - the source of our word democracy.  The founders' political
    ideas were largely formed by the European Enlightenment which drew
    inspiration from Classical sources.
    
    Another important and often ignored source of our constitution is the
    ancient democratic organizations of the Native Americans.
    
    In summary, neither Christianity nor Judaism exists in a vacuum.  All
    of these cultures, and others I haven't named here, have exchanged
    theology, social values, and concepts of government.  And the US
    political system has stronger roots in both the Greek and Native
    American democracies.
    
    When you look at it this way, the linkage of Judeo-Christian seems
    pretty artificial.  
    
    L

    Laura,
    
    I totally agree with your note.  Thank you for pointing out the other
    essential elements of our Western Culture.
    
                                Patricia

    Laura,
    
    I've used Judeo-Christian meaning "Jewish and Christian," to describe 
    a socio-religious relationship that has so strongly influenced the path
    of western culture and religious heritage over the last 5000 years.  
    
    I do appreciate learning the connotations and sensitivies the term 
    carries for some people.  Is there another term that better describes 
    this path of Western religious heritage?
    
    Thanks for opening this discussion, and thanks to all who contributed 
    their points of view.
    
    Karen
    

    RE:  .54
    
    There are many terms with precise meanings which we can use in
    discussing history, culture, and theology.  To save time, I won't type
    in the dictionary definitions which you can reference yourself.
    
    The West
    Western culture, history, technology, etc.
    Europe, European
    Christian
    Roman Catholic
    Protestant
    Eastern Orthodox
    names of other Christian sects, other groupings
    Judaism
    Ashkenasic Judaism (North, Central, and East European)
    Sephardic Judaism (Southern European, North African, Mid-Eastern)
    Moslem, Islam
    Monotheistic religions (Christ., Jud., Mosl.)
    Classical culture, literature, etc. (e.g. Greek and Roman)
    American (understood as referring to U.S.A.)
    etc.
    
    Readers of this conference can more readily supply the proper
    Christian terms.  Hope this helps.
    
    L

    Thanks, Laura.  The terms are helpful.  
    
    Karen

    RE: Laura,
    
    
    			Than you for your thoughts and imputs, they've
    been very interesting.  Historically, I have used Judeo-Christian
    as a referal to the Christian Church during the time of Christ.  I
    guess its a term I'll have to refrain from using now. :-)
    
    
    Dave

    RE:  .57
    
    > I have used Judeo-Christian as a referal to the Christian Church
    > during the time of Christ
    
    Dear Dave,
    
    I'm no expert on early Christian history, but I understand that there
    was no church, per se, during the life of Jesus.  That he was indeed a
    Jew, whose followers were both Jews and gentiles.  How do historians
    refer to this time period and to this proto-organization?
    
    L
    
    

    I just thought of an analogy that might make clearer my objection to
    the term.
    
    Consider Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as sisters of a sort.  Now,
    it makes no more sense to call this family the Judeo-Christian than it
    does to call it the Judeo-Islamic family.  Right?  What could we more
    accurately call this family?  I would use the term monotheistic
    religions.  Maybe there is a better word, because there are surely
    other monotheistic religions in the world.  Maybe we should just call
    them "the Big Three". ;-)
    
    As a Jew, I see the Christians on one side and the Moslems on the
    other.  I don't see a special linkage with one as opposed to the other. 
    Jews have been a vital part of civilization in both Christian and
    Moslem countries, have contributed to and learned from both.
    
    L

    Now Laura! :-)
    
    			I guess you caught me on that one!  What I mean is
    the early Christian Church that was formed in that geographical area.
    The Church just after the death of Christ was much different than what
    we see here now.  So I refere to that era as "Judeo-Christian" because
    of the name of that area being Judea.
    
    Dave

    re: 525.29

    It's called Judeo-Christian because Christians believe that Jesus is
    the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy of a Messiah.  Jesus Christ was
    a Jew.  Christians preserved and recorded the writings of the Old
    Testament.

    The conquest by Islam of the Christian lands was only stopped in the
    West by the Battle of Tours in 732, and only in the East by the Battle
    of Lepanto in 1571, 839 years of conflict with Christianity led to
    philosophical and theological isolation of the traditions of Islam and
    Christianity.

