America was not founded as 'a Christian country' based on 'Judeo-Christian' values | Salon.com
By: Mia Brett (Salon)
Interesting read, particularly this:
First of all, "Judeo-Christian values" is a dog whistle that erases Jewish values by subsuming Judaism into Christianity. It also excludes other religions, particularly Islam. When politicians claim "Judeo-Christian values" they're almost always describing Christian values but want to pretend they are being inclusive of Jews.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A common rallying cry of the right in America, to justify regressive morality laws, is often to say that "America was founded as a Christian country" with "Judeo-Christian values" while the common response from the left is to declare that the United States was founded as an explicitly secular country with a separation of church and state.
Would it surprise you to learn both are wrong?
First of all, "Judeo-Christian values" is a dog whistle that erases Jewish values by subsuming Judaism into Christianity. It also excludes other religions, particularly Islam. When politicians claim "Judeo-Christian values" they're almost always describing Christian values but want to pretend they are being inclusive of Jews.
Initially, in the 19th century the phrase referred to Jewish people who converted to Christianity. It wasn't intended to be inclusive of Jews at all. The current meaning of the term was an invention of American politics in the 1930s, as a phrase to show opposition to Hitler and communism. "Judeo-Christian values" is often used by politicians to proclaim common opposition to atheism, abortion and LGBT issues.
Basically, there's no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian values."
Except Judaism and Christianity don't have a common value system on those issues. While it is hard to declare a universal Jewish value—there are many sects of Judaism and one of our core tenets is argument—most Jewish rabbis acknowledge that abortion should be allowed at least in certain circumstances. Jewish law dictates that life begins at first breath, not conception. Additionally, many Jews consider themselves atheists and consider Jewish practice to be through behavior and attitude, not belief. Unfortunately the acceptance of LGBT people in Judaism is more complicated, depending on the sect, but Reform and Conservative Judaism are publicly accepting of LGBT people. Basically, there's no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian values."
The United States was founded with an attempt at secularism as well as freedom of religion. As opposed to monarchies, democracies in general are less Christian-based, as rulers are not justified on the "divine right of kings." Practically, "freedom of religion" often meant the freedom to practice whichever sect of Christianity, or sometimes even Protestantism, a person chose. Considering a number of colonies were founded based on disagreements over which Protestant sect was "correct," even this level of legally inscribed religious freedom was progressive for the late 18th century.
However, when considering religious freedom in early America, we must look beyond federal law and beyond the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not applied to the states, except to declare the citizenship of formerly enslaved people, until the Incorporation Doctrine was applied to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This doctrine has been traced to Gitlow v. New York in 1925, when the Supreme Court held that states were required to protect freedom of speech, partially incorporating the First Amendment.
The relevant text of the First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This text is meant to prevent an established state religion but also to protect religious practice from government interference. While protection from a theocracy is important, it is hard to argue that this text is meant to enforce secularism. Additionally, the phrase "separation of church and state" is actually paraphrased from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. It was not interpreted as part of the intent of the First Amendment until Reynolds v. United States in 1878.
It's tempting to push back by declaring the United States was founded as a secular country. Unfortunately, that claim would ignore a long history of the privileging of Christianity.
Most early colonies supported religious action with taxes. Many established state religions. While some disestablished with early state constitutions, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island and North Carolina didn't. The Massachusetts Constitution limited office to Protestants until 1821. Non-Protestants couldn't hold office in New Hampshire until 1876.1 Maryland, Rhode Island, North Carolina and New Hampshire did not allow non-Christian voting until well into the 19th century when the franchise expanded in 1826, 1842, 1868, and 1877, respectively.2
At the federal level, religion became relevant to citizenship when coupled with questions of "whiteness." Naturalization required an immigrant be "white" or of African descent after the Civil War until 1952. This requirement led to a number of cases, dubbed "prerequisite cases," brought by immigrants to prove their "whiteness." One consideration for the courts was the "racial performance" of immigrants to determine how successfully they would assimilate. Courts often used an immigrant's lack of Christianity as a detriment to assimilation and therefore to whiteness.
