It sounds like Bat Ye'or is simplifying Europe's dilemma a bit. In my experience the European "common man" has a fear and hatred of muslims that is far stronger than anything you would ever see in the US. At the same time the European elites are trying to push the EU "common europe" idea on a population that often hates the people from the next city over. It's the EU that is responsible for a lot of Europe's weak response to jihadism. In an effort to keep "Europe" alive, the elites keep pushing this multicultural pablum down everyones throats hoping that somehow they can dictate attitude change. Of course as a result the nationalist feeling is repressed and becomes even more violent. It is not clear whether the elites will be able to hand over Europe to the muslims before nationalist groups manage to take power and turn Europe back into the 1930s. Either way the outlook is not too sunny. The US is in a much stronger position. So far we seem to be assimilating our muslim immigrants much better than Europe is, partly because we are still allowed to be patriotic.

As someone noticeably to the right of, for example, Michael J. Totten, I have to ask how much more grey I will need to have in my ponytail (so far only my beard has as much salt as pepper) before I can be presumed to be liberal on the basis of outward appearances.

I second most of what Vanya says.

Both the concepts of Eurabia and European dhimmitude are highly misleading. Europeans by and large dislike their Arab/Muslim populations, who are socially, economically and politically marginalized. Even in those countries where attitudes are more open and tolerant (closer to the U.S. model) such as Great Britain and Holland, these populations have been difficult to assimilate.

The economic and geopolitical relations with Arab and Muslim countries are for the most part an entirely separate issue. It is misleading to talk in terms of "cheap oil" or "access to oil". Oil is fungible. What is far more important are the huge markets for European manufactured goods, infrastructure, armaments and services brought about by oil wealth. This lure, and a desire for geopolitical, economic (and to some extent cultural) triangulation vis-à-vis the U.S., is far more important than either access to oil or local Muslim populations per se. Appeasement and realpolitik are far better descriptors of this relationship than "dhimmitude".

I agree with the point about Said. Said is only part however of the insidious multi-culturalist, post-Christian, anti-globalist intellectual, cultural and social zeitgeist prevalent in Europe and infecting Western civilization (incl. the U.S.) as a whole.

I would argue however that, despite what might be implied by its name, post-modernist "multiculturalism" is itself part of the Western tradition of inquiry involving self-criticism, self-doubt and Christian guilt. It has nothing to do with the non-Christian Third World. Said himself was Western educated, catered mostly to a Western audience, and his "Orientalism" itself reflects a thoroughly Western "cross-cultural" (note quotation marks) perspective.

There may be a de facto alliance of convenience between the anti-U.S., anti-globalist, anti-imperialist, post-modernist, multi-cultural European populations and Third World elites - which by the way has little if anything to do with advancing the economic or social development interests of the masses in those countries - but this is not the same as saying that Europe is becoming an "appendage of Arabia".

Gabriel Gonzalez

Vanya – It's the EU that is responsible for a lot of Europe's weak response to jihadism. In an effort to keep "Europe" alive, the elites keep pushing this multicultural pablum down everyones throats hoping that somehow they can dictate attitude change.

That’s true. One of Ye’or’s points was that this European/Arab alliance was the ‘brainchild’ of the European academic and political elites – not the European people or the Arabs (I should probably add that to the post).

Nationalism and patriotism are definitely discouraged in Europe. For instance, the Germans (and a lot of Europeans) seem to love flags. They have flags in front of their malls, their businesses, everywhere. I was there a few months before I realized that none of those flags were their national flag. They were all kind of generic.

A commenter on Jihad Watch, Hugh, described the situation in France:

"…You realize, at some point, that something has gone irreparably wrong with your own country, the country of France, and you, and your children, are in danger of losing that country. And you do not know what to do, or how to explain this feeling to others, or in whom to confide your secret fears, or what can be done. It is so confusing, and so upsetting."

"You cannot vote for Le Pen. You cannot endorse "cowboy" Bush or those ridiculous Americans. You have no place to go."

....

It does seems that the only choice is between EU pablum and Le Pen nationalism. Center-right types, like Chirac, seem to encourage the Euro/Arab alliance.

"It does seem that the only choice is between EU pablum and Le Pen nationalism."

This is not a distressing happenstance - it reflects the deliberate policy of the EU elites to ensure that no real alternative to their own ideas is ever available to voters.

Europe's culture is one of aristocrats ruling peasants, to this day. The elites are more committed to retaining this social structure than they are to developing a modern economy or defending the EU. They want one more generation to be on top, even if there are no more after that. It's an interesting choice.

The EU voters beneath all this believe, as your commenter shows, that it's hopeless.

Two thoughts. The strong role of Christianity in the
US is one of, if not the, most important cultural
resources we have in avoiding the kind of death-cycle the Euros have gotten themselves into. I
say this because the Euro elites hate religion
and are themselves without it; consequently they
neither understand it nor can they stand up to it
when it comes packaged in brown skin. Their own
guilt-based ideology commands silence. Robust believers can stand up to the theocratic fascism
of Islam and ask hard questions of the "religion
of peace".

Second, James Burnham's book of liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide, over 40 years old,
strikes me as sadly relevant.

I bet Sistani & The Najaf School loves Bat Ye’or.

I hear Sistani pluralism is all the rage in Iraq.

Vanya -

I don't have recent first-person experience with the European street... but watching the EU beauracracy go about insulating its executive power from electoral control has been very troubling to me.

The "common man" here in America can be heard in the halls of government every two years. I don't know what combination of continental elections it would take to seriously change the agendas of the Lords of Brussels, but I fear they may have already passed the point were mere parliamentary maneuvers can prevent collapse.

I don't want to live in a world where Americans have to go "over there" again. We've buried enough of our kids in their fields.

Wait, wait.

Let's try a confirm-your-views check, here.

Who owns the New York Sun? Is it unbiased, or is it biased to the right? Does this confirm or contradict your views about liberal appearances?

You write "there were no sign-waving activists protesting her appearance." Does this confirm or contradict your views about the tolerance of campuses to academic, rather than polemic disagreement?

You link to something that says that "The Comparative Defense Studies Program, The Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and The Middle East Institute of Columbia University host...Bat Ye'or." Does this confirm or contradict your views about the tolerance of the Middle Eastern Studies department of Columbia University to academic disagreement?

You write that Columbia has "famed leftist leanings," but that the Q&A was "surprisingly balanced." Does this confirm or contradict your views about the leanings of Columbia?

You write that "Most of the room applauded her answer." Does this confirm or contradict your views about the leanings of Columbia?

You write that "The crowd reacted with sarcastic laughter" to a questioner insisting that an Arab saying they could not be anti-semetic. Does this confirm or contradict your views about the civility of the right?