    Laura,
    
    I have begun to hear Jewish, Christian, and Islamic people referred to
    as "people of the Book"  referring to their common acceptance of the
    Hebrew Scriptures.
    
    
                                 Patricia

"People of the Book" is an Islamic term.

Another term is "The Abrahamic Ecumene".

Judaism and Christianity have much more in common with each other in their
outlook on God, Life, and Society than either do with Islam.

/john

    And Judaism and Christianity also have many important differences with
    one another that Christians often tend to gloss over.
    
    -- Mike

>    And Judaism and Christianity also have many important differences with
>    one another that Christians often tend to gloss over.

	I find that this is more true of non-Christians. And of course
	non-Christians also tend to gloss over many, perhaps most, of
	the differences between Christians. For myself I prefer the
	search for common ground.

			Alfred

    I agree, Alfred, that the search for common ground is an important part
    of dialogue between faiths.
    
    I would only add that another aspect of interfaith dialogue is
    recognizing and respecting differences when they exist.
    
    -- Mike

    RE:  .63
    
    >Judaism and Christianity have much more in common with each other in
    >their outlook on God, Life, and Society than either do with Islam.
    
    With all due respect, this is your opinion.  Can you substantiate it?
    
    L

   I can provide you with libraries full of substantiation.
   
   You can start in the Judaica section of Brandeis.
   
   /john

    There is an excellent introduction to Judaism, the author of which I
    forget (and the book is packed along with most of my books right now),
    which I recommend for anyone (especially from a Christian background)
    who would like to learn more about the uniqueness of Judaism.  The name
    of the book is "Where Judaism Differs".
    
    -- Mike

  
  Re : the term "judeo-christian" its meanings and preceptions
 
  A brief review of a book written by "the father of modern reconstructionism" 

     The Institutes of Biblical Law;   Rousas John Rushdoony;
     The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,
     Craig Press; 1978; 890 pages.

  Mr Rushdoony's basic premise is that the Puritan reformers came to America
  to establish a government based upon the Law of Moses [sic]...

   "when Wycliff wrote of his English Bible "This Bible is for the government
    of the people, by the people and for the people" his statement attracted 
    no attention insofar as his emphasis on the centrality of Biblical Law
    was concerned...When New England began its existance as a law-order, its
    adoption of Biblical law was a return to Scripture and a return to Europe's
    past...thus the New Haven Colony records show that (this means) the Law of 
    God  without any sense of innovation : 
 
    April 6, 1644 "Itt was ordered thatt the judiciall lawes of God, as del-
    ivered to Moses...be a rule to all the courtes in this jurisdiction in
    their proceedings against offenders"  Page 1,2 of intro.

   In addition he believes that any society which does not adopt this tenant
   is "marked for judgment"

     "And civil law cannot be separated for Biblical law, for the Biblical
      doctrine of law includes all law, civil, ecclesiastical, societal
      familial and all other forms of law. The social order which despises
      God's law places itself on death row. It is marked for judgment"
      Page 4 of intro

  Further he believes God's "elect" should strive to restore this lost prin-
  ciple: 
   
     "The restoration of that Covenant relationship was the work of Christ
      and His elect people. The fulfilment of that Covenant is their Great
      Commission to subdue all things and all nations and his law-word [sic]".
      Page 14 of intro.

   He finds no contardiction between law and grace :

     "The law is the revelation of God and His righteousness. There is no 
      ground in Scripture for despising the Law, neither can the law be
      relegated to the Old Covenant and garce to the New...there is no
      contradiction between law and grace".  Page 7 of intro.

   Mr Rushdoony also believes that the Biblical Law-Word principle as a modern
   tenant includes the death penalty for the following :
 
   Adultery, rape, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, murder, smiting or
   cursing mother or father, abortion (generally), kidnapping, witchcraft,
   false prophet [sic], apostasy, idolatry, rebellion, blashemy, Sabbath
   desecration [sic] (although he says that the Sabbath breaking death
   penalty should be "rethought"),  Pages 76-77; 402-403.

  Pages 15 through 647 cover each of the Ten Commandments in depth and the
  penalties for infractions thereof; public whippings, restitutions, death
  sentences (usually) to be instituted in modern societies who follow the
  law-word principle.

