Talk:Judeo-Christian

Multiple issues?

One of the problelisted at the top of the article is that it deals with "multiple issues".

Does this mean that it ought to be split into several different articles, each dealing with a single issue?

Has anyone proposed the way in which it should be split, and given a list of the issues to be dealt with? SteveH (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, by "multiple issues" it meant that the article was deeply flawed. Numerous problems needed to be fixed to bring it up Wikipedia standards. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of consensus on the meaning of the term and given that it is used currently in a variety of political contexts and not just in terms of theology, I think that a more helpful focus would be on the history of the term and the ideas represented by it in Europe in particular and how it was used by both philosemites and antisemites. A good source to look for the history of philosemitism and antisemitism and for a discussion of the role that the debate over Judaism's relationship with Christianity played in the Enlightenment's attitude towards Jews is Leon Poliakov's _The History of Anti-Semitism_. Another thing to consider is the way the term can be and often is used to deny any separate existence or uniqueness to Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.102.201 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish vs Christian views of Creation

There is an article on Creation according to the Book of Genesis that discusses creation. There is a suggestion now to rename it and give it a Biblical name that may overlap with the New Testamant. I think that will mix differing views, but not being an expert on Jewish views, clarifications on that will be helpful here: Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#Requested_move_.28as_a_way_to_resolve_every_reasonable_concern.29

Your comments will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Validity of the term

Reading some of the above comments, I have the impression that many seem to question the validity of the term. This misses the point: The term itself is valid; individual uses of it may not be. (For instance, I originally landed on this page after reading a blog entry where someone explicitly equated "Judeo-Christian" with "Jewish Zionist", which is a gross misinterpretation of what the term means.)

There is sufficient and significant overlap, as well as a historical connection, which more than justifies the term, just like "Eurasian" or "Anglo-American" are perfectly valid terms.

Attack misuse of meaning, irrelevant use, misleading use---but leave the term it self alone. Michael Eriksson (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The term is indeed misleading, since it's used to imply that there is some common ground between Judaism and Christ, when in Truth there isn't. You are either a real Christian or a Judaist, can't be both at the same time. Judaism rejects Christ and Christianity, while the NT-text clearly rejects proto-Judaism. I say proto-Judaism, because the Judaism of today is a later development. There is of course variants of and within Christianity and Judaism. And some of those may have some affinity. But Christian's that proclaim stuff like "The Jews are God's Chosen" people actually deny Christ. God's chosen are those *in* Christ and not anyone outside. Now the argument can be made that: Christians believe in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, while Jews believe only in the Old Testament. The later is actually untrue. If they believed in the Old Testament Text, if they really could understand it, they would be Christians. They are not, so they don't believe it... Otherwise Jesus was wrong on this. And to me it seems that the usage of the term got a malicious background as well. It's to prevent Christians from witnessing to Jews, from bringing them the gospel. And of course to garner support for "Israel" and 'Jewish causes'. "Christian"-Zionists are possible what 'Judeo-Christianity' represents. But using 'Judeo-Christianity' as a term to include those in Christ is wrong. 102.66.7.13 (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The term Judeo-christian is a joke an oxymoron( Living Lie)

The term "Judeo-christian" is a joke(Living Lie) or an oxymoron ,because if one Religion that is "Christianity" praises Jesus Christ as LORD, the other one that is "Judaism" curses Jesus and considering him to be a FALSE (IMPOSTER) Messiah and illegitimate son of a whore. How come then you keep deluding yourself and others by fusing these two contrasting religions into one homogenous false concept/term that is called "Judeo-Christianity" ? JUST LIKE ICE AND FIRE. Plus if both Christianity and Judaism are Middle Eastern Religions and NOT Western ,(both originated from what you call it Middle East), then how come both " Gentile " Christians west with those Ashkinazi " GOYIM " Jews of Europian and Russian descents, keep claiming these two religions to be western ? ? ! ! ! ! ! Do not you feel shame of yourself that your so call civilization is entirely being founded and enslaved by an alien "mythical traditional lore /Folklores" that belong only to those that you call them sand wogs ? ? ! ! ! ! !

Basically, most of what you said about the Jewish view of Jesus is wrong. Jews believe in worshiping god in all ways and that Jesus was a great teacher and a shining :example of faith in god, though they don't worship him as god (instead they worship god) they don't consider Jesus an impostor, but instead that he was a very righteous :and holy man that any person would think was the son of god, and that even if he was, it would not excuse worshiping him because god commanded them to worship none but :him. Also, Eastern religions are religions from east Asia (like Budhism, Shinto, and Taoism) western includes the Mediterranean and middle eastern areas.Hoyt596 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Talmud tells us otherwise: https://archive.org/details/PeterSchferJesusInTheTalmud 105.0.213.249 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't claim to speak for the opinions of Jews on Jesus, especially when you are wrong (though both of you are wrong). Fluxjupyter (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ashkenazim are of Israelite descent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.57.140 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 

Hatnote, and scope of this article

Currently, the hatnote to this article reads:

This article is about the values held in common. For a systematic contrast and widely diverging views between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism.

But actually (and in my view, correctly), that isn't the scope of this article, as it presently stands.

This article is not really focussed on an analysis of the values Judaism and Christianity hold in common. Rathe (and in my view appropriately, given its title) it is a discussion of the history and use of the particular phrase Judeo-Christian itself.

At Talk:Christianity and Judaism (section: Hatnote, and focus of this article) I have suggested that that article should be re-focussed, to become the top-level introduction to all aspects of relationships and comparison between Christianity and Judaism -- including, but not necessarily limited to, what may be common ground between the two faiths; where the two faiths may differ, both broadly and in detail; and also the historical nature of relations between the two faiths. Much the role in fact that the articles Islam and Judaism and Christianity and Islam set themselves.

Further discussion of this proposal is probably best followed up on the Talk:Christianity and Judaism talkpage, to centralise it in one place.