There were also forms of state-sponsored discrimination against non-Christians that did not require explicit privileging of Christianity over other religions. Consider the ubiquity of "Sunday Laws," which prohibited people from working Sundays. Jews had to work on the sabbath (Saturday), lose two days of work over the weekend or risk prosecution. These laws resurged in 1880s New York with the arrival of more Jews.3
Non-Christians, particularly Jews, faced discrimination in court. Courts often required people to appear on Saturdays and would forbid a "religious exemption" for Jews.4 Many also considered a belief in Jesus Christ as a requisite for swearability on the witness stand. Not until 1857 did a New York court ruled a Jewish witness must be sworn to testify according to the "peculiar ceremonies of his religion," specifically a Hebrew Bible and with his head covered.5 Jewish witnesses got legal protections in 1871. A Jewish plaintiff was questioned about his belief in Jesus Christ to impeach his honor under oath in a property dispute. When appealed, a Georgia court said a "want of belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour" was not grounds for exclusion of a witness, and that while some courts have used a belief in Jesus as necessary to render a witness competent, the court clearly ruled that "a Jew is competent at common law."6
It's tempting to push back against politicians justifying their regressive morality laws by way of the "Judeo-Christian values" of the founding. It's tempting to push back by simply pointing to the First Amendment and declaring the United States was always founded as a secular country. Unfortunately, that claim would ignore a long history of discrimination against minority religions and the privileging of Christianity.
In order to fight for a truly religiously inclusive society, we must acknowledge the ways in which Christianity is embedded in the laws and culture of our society. Luckily the founders provided the First Amendment, an important tool in this fight.
Tags
Who is online
270 visitors
golly, it seems hiding behind a cross to justify evil just isn't as effective in the 21st century...
with church memberships in steep decline, thumpers are desperate to stay relevant, and revision of their historical impact in our country is required. they need to stay on church property or be systematically stripped of their wealth, after their false idols lead the majority of these sheep to a deserved slaughter of course...
It's amazing to me that people that are so immersed in their Bible studies can't identify a false god.
Are you sure you don't want to say that they "won't" identify a false god?
I've seen too many people choose to up and walk away when confronted with facts that conflict with beliefs.
Can't or won't...I can't see into people's minds so I will give them the benefit (?) of the doubt
Benefit of the doubt is always ( mostly ) a good way to go.
**Amen.** To benefit of the doubt.
I've asked those who claim the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian values" specifically what those "values" are and never got a straight answer. At best, just some vague generalities.
Well now you know why they don't have any answers...Judeo-Christian values don't exist
Or at least nothing unique or special about them.
"Judeo-Christian values" = bacon is a vegetable and scallops are cupcakes.
good analogies
Freedom of religion is a fricking myth. All Native American religions were outlawed by the ''God Fearing Christians''
The US and many Christians turn a blind eye to the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' that in part is now part of US law that gave the right of Europeans to enslave or kill Native people if they did not submit to Christianity.
What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they “discovered” and lay claim to those lands for their Christian Monarchs. Any land that was not inhabited by Christians was available to be “discovered”, claimed, and exploited. If the “pagan” inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they could be enslaved or killed. The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, initially in Johnson v. M’Intosh in 1823 . The doctrine was Chief Justice John Marshall’s explanation of the way in which colonial powers laid claim to newly discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to newly discovered lands lay with the government whose subjects discovered new territory. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments. John Marshall, who is most credited with describing the doctrine, did not voice wholehearted support of the doctrine even while using it to justify judicial decisions. He pointed to the doctrine as simple fact, looking at the possession-takings which had been supported by it as things which had occurred and had to be recognized. The supposedly inferior character of native cultures was a reason for the doctrine having been used, but whether or not that was justified was not relevant for Marshall. This Doctrine governs United States Indian Law today and has been cited as recently as 2005 in the decision City Of Sherrill V. Oneida Indian Nation Of N.Y.
The Papal Bull, Inter Caetera, has never been rescinded by the Chruch.
Would Father Frank rescind it if he were petitioned?
Father Frank has been petitioned in the past and NA's have had personal audiences with him and he has refused.
I have little use for Father Frank or any of the hierarchy of the Church.
I'm truly sorry to hear that he won't rescind it
Frank who?
Pope Francis.
My sincere apologies. I thought you meant the 'other Frank'.
Since the Roman's burned Alexandria "Western Culture" aka White Europeans dominated every other culture they came into contact with always at gun, spear and sword point. They justified it all by the excuse that they converted everyone to Christianity along the way. Millions died unjustly along the way.
What's also interesting is that every time they supposedly exported their faith they were simultaneously exploiting the land and people they were supposedly "saving". Many Christians today refuse to admit this or that their faith might not be true, not because they are so pious, but because to admit that would be admitting that all the atrocities committed in their Gods name weren't worth it and that they were the true Godless barbarians using faith as an excuse to murder, rape and pillage.
Aren't we opening a can of worms today....
Who me?