  His NT proof text is I Cor 5:5 :

     "to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,
      that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus".
 
  Please note that this book is the product of The Presbyterian and Reformed
  Publishing Company (presumably not given to "extremes").

  "Judeo-Christian" ?

                                Hank

    What sort of agenda is being pushed by adding "[sic]" after the "Law of
    Moses"?

    I don't believe Mr. Rushdooney represents any considerable constituency
    conerning his restoration of a theocracy.  Theocracy will come again to
    the earth but only when Christ begins his millineal reign.
    
    jeff

     
   525.71  Patrick, Agenda Re [sic] after Law of Moses.

   Since Mr Rushdoony is of "reformed theology" i thought i should indicate
   that these are his exact words "law of Moses" Typically reformed theology
   makes a sharp distinction between law and grace. There seems (imo) to be
   a conflict of interest here - Reconstructionism and Reformed Theology.

   525.72  Jeff, theocratic constituency

   I just talked this week end with a minister friend who is active in 
   conservative theological circles and he said that reconstructionism
   is a growing problem creeping into the more moderate theological
   camps.

                   Hank

    This has taken an interesting turn.  I am trying to follow the logic
    here but having some difficulty.  I believe that people are now
    debating the extensive use of the death penalty under some religious
    mandate.  Is that so?
    
    If this is the case, then I would hasten to remind the readers that
    this is a clearcut example of where Christianity veers off from
    Judaism.
    
    When these penalties were the law of the land during times of Jewish
    sovereignty (such as before the Roman period), they were used extremely
    rarely.  The teaching is that the court which hands down such a verdict
    is considered to have blood on its hands and is like a murderer itself.
    This implies great shame for the judges.   Justice tempered with mercy
    is the guideline.
    
    Do you hear about such executions in Israel today?
    
    This is an example of Christian fundamentalists taking the words of the
    Bible literally to support their own agenda.  
    
    To those who perpetuate such an agenda, please don't try to provide
    support by claiming some spurious Jewish heritage or legitimacy for
    your actions.  Such agendas are in direct contradiction with Judaism as
    it has been lived for millenia and today.
    
    Laura

  
  Re 525.74

 >This has taken an interesting turn.  I am trying to follow the logic
 >here but having some difficulty.  I believe that people are now
 >debating the extensive use of the death penalty under some religious
 >mandate.  Is that so?
    
  Yes.

 >Do you hear about such executions in Israel today?

  No, and I should have stated that fact. Thanks Laura.

                       Hank

    Re 525.74

    Incidentally, laura, I don't support the reconstructionist's
    "judeo-christian" theocratic theory of government. One question
    I have for them is : what constitutes the capital offenses of
    "rebellion" and/or "apostasy"? Is "rebellion-apostasy" anything 
    other than the religion of christianity? what brand? Another
    question : Do they have a "global manifest destiny" ?

                       Hank

    .74 Laura,
    
    	You know, I've noticed what you're talking about, too.  I've
    just never been able to say it so eloquently.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    PS  I regret that we in this conference failed to acknowledge the passage
    of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur this year.  An oversight.
    

re Note 525.77 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     PS  I regret that we in this conference failed to acknowledge the passage
>     of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur this year.  An oversight.
  
        This fact alone says a whole lot about the topic of this
        note!

        Bob

Re:  525.74

  >When these penalties were the law of the land during times of Jewish
  >sovereignty (such as before the Roman period), they were used extremely
  >rarely.  The teaching is that the court which hands down such a verdict
  >is considered to have blood on its hands and is like a murderer itself.
  >This implies great shame for the judges.   Justice tempered with mercy
  >is the guideline.

Indeed, the question is raised whether the Jewish connection being
referred to is the *tradition* of the Jews or the *Law* of the Jews.
I always assumed Law.  It sounds like you are assuming tradition.
Probably it should be both.
    
Collis

    RE:  -1
    
    The "Law of the Jews" cannot be discovered by a simplistic, literalist
    reading of the Bible.  Anyone who tells you that is spouting nonsense
    and knows almost nothing about Judaism.
    
    The Jewish communities live by "halacha" which translates to English as
    The Way, often also called the law.
    