Given that your views might have changed while thinking on these questions, do you think that asking if "America encourage the same sort of alliance?" is a question akin to asking "Did you stop beating your wife?" Perhaps, given the overwhelming agreement by the academics who cared to listen to the speaker, and the lack of any academics attempting to disrupt the speaker, the unbiased question is "Would academics in America discourage the same sort of alliance?"

See, that's me, trying to change my beliefs to fit the facts, rather than the facts to fit the beliefs. Why don't you try it. It's refreshingly honest.

I believe there are TWO root causes for European dhimmitude:

(1) EXHUASTION - they are worn out by the bloody 2oth century.

(2) this exhaustion has led to rationalizions and modalities which now permeate NOT only the "Academe" and trhe elites but the masses:

(a) colonialism and imperialism were bad and their wealth is the result of pillaging the third world -which woulod be wealthy if it weren;pt for European Hegemony. This has caused MASSIVE GUILT and SELF-LOATHING.

(b) nationalism and etnocentricity led to a lack of acceptance of neighbors and bloodshed; therefore we must blindly accept anythign that another nation or culture does that is value-related or we riosk more pointless bloodshed.
Thius had led to pan-Eurpoeanism and cultural relativism - een as they try to protect their cultures from so-called "American Cultural Hegemony" - which is a misonomer for mass culture free from elitist constraints (which I blogged about here: http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2004/12/myth-of-american-cultural-hegemony-or.html).

As Seinfeld once humorously noted (paraphrasing): the French fought harder to keep out Disneyland than they did the NAZIS!"

Of course, the proper response to "cultural exhaustion" is picking oneself up by one's bootstraps, and not namby-pamby relativism.

Continental Europe needs a Thatcher or a Reagan - who can foster a rebirth of cultural pride and free market/anti-socialist universalism. or it is DOOMED, I tell you DOOMED.

Seriously.

And sadly, except for Sarkozy, there are VERY FEW potential candidates around.

Perhaps - when the Pope crosse over, may it not happen for a thousand years - the Catholic church (thorugh the College of Cardinals) has a chance for some MAJOR input: if they select a European with Charisma he could lead a resurgence NOT JUST OF FAITH AND THE CHURCH, but of pride within all of Europe for universalism and Judeo-Christian values.

If they select, for instance, French Cardinal Jean Louis Tauron - and IF, REPEAT IF, he were to return the church to a married clergy THEN the church miught have a resurgence in France, and through France all of Europe.

It ewill take something this bold to change the dynamic.

IMHO.

So, in other words, you went to see a conspiracy theorist. Someone who believes that Muslims are trying to take over the world, that they are working through a secret organisation, and that rootless cosmopolitan European intellectuals are aiding and abetting them because of their lack of healthy patriotic vigor. Apparently the Muslims do not believe that infidels are human beings.

Michael this is transparent idiocy. Next week, perhaps we will be hearing about the Muslim conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. All this is, is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with the names crossed out.

Wow - a controversial speaker whining about Arabs comes to Columbia and ...

nothing happens.

What will you wingnuts have to complain about now?

dsqured: it aint a secret consoracy; its a thousand year old plan - a basic tenet of islam called JIHAD.

the saudis OPENLY proclaim this s their mission in their wahhabist mosques all over the world.

wake up dsquared: dhimmitude is a conceot in the QURAN; it is REAL, not a figment of anyone's imagination.

NYSun, unbiased?

Sheesh. It's hardly a newspaper.

Glorified neoconservative press release.

Hey, anybody remember what happened the last time cool Leftist started to fall in love with Ayatollahs:

The Seductions of Islamism: Revisiting Foucault and the Iranian Revolution

Enjoy!

It's in the Bible that the Jews are the chosen people of God. But it's a bit of a leap from that to believing in conspiracy theories, and it's a bit of a leap from hearing about jihad in Saudi mosques to concluding that specific European Union committees are plotting to take over the world.

Next week, perhaps we will be hearing about the Muslim conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. All this is, is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with the names crossed out

Dsquared – one elder professor at Ye’or’s conference made that very same comment. (He then struck up a conversation with the pretty Arab student). Odd coincidence.

Muslim extremists groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, following their interpretation of Islamic law, openly admit that they have imperialist goals. Islamist governments, like the government in the Sudan, are slaughtering and enslaving thousands of people, following a similar interpretation of Islamic law. Other Islamist states, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, following a similar interpretation of Islamic law, support terrorism worldwide. Extremist Muslim groups in Europe hope to install a similar version of Islamic law in European nations & the UK. They’re threatening elected officials, and the officials are not always able to protect themselves.

Many Europeans are starting to pay attention to this, and they’re starting to worry. But worldwide Islamist-funded terrorism wasn’t the point of Ye’or’s talk. She was discussing the problems that the Euro/Arab alliance (an alliance that was initiated by Europeans) are currently causing in Europe. The fact that these problems exist can be verified by reading any newspapers - even the back pages of the New York Times.

Since I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to comment intelligently on this subject I will refrain. But I would however like to say three things.

1.) Thanks a hell of a lot Mary! You just extended my "To Read" list even further. If this continues it's going to be a book in and of itself.

2.) Excellent contribution Vanya, through the eyes of someone who is fairly ignorant on the subject of Eurabia, but well read on 20th century Europe, I think you're quite right. Especially in regards to the preserving effects of Patriotism.

3.) To TmjUtah, your statement "I don't want to live in a world where Americans have to go "over there" again. We've buried enough of our kids in their fields." rings painfully true. I constantly have to combat my isolationist tendencies, as it is in my nature to "escape within", and I truly fear the day may come when Europe joins with others in the world and decides something has to be "done" about America.

Europe seems to accept its current dhimmi status, and does not seem to be willing to defend traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values.

Oh, I'm dying to hear what Ms. Ye'or defines as "traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values."

Because she didn't use "traditional Western, Enlightenment values," so I think she's reaching a little farther back than I would.

But traditional Western Enlightenment values are not in the bible!

It's about time Michael.

"Oh, I'm dying to hear what Ms. Ye'or defines as "traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values."

Kimmitt,

it's like a "black thang." If you have to ask, then you'll never know.

TMJ-

You're on the right track. Outside of london you'd be stunned at the average brit's attitude towards muslims. There's a great deal more racism in europe than in america nowadays. Its just that there are few viable right-of-center political parties.

Where have I heard this critique of Liberalism and traditional western Enlightenment values, before?

___________________________________

Liberalism tore down the structures that held races and peoples together, releasing the destructive drives. The result was economic chaos that led to millions of unemployed on the one side and the senseless luxury of economic jackals on the other. Liberalism destroyed the people's economic foundations, allowing the triumph of subhumans. They won the leading role in the political parties, the economy, the sciences, arts and press, hollowing out the nation from inside. The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols and so on, resulting in the decay and decline....We have seen firsthand where Marxism leads people, in Germany from 1919 to 1932, in Spain and above all in Russia. The people corrupted by Liberalism are not able to defend themselves against this Jewish-Marxist poison.

