Judeo-Christian ethics
The idea that a common Judaeo-Christian ethics or Judeo-Christian values underpins American politics, law and morals has been part of the "American civil religion" since the 1940s. In recent years, the phrase has been associated with American conservatism, but the concept—though not always the exact phrase—has frequently featured in the rhetoric of leaders across the political spectrum, including that of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.
This article is about the 20th-century American concept of common values shared between the two religions. For other uses, see Judeo-Christian (disambiguation).History[edit]
1930s and 1940s[edit]
Promoting the concept of the United States as a Judeo-Christian nation first became a political program in the 1940s, in response to the growth of anti-Semitism in America. The rise of Nazi anti-semitism in the 1930s led concerned Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to take steps to increase understanding and tolerance.[18]
In this effort, precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews created teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, to run programs across the country, and fashion a more pluralistic America, no longer defined as a Christian land, but "one nurtured by three ennobling traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism. ... The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' entered the contemporary lexicon as the standard liberal term for the idea that Western values rest on a religious consensus that included Jews."[19]
In the 1930s, "In the face of worldwide antisemitic efforts to stigmatize and destroy Judaism, influential Christians and Jews in America labored to uphold it, pushing Judaism from the margins of American religious life towards its very center."[20] During World War II, Jewish chaplains worked with Catholic priests and Protestant ministers to promote goodwill, addressing servicemen who, "in many cases had never seen, much less heard a Rabbi speak before." At funerals for the unknown soldier, rabbis stood alongside the other chaplains and recited prayers in Hebrew. In a much publicized wartime tragedy, the sinking of the Dorchester, the ship's multi-faith chaplains gave up their lifebelts to evacuating seamen and stood together "arm in arm in prayer" as the ship went down. A 1948 postage stamp commemorated their heroism with the words: "interfaith in action."[19]
1950s, 1960s, and 1970s[edit]
In December 1952, then-President-elect Dwight Eisenhower, speaking extemporaneously a month before his inauguration, said, in what may be the first direct public reference by a U.S. president to the Judeo-Christian concept:
In U.S. law[edit]
In the case of Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state legislature could constitutionally have a paid chaplain to conduct legislative prayers "in the Judeo-Christian tradition." In Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors,[37] the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court's holding in the Marsh case meant that the "Chesterfield County could constitutionally exclude Cynthia Simpson, a Wiccan priestess, from leading its legislative prayers, because her faith was not 'in the Judeo-Christian tradition.'" Chesterfield County's board included Jewish, Christian, and Muslim clergy in its invited list.
Responses[edit]
Some theologians warn against the uncritical use of "Judeo-Christian" entirely, arguing that it can license mischief, such as opposition to secular humanism[38] with scant regard to modern Jewish, Catholic, or Christian traditions, including the liberal strains of different faiths, such as Reform Judaism and liberal Protestant Christianity.
Two notable books addressed the relations between contemporary Judaism and Christianity. Abba Hillel Silver's Where Judaism Differs and Leo Baeck's Judaism and Christianity were both motivated by an impulse to clarify Judaism's distinctiveness "in a world where the term Judeo-Christian had obscured critical differences between the two faiths."[39]
Reacting against the blurring of theological distinctions, Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits wrote that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."[40]
Theologian and author Arthur A. Cohen, in The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, questioned the theological validity of the Judeo-Christian concept and suggested that it was essentially an invention of American politics, while Jacob Neusner, in Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition, writes, "The two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people."[41]
Law professor Stephen M. Feldman, looking at the period before 1950, chiefly in Europe, sees the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition as supersessionism, which he characterizes as "dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective)", and as a "myth" which "insidiously obscures the real and significant differences between Judaism and Christianity."[42]
Abrahamic religion[edit]
Advocates of the term "Abrahamic religion" since the second half of the 20th century have proposed an inclusivism that widens the "Judeo-Christian" concept to include Islam as well. The rationale for the term "Abrahamic" is that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, traces its origins to the figure of Abraham, whom Islam regards as a prophet. Advocates of this umbrella term consider it the "exploration of something positive" in the sense of a "spiritual bond" between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.[43]
Australia[edit]
Australian historian Tony Taylor points out that Australia has borrowed the "Judeo-Christian" theme from American conservative discourse.[44]
Jim Berryman, another Australian historian, argues that from the 1890s to the present, rhetoric upholding Australia's traditional attachment to Western civilisation emphasizes three themes: the core British heritage; Australia's Judeo-Christian belief system; and the rational principles of the Enlightenment. These themes have been expressed mostly on the Australian center-right political spectrum, and most prominently among conservative-leaning commentators.[45]