    Halacha is a highly complex, sophisticated, evolved and evolving body of
    understanding which holds the so-called Old Testament as its source,
    but reflects several thousand years of Talmudic study and
    interpretation.  
    
    Jewish practice also reflects the Oral Law, which we believe was given
    to Moses by the Holy One, but never written down.  It also includes
    many meaningful stories and teachings.  It also includes and authorizes
    local customs.
    
    The rendering of judgements by judges is highly crucial in Judaism. 
    The judges (traditionally rabbis) are governed by a vast body of
    learning included all of the above.
    
    If you would care to learn more  about Judaism, I recommend that you
    follow BAGELS.  Just recently, the topic of the various Biblical death
    penalties came up indirectly in a discussion.  These Biblical readings
    are used as symbolic codes to indicate the relative severity of sins,
    and the resulting community treatment of those who commit these sins. 
    In the overwhelming  majority of cases, the actual community practice
    (based on Halacha) is vastly milder than you'd think by reading the
    books literally.
    
    What really concerns me in some (not all) C-P'ers writing is the
    harshness.  I hear judgmentalism, punitiveness, severity, rigidity, 
    and condescension.  Well, I guess this is a subject for Processing. 
    But I just wish that the harshness were tempered with Mercy.  
    
    Jesus' parable of the people who live in glass houses, shows us a model
    of humility.  No human is all good or all bad.  We are all a mixture. 
    To truly cleanse humanity of evil, we would all be dead.  Before we
    harshly judge another, we should look hard at those same evil qualities
    within ourselves, then imitate the gentleness of the Divine.
    
    L

>    Jesus' parable of the people who live in glass houses, shows us a model
>    of humility.  No human is all good or all bad.  We are all a mixture. 

I would like to read that one.  Can you tell me where to find it?

    Laura,
    
    Do Hasidic, orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews participate in the BAGELS
    conference?  Would their views closely match the majority in BAGELS?
    
    I'm curious.
    
    jeff

    RE:  .82
    
    I got the citation wrong, my apologies.  No offense intended. 
    
    But I think you understand what I am saying.  I guess I mixed up
    "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" with "Let him
    who is without evil throw the first stone."  Anyway, I've got no
    stomach for stone throwing, literally or otherwise.  I regret if you
    don't care for my meaning.
    
    RE:  .83
    
    jeff,
    
    This is a hard one to answer.  In my opinion, BAGELS represents a wide
    range.  You might not be surprised to learn that in one way BAGELS is
    like C-P!  The more orthodox voices are usually the loudest. ;-)  (or
    at least the most persistent)  So some Reform (least orthodox) Jews
    are not comfortable there.
    
    I don't know who in BAGELS is what.  You could browse through the
    intros to get a feel.  As there are very few (if any) Hasidic or
    ultra-orthodox Jews working at DEC, I suspect there are few or none in
    BAGELS.
    
    Probably the most regular BAGELS writers are Modern Orthodox or
    Conservative, with some Referm and some non-religious Jews for good
    measure.  
    
    You can learn a lot about traditional Judaism in BAGELS.  Somebody
    regularly posts an Internet discussion of halacha.  This is highly
    educational.
    
    There are plenty of non-Jews who participate and feel very comfortable
    there so you are most welcome.  Once or twice a Christian tried to
    proselytize there with resulting unhappiness all around.  Not lately.
    
    As for me (not that you asked, but you might wonder), I was raised as a
    Reform Jew.  I have a strong Jewish heritage and identity, but was
    raised with a very mild form of practice.  For example, non-kosher, not
    strict in observing Sabbath, etc.
    
    I am still pretty easygoing about observance in these areas, but I
    prefer a Conservative liturgy.  I have taught myself quite a bit about
    my Jewish heritage, but I'm a greenhorn relatively speaking.
    
    My husband and I are highly involved in the local synagogue and other
    Jewish organizations.  Our close friends include Jews, Christians, and
    non-religious people.
    
    Does this answer or over-answer ;-) your question?
    
    L

  Re 525.80  

> What really concerns me in some (not all) C-P'ers writing is the
> harshness.  
    