From:
Der Reichsführer SS/SS-Hauptamt, Rassenpolitik (Berlin, 1943)

German democracy was always a particular playground of European liberalism. Its innate tendency towards excessive individualism was foreign to us, which lost it any connection to real political life after the war. It had nothing to do with the people. It represented not the totality of the nation, but turned into a perpetual war between interests that gradually destroyed the national and social foundations of our people's existence.

From:Goebbels Speech at the 1933 Nuremberg Rally

She was discussing the problems that the Euro/Arab alliance (an alliance that was initiated by Europeans) are currently causing in Europe. The fact that these problems exist can be verified by reading any newspapers - even the back pages of the New York Times.

The problem with this thesis is:

1) There is no Euro/Arab alliance
2) The problems, such as they are, in Europe, are created by small communities of disaffected immigrants
3) The European states are visibly and obviously opposed to the troublemaking Muslim immigrants
4) Anyone with eyes in their head can see this.

It was absolutely possible to put together all sorts of "evidence" of a similar standard to support the view that the Jews were taking over and subverting what used to be known as "Christian" values (without the "Judeo-"). Doesn't mean that anyone making that claim wasn't a loony and so, as far as I can tell, is Bat Ye'or.

I have a hard time seeing France capitulating to another culture unless by force. Love 'em or hate 'em, the French typically reject anything thats not..well...French.

Same thing with most of the Brits I've met, while they like to seem so very worldly, when their own culture is threatened they historically have defended it with uncharacteristic zeal.

Raymond: Its just that there are few viable right-of-center political parties.

How can they? Everytime one starts to pick up steam, their leader gets killed. Rest in Peace Pim Fortuyn.

NeoDude – Thanks for the link to Foucault and the Iranian revolution. At least Foucault and the Iraqi leftists who supported Khomeini have an excuse for their cluelessness – they didn’t know how the story would end.

Leftists like Lynne Stewart and Islamist/Marxist alliance groups have no excuse.

By the way, who was critiquing traditional Western Enlightenment values?

FC, you've got a good point even if you do have a bad attitude. Bat Ye'or at Columbia was treated better than I would have expected, and that's good news. But my expectations come from years of observation (both direct and indirect) and not from what the preacherman told me to expect from those heathen libruls when I wus 2, contrary to the flipside stereotype.

So yeah, I can note a positive change in a culture, but I'm going to hold off on my conversion to evangelical collectivism.

And along those lines, dsquared, have you ever heard of demographics? Put aside whether there's a formal Euro/Arab alliance and whether European governments get upset when terrorists bomb their trains, how can you ignore the differnece in population growth rates between the dominant cultures and the unassimilated immigrants (and of course since we're talking demographics, the unassimilated children)? How do you think they felt in France when the dominant culture said "your girls can't cover their heads in school"? The dominant culture made a damned-near unanimous decision that appalled this "conservative" American. That ham-fisted intrusion by the state into a belief system is sure going to put them in their place, ain't it?

The crash is coming. Anyone with eyes can see.

Dsquared -

There is no Euro/Arab alliance

? There’s a link above to ‘Medea’, which is also called the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation [with the support of the European Commission]. They're located in Belgium.

The problems, such as they are, in Europe, are created by small communities of disaffected immigrants

According to the US Treasury, extremist mosques, funded by Saudi Charities like the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation are partially responsible for creating those problems.

According to the Center for Religious freedom, Saudi Charities are still responsible for the spread of hate ideology.

At no point did Ms. Ye’or say that the EU had plans to take over the world. As far as I can tell, she believes that they’re not working hard enough to defend Western values.

dsquared - whoa!

whodoya think has been aiding the Iranians and their nuke program!?!?!

The EU!

And they were Arafat's biggest supporters.
And they always voted with the Arab block against Israel - STILL the lone PLURALISTIC democracy in the area (except for the emerging one in Iraq).

There is NO CABAL: it is totally OPEN for all to see.

Except for lefty denialists (like you and so many others) - IMHO.

BatYeor has DOCUMENTED the alliance from PUBLIC aggreements. WHY DON'T YOU GO TO FRONTPAGE.COM and google her name and read some of her stuff.

Or buy her book.

It'll OPEN YOUR EYES!

The recent drive to include "Judeo-Christian values" is new. It was created and placed into our vocabulary by American Fundies trying to combat the tradition, they believe cut them out. The Enlightenment! Placing the "Judeo" was a hope to co-opt Fundie Jews, but even more so the Apocalyptic Christians who believe there are two covenants for one for Christians and the other for Jews.

Evangelicals was Co-opted by the Fundies because "Fundementalist" comes with bad PR.

Fusing traditions and ideas which never existed, really before and during the Enlightenment. Totally Modern Day American Right-Wingery.

Mike T. – Europeans are getting fed up. Even the Euro/Arab cooperation group is reconsidering things. From the Medea site:

"As President of MEDEA Institute for the last 4 years, it is with conviction, but also with certain realism that I address you this message. With conviction because over these last few years, a web of trust, mutual respect, and collaboration was woven with many key actors and intellectuals from the Mediterranean and Arab region. With realism because the recent events and declarations do not augur well for the future of relations between Europe and the Arab and Mediterranean region."

This may be a hopeful sign.

Neodude: "The equality of all citizens, regardless of race, led to the mixing of Europeans with Jews, Negro, Mongols and so on, resulting in the decay and decline."

That’s why its termed “Islamofascism” – because the Islamist ideology (which separates out Muslims as superior to everyone else) resembles fascism. But you prefer to call the people who object to such an ideology the fascists.

Dsquared: It was absolutely possible to put together all sorts of "evidence" of a similar standard to support the view that the Jews were taking over and subverting what used to be known as "Christian" values (without the "Judeo-")

Why are you flatly ignoring the millions upon millions of people who have been killed in the name of Islam over the course of history (continuing today)? Tell us about the millions of people who have been killed by the Jews to spread Judaism and you might have a point. But if there were any evidence for the latter, then it wouldn't be "conpiracy theory" - it would be reality.

Thanks, but no thanks on the Front Page push. That site is a right-wing propaganda rag, consistently gets facts wrong, and has a front page dominated currently by an anti-semitic image. I prefer to avoid people like that.

On Bat Ye'or? Crazy conspiracy whacko. I'm shocked and dismayed that she got floor time at Colombia. I'm shocked that the right can't find someone credentialed to be their academic front man on bigotry.

Mary,

I sure do hope it's hopeful. I'm heartened by what I'm seeing in Holland. Host Nations need to stand up for their culture and identity. Nationalism can be a dangerous thing, but Patriotism is not.