However, I hope editors on this page would agree that it would be a more appropriate way to go forward. Jheald (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has a standing need to merge Christianity and Judaism into it. This has already pass discussion but has not been done. See the box at the top of this page. As such the hatnote and the article needs to reflect broading the scope to reflect the added content. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See full response on the talk page at the other article. The merge was discussed at length, and at length was agreed to be inappropriate after all (archived here). Interestingly, the view you yourself expressed at the time was: "Do not delete nor merge. --Carlaude (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)". -- Jheald (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I don't have time to reread the whole discussion right now, but if you think a new WP:Consensus was achieved back then, you should remove the box and note doing so here, etc. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 22:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian" = politically motivated weasel words

The term mostly exists so that closet Dominionists can call for Christian theocracy without calling it Christian theocracy. Instead they claim to be supporting the values held by multiple religions, despite the objective fact that Jewish and Christian moral traditions have many distinct differences. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not just Dominionists. Christian conservatives in general use the term to make themselves sound more inclusive than they really are. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

it's also a code word for supporting Israel, which is central to conservative Christians in the US. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to read more about this claim in the opening section: “ The term became widely used in the United States during the Cold War to suggest a unified American identity opposed to communism.” What is the source? Theologian and author Arthur A. Cohen is mentioned directly after, is he the source? Sorry for being thick? JonesyPHD (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I second this question. The source would be interesting to read given historical and modern association of Jewish people *with* communism, not against. Fluxjupyter (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Because this statement is in the lead it summarizes material further down in the article. In this case, you'll find the attributions toward the bottom of the History section. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

neutrality?

The premise that judeo-christian values are the fundamental moral values of the founding fathers is not a neutral premise, but a conclusion slipped in before the definition is addressed. I for one think the founding fathers as a whole shared moral values derived more from the roman and greek classics than the old testament. This is just one example. I think the article is pro-religion, and not neutral. Of course there is the oxymoron aspect as well. indeed the whole christian premise is that Christ brought a new and everlasting covenant based on his newly revealed moral values, and thereby separating permanently from the old values of the (jewish) old testament. Why else did He come? All in all, this article is not informative and should be stricken entirely.

that "definition" turns out to be a letter to the editor from Michael Hethnon (an anti-immigration activist) known for crusading against Islam--not a Reliable Source, and so I deleted it. Rjensen (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

a few problems

1) What Judaism and Christianity call the "Ten Commandments" is not the same. There is a large (but not total) overlap in the verses for both, but the differences in numbering, inclusion, significance, meaning, scope, and actionability are far greater than the words being the same. Even the (apparent) Christian view that the "Ten Commandments" are standards of ethics is mismatched to the traditional Jewish views. Removing the example from the first sentence would probably be good.

2) The organisation of this article is extremely poor. History and usage of the term is spread throughout several sections. Political and historical concepts are scattered. The information presented in several sections, most notably "Culture Wars", lacks coherency.

3) What, exactly, is the focus of this article? Is the "Judeo-Christian concept" to be defined and discussed, or is the term "Judeo-Christian" defined and discussed? If the focus is the former, I would vote for removing this article. However, if the focus is on the term and its usage, it makes sense to keep it. Most of the problems seem to be from this ambiguity.

Elfwiki (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Problematic opening sentence

The article should either be moved to Judeo-Christianity or the first sentence should be changed so that it describes a noun. The article, at the moment, begins:

"Judeo-Christian is a term used in the United States since the 1940s to refer to standards of ethics said to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, for example the Ten Commandments."

This clearly refers to the term Judeo-Christian as to an adjective.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, therefore adjectives should not be used as catchwords. The article Jewish Christian begins with a similar sentence ("Jewish Christians is a term which appears in historical texts..."), also containing the words "is a term", but that refers to a noun, there.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian" is a very important concept--it is not at all the same as "Judeo-Christianity", and Wiki has no rules about adjectives. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that You say it I also see it. I hope You would agree that the catchword should normally be perceived to be a nominalized adjective. That would, in German, be something like Das Jüdisch-Christliche, with capitals. The only reason why there is no difference from the spelling of an adjective, in the English, would be that in English also nouns are written with small letters.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

my German is pretty rusty but I think I agree. The problem in English is that the noun form comes in too many variations: Judeo-Christian tradition/values/concept/morality/ethics etc Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims about the age of the term

Cut from article:

• It is only since the 1950s that the term "Judeo-Christian" has been applied to it, reflecting the growing use of that term in American political life. By some the term is used casually, simply as a commonplace term, or as an inclusive synonym for the religious.

This is unsourced and its appearance seems designed to make the original point that the whole thing was cooked up in recent decades and/or is merely a political term of art. If there is a reliable source which says so, by all means locate it. Then put the claim back into the article. But it seemed out of place where it was. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Silk, Mark. "Notes on the Judeo-Christian tradition in America," American Quarterly, (1984) 36:65–85 (which is cited) has lots of evidence the term first came into common use in the 1940s & especially the early 1950s. (in the sense of "J-C ethics") Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamism)" — what about the Mohammedans?

Well, not only it would have more concordancy if it was either "Judeo-Christianism (also Abrahamism)" or "Judeo-Christian (also Abrahamian)", but wouldn't a real synonym of Abrahamism necessarely be "Judeo-Christo-Mohammedan/Muslim"? --Extremophile (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports how history actually happened not how some people today think it should have been back then. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

bad link on d Prager

• Dennis Prager Publishes 19 part Series On Judeo-Christian Values

link to nothing, is it available somewhere else? needs to be modified or removed I am short on time and very busy

T[{}]TVWVT 16:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttommy69 (talk • contribs)

Use of term in United States law

It was unnecessary to put in any references to either of the two cases mentioned in this section ("Marsh v. Chambers" (1983) and "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" (2003 and 2005). BUT, having added them, it is the duty of Wikipedia editors to do so with honesty. They have not done this and furthermore left out the most important legal point - the strengthing of a real legal definition for an "American Civil Religion".

The two cases are quite different, but they treated as if they are the same circumstance. TThis might be understandable if all that was available in regards to "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" were the Appellate court decision (which was after the District Court ruled in favor of Simpson in 2003). A great deal more information is available.