   Laura, it is a doctrine, held by many christians that people cannot be 
   "saved" until they are "convicted" of sin. That conviction comes through
   hearing the Law : "and so terrible was the sight that Moses said, I do
   exceedingly fear and quake". Also Paul wrote "the Law was our schoolmaster
   to bring us to Christ", presumably to "partake of His holiness". Some of us
   wonder how others can claim to be christians and walk in a manner that is
   generally condemned by the Bible. The Scripture also instructing us to
   exhort and/or rebuke an erring brother or sister to help them repent.
   This exhortation and/or rebuke does sound harsh, but if it is done in
   the right spirit (love for an erring brother and concern for his/her
   well being) then it is within the parameters of christian love.

   When God's grace is failed by an erring brother, then the Law must be
   preached to bring him/her back into the Body of Christ. (The law is our
   school master to bring us to Christ).

> Jesus' parable of the people who live in glass houses, shows us a model
> of humility.  No human is all good or all bad.  We are all a mixture. 
> To truly cleanse humanity of evil, we would all be dead.  Before we
> harshly judge another, we should look hard at those same evil qualities
> within ourselves, then imitate the gentleness of the Divine.

   Secondly, the Divine has on many occasions demonstrated a "harsh" 
   countenance in the Hebrew Bible (from a christian perspective)...
   For example through Jeremiah, and The book of Lamentations, when Jehovah 
   brought a harsh judgement upon Israel "but thou hast utterly rejected us; 
   thou art very wroth against us".
   
   His mercy was demonstrated after He had dealt harshly with them and sent 
   Ezra to purge the Levites and send them back to Israel to restore the Temple
   in preparation of the Return from the Exile.

   So also, some here seem harsh. I would hope that it is out of love and 
   concern for the "erring" brethren , that they not be "exiled" or "suffer 
   lose" on the Day of The Lord.
   
   Lastly, there are many divisions within christianity, C-P, (IMO) seems
   to represent the more "tolerant" view of christianity, and when christians
   of a less "tolerant" view make their feelings known, it very often seems
   harsh, but they are not really malicious. I think these might correspond
   (emotionally) to the Hasidic counterpart in Judaism. I hope this helps.

                        Hank

Well, Laura, I think it is quite important that you chose to bring up
the incident with the Jewish leaders and the woman caught in adultery.
Let's be sure you completely understand it and its meaning.

The Jewish leaders, the scribes and the Pharisees, brought the woman to
Jesus to test his response, to see if he would, in any way, violate
Jewish law.  But, of course, this was going to be a futile attempt.
God's followers are called to do exactly as he:

1. Not condemn her.
2. Tell her to sin no more.

We are called to do both.  If you read the halakic newsletter, you'll see
recent discussions that point out that the halaka includes the admonition for
followers of the halaka to gently correct those who are not following it.

This is part of our shared Jewish and Christian ethical tradition.

/john

    .85
    
    Thanks, Hank.  You've provided me with much to consider and digest.
    
    Shalom, Salaam, Peace -
    Richard

As a specific example of how Judaism and Christianity have more in
common with each other than either has with Islam, consider the ten
commandments, shared by the Judeo-Christian tradition; Islam has a
somewhat different version of God's most important laws for man.

And, consider this:

Authorities in Iran recently forbade book shops from selling Bibles,
closed down an Episcopal Church in the city of Kerman, and arrested
an evangelical Christian who was carrying New Testaments.  News Network
International reports that Church leaders who protested the banning of
Bibles were told by government officials that the action was approved
because the Bible is contrary to the Koran.

Mohammed claimed that the Jews twisted Moses's writings for their own
purposes.

/john

525.88

>Mohammed claimed that the Jews twisted Moses's writings for their own
>purposes.

While this might be true, it's not difficult to find Jews who'll claim
Christians have twisted the ancient Hebrew writings for their own purposes,
as well.

Richard

Ah, but Mohammed claims Moses's writings, as we have them, were actually
modified, falsified, and corrupted by the Jews, and are not to be read.

/john

BTW, I want to be sure that you don't think that I'm saying that there is
nothing shared between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Judaism.  There
is quite a bit.  For example, Islam teaches that Jesus Christ was miraculously
conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, and
miraculously saved from death.  For them, he is the second greatest prophet.