NeoDude,

The term Judeo-Christian values did not come about because of fundamental Christianity trying to bring Jews on board with them. It came from a need to identify our own value system as it becomes more and more contrasted by other value systems. A large component of Western Enlightenment values can still be considered "Judeo-Christian". You can't discount a whole value system because a deranged segment of the population shares a portion of it.

FactCheck,

MJT has warned you about your handle. Don't be a dick, change it. Second, are you equally as shocked that Ward Churchill not only makes appearances at American universities, but is employed by one? He certainly qualifies as a "whacko".

Boy, I'm sure glad that it's only fantasy and conspiracy theory. Just for a minute there I thought there was a group of muslim fanatics supported by a Theocracy in Iran and a Theocratic monarchy in Saudi Arabia who are openly calling for the killing of Americans and the overthrow of the western democratic system . Silly me. On the plus side I guess I can make Valentine's day dinner reservations at The Top of the World restaurant for Monday.

Mary

Your post contains a lot of valid points and others are made above. But I do think that the discussion is erroneously framed in a way that can only lead to incoherence and confusion. As stated in my earlier comment, I have no problem with the notion of some type of Euro/Arab/Muslim alliance nor with the reality of European appeasement. I do have a problem with the any notion of "Eurabia" or "Dhimmitude" as it conflates the social problems and security risks posed by margininalized (and in some cases radicalized) local Muslim populations mostly from the Maghreb (or Turkey and Pakistan in the cases of Germany and UK respectively), who have little power or political influence, with Middle East petro-nations, who do yield enormous power and political influence over European foreign policy in particular. In addition, there is a third problem of demographics. These problems may be interrelated over the long term, but not in the way that is implied here. This leads to confusion with commentators here wondering why the UK or France would become subservient or fail to defend Western culture against the onslaught of the Muslim masses. That is not currently the main issue: Europe (and France and Germany in particular) have taken a pro-Arab anti-Israeli stance mostly because it is the oil-rich Arab countries that represent both highly profitable markets for their products and services, including in particular defense industry and infrastructure, as well as a source of geopolitical leverage against the United States. This has much more to do with appeasement and commercialism than with any attitude of dhimmitude towards Arabs.

To draw an analogy, assuming that Black Africa were the World's number one source of oil and the U.S. supported authoritarian regimes there in order to further important U.S. commercial interests, would we be saying that the government was merely giving in to street gangs in Harlem? If Venezuela and Mexico had as much oil as the Middle East and the U.S. supported those governments in order to pursue commercial interests, would it be enslaved by its local Hispanic population? To apply this logic to Europe is doubly wrong since, in my view, local Muslim populations in Europe are significantly more marginalized than are, for example, hispanics in the U.S.

Some good points. Wrong framing on important issues that are widely misunderstood in the United States.

Gabriel Gonzalez

Mike T.,

Can you name a Western philosopher, theorist or anything Euro, American, Anglo that have used Judeo-Christian?

It's all-American. It's modern all-American!

To put it differently, France's "Arab Policy" has little to do with the actual presence of Magrébins on French soil.

Judeo-Christian usually refers to the set of religious beliefs that stemmed from the Jewish faith. These include the idea of monotheism, the belief that the Jews once were (some say still are) the 'chosen of God'. The use of the Pentatuch and the Prophets as holy books, and a number of basic religious beliefs (though the most notable of Christian beliefs are not traditionally held by Jews (nor have ever been) including imortality of the soul, hell, the Trinity etc)

Interestingly, the Muslim faith is closely related to the Judeo-Christian belief. They both have heavy roots in the same early adoption of Patriarchal Monotheism.

In fact, there are some interesting similarities between the Muslim ideologies and early Christian (and Jewish) ideologies. Both Christians and Jews have, at one time or another, believed that they were commiting genocide as part of Gods Will. Christians have also used the "If you die fighting against *** then you will go to heaven." Early Jews, on the other hand, believed that if God was on their side, none of their soliders would die. (Check out Exodus, Numbers and Joshua for examples of this).

Tosk

FactCheck:

"Thanks, but no thanks on the Front Page push. That site is a right-wing propaganda rag, consistently gets facts wrong, and has a front page dominated currently by an anti-semitic image. I prefer to avoid people like that."

"Right wing"-definately
"propaganda rag"-unsupported assertion
"gets facts wrong"-unsupported assertion
"anti-semitic" ??? outright lie! Front Page is David Horowitz's magazine, strongly pro-Israel and [I assume] he's Jewish.

Try again.

Personally if I were you I'd "try to avoid" dishonest smears. Especially given that you're not intelligent enough to make up believable smears.

OK,

Help me out here!

Where, in the Western tradition, do you have referances, within theological and/or philosophical discourse, on "Judeo-Christianity"?

Kant? Hegel? Jefferson? Augustine? Locke? Tom Paine? Luther? Freud? Marx? The Puritian preachers, for goodness sake? The Federalist Papers? Darwin? John Calvin?

"Judeo-Christian values" as a concept is a modern American construct. It is not "traditional" it is very new. It may well start to be known as a concept/ideas that were responses/rebellion to the Enlightenment but it was and is anti-Enlightenment.

The Bible as THE source of THE TRUTH is not an Enlightenment type belief.

Don't worry, you are in good company. Postmodernist and deconstructionist agree with the "Judeo-Christian"critique of the Enlightenment. But those consepts are anti-Enlightenment also.

NeoDude,

The difference, I think is in the defination of the term "Judeo-Christian". There is an argument, that the word was coined by American politics (some say to promote Jewish as equal to Christian, others say its to create a pseudo-distinction between the jews, christian and their red-headed step brother islam).. However, that is a point of view, and an argument, not documented fact.

No matter what the word was coined as, the term in this day and age, usually is not to indicate some equality between Jews and Christians. In most modern usages, it refers to the specific similarities in belief systems and the common history. Some people have begun to say Judeo-Christian-Muslim, in order to specify the three monothestic "Abrahamic religions".

While the term may have had some conspiratorial origin, its modern usage is much more anthropological.

(Though the "Judeo-Christian Values" catchphrase that everyone loves bandying about does appear to be a questionable use of the term.)

Tosk

And another thing.

Conservative, Orthodox, traditional Protastants and Roman Catholics and Jews do not believe there are two covenants, one for Jews and one for Christians...that is total Apocalyptic Christian stuff.

In other, if you believe in "End-Times" and crap like that you believe there are two covenants...other than that, you ain't traditional at all.

Ok, Neodude, say we rewrite Michael's article to read "Europe seems to accept its current dhimmi status, and does not seem to be willing to defend Western values" instead of reading "... defend traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values," (I think the "Judeo-Christian" phrase is a distraction)... Do you have a comment on the meaning of the article in that case?

Are Europeans willing to stop enforcing any Western values that contradict Islamic values?