Read this for a real look at how this section of the article is quite biased.

http://www.pluralism.org/reports/view/101 http://pluralism.org/reports/view/126 http://www.religioustolerance.org/wicchest.htm

There comes a point at which leaving out information becomes a way of intentionally inserting bias. It is hard not to see this happening in this instance (unless you do not want to see what is in front of you).

FACT - "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" had been previously decided in favor of Simpson by the District Court. I was not even allowed to say that in an edit to the article. So much for neutrality at Wikipedia. Tell an unpopular truth, and you get told to go to the forums.

Again, this article handles "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" as being somehow the same as "Marsh v. Chambers" (1983). By mentioning them both in this manner, it is misleading. Yet the two are blurred together as if they are the same and they are not (far from it). The difference are important and relevant, especially as they lead, one step at a time, to a new legal concept in the USA - that of a legally accepted and defined "American Civil Religion". The US has an official religion now, as created by those two (very different) cases, and as reinforced by a number of other cases, since the 1983 decision. This new "American Civil Religion" also touches strongly on the concept of the Rise of the Radical Right in the USA (Conservatism, Fundamentalism) in the USA and its effects on changing the law of the land.

Previous to this, government was NEVER (as stated in the Bill of Rights) supposed to place its weight behind any specific religion or religious concept. However as of 1983, the concept of "Judeo-Christian" took on a legal meaning with the acceptance by the Supreme COurt of an "American Civil Religion". This was (and still is) big news.

- How are the cases different (why is this important)?

"Marsh v. Chambers" (1983) involved a legislative body in Nebraska that hired a particular minister (a Presbyterian) to offer prayers over a sixteen-year period. They did not intentionally exclude anyone based on their religion. This was not found to be unconstitutional because the individual was chosen, not any specific religious tradition. Mo tradition was excluded by intent. He was essentially hired to work within his profession (minister, plumber, electrician, etc).

The case "Simpson v. Chesterfield County" starts with the fact that Chesterfield County opens all of their meetings with a prayer. A prayer which is supposed to be ecumenical, open to many ministers to perform. That changes everything. No single person was hired to do this task. It means that they ought to be legally bound to treat all clerics equally, save that they do not. In their case they stated that they had no duty to be open to any religion that was not within the American Civil religion - and I quote from the board :

The Board in Chesterfield County argued that :

Not only is the American civil religion monotheistic, but...its monotheism is consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of divinity...a monotheistic divinity [and] upheld practices that are consistent with Judeo-Christian religious practices, such as belief in a rational God, belief in a Sabbath or day of rest, and recognition of Christian holidays. ... In contrast to the American civil religion, Wicca is polytheistic and pantheistic.

Serious Points of Difference

The fact that the "Marsh" case recognized that those people present and involved BELIEVED in a monotheistic divinity, and that they had a common set of religious beliefs among them, and that many other people in the USA also hold some/many of these religious beliefs (at least to some extent), does not mean that the Supreme Court said that everyone has to believe the same thing to get equal treatment under law; or that these beliefs are actual fact; or that those who believe otherwise can be mistreated freely based only on their religion. The court did not state that this "American Civil Religion" was supposed to get a special dispensation or any kind of preference either. The main reason for the decision in "Marsh (1993)" was the fact that it was simply an "at will employment" situation, and not a situation that was open to the participation of any local religious cleric who applied (which is the situation in the Chesterfield County case- save that they secretly held the right to reject anything not close enough to their own personal beliefs).

The "Simpson V. Chesterfield" case is seriously different from that of "Marsh (1983) and at its core, it is about the right of a government body to openly discriminate; about the right of a government body to treat people differently based on their religion. It boils down to these ideas/questions :

Do the members of the the Chesterfield County government like and/or respect a specific religion? Is it a monotheistic religion of the sort that they are comfortable with?

Where the answer is no; for instance in : Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Native American beliefs, neopagan/Wicca, new age, Santeria, Voodoo - they maintain the right to say NO to any cleric. They would (by this policy) allow the Dalai Lama to open their local county meetings. This makes their choices NOT one of "ecumenical" prayers.

I know this has been long, but the point here is to make it plain that there is a large difference between the two cases. They cannot be ethically lumped together as they are in this article (although it can be done unethically of course) and also that these two cases have created a serious change in US "bench law" in regards to legal forms of religious discrimination in the USA.

German translation

Hi, anyone up to (and able to) create a German article version of this? Perhaps de:Jüdisch-christliche Werte does it, as there's de:Christliche Werte already. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

American focus

Judeo-Christian is a simple term for a cultural view. The term originated in the USA. But the concept is generic to all Christian or post-Christian societies. Yet the article is written as if the term is only applicable to the USA. This is misleading and incorrect.122.59.140.215 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Title

The term Judeo-Christian is not specific to the USA, but the article is entirely about the term in the USA. I suggest renaming the article "Judeo-Christianity in the United States".122.59.140.215 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

focus

The article is on a specific term in use since the 1940s, and is NOT about the history of Christianity in the US before then. So I dropped the useless sections that did not use the term or the concept. Rjensen (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that some of the stuff that you thought was off-focus, mainly this edit, is on-focus... although you're right that it was WP:OR. But if we had a WP:RS that said the same thing, that "Jewish-Christian" had been in use as a proto-Judeo-Christian since 18whatever, I'd be for inclusion, as it's part of this worldview that the J-C term encompasses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The term can be found in the 18th century referring to a different concept. This article is about a recent (since about 1940) ideas regarding 20th century morality that had zero to do with older discussions. (The older literature discussed events 1900 years ago). Rjensen (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"values"

The article has to distinguish between "Judeo-Christian" (its title) and the specific phrase "Judeo-Christian values". The latter may indeed be a hand-waving political term coined by Orwell. The former, which is employed in Orwell's phrase, refers to the completely uncontroversial common origin of Judaism and Christianity in the early centuries CE. I am saying the editors have let their opinions cloud their prose. It is not only "scholary" who use the term in reference to the common origin of the two religions, it is also Orwell in his phrase "Judeo-Christian values", and hence anyone using the term at all. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Organising the US material under a section explicitly about US politics does indeed establish that the bulk of this article is about the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" specifically. Perhaps this should be the title of the article, and the article should be explicitly about the US "culture wars"?