And there is even cooperation sometimes:

`The Anglican Church in Jerusalem has joined with a world Islamic body to call
for an international conference on the situation of Christians in the Holy
Land.  Uri Mor, director of the department for Christian Communities of the
Religious Affairs Ministry, called the move a "gross attempt to interfere in
political issues."'  -- Haim Shapiro, "The Jerusalem Post", 10 Oct 92.

/john

Sitting here reading "The Jerusalem Post", I just encountered Laura's hated
phrase used by a Jewish writer.  He is certainly not using it to mean anything
conservative!

The writer is Moshe Kohn, writing in a column called "View from Nov".  He
writes:

	In some ancient cultures, "gilluyi arayot" [forbidden sexual
	activity] was considered normal, even desirable, especially in
	the ruling class.  In our own "Judeo-Christian" culture -- certain
	forms of "gillui arayot" that once were regarded as social as well
	as ritual offenses are today considered a legitimate "alternative
	lifestyle."

The article is on "immutz halev" -- hard-heartedness; Moshe Kohn is writing
about hard-heartedness by those committing sins such as "gillui arayot".

    Thanks for note .85, which points up some significant cultural
    assumptions.
    
    RE:  .92
    
    A small point but one which needs saying:  I don't represent all Jewish
    opinions.  I can only speak for myself and my understanding.  I can
    tell you what I believe to be mainstream Jewish values and beliefs. 
    But of course there are plenty of exceptions.
    
    When I said that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are like sisters,
    that doesn't mean that they all developed in exactly the same way, nor
    that they have the same social manifestations.  
    
    I only meant that theologically and historically they have some common
    roots and that they have shared a lot over the years.  
    
    If one sister now manifests an intolerant society, we hope that she
    will outgrow this phase as have the other sisters.  To me, the
    intolerance in some Moslem countries is not much different than the
    intolerance in some Christian countries during the late Middle Ages. 
    Just as the late Middle Ages' intolerance should not be used to broadly
    condemn Christianity, so today's intolerance in Iran and other
    countries should not be used to condemn Islam.
    
    As France has its cathedrals, Moslem countries have their beautiful
    mosques shining in the sun.  As Christianity has its deeply spiritual,
    mystic monastic orders, so Islam has its mystical Sufis.  As
    Christianity has produced deeply moral, courageous individuals, so has
    Islam.  As Christian Europe produced the printed book, Islamic cultures
    produced our mathematical system including the important concept of
    zero.
    
    I prefer not to engage in comparing religions to see which is superior. 
    I have seen this preoccupation in some Christians, for whom there seems
    to be a driving need to prove that Christianity is the final and best
    fruit of human spirituality, and that others are false or inferior.
    
    L

    I am surprised to hear that Iran is persecuting Christians, and I would
    think that this represents a perversion of Moslem principles.  Islam
    has traditionally tolerated Judaism and Christianity (and possibly
    Zorastrianism, though I'm not sure), and considered their followers to
    be "People of the Book".  While it is true that they consider the
    Hebrew and Christian scriptures to be corruptions of the true word of
    God, they *have* tolerated those religions much more than the followers
    of other faiths because of the "People of the Book" designation.  The
    most notable example of such persecution is the Bahai faith; since
    Islam teaches that Mohammed was the Seal of the Prophets, Bahais are
    persecuted for believing that a prophet succeeded Mohammed.
    
    -- Mike

    Thanks Laura for your thorough answer!
    
    jeff

>    I am surprised to hear that Iran is persecuting Christians, and I would
>    think that this represents a perversion of Moslem principles.  Islam

    It happens. Just as persecuting Jews is a perversion of Christian
    principles but it has happened. No religion is exempt from people
    abusing it for personal or political reasons. Unfortunately.

    		Alfred

    Good point, Alfred.
    
    -- Mike

    The Jews were present in the Moslem nations before they were Moslem. 
    The social condition of the Jews in these countries has varied by place
    and time.  The high point was the high status of Jews in Spain before
    1492.  At other times, Jews were a poor, barely-tolerated minority.  In
    some countries, the Jews prospered, such as Iran before the revolution.
    
    Unfortunately, in recent years, many Moslem countries became quite
    inhospitable to the Jews.  (Turkey is a notable exception.)  Most Jews
    fled to Israel.  There are still some Jews trapped "behind enemy
    lines", so to speak, in Iraq, Yemen, and other countries.  Their
    condition is truly desperate.
    