For instance there are many forms of freedom of expression that are illegal under Sharia:
1. The right to critisize religion
2. The the right to make non-libelous critisms in general (Muslim writings don't distinguish between truthful critism and untruthful critism of a Muslim - both are considered a sin or even a crime under many circumstances). This attitude shows up often in public conficts with Muslims.
3. The right of women and girls to be free from threats of domestic violence.
4. Society's right to expect religious tolerance, even the right of society to be free of sectarian violence or religiously mandated oppression.
5 The right of all citizens no matter what their background to "the pursuit of happiness" within the limits of the law?

If Europeans are willing to compromize on even one of such values then they're surrendering Western values.

NeoDude,

Good point on the "Two Covenant" thing. The official Catholic and (most) mainstream Protestant religions, is that Jesus fufilled the Mosiac Law Covenant, thus ending it and putting into place the New Covenant (with Jesus replacing Moses and the Priestly Class as the mediator between Perfect God and Imperfect Man).

Also, I may have to revise my statements about Judeo-Christian after reading the following:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4803.htm

I am not yet sure if this information is accurate, or merely a perception shared by some group. However, its definately worth more poking.

Thanks for the reality check... whatever reality is.

Tosk

Well why don't the religionists use "Monotheistic Traditions"?

That was the "traditional" use.

Neo-Dude -

"Judeo-Christian" is a modern term referring to a Western culture as it was informed by jewish-Christian religious traditions. Like it or not, modern Western culture, including the Enlightenment, is a child of those religious traditions. The Enlightenment occurred in the context of the Reformation, and probably would not have happened at all without the Reformation. Both modern Western liberalism and conservatism have their roots in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Your argument against use of the term is more form than substance.

So Europe is in danger of succumbing to sharia law. The first one to point me to legislation of either the EU or one of its member state, which would support such a wild claim gets a twinkie. Otherwise this fact-free conspiracy tripe is indistinguishable from the ugly pronouncements of the far right wing parties, who have been blaming every problem on the face of the earth on the "damn foreigners". Your treading a dangerous line here.

NeoDude -

"Religionists" don't use the term "monotheistic" traditions because they are speaking about the Jewish and Christian traditions, not about all monotheistic traditions. As I understand the Muslim view, the Muslim religion is the perfection of the original Jewish religion, which was first improved by Christianity. Mohammed is the "last word" on the matter. Neither Jews nor Christians accept this view.

Look - I am not an historian but I think what we are talking about here is defending Enlightenment values (equality, tolerance, reason and so on) - but which happened to blossom historically WITHIN the Judeo-christian, Western tradition. I don't think anyone wants to argue for defending pre-enlightenment, Judeo-Christian culture. But it is obvious that Islam is fundamentally at odds with Enlightenment values. Chrenkoff had a post the other day re whether Islam needed a "Reformation" vs an "Enlightenment". Folks were arguing that that the Islamist movement DOES represent the Reformation and that what is needed instead is for Islam to confront the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment is based on concepts that are fundamentally at odds with Islam itself - most basically reason. I don't think Islam will withstand rational scrutiny, based on the facts of Muhammed's life and the question of whether he could have been a "prophet", let alone the "last" prophet sent by God with the "final" word. IMHO - that means that Islam is fundamentally at odds with the enlightenment values that define western civilization - including even tolerance for rejecting God altogether. In Islam - that merits a death sentence. It's a major problem, Bat Y'or is quite right to speak out about it (even at the risk of being labeled a "fascist"), and I am very happy that Mary has dedicated a post to it, not to mention being jealous that she got to see Bat speak. :-)

novakant -

You are being ridiculous. Under your logic, Churchill was wrong to be concerned about Hitler in the 1930s because we couldn't be sure he was interested in conquest and racial "purification" until he actually started to conquer other countries and exterminate Jews. Apparently we are supposed to ignore what people say they intend to do until they actually start to do it (at which point it may be too late to stop them).

Caroline -

Islam needs both a Reformation and an Enlightenment. The rise of Islamic Fascism is more like the Counter-Reformation than it is like the Reformation.

novakant, not LEGALLY succumb to Sharia, but simply to fail to protect society from the oppressive actions that Sharia encourages.

The state isn't the only possible source of authority backed up by the threat of violence.

A violent parent is probably the smallest unit of oppressive authority. A few neighbors can can form a gang and oppress a neighborhood...

Consider the fact that thousands of non-Muslims have been lynched in Nigeria over the last decade and that even the President of Nigeria was intimidated to the point of condeming "insensitive" (if innocuous) speech by a nonmuslim who made the mistake of mentioning a point of Islamist hypocracy in passing on the radio, and triggering riots and lynching of Christians.

The attitude of Nigrian Islamists - that mob violence is their birthright, can exist outside of Nigeria. And it can wreak havoc wherever it is allowed to gain a foothold.

Ben - like I said - I'm not an historian. You should read Chrenkoff's post (as well as the comments), which also addressed the counter-reformation. But tell me - how do you envision Islam surviving an encounter with the "enlightenment". Every tenet of Islam is fundamentally opposed to enlightenment values - except for the parts that Muhammed ripped off from the local Jews and Christians. What's left of Islam once you strip away the Sharia , apostasy, jihad, the infidels and so on? Halal food? Fasting at Ramadan? What's left are cultural habits. Nobody cares about those.

Ben,

Just because you have an intense love for a term, that doesn't place it in the Western Canon [?]

Again...a challenge, show me within the Western Tradition and Canon[?} where Judeo-Christian is used?

For traditionalist, you guys sure like to work against the traditions.

Where is this mysterious "Judeo-Christian" tradition...when was it discovered? Why do not the forefathers mention it? Is there Rabbinical studies that have been hidden?

Or are you in love with some deconstructionist identity language game?

It's not a traditional term and concept within the whole Western Tradition. There were lots of faiths and beliefs within the Western tradition as well as the Enlightenment that grew from the tradition.

Platonic-Christian Values?
Judeo-Marxist Values?

It's a political word that is not part of the Enlightenment project!

It's part of the American Right-Wing political project...it's Western, in that sense...was Plato part of the Judeo Christian Values movement?

You guys are so hard up to change another culture and religion, but don't even know your own.

This is quite telling.

You guys are so hard up to change another culture and religion, but don't even know your own.

Pure irony coming from you. As if someone had to call it "judeo-christian" for it to BE judeo-christian. Did cavemen refer to themselves as cavemen? No. But they still lived in caves. I can't believe you've gone on for the entire thread making such an incredibly stupid argument. Truly amazing at how courteous people have been given it's stupidity.

Caroline said it best. The Enlightenment isn't a culture. It's a phase in our culture's development--the culture being "judeo-christian." And do you think people went around 300 hundred years ago saying 'hey, look at us, we live in the Enlightenment! Yippeee!' No, they didn't. Only in retrospect do we call it the Enlightenment. It is nearly as modern a term as "judeo-christian."