Afacis, the term is used as a shibboleth to express a "conservative" position (holding "Judeo-Christian values" even while not necessarily being religious) while at the same time distancing oneself from anti-Semitic currents of thought found in some parts of the "conservative" spectrum. Idk if the tangent about Islam is relevant, as we do have an article about "Abrahamic religions" (idk about *"Abrahamic values") --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your claiming that it's just the term "Judeo-Christian values" that is separate form some other big usage of "Judeo-Christian" doesn't hold up -- the same usage that is being wielded for "values" is also being used for "tradition", "beliefs", and other formulations which appear to be the majority of the modern usages of the J-C term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Gertler here. Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Wolff source

Just to be clear, I reworded material about the 1829 use of Judeo-Christian because it was not at all what had been described in our text. It did not refer to any common roots of the religion. As anyone can check out, it is used specifically for the idea of creating a form of Christian church that uses Jewish traditions so that it will be easier to convert Jews - basically, an earlier concept of Messianic Judaism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reagan and Clinton

I added the term "Christian" in describing Cilnton when citing him using the term, because it is both what is being discussed in the source and is relevant to our discussion of how the term is used. I'm a bit more unsure with what to do about the Reagan material that was just added; I tried to give it context, but looking at that context - that this is what some now-Christian publisher/conservative PAC head, then first-time-author used in reference to Reagan in 2003 - I'm not sure that this really says anything about Reagan in relation to the term, nor about the time period being discussed, but seems to be just another example of some random Christian conservative using the term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

spin off the ethics sections to "Judeo-Christian ethics"

This article has two very different components. One is a 2000 history of group relations and theology. The other is an American concept of a common "Judeo-Christian ethics". So I spun off that to spin off the ethics sections to Judeo-Christian ethics. Rjensen (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You're pulling apart two things that aren't contiguous, that there was an attempt to build unification that let in claims that it is all one things. This would be better remaining as a single article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

the two parts deal with quite separate topics with little or no overlap. For example the "ethics" part is almost entirely a recent American debate, while the rest deals with 2000 years of history & has little to do with recent decades. Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Judeo-Christian" part of "Judeo-Christian ethics" is exactly the adjective use that makes up the bulk of this article. To state otherwise is like claiming that the "chocolate" in "chocolate pudding" is not a reference to what would be covered in the article "chocolate". --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Purpose of Judeo-Christian

I can see from this talk page already that much discussion has been had about the 'validity' and scope of the term Judeo-Christian. To add to this dialogue, I will say that the article should really stress that Judeo-Christian as a term is in fact a Christian term that refers to reflecting on the supposed Christian roots of their religion. (Opposed to other Christians who may want to: completely ignore the Old Testament, or a possible relationship with Judaism.) - What isn't being stressed (enough) in the article is that the term doesn't hold any weight in Jewish theology, or outlook (save for say Messianic Judaism, which some have argued isn't Judaism. But has it's own link for disambiguation anyway, so let's leave that be.). What is most confusing to me, is that section on 'Jewish responses' argues that its reception has been mixed. However the section fails to show that in any way there has been a 'warm' reception. As the 'evidence' is instead examples of interfaith attempts between the religion. The existence of interfaith support between Christianity & Judaism does not provide evidence that Judaism would ever see validity in the term Judeo-Christian. Instead it argues that there have been Jewish AND Christian projects with the aim of peace/cohabitation/multiculturalism/etc. in mind.

I would argue that the following should be wholly deleted:

"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."[12] 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."[7]

In the 1950s, "a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry" in response to the trauma of the Holocaust.[7] American Jews became more confident to be identified as different."

As it has no bearing on the term Judeo-Christian, and instead should be saved for an article on Jewish-Christian relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxiyu (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved material on Judeo-Christian ethics

I moved most of the remaining material in this article related to Judeo-Christian ethics to that article. That article is improved by having it, but I'm not sure what is left here suffices for a full article. Perhaps this article should be made a section of Christianity and Judaism. Person54 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Judeo-Christian ethics