I found it a very interesting article. I did not know the history of the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" . I knew that today it used to make believe that the Christians want to include the Jews in anything, but I did not know of what it meant in the past.
I didn't, either. I learned something today
Somehow, I doubt actual Christians know either.
Considering the existence and increase of both latent antisemitism (Gentleman's Agreement) and patent antisemitic incidents perpetrated by Christians it's hard for me to recognize the hyphen in the words "Judeo-Christian values". Maybe America would have been a safer, more peaceful and happier place if Buddhism were more popular.
the rich white guys were too busy using the buddists as railroad bed out west...
Well, some like to blather on about how the US is a Christian country because the majority of the founders were Christians. Of course they conveniently neglect to mention Christianity, god, or anything relating to the two isn’t found anywhere in constitution outside of the part that guarantees the free exercise of (all) religion (which is actually a strike against the idea that this is a Christian nation). Aside from that the constitution makes no mention of religion, and cannot be said to be influenced by Christianity at all.
I hear you - as a practitioner of Wicca I am considered one that should be put to death.
... and frequently.
When somebody starts talking the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I'm usually the smart ass that says, my creators were my mom and dad.
Yes, we are isn't it fun?
Kavika! You sure brought up a 'sticky sore spot.' Thank you. I have never heard about your comment #3. Ah, the history of the world. . . can be a 'downer.'
America was founded on the freedom not to believe!
First and foremost, America was sick of being told...
We modern people like to believe so, but so many of the colonies were founded on freedom of religion but only their brand and it had to be a certain flavor of Protestantism. The only founder that I know of that welcome all faiths was William Penn.
And to this day, some of those same people think we should have religion shoved in our faces
Except for Maryland, I think. IIRC, it was founded as a Catholic state.
Exactly, Puritans came here when many in Britain rejected their harsh, strident brand of religion.
Religion has been used to persecute people throughout history.
It has caused death and destruction...far from what they espouse about love and understanding.
I think when people use the meme that this is a 'Christian' nation they are doing so to cause more division and hatred.
It is the intentional exclusion of every other faith in the nation.
Most idiot Christians don't even follow the New Testament and follow the old, which is Jewish scripture...
Christians seem to forget who rounded up over 80% of the Jews in Europe in the late 1300's and executed them. Why? They thought Jews were carrying the plague.
Jews really didn't have a lot of countries that would accept them. Spain and Portugal were the worst of the worse
Don’t forget the German states.
I don't know much German history except for Hitler and WWII. Did they have an inquisition like Spain and Portugal did? I know that Pope Alexander VI accepted some Jews into Rome because he wanted their money
Let’s just say the Holocaust wasn’t the first time Jews were blamed for everything and killed en masse throughout the centuries I. Germanic areas. As mentioned during the plague in the 1300s it was fairly common. But to be fair that was the go to for Christians across Europe.
I figured Jews got the blame wherever they were
Without wading into the political end of the "judeo-christian values" question. I have always understood the term to be one of the Bible's incorporation of Jewish 'books' and Christian 'gospels' and letters— where they have been caused to over-lapse.
(I have completed reading the 'posted' article. I will read through the thread on my return. Back later.)
That is what one would expect in the abstract and I think at that level you are correct.
But what are these values? When it comes down to it if the values themselves are not definitive then the notion of Judeo-Christian values is rather meaningless.
Judeo-Christian values are derived through reading and spiritual-internalizing of the Bible (books). Of course, there may be a 'list' so to speak, but I am not inclined (or obligated) to express it here. In fact, for me, when learning about these values it was nearly always through regular organizational services or reading through the books. I suppose one could look it. . . up. . . as research?
Thus they are subject to the interpretation of the reader.
Thus there is no definitive set of values.
I submit that there is no such list. And if you are unaware of the list then clearly you have derived your own personal values. These are not Judeo-Christian values, they are CB's values based on CB's research.
And I would bet $$$ that there is remarkable disagreement among Christians as to these values.
CB,
I submit, that our founders had a chance for a national religion and decided against it. Jefferson went as far as making a cut a paste bible of his own creation called "The Jefferson Bible"
And then there is this tid bit:
But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau , Isaac Newton , and John Locke , Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason , Thomas Paine , the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin , denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:
Whatever. Perhaps you know from your own experiences what goes on in the churches of United States. I don't intend to argue over it.
Thank you, Perrie. I didn't not mention or consider the founders' in my commenting, nevertheless. I am not even commenting on the larger MEANING of the phrase, "Judeo-Christian" (which in this article is insight to me). I am just mentioning what its meaning is in "certain" of our churches today. The term is used, just without all the bad 'history.'