So get off your broken record already. You have no idea how sad it is to see people hang their entire worldview on such patently and obviously flawed premises. AND you think your illogic is brilliant to boot. Talk about annoying.

NeoDude -

Your entire argument is nothing more than a red herring. "Judeo-Christian" is a term with a commonly understood meaning - it's not an attempt to mis-state anything, and it is utterly irrelevant when the term was first used.

Caroline -

I'm not enough of an expert on Islam to respond to your question regarding how Islam would survive an encounter with enlightenment. That said, the two most troubling aspects of Islam from my p.o.v. as a Westerner are the complete lack of separation between religious and secular law and the concept of the dhimmi. Islam could presumably survive mitigation of those principles.

Neodude: "You guys are so hard up to change another culture and religion, but don't even know your own"

yeah - well our culture included slavery less than 150 years ago. It was OUR culture after all -sacrosanct and immune to criticism according to your logic. Or did everyone need a Ph.D to in order to dare to criticize slavery? Or perhaps criticizing a culture is only permissable in your view when the culture in question is majority white and western?

Wher are the books on this Judeo-Christian values movement/culture?

Please, enlighten me. The Western tradition is great at recording its ideas. Where are the texts that speak about it?

Or is it just a feeling you have?

There are books and texts on eveything...where are the Great Western texts that spell this phenomena out?

Neodude,

just about every book written in the last 2000 years.

If "Judeo-Christian" is a culture where are all the discourses on it?

Can you give me a specific book taht speaks of "Judeo-Christian"?

Gabriel -

To put it differently, France's "Arab Policy" has little to do with the actual presence of Magrebins on French soil.

That’s exactly the point. Europe’s “Arab Policy” has everything to do with the presence of violent, extremist groups on European soil

The man who killed Theo Van Gogh was influenced by the El Tawheed mosque in Amsterdam. That mosque is considered epicenter of extremism in Amsterdam.

Not coincidentally, that mosque was funded by the Saudi-based charity, Al Haramain.

The mosque was "criticized" for selling books espousing extremist views, including female circumcision and the punishment of homosexuals by throwing them off tall buildings.

According to the IHT article, "several legislators have called for the mosque to be shut down, but under the Dutch constitution it is difficult to do."

Those same extremists are threatening the lives of elected legislators in the Netherlands.

"Dutch leaders issued with the death threats since the murder include: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee and former Muslim who is a liberal member of the Dutch parliament and high-profile critic of Islam; Geert Wilders, a right-wing populist opposed to Turkey joining the EU; the Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, and Job Cohen, the Mayor of Amsterdam."

Those legislators were so unable to protect themselves that some had to leave the country for awhile.

These Islamist paramilitary groups have basically established a base on European soil. They’re so threatening that elected legislators feel that their own army can’t protect them. I think that’s a sign that there’s a problem.

After hundreds of people were killed in the Saudi/al Qaeda sponsored Madrid bombing, the Spanish government traced the group to another
Saudi funded mosque:

"The Spanish government deliberately ignored a mosque known for fundamentalist preachings and frequented by suspects in the Madrid train bombings because the facility was financed by Saudi Arabia, an academic expert testified Wednesday.
Spanish authorities knew for years the city's largest mosque, the Islamic Cultural Center, adhered to the Wahabi fundamentalist movement sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Islam expert Jesus Nunez told a commission investigating the March 11 bombings.
Authorities did nothing to monitor the mosque because Saudi Arabia provides Spain with oil, Nunez said.

Syrian-born Sheikh Omar bin Bakri, based in London, belongs to The International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders, founded by Bin Laden.

Mr. Bakri also heads the London branch of Hizb Al-Tahrir (Islamic Revolutionary Party), which has some branches all over Western Europe.

The spread of hate literature is also taking place in America.

When Europe and America ally themselves with the states that spread this kind of hate, they encourage this hate to grow. Despite their stronger efforts to appease these states, (or maybe because of them) Europe is, almost literally, under attack.

The problem isn’t the Turkish immigrant selling baklava in the corner bakery. The problem is the organizations, the mosques and the states, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, that spend their billions spreading hate around the world.

Neodude - define "western" from an historical perspective.

Judeo-Christian is a Right-Wing American term.

A tradition/culture/belief system based on the rules of Public Relations and poll numbers.

NeoDude – I’m not Jewish or Christian, and I’ve never been able to stay awake during any sort of sermon, so I'm not an expert on the Judeo-Christian issue. I was just wondering what you meant when you said:

Where have I heard this critique of Liberalism and traditional western Enlightenment values, before?

..and then you offered a series of references to Nazi literature.

I find it hard to believe that someone who is smart enough to criticize Foucault would be comparing Bat Ye’or or Judeo-Christian values to Nazisim.

When she spoke of the need for equal rights for non-Muslims and Muslims, was that an example of "Nazi" values? When she speaks out against the Islamist laws that institutionalize apartheid, slavery and genocide, is that proof that "Judeo-Christian values" are synonymous with fascism?

I must be misunderstanding what you wrote.

When you talk about Enlightenment values, are you referring to Montesquieu’s views or Rousseau’s?

NeoDude,

you're just an atheist hack with an axe to grind. That's all you are, no more no less. You offer up silly non-arguments and even dumber questions. When you ask me to give you a list of judeo-christian books that have been written, you might as well have asked me to give you a list of Western books that have been written. They're just about the same thing. But that simple fact sails right over your head because of the axe you're grinding. You ask useless and nonsensical questions borne of an illogical mind. I expect to engage people on the merits, but you offer so little to engage aside from your anti-christian rhetoric, you're a waste of time. Truly, I'm amazed at the courteousnnous you're affored on the this blog.

"That’s exactly the point. Europe’s “Arab Policy” has everything to do with the presence of violent, extremist groups on European soil"

Mary

One last reaction before I go to bed.

I do not dispute all of the various points you make in your reply above re: a local Islamist threat (immediate and long term). All of the examples you cite are relevant in that respect.

But that is largely separate from the origins and continued motivations underlying French (and more broadly European) Arab Policy. The roots of that policy were planted in the lated 1960s.

France, having been a key Israeli ally in the 1950s and the 1960s, abandoned Israel and began its alliance with Arab autocracies, including Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It was during that period (in the mid 1970's) that Jacques Chirac, for example, decided to sell arms and weapons capable nuclear technology (Osirak) to Iraq.

That policy had very little to do with a perceived Islamist threat from local French (or European) Muslim populations. And it had everything to do with the rise of OPEC and the financial and stategic importance of Mid-East oil states.

France aligned itself with the Arab states against Israel (and to some extent the United States) not because of a local Islamist threat, but rather commercial interests and strategic interests in triangulation vis-à-vis the U.S.