The Judeo-Christian ethics article was spun out of Judeo-Christian by a single editor without any attempt to reach consensus here... and now leaves this article where at least someone feels it should be removed. "Judeo-Christian" worked better as a single topic, there is no need for a subtopic with a separate article. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that the current article structure isn't very logical. Where I ended up on the question of how to resolve this, after working on the two articles a few weeks ago, was that the best path forward would be to keep Judeo-Christian ethics as an article about the mostly American usage of the term in connection with the American civil religion, and to merge this article, which is about common scriptural and theological ground between the two faiths, with Christianity and Judaism, which is also about that, among other things. I would be willing to do the merge, if there were consensus. Person54 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is in the state it's in in large part because you gutted out a lot of it earlier this month, which I have now restored. That's not to say that none of it could be trimmed, but things such as the section on Jewish response to the term "Judeo-Christian" clearly belong with this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Correct me if I've missed something, but this article also seems to be about the same topic as Judeo-Christian ethics - I think this should be merged into Judeo-Christian ethics, and possibly moved to "Judeo-Christian values" since that the most recognizable title Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term "Judeo-Christian" as showing some union between the two religions covers "Judeo-Christian ethics", "Judeo-Christian tradition", and other invocations. Use of the J-C term is not a subset of the use of the J-C ethics term; it's the other way around, thus making J-C the primary topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's in use as a standalone term and is often used as "Judeo-Christian tradition" also - merging back into this page might be appropriate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "I gutted it out". I moved stuff more closely related to the topic of J-C ethics to that article. This did have the effect of making this article a bit empty, which underscored that between Judaism and Christianity and Judeo-Christian ethics, there isn't much left for this article to be about, and what there is looks a lot like Judaism and Christianity. It is hard to say whether the responses covered in the moved material were about the American "Judeo-Christian" political concept or the more general topic. I don't have any problem with you bringing back some of that material here, thought it doesn't help this article much. I think there should only be two articles, one covering the view that there are common themes, history, theology, scriptures etc between Judaism and Christianity, and a second one covering the term from American politics. I don't think we need a third article covering all the uses of the term Judeo-Christian, when there is an article on "Judaism and Christianity". I don't think we need two articles on the first theme, and the few paragraphs left in this article can be merged into Judaism and Christianity. I wouldn't want to see all the stuff about American politicians, etc, in the 'ethics' article moved here just to bulk up this article, and I certainly wouldn't want all that stuff in the Judaism and Christianity. If we are voting, I oppose merging this with Judeo-Christian ethics (in either direction), and support merging it with Judaism and Christianity. As for the title of the 'ethics' article, I don't care that much; but the difference between 'ethics' and 'morals' and 'values' doesn't seem big enough for it to be worth the trouble of making one of those the primary article and the 'ethics' a redirect. I think J-C 'Morals' and 'values' are already redirects to 'ethics', and if they aren't, they should be. Person54 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If Judeo-Christian ethics (tradition/morals/values, etc) is merged here, then the few paragraphs currently in this article will be overwhelmed with all the material about American political speeches (FDR, LBJ, etc) and the developments in the Christian right after 1970. The article will be unbalanced, which is no doubt why User:Rjensen split J-C ethics out in the first place. The few paragraphs currently in this article will end up being moved to Judaism and Christianity and we will end up with the same two articles anyway, with a bunch or redirects. Right now we have two reasonably coherent articles, plus this one. Person54 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be most of the content in this article could condensed into a background section on the origin of the term, and a separate section created on the history in Britain. If the majority of sources are about the use of the term in the United States then it is not unbalanced, and splitting the article to emphasize the content in this one is not the correct way to deal with it. If there are other sources that could add balance those can be added to the article - that is the right way to balance an article. The content in this article does not seem suitable for Judaism and Christianity, which is about theological comparison - I don't know if merging this content into that article will be well-received by editors there, who may not be following this discussion right now - it seems obvious to me that this is not a good idea, but other editors may disagree. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the American political term is about American values esp regarding foreign policy and not about the history of Jews and Christians. It's leading people are politicians like FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ and Reagan (and recently mostly conservatives), not theologians or historians and or denominational spokesmen. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think those are separate discussions; they feed each other, and certainly the Jewish scholars are responding to the political use. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I moved many of the Jewish responses to the other article. What is this article supposed to be about? Person54 (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly can we consider first the proposal to merge Judeo-Christian ethics into this one? A proposal to merge into Judaism and Christianity is not likely to succeed, nor should it, as the content of this article is entirely off topic for the Judaism and Christianity article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's about the use of the term "Judeo-Christian" to depict or suggest commonalities between the two religious groups. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Go though paragraph by paragraph, section and section and let me know which ones are about that. Person54 (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: It seems curious to me that the Judeo-Christian ethics article, while a cleaner read than this article used to be, seems nowhere to elaborate on what the supposed Judeo-Christian ethics actually are -- e.g. what might make them distinctive from any otherwise identified ethics. Whether we have two articles or one article, surely that is a question that ought to be treated somewhere? Jheald (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is why Judeo-Christian ethics, in its peculiar American political usage, is odd. The term, used somewhat interchangably with 'J-C morals', 'J-C tradition', etc is really just a way to put an umbrella of inclusiveness over "people of faith", as opposed to "godless" communists, fascists, atheists, and various other secular baddies. When first introduced in the thirties and forties, other religions weren't excluded by the term because they weren't thought to be much represented in the U.S. population. In latter days, with the Christian right having captured the term, it has basically become a way of referring to the supposed "Christian" background of the US, with "Judeo-" providing a little tinge of inclusiveness and coming in as a kind of Christian satellite. This is why the term has been criticized as supercessionism by some Jewish writers. Now you would have a fight if you tried to extend the inclusiveness to Muslims, other religions, or "non-believers", as Obama found. War on Christmas, and all that. In all this, nobody ever talks about what the supposed J-C ethics are, and how these ethics might be distinct from Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Confucian, or any other kind of ethics; because that doesn't really matter and isn't the point of the term. All the more reason why "J-C ethics" should be a separate article. Person54 (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christian Ethics" is mostly a political term - I'm not sure Supersessionism is the right word for what you are trying to describe, have the writers actually used that term? This phrase is not about covenant theology and the people who use it generally use the word Israel to refer to land and the State of Israel Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"Supersessionism" is indeed the term bandied about for use of the J-C term. It is the view of many Jews that use of the J-C term (whether it be in "ethics", "tradition", "values", whatever) by Christians reflects a belief by the speaker that Judaism is merely proto-Christianity, and thus at the very least, Christians are in position to speak of their beliefs as though they represent Judaism as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't have a strong opinion on what should be done with this article but I thought I would ask about some interesting material I came across. Reading about The Jewish Encyclopedia I found that its instigator Isidore Singer (Jewish) and its publisher Isaac K. Funk (Lutheran) apparently got along well because they believed in a fundamental unity between Judaism and Christianity which would eventually manifest as some kind of Judeo-Christian brotherhood. (I can't get this book today so I can't check to see if this exact term was used, but the rhetoric was pretty strong about the foundation of the two religions being the same.) Is this the kind of material which would ideally fit into the "Judeo-Christian" article? More stuff like this is findable on the web: [1], [2], [3], etc. Also how do Hebrew Christian movement and Messianic Judaism fit in? All of this does seem to go a little beyond "ethics". Best, groupuscule (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support I support merging Judeo-Christian ethics into this article. (It's hard keeping track with different proposals floating around.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

So I asked above how the material currently in this article is about the term "Judeo-Christian". No answers. It seems to me that little of the article is currently about that, and if it weren't for the fact that removing the extraneous material would leave this article empty, most of the article should be deleted. Perhaps if that were done, what was left could be merged with "J-C ethics". Let's go through it:

1. Intro:

1.1 Term groups Judaism and Christianity. Definition, OK

1.2 "Judeo-Christian values" invented by Orwell, OK. J-C ethics.

2. History of the term

2.1 M'Caul/Wolff definition. OK

2.2 Judenchristlich defiition. OK

3. Theology and Religious Law. This entire section is covered more fully in Christianity and Judaism.

3.1 Christianity inherits notion of "covenant". Not about the term. This article isn't about the history of Christianity or the origins of Christianity in Judaism. OUT.