    Christians were also present in these lands all along.  In some areas
    (most notably Armenia) they even formed or still form a majority. 
    Given the current intolerance and fundamentalism, it would not surprise
    me if Christians, too, were persecuted in these countries.
    
    (For a reverse situation, we need only read the headlines about
    Bosnia.)
    
    The history of the Christians in the mid-East is fascinating. For an
    interesting snapshot, read Marco Polo's diaries of his travels in this
    area.  I believe some of these Christians maintain close linguistic and
    cultural ties to the time of Jesus.
    
    L

    RE:  .85
    
    I've been giving this some thought and wanted to add the following
    comments.
    
    I don't have a problem with co-religionists (of any persuasion)
    correcting each others' behavior.  Although, even within a single
    religion, like Christianity, what's ok for one group (say, a Protestant
    using birth control) is not ok for another (like in this example, a
    Catholic).  The safest course, even between Christians, is to limit
    one's moral advice to those from one's own church, even in fact to
    those within one's own family or circle of friends.
    
    But I do have a problem with people of any religion correcting behavior
    of people of another religion, or of people who hold no religion.  
    
    There are instances where we may choose to correct a stranger because
    of an infraction of law or common custom.   For example, as citizens we
    may correct someone who smokes in a non-smoking area.  One may choose to
    speak to a parent who doesn't adequately control his child in a
    restaurant, which is not illegal but is a violation of common decency.  
    
    But I have a problem when one tries to impose one's morality on
    another.  Now there is certainly a very gray area between common
    decency and personal morality.  But I think it is important for those
    who hold strong moral views based on religion to  consider when
    they are appropriately expressed, and when not.
    
    In a pluralistic country like the US it is important to make
    distinctions between law, common decency, and private morality.  
    
    Now some people want to impose their religious agenda on the US through
    the law.  Rest assured that there will always be great resistance to
    the breakdown of the firewall between church and state, as affirmed in
    the Supreme Court decision striking down prayer ceremonies in public 
    school graduations.
    
    If you want a feeling for what life would be like in a theocracy, I
    recommend that you see two films.   Not_Without_My_Daughter depicts the
    experience of an American woman living in Iran.   The_Handmaid's_Tale
    (hope I got the name right) tells about America after the imposition of
    a religious right government with Nazi overtones.
    
    L

I often wonder what God thinks about us.

He reveals Himself to us, He gives us commands to
follow, and what is our reaction?

Well, that's o.k. for you to do - just don't tell me
what I should do.

There is a concerted effort to remove morals that God
has explicitly given to us from society and from the
government.  Why?  Because they're *religious*, i.e.
because God gave them to us.

We can accept the revelation of conscience, which God
also gave us, as appropriate and correct (usually).
However, if God gets too explicit and doesn't allow us
to censor what is said (as we can do with our conscience),
it's not acceptable to use that standard.

God forgive us.

Collis

>    But I do have a problem with people of any religion correcting behavior
>    of people of another religion, or of people who hold no religion.  

Then don't.

	I have a small confession to make.  I invited Laura to enter the
basenote (525.0) here.

	I did so with the realization that the participants here in
Christian-Perspective would neither be in nor achieve unanimity on the
topic (do we ever?? ;-}), but that the topic would probably strike up a
lively exchange.

	And so, I reiterate my gratitude to Laura for posting .0 of this
string, and also for following it and adding comments where she sees fit.

Peace,
Richard
    

The Jerusalem Post, 4 October 1992

It is hardly surprising that Jerusalem's Anglican Bishop Samir Katify has
decided to co-sponsor, with a world Islamic organization, a conference on
the situation of Christians in this country.  The move is consistent with
the local churches' growing involvement in the drive for a Palestinian
state.

Indeed, to expect church leaders in Israel and the administered territories
to stay out of politics may be unrealistic.  They are, after all, as
vulnerable as lesser mortals to terrorist pressures.  But it is a pity
that just as the Vatican seems to be abandoning -- albeit timidly and
slowly -- its fierce refusal to recognize Israel, these church leaders are
joining in Yasser Arafat's campaign to form a Moslem-Christian front
against Israel.