Those same considerations are the core of Gaullist Arab Policy today. The misleading notions of "Eurarabia" and a supposed European "Dhimmitude" only serve to obscure this and greatly misrepresent European motivations in their policies towards the Arab World, the United States and Israel.

My point was limited to that.

Gabriel Gonzalez

The Nazi's were notorious for being "anti-intellectual" and Illiberal, so they would make up words all the time. They even changed the whole notion of Western Civilization to revolve around a mythic Germanic ideal. Excluding cultures they hated, and giving other aryan cultures credit for things they never did. they used the term "Judeo-Marxist" many times. Liberal values (Enlightenment, humanism, scientific method, traditional scholarly research) were to be rejected, unless they flattered the German spirit.

Fucault was part of the new movement (Post-Structralism, Postmodernism) that rejected/denied the enlightment and liberal projects as well. (Derrida, another one). They began to embrace mytsticism and other etherial type beliefs.

Heidegaar anyone?

Paganism and Christian mysticism?

Carlos,

If you do respect the Western tradition, name the texts that argue for, speak of, defend, analyze and trace "Judeo-Christian".

hey NeoDude,

it's as simple as going to Amazon.com and typing in judeo-christian, and see about 250 books pop up. I did it, you can do it too.

Gabriel – I agree. The original intent of this agreement, made decades ago, was to improve trade and, in part, to unite against American ‘hyperpower’.

But, as the President of the Euro/Arab alliance said, things change. Recent events do not "auger well"

Neodude- just out of curiosity - is your (apparent) defense of Islam based on a defense of Sufism? In other words - do you equate the essence of Islam with Sufism (as opposed to say - Wahabbism?)?

NeoDude - I asked if you meant Rousseau's version of 'Enlightenment' because, as I understand it, in his time, he was as much of an infantile Leftist as Foucault.

In any case, are you seriously comparing Judeo-Christian values to Nazism? First of all, those values are not all anti-intellectual, and second, there are lots of genuine anti-intellectual groups out there, like the Amish. They speak German, too. Are they Naziesque?

I'm not defending Islam, I'm trying to defend the Western tradition.

Many of you guys have heard a word that speaks to you, seems to sum up certain feelings you have about your culture, and you have imagined a whole history of this word that really has no tradition within the culture you come from. You have convinced yourself of this words foundation in fact and truth, yet where did it come from?

I'm sure Judeo-Marxist was a word that explained a lot for the Germans who were convinced of it's reality.

Islam has the Sufis, Judaism has the Kabbala, Christianity has Gnosticism and Pentacostalism/charasmatics.

It's all mysticism to me.

Carlos,

Are those 250 books ALL right-wing American productions?

Are those 250 books ALL right-wing American productions?

NeoDude,

I don't know. Are they? And if they are, so? Would you have me read Leftist moonbat literature instead?

But your request for books about "judeo-christian" operates from the same flawed premise that because the term is a modern one, therefore the concept or "movement" as you call it, must be a modern one too. Just like cavemen must be modern I guess. It's a flawed premise from the get go, and I've explained to you why, and your request for books on the subject is flawed for the very same reason.

Yet I could give you a list of Western books on christianity or judaism, or books influenced by christianity or judaism that go back 2,000 years and that would be enough proof that you are, sorry to say, living in a judeo-christian culture and don't even know it. How you could possibly miss it boggles the mind. You don't even know what the source of your values are! Yet you would presume to enlighten everybody around you. The irony is killing me.

Neodude - OK - I get a little where you're coming from. You embrace mysticism - which is in many respects at odds with enlightenemnt rationalism. But you should check out Ali Sina - at faithfreedom.org. He's an Iranian (Persian) who claims that Sufism is a Persian invention - perhaps a century later than Muhammed - that represents a kind of "Uh-oh" moment for Islam in which folks recognized that Muhammed was out of his gourd. (That means not a prophet - and not a mystic. Just a psychopath!). (I am not on expert on the origins of Sufism but I am pretty confident that it does not represent Islam as stated in the Koran and as "channeled" by Muhammed, the psychopathic mass murderer.)

The problem is that Islam will always come back to the Koran - written by Muhammed - as its source (which is NOT mysticism). In contrast, a good case could be made that the original teachings of Jesus WERE mysticism but they were perverted by the authority of the Catholic church. That's a fundamental difference. IMHO it places Jesus firmly within the mystical tradition, while any attempt to squeeze mysticism from the stone of Islam represents a baasic perversion of Muhammed's basic teachings.

You may prefer to live in the utopian world of mysticism, but the reality is that Islam - as based on the Koran - teaches everything that is opposed to not only enlightenment - but real spiritual values - death to non-believers (and apostates), superiority of Muslims as opposed to everyone else, inequality of women, hatred of Jews. It's ugly and fascistic and its adherents have slaughtered millions upon millions of people.

Your unwillingness to confront its ugly reality indicates that you are living in a fantasy world.

As a French American ;et me say that Mary'spost is increcdibly silly. France is no danger of being "islamic" any more than America is in danger of being "african". About 6% of hte Fr, pop. is muslim - and 12%o fthe US pop. is of African descent. Sorry Amy, but you're az racist I see no reason why the Fr. republic should't accomodate its muslim population,, within the rules of democracy. Also a historic fact de Gaulle parted ways with Israel because after the 68 war Israel decided it wanted to hold on to the conquered territories - a claim that the Fr. and de Gaulle w/ reason thought was illegimate. It seems to me that the Fr. are level-headed and reasobable. The problem is American racism against muslims and arabs,and Americna nationalism and claims to exceptioanlism, which distorts the truth. Re. the enlightenment -it seems to me that the U.S. these days, with its nationalistic faniticism, its religious dogmatism is a lot farhter away from the enlightenment values of universality and tolerance than Europe. What ios happening in American these days is pretty ugly and Marys; post is a case in point.

Antoine, let the little muslim girls wear the headscarves. Figure out how to live with The Other instead of putting it in the ghetto and then I'll listen to you.

I figure I've got about 20 years to wait.

Caroline,

I wasn't being nice when I caled them mysticism.

Carlos,

Embrace it all you want, but it isn't "traditional" and all of the Western traditions (Jewish, Christian, Sociology, Philosophy, History, etc) have viewed it as a right-wing public relations term based on feelings and not on the traditions it claims to represent.

A very mystical way to understand reality...screw rationality and method, what ever you feel good about is enough for you. Very mystical indeed.

If you're a fan of the Enlightenment, it's hard to get away from the fact that all the founders were, well, caucasian Christian males. (Unless you want to get Greco-Roman, in which case you have to ammend it to be caucasian-pagan-judeo(REALLY judeo)-Christian males.)

But the great thing about a good idea, you blithering fool, is the source doesn't retain ownership. What was a good idea for humans in the thirteen colonies might be a good idea for people with bones in their noses. (Hell, I know bluebloods from the thirteen colonies who don't wear bones in their noses only because surgical steel looks better and doesn't harm an innocent animal).