3.2 Christian Old Testament is Jewish scripture. Ditto. OUT.

3.3 Jewish prophets, etc, also known in Christianity. Ditto. OUT

4. Inter-group relations

4.1 U.S. as Judeo-Christian nation, based upon J-C ethics. Covered in another article, already mentioned. OUT.

4.2 More history of J-C ethics concept. Ditto OUT.

4.3 Holocaust caused revolution in Christian theology. Christian Zionism, philo-Semitism. Not about the term/concept. Original research. OUT.

4.4 Scriptural basis for new positive attitude is Genesis 12.3, etc. More on philo-Semitism. Original Research. Not about the term/concept. OUT.

5. Jewish Responses

5.1 Response in 30-40's to J-C ethics concept. Covered in other article. OUT.

5.2 Cultural revival for American Jewry in 1950s. Irrelevant. OUT

5.3 Two notable books addressed relations between contemporary J and C. Mostly about J-C American political concept. OUT.

5.4 Stephen Feldman on supercessionism. OK, but too long, and covered by other article.

6. Role of Islam

6.1 Advocates of "Abrahamic religion" accused of "hyper-ecumenicism". Irrelevant. POV. OUT.

This article basically sucks, with very little that should be kept, other than material which relates to J-C ethics or to C&J. And you guys want to merge the other, reasonably clean, article, here? It makes sense only if maybe three paragraphs from this article are kept and the rest of the article is the J-C ethics article as it currently stands. Person54 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the history of the term is OK. For Theology and Religious law, I will tentatively agree. It isn't well sourced and it's not clear how it is relevant to the article topic, so as it stands it looks like WP:OR. For inter-group relations, I think we can keep Sarna, unless its covered elsewhere. I don't think Christian Zionism needs to be removed entirely but sourced and it should be kept brief. It is probably enough to say that in its common usage today it refers to "the Judeo-Christian commitment to democratic values" and Genesis 12:3 and it should mention Hagee and other thinks who may have been influential. This is all easily sourced to WP:RS - I'm not sure why you are saying it is not about the term "Judeo-Christian values" or ethics - it may not be, but from NPOV, that is not the view in the majority of WP:RS that use this term. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement of which is "merge to" and "merge from" is not a statement of which content will be primary, merely a statement of which title the resulting page will have. Largely, what I am trying to do is to get this article more in the direction that it was here, back before it was needlessly bifurcated without consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If that is what you really want, then a lot of work on the history of the term as used in the American civil religion would be reverted. Person54 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying anything specific needs to be deleted. I am saying it should be united. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I get that. The problem is that "Judeo-Christian" is not really a topic. It just seems to be a term under which people apparently feel free to park their OR meanderings on anything related to the intersection of Judaism and Christianity. Once you have defined it as the term grouping Judaism and Christianity (which is trivial), what is there left to say? Only one thing really, and that is the topic of "Judeo-Christian ethics" (or "morals", "tradition", etc). This has, weirdly, developed into a concept which has about an 80 year history in the American civil religion. So, the only actual topic is "J-C ethics", (or if you prefer J-C morals, or tradition). We have that article and this article doesn't really need to exist at all. If we merged this article with J-C ethics, and got rid of almost everything not related to J-C ethics, then it might initially be OK. But then we would be constantly fighting off people wanting to write their little essays on Covenant theology, or philo-Semitism, or Genesis 12:3, or the impact of the Holocaust on Christian theology, or who knows what. No, thank you. Wikipedia doesn't need any more OR honey-pots. Person54 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The argument that we should keep this article as a place for the WP:OR that you don't want in the other article seems poorly conceived. Also you keep implying that including Genesis 12:3 would be synth even though its use by Falwell and Hagee and others is citable to numerous books and journal articles. The Feldman quote could merge. It seems pretty arbitrary to say everything would have to be deleted during a merge. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Person, we have this article; it's that article that doesn't need to exist at all. You say there's one thing only, and that's "ethics", and then you list "values". And "tradition". We have a number of sources in this article that are arguing against the existence of "Judeo-Christian tradition", and that's addressing a different thing than ethics, although both the idea of "Judeo-Christian ethics" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" stem from the same sorts of understanding and are best discussed in unison, under the discussion of the term "Judeo-Christian" and how it is used. If people are making additions that aren't about the term, we can edit them the same as we would edit off-topic material in every other article. The fact that we may need to edit an article does not make the article at all illegitimate. We've had an article here for over a decade now.--Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

My argument is that the only article we need on the "Judeo-Christian" concept is the article titled "J-C ethics", with redirects for synonyms like "J-C morals", "J-C values", "J-C traditions". These all refer to the same concept; namely, that the U.S. polity and its ethics and traditions are based somehow on ideas derived from Judaism and Christianity. I don't see "J-C" as somehow the better title but unfortunately taken by this OR-fest of an article. "J-C ethics" is the best title, and "J-C" should be redirected to it, after the minimal material in this article that isn't OR and isn't already duplicated elsewhere is moved to other articles. Person54 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And my argument is that "Judeo-Christian tradition" is not a subset of "Judeo-Christian ethics", but all of those topics are subsets of the "Judeo-Christian" concept, and thus the correct article title is this one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What are the other subsets of the "Judeo-Christian" concept? I mean, not related to the "Judeo-Christian ethics/morals/values/tradition" concept of American political/civil discourse? You would have a better argument that there are some, if the current state of this article weren't so dire. Person54 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If we refer back to title guidelines, one concern is recognizeability. Judeo-Christian ethics is used, but much less often then any of the other options, which makes it a poor title choice. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article ends up outside the concept of American civil discourse. I'm saying that the topic for the American civil discourse that includes both "Judeo-Christian ethics" and "Judeo-Christian tradition" is "Judeo-Christian". And that the state of the current J-C article is due to the fact that someone pointlessly bifurcated the article to artificially separate out J-C ethics. That's the point of the merger, to undo that damage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You aren't going to persuade anybody by simply declaring it "pointless". The term "J-C" is only used as an adjective with a limited range of nouns, and all the resulting phrases are used in more or less the same ways with similar meaning. The first usage of one of these phrases, by Orwell, was "Judeo-Christian scheme of morals". How about that for a title? What is not the case is that "Judeo-Christian" is much used simply as a "group term covering both Judaism and Christianity", as this article states. If this article is seeming empty and scattered, it is because once you move the American civil religion material out, there isn't much left to say about the "group term covering Judaism and Christianity" which isn't original research. Are you prepared to throw away this article, and move the J-C ethics content here in its entirety, and make this article about the American civil religion concept? Person54 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

