jure.toplak at uni-mb.si
Thu Feb 26 11:24:34 PST 2004
Would the term "Judeo and Christian" be insulting, too?
> Lawyers and professors aim at the perfect term choice. I think that
> "Judeo-Christian" is unlikely to be that term in most situations.
> Interesting that our usually polite moderator is not bothered by the fact
> that others find the term "Judeo-Christian" insulting -- even though the
> others are being referred to by the term. As a librarian, among other
> things, I am familiar with the tangle of cross references created in card
> catalogues and other indexing systems by the majorities migration from one
> insulting term in search of a more acceptable word. For example, 'Negro'
> 'Colored,' to 'Black', to 'People of Color', to 'African American.' Also
> "bastard" to "illegitimate" to "child born out of wedlock." In the
> heated discussion over same-sex marriage on this list no one trotted out
> old insulting term "sodomite."
> I see no reason why Jews should be the one group it is ok to insult
> because a term is "valuable and eminently proper term." By the way what
> makes it "proper"? How is "eminently proper" different from "proper"?
> "valuable" mean the speaker cannot think of a synonym quickly? Why not
> say Christian? or Biblical?
> All the other terms this society has agreed to stop using due to
> recognizing the humanity of the term's referents could also have been
> "valuable and eminently proper" by their users.
> Any Christian who thinks that "main stream" Judaism (whatever that
> means) shares the values "main stream Christianity" has read into the
> so-called "Old Testament" is simply uninformed. By the way does "main
> stream Christianity" mean the most popular Protestant sects when the word
> is used in the USA? but don't Catholics outnumber Protestants on a global
> While I usually find this list very instructive and very civil, I
> very -- disappointed -- that our able moderator chooses to actively
> this hole in civility.
> Malla Pollack
> Visiting, Univ. of Oregon, Law
> mpollack at law.uoregon.edu
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> To: <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:36 AM
> Subject: RE: Judeo-Christian Ethic
> > I strongly suggest that the term be kept, and I plan to continue
> > using it myself (though naturally only in those situations where it's
> > I do not think the term is insulting, and though apparently some people
> > insulted by it, I don't find that to be a sufficient reason to stop
> > valuable and eminently proper term such as this. Nothing in the term
> > "Judeo-Christian" inherently suggests that Judaism is an outmoded belief
> > which was replaced by Christianity; and if a few people have abused it
> > way, that does not in my view damn the term altogether.
> > The term simply reflects the accurate statement that there's a
> > substantial common thread in mainstream Judaism and mainstream
> > Of course, no views will be equally shared by all groups within Judaism,
> > all groups with Christianity -- but that hardly means that we can't
> > the dominant views shared by each group.
> > Eugene
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Malla Pollack [mailto:mpollack at law.uoregon.edu]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:35 AM
> > > To: SILVERBURG Dr. Sanford; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > Cc: jmbitzer at catawba.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Judeo-Christian Ethic
> > >
> > >
> > > I do not know when "Judeo-Christian" came into use, but I
> > > strongly suggest that the term be dropped. "Judeo-Christian"
> > > is an insulting (To Jews) term used by Christians who want to
> > > sound broad minded, but know little or nothing about Judaism.
> > > Judaism is not (in its own mind) an outmoded belief which
> > > was replaced by Christianity. Both have multitudinous forms.
> > > The degree of agreement varies depending on which versions
> > > are compared. Reinhold Niebuhr once admitted the crassness of
> > > this term and then absent mindedly used it a few chapters
> > > later in the same book. (Sorry I cannot now locate the cite.)
> > > Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution said:
> > > The real object of the First Amendment was not to
> > > countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism,
> > > or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude
> > > all rivalry among Christian sects....
> > >
> > > Malla Pollack
> > > Visiting, Univ. of Oregon, Law
> > > 541-346-1599
> > > mpollack at law.uoregon.edu
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "SILVERBURG Dr. Sanford" <SSILVER at catawba.edu>
> > > To: <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> > > Cc: <jmbitzer at catawba.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:56 AM
> > > Subject: Judeo-Christian Ethic
> > >
> > >
> > > > In much--or at least some--of the discussion on constitutionalizing
> > > > social
> > > values, the
> > > > term/concept of Judeo-Christian ethic has been tossed about. Can
> > > > anyone
> > > cite a
> > > > source for the existence of this rubric used prior to 1930?
> > > Indeed,
> > > > was
> > > it an established
> > > > concept at the Constitutional Convention?
> > > > Sanford Silverburg _______________________________________________
> > > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> > > see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
More information about the Conlawprof