The campaign began a decade or so ago, when the PLO embarked on an attempt
to "de-Judaize" Jesus and "Palestinize" him.  Palestinian Arab Christians
like Hanan Ashrawi have made the absurd claim that they can trace their
ancestry to the first Christians, even though there were no Arabs in the
area until the Moslem conquest in the seventh century.  Yasser Arafat has
described the apostle Peter as "a Palestinian who defied Rome."  And a
Jordanian TV production earlier this year blamed the Jews for murdering
Jesus, "the Palestinian prophet."

Instead of protesting this ludicrous rewriting of history, some in the
Christian Arab clergy -- including Latin Patriarch Michel Sabah and Riah
Assal from Nazareth as well as Katify and Ateek -- appear regularly in the
foreign media as PLO propagandists.

It was to Katify's superior, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, that
Arafat appealed last year to help prevent the "Judaization" of Jerusalem.
Otherwise, warned Arafat, Israel would convert the holy places into
"museum-type tourist attractions."  Soon after, during a trip to Israel,
Carey obligingly repeated the warning.  "The Christian population of the
Holy Land could disappear within 15 years," he said, "turning Jerusalem
and Bethlehem into little more than Walt Disney theme parks for Christian
pilgrims."

Blaming Israel for the Christian exodus, Katify never mentions that the
Christian emigration from Jerusalem and the administered territories began
while these areas were under Jordanian rule.  That it has continued after
1967 is due to Arab terrorism and harassment.

The facts are plain enough.  After 1948 the Jordanian administration
initiated a process of Islamization of the Christian Quarter in the Old
City.  This included a ban on Christian purchase of real estate, strict
control of charitable and educational institutions, compulsory closure of
schools on Moslem holy days, a curriculum of Moslem teachings, and the
building of mosques next to churches to prevent Christian expansion.

Since 1967, Christian religious sites and cemeteries have been desecrated
by Palestinian Arabs.  Slogans like "Islam will win" and "First the
Saturday people then the Sunday people" have been painted on walls, and
PLO flags draped over crosses.  Two years ago a PLO flag was painted on
one of the domes of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

In the Bethlehem area, threats and intimidation prevented Christian
families from celebrating Easter and Christmas for several years: these
celebrations were regarded as a violation of the intifada.  Christian
shops which remained open despite intifada-proclaimed strikes were set on
fire.  Last year a Christian pilgrom, a woman of 64, was murdered near
Manger Square.  If Christians are leaving the area it is because they feel
their existence and their children's future are being threatened -- not by
Israel but by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

That the churches have pointed an accusing finger at Israel rather than at
the PLO and the Islamic fanatics is another sign of consistency.  When
dealing with the Arab world, the pronouncements of the leading churches
are clearly affected more by political considerations than morality. 
During the Gulf Crisis, for example, the Pope spoke out 38 times against
the war, calling the anti-Saddam Hussein effort "a threat to humanity,"
and offering his prayers for Iraq.

Monsignor Henry Teissier, president of the North African Conference of
Catholic Bishops, said at the time: "We Christians of the Arab nations...
rejoiced while listening to the pope.  We found in his words confirmation
that there is no identification between Christianity and the Western
world."

Not only the Vatican identifies with "non-Western" forces.  Some of the
churches represented in Jerusalem seem closest to the region's darkest
forces.  None of these churches ever raised its voice to protest the
mistreatment of Christians in Egypt, the masscres of Christians in
Lebanon, or the annihilation of Christians in the Sudan.

Ironically, what has triggered the current effort to convene an anti-Israel
conference on the fate of Christians under Israeli rule is the fear that
the Vatican will establish diplomatic relations with Israel.  Together
with the Jerusalem Mufti, the heads of the Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic,
and Anglican churches have demanded that the Vatican raise "Palestinian
rights" and the question of Jerusalem (which they call the State of
Palestine's capital) when the Vatican delegation arrives to discuss
recognition with the Israeli government.

This blatantly political intervention in Israel's affairs elicited a sharp
rebuke from Uri Mor, director of the Christian Communities department in
the Religious Affairs Ministry.  But rebuke is not enough.  The government
must prepare for yet another blitz of slanders.  The hostility of these
church leaders for Israel seems matched by thei pro-PLO zeal and their
ability to find gullible listeners abroad.