As no one has responded by actually making a coherent point against it, then yes, pointing out that it was pointless seems quite appropriate. Certainly moreso than the claims that this sourced topic is not a topic. As it is, the article was bifurcated without consensus and that destructive move should not require a larger consensus to undo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there was a lot of discussion, but it was done a long time ago now, and not being undone all this time constitutes acquiescence, which amounts to consensus. A corollary of "be bold" is that if you are bold and your changes "stick", you have established consensus. The split-out article has been worked on extensively by multiple authors since the split. One of those was not around at the time of the split; namely, me. My opinion is that the split was a good move and I have now done a fair amount of work on the articles, based on the current structure. Whatever objections you might have to the split, unlike me, you were around at the time, and acquiesced. Declaring that you don't need consensus to revert established changes is, I am afraid, not going to fly. Person54 (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Person54. Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't "acquiesce", I expressed objection at the time that the destructive work was suggested, and have tried to get the pages re-merged, but doing so in a way that would not become just an edit war with an editor who showed no concern for consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The spin-off happened in May 2016. Where was your objection? Are you referring to your comments of May 2017? I can't seen to find an earlier objection. After you made your objection ri the merge one year afterwards, and we were discussing it, you wandered off again, and now it is two months later. Sorry, at this point there is no consensus for remerging the J-C ethics article into this one. As I said a couple of months ago, if you recall, I wouldn't object to merging this article into J-C ethics, with most of the non-overlapping material not going along for the ride, or getting merged somewhere else. But there is absolutely no consensus for a re-merge in the other direction. To close on a positive note, I appreciate your concern about starting an edit war on this. If there was ever a consensus against the split, it was never concretized in the form of reverting the split, and there is no consensus for that now. Person54 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"The spin-off happened in May 2016. Where was your objection?" May, 2016 --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Let us return to this forgotten discussion and resolve it. First off, I have just removed the merge proposal template from the Christianity and Judaism article (which is about the historical and theological comparison/relationship of the two religions) as there is clearly no consensus to merge any of the mentioned-above articles in question into it. Now, I personally lean towards supporting the merge of the article Judeo-Christian ethics - which discusses the contemporary, mostly Americans political concept - back into this article, Judeo-Christian. As 'Nat Gertler' and 'Seraphim System' said, this is for the most part a sub-topic of Judeo-Christian, which is a valid term that encompasses a more general and inclusive subject "of or relating to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity", according to dictionary.com. Thus the ethics article should be moved almost in its entirety into a large, main section (and sub-sections) of its own in this article, and receive more coverage in the lead section (for the record, if I followed the discussion correctly, Person54 supported merging this article either into the ethics article or the Christianity and Judaism one). I think an expert's opinion would be needed and appreciated here, if not a request for comment (WP:RFC)/ an organized voting process, in order to settle this issue. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

the term has multiple meanings in terms of a code of ethics / political values/ and the historical divergence of a spinoff religious tradition. Best to keep them separate. The RS --and the readers-- interested in the distinctive topics have very little in common and I think readers will just get confused with the jump from 100 A.D. to 2018. Rjensen (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim that the readers coming to look at the term Judeo-Christian aren't here to be looking at the usages of the term Judeo-Christian and only want to see this portion of it here and is baseless and ridiculous. Having two messed-up articles rather than one solid one is not a good solution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not "solid" when it joins together totally different issues separated by over a thousand years. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, is someone daring to suggest that the term "Judeo-Christian tradition" might have some links to tradition? Or in the discussion of the term "Judeo-Christian", note some usage of similar term for clarity? No, we cannot have context and clarity in a Wikipedia article! --14:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen, yes I can also see the logic/advantages in keeping the two articles separate. Anyways, since there is no consensus, I have just removed the merge proposal templates from the pages. The status quo will remain, at least for now... Shalom11111 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Judaeo-NWO

Is it okay to list or link info anent the term"Judaeo-NWO"?

That is a) not a parallel term; b) a term that (spelled "Judaeo" or "Judeo") shows up on under 100 web pages. It seems not to be a significant term. So... no. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Judaeo New World Order?! Nat Gertler, you are far too nice. That is an unsigned comment from a lol troll! Sigh... these articles bring them out en mass.--FeralOink (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"JudæoChristian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect JudæoChristian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#JudæoChristian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The relationship between Easter and Passover

I am removing the sentence that says "The observance of Passover by Jews is a tradition closely related to the Christian celebration of Easter." The two sources are a Wall Street Journal essay by R. R. Reno, which I don't have full access to but is an opinion piece that makes it clear from the opening that it is talking about similarities between the two holidays, which is also the topic of the archived other article (although it also covers differences.) Similarities are not a relationship. If one holiday were to have been derived from another, or if both holidays were derived from a third holiday, then yes, they would be related. But particularly in an article where supposed shared heritage is being discussed, we should not confuse similarity to relationship. (Also, even if they were related, the ordering of things so that it sounds like Passover is derived from Easter would be problematic.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, that sentence you removed and the remaining sentence "The Jewish Tradition of atonement has been borrowed by Christians and circumcision is a common Jewish tradition among Evangelicals" really don't fit in the opening paragraph of the article. I'd support removing that remaining sentence, possibly into a lower section. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you! I am a Wall Street Journal subscriber. I read the essay (as Nat Gertler correctly stated). His inferences are correct. Next, the passage that Nat removed and Jno.skinner suggested be removed (or rephrased and placed in a later section) is probably incorrect without further detailed clarification and is likely to offend religious sensibilities of all involved (Jews, Christians, Evangelical Christians). It requires a citation from a highly reputable source at the very least! I will go have a look at the sentence now. You did the right thing. I appreciate that. This is important to me.--FeralOink (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC) I was wrong about what I wrote yesterday, so I struck it out but left visible per article talk page conventions.--FeralOink (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I made some edits, including to the sentence that Jno.skinner suggested be removed (or rephrased and placed in a later section) about atonement and circumcision. I moved those into the body of the article, and rephrased for greater objectivity. I also consolidated duplicate content about Nietzschean origin and usage.--FeralOink (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

bad External link

The external link section is currently there to provide a single link to a promo page for what is essentially a self-pubilshed book (published through a "publishing services" business) written by a music therapist. It's hard to see that page as a substantial source for this topic.