As for world religions, I guess an 'old' or 'top' religion gets all the attention - positive and negative. Many, many, Christians are "in it" for the present and remarkable good they can do. And the 'restorative' value of our a constant theme in their otherwise chaotic-themed lives.
It is a terrible shame all the 'record' of travesties and horrors that makes discussing religion "impossible" between people.
Trust me, I hear and see it all from the inside out and vice-versa. (Sad, smile.)
This is just common sense CB. All one need do is consider human nature and one will realize that two people interpreting the same body of work (and I am talking about research, not simply reading a paragraph) will have different interpretations ... often radically different.
You know this occurs with the Bible so imagine the variance when the corpus for research is the Bible and more.
I see no issue with that. Afterall, living believers do have this "sick" church history and in many cases present bad behaviors to contend with above and under this faith we share with others. So, in that sense, believers' are stuck - loving God, Jesus, Bible, spirituality, and being compelled to exist in and explain this faith's beauty and ugliness.
Okay.
Something (else) to consider: Believers come "in" from every walk of life, even when being born into the faith and never leaving it for any significant time. For those others not continuously existing in a religious order (not to suggest that "born into religious life" make one any better) they hail from other walks of life on a spectrum which resides GOOD to EVIL.
For many millions of people, billions if we count the dead from history, being religious and spiritual served them better than the treks they otherwise were traveling. We have only to study, read, or listen to their testimonies of their former selves.
I have no doubt that believing in an all-powerful God who can condemn you to an eternity of damnation if you do not follow certain rules will cause many people to follow said rules.
Religion has been used to control the masses throughout recorded history.
But actually, many believers sincerely demonstrate God as love. That is, look at my example, a 'liberal' Christian I am 'told' by some conservative Christians who frequent this 'joint.' All because of my "expressions" about my past and present attitudes.
Many (largely conservative Christians miss the point: We do not have to condemn people or 'save' anyone. Salvation is not a "struggle' or a 'win.'
For surely, if God be God, then God can not lose anybody God desires or 'expects' to end up in the 'kingdom.' Thus, worrying about one's life, or one's "change-conversion," or another's change conversion is a waste of worry.
We simply be our best selves, living according to what we or I believe and am convicted.
I believe this and I have seen it and 'felt' it too. Yet, it is not always the case, for religious people as a whole. For even in the worse of times, there exist people who make life bearable for the oppressed in their midst.
No doubt.
There are of course good sides to religion such as charitable work.
Charitable work. Yes. And I can imagine there has nearly always been somebodies who would speak up for 'underdogs' and 'voiceless' and say, "Don't touch him; do not mess with her! They are under my roof and my protection."
( christian nation & values & anglo saxon & all the rest. )
But, America's most sound founding principals were leveraged on the belief that those living in the colonies had the right and the duty to conduct their lives unfettered by The Crown and most importantly to have the acquisition and ownership of land to determine the status of A New Aristocracy backed by the wealth that land can deliver and NOT by a bloodline of a particular family.
This is rather simplistic but it is the fulcrum of the desires from The Founding Fathers. To be even simpler-----It is just economics.
I have yet to see anyone point to a definitive list of Judeo-Christian values. So the notion that there are no such definitive values rings quite true to me.
It is remarkable how people can believe something and not have clue one about the details. If one cannot show the values how can one rationally accept them as valid?
Yep, a definitive list of Judeo-Christian values could be as elusive as a list of American Exceptionalism.
As we know, some are not rational.
I can see that happening. Especially in this 'age' of activist conservativism where some conservatives are 'walling' themselves off from the whole of society—emotionally.
Judeo-Christian values are simply value judgements pulled from the Old Testament and New Testament books of the Bible. Many churches have used such parlance as "Judeo-Christian" to mean an amalgamation of values, ideas, found in the 'books' of the Bible.
( "but want to pretend" )----four words from the first sentence. I believe the word----pretend----pretty much covers it.
It's more complicated and nuanced than that, bbl-1. We have to be careful when it comes to the motivations of others. Many "bad" believers have been taught poorly, weakly, ineptly, dangerously, and well can do better over time. People mature differently. We see 'that' happen all the time in many facets of life (even on the virtual internet).
Some read those sources and conclude that "God hates fags" and "Murder your enemies" and "It is okay to own another human being as property if you follow certain rules". Others see "God is Love" and "Love thy neighbor" and "Turn the other cheek".
Just a few of many examples.
Okay. A nice accent of the positive, is like a breath of fresh air! (Smile.)
It is simply the impartial noting of facts.