I have retired from article editing, but I request that someone else look at this and appropriately remove the link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I've done this. Thank you! Jno.skinner (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I found a more suitable external link, at the website mediacentral.princeton.edu. I will include that. I found another, titled "What does ‘Judeo-Christian’ mean?" written by the person who was the focus of the 2015 Princeton interview. In the interests of accessibility, I will include both, as some will prefer a written article to a video. If anyone feels this is redundant, feel free to replace one or the other links with something better.--FeralOink (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC):::

If all we have to offer is Dennis Prager, I think we'd do just as well doing without. I'm not going to be delving through 100+ minutes of him to find out if they actually talk about the term "Judeo-Christian"; merely having a Jew talking to a Christian doesn't qualify. Is there anything of actual relevance in that long discussion? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I listened to it. Given that "Judeo-Christian" is of interest to American political conservatives and evangelicals, and that the link is from Princeton University, it is less unreasonable to include it as an external link. You point is valid of course. Although I don't really want to spend another 77 minutes of my time listening to it again, I will do it for you, Nat Gertler, and determine if there are significant passages that ARE pertinent to Judeo-Christian. I do think it is important to have a link to a WP:RS such as Princeton. Alternatively, if you and/or anyone else has anything better to suggest, that would be great. I'm going to work on the non-localization part of the article for a bit before listening to the 77 minutes. (I sincerely apologize for re-involving you in Wikipediana, as I know you said on your talk page and elsewhere that you are no longer actively editing. If you choose not to reply, I will do my best to respond to your concerns rather than just ignoring them because you aren't here to remind me.)--FeralOink (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Princeton being a RS just means that we can count on them not to have messed with the video, not that they went through and verified and concurred with each thing said; there is nothing being said in Princeton's voice (one of its professors, yes). I am not asking you to watch it again; I was just uncertain whether you had watched it before (many editors have added things to external links based just on headlines.) As for the relevancy to evangelicals, I will note that neither of the people involved is one; George is a Catholic, Prager is Jewish (but his stances general fall outside that of the general American Jewish populace.) I will admit to having a bias against George, whatever his academic credentials may be, as he founded the anti-LGBT group National Organization for Marriage. If you say there's material of significant relevance to this article, I believe you, but that is still not reason to give Prager two shots in the External Links. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You're right. Prager should NOT appear twice in the External Links. I am going to chop the video and just leave the article. I will try to find a second external link to add for balance. Thank you for replying!--FeralOink (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Removing wikilink-ed references to philo-semitism

The wikilinked term, philo-semitism, appears several times in this article. It is mentioned specifically in the context of the United States. When I navigated to Philosemitism, I found an article that is focused on its manifestation almost exclusively in Europe. (The article seems to have been translated from German Wikipedia, given the tagging. Nothing wrong with that at all but it is another reason why use of the term is misleading in passages of this article that are specific to religious and political trends in the USA, absent any explanation or citation.)

The only mention of the United States in the philosemitism article is this, which is the very opposite of "philo":

Mark Twain's essay Concerning the Jews has been described as philosemitic. Israeli scholar Bennet Kravitz states that one could just as easily hate Jews for the reasons Twain gives for admiring them. In fact, Twain's essay was cited by Nazi sympathizers in the 1930s. Kravitz concludes, "The flawed logic of 'Concerning the Jews' and all philo-Semitism leads to the anti-Semitic beliefs that the latter seeks to deflate".

I am going to remove those wikilinks and rephrase slightly differently. If anyone objects strongly, revert me. It would be nice to have an explanation as to why as a response here. FeralOink (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The term is not incorrect

An IP editor has been trying to add in statements about the original use of the term "Judeo-Christian", and refer to other uses of the term as incorrect. As we cover in the history section, the term has been used to several meanings over the years. That doesn't make any given usage of the term "incorrect"; as with many things in English, it has multiple meanings. The central topic of this article is the current primary use of the term. I have (twice) undone those edits (which also introduced a number of formatting problems.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

“term has been used to several meanings over the years. That doesn't make any given usage of the term "incorrect"; as with many things in English, it has multiple meanings.”

Then why can’t the Irgun of the word and author of the word be displayed in the article? All meanings of the word should be represented. איש מאמין (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is in the article, right there in the section marked "History". (Whether it should be or not, as it's not the usage this article is discussion, nor even as spelled, is another question.) The introduction is a summary, and should not have every detail that's in the article below. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The word deserves the author to be known and every meaning the word carries to be displayed for all to see and free from harassment and bullying. איש מאמין (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The material you are trying to push into the introduction is already in the article, properly placed and cited. This actually is not a dictionary, it is not the place for every meaning to be displayed., and previous uses of similar terms for different meanings are worth as best an aside, just as an article on someone named Jeff Smith doesn't need to discuss in the introduction everyone else who was ever named Jeff Smith. I suggest you read WP:BRD to understand what should happen here if you make a change that is reverted; it's not to repeatedly make the same change. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll continue to pursue truth and inject the author of the word into the article regardless of your bullying and harassment. איש מאמין (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You've now had more than one editor undo your additions, yet you persist. Playing this game of pretending you cannot see the information further in the article is not a winning argument for your stance that this aside-from-topic usage of a similar term needs to be so deeply covered in the introduction. If you wish to be concerned with bullying, take a deeper look into your own actions. If you wish to learn better how things work around here so that you can be productive in a cooperative environment, head on over to Help:Introduction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

For anyone looking on: איש מאמין has now been indefinitely blocked. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)