But having said that, cut the dudes who can read a history book some slack; obsessing on the label instead of the thing is so Warhol, you know?

Mark,

In the Western tradition, from Plato to Hayek, words have meaning. There is a sytematic and rational explaination and definition. Being Jewish and being Christian and being monotheistic are not the same as "Judeo-Christian"

For mystics and postmodernist, and sophist words are grounded in emotion, feelings and sentiment and force of will

"If I have to explain it, then you could never really understand." Is not a traditional Christian or traditional Judaic or enlightened or rational way to describe reality.

Mark,

You sound like a postmodernist, "The Death of the Author."

So you would believe we could never go back to the source?

I hope you do not claim to interpret the Constitution's "original intent"?

Do you believe you can bend reality to your will, because it sounds good? Or it feels good to you when you say it, so that's reality enough?

So reality is so radically subjective and relative to the way you feel?

The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4803.htm

Thanks Ratatsk, that was a good article.

Interesting post. I blogged about a lecture I saw Ye'or make at Brandeis a year ago here:
Report on Lecture by Bat Ye'or - 'Eurabia'

(She signed my book!)

Also watched Rehov's film, "The Silent Exodus" with a discussion featuring she and her husband a couple of days before. Here:
Bat Ye'or and "The Silent Exodus" Update

If you're interested.

She'll be in Boston again in a couple of weeks and I'll be sure to try to make it.

Her message is so important, I wish she were a little easier to understand (very strong accent) and her writing a bit more accessible

Neodude, you so misread my remark I have to hope it was intentional.

And the fact that you could find two alternative misreadings in consecutive posts means I have potential in academia.

The mistake is to equate the words for the things. Tossing out pro-Enlightenment arguments because someone you don't like calls them Judeo-Christian is, in fact, mistaking baby for bathwater.

And I don't know where that "feelings over rationality" thing came from. If anything, I'm arguing for the reality of Platonic ideals, which is about as far from feel-good rationality as you can get. But then again, you started with accusing me of Original Intent heresy. And while I tend to believe writers mean what they say, I also know the authors of the Constitution were quite comfortable with it being a document that would change over time. So I have to conclude your criticism comes down to "nanny nanny boo boo, I know what I am but what are you?"

Sorry,

But the notion of "Judeo-Christian" is quite a mystical one. Grounded on feeling, not rationality or traditional faith.

Neodude, the notion of the Enlightenment, I hope, isn't so mystical.

The grand thing about rationality is that it's reasonable. Lobachevskian geometry is more universal than the one Newton used; so be it. But at the root, both share 4 of the same 5 axioms, and on a day-to-day basis both work. (The fifth being pretty damned esoteric.) So tossing Newton (who's hard enough as it is) for Lobachevsky seems non-utilitarian.

"Judeo-Christian" at the root assumes certain things that are useful. The most useful of which (in my opinion) is that the relationship of the individual to the devine is quite personal. (Adam and Eve, Jonah and the Whale, Abrahams' offered sacrice of his son, Christ's passion on the cross, etc.) Luther got that Old Time Religion when he posted his Theses, Joan of Arc had a real personal relationship with the Devine, again, etc. And of course Gallileo could feel confident that "Nonetheless, it moves."

The theme running here is that the Devine (or reality, if you will) speaks to the individual. It does not require the mediation of Authority. This is the rock-solid basis of the Enlightenment; any person can perceive reality (which is by definition Devine) with his own senses, should she or he be inclined to do so. And in the history of monotheistic religions, it's pretty damned rare.

(Get pedantic and ask about polytheistic religions, and I'll argue that they are inherently inimical to the idea of a fixed reality. The existence of multiple gods implies a reality than can never be trusted from one moment in time to another. And yes, I read too much trash fantasy.)

Anyway, a personal relationship with a single Divinity was such a basic idea that it was pretty damned radical. (Humans being so enamored of vanity and authority -- rationality in the end leads to the idea that we're just animals, only more so -- that an obvious point could be ignored across countless civilizations.) It was persecuted from the start (long walk there Moses -- sorry you didn't get to buy the tee shirt in the end) but has proven to be a really powerful concept.

And once you begin to believe that an individual, using the tools at hand, can actually work out how things work on their own, then you've joined the perpetual revolution against authority and stagnation, which is what we call the Enlightenment. (If you can't say "screw you" to the dominant paradigm -- and worse, if you can't identify the dominant paradigm, well, you fell off the boat.)

So yes, the mystical informs the rational, if only because as mystical animals it is nearly impossible to avoid it. But the mystical proposition that each of us can perceive the devine is crucial. So crucial that it seems to be reflexively suppressed by most anyone with a club and a sense of purpose. (And the hunger for the the club seems to be pretty innate in humans; Christians end up with Popes -- and worse -- Moslems end up with various Immams pronouncing fatwas, and Jews end up with everyone else telling Jews what they should do.)

Of course, the most beautiful thing, the thing that makes this whole silly (yet bloody and tragic) argument sublime, is that rationality seems to have proven that rationality has limits. If Kurt Gödel's were alive today I would kiss him. (Or maybe not. There are enough variables in the equation that, even if all were fixed, I believe there's a fighting chance that my heterosexuality could not be definitively challenged.)

Most cultures shy away from the idea of an uncertain reality. Ours does not. That makes Enlightenment culture a very, very rare bird. Maybe unique, but I'm not certain enough of that to make it a postulate. What I do know is that societies built upon fundamentalist (or even authoritarian) foundations seem to be inherently hostile to what you and I take for granted, vis a vis, the right to question anything.

The question "why" is the most powerful tool in the universes. I will fight to my dying breath for my right to use it. Don't be on the wrong side of that fight.

Neodude you're an effing broken record. I can't believe I wasted my time reading your posts

Mark,

If the term "Judeo-Christian" is such a universal phenomena that all Jews and Christians throughout the Western traditions know it, why are American right-wingers the only ones using it?

Outside of Christian Fundemtalist communities and their political allies, where is "Judeo-Christian" discussed?

Which Western institutions (outside of Fundie schools?) discuss "Judeo-Christian"? Are there courses in "Judeo-Christian values" at the elite secular and religious schools of Isreal?

It's a word that got tested in focus groups, and it makes Fundies look less anti-semitic. It's a safe word for people who don't like to admit they themselves are very sympathetic to fundementalist impulses. Fucus groups realized "Judeo-Christian" will get more traction than Fundamentalist.

Don't know, neodude. I came up with my analysis with my own little brain. Maybe it's original. Want to brand me a heretic? Part of some VRWC? Go ahead. And tell Karl Rove. I could use the paycheck.

Personally, I haven't been to church since I was twelve (discounting the occasional marriage) and religion-wise, I'm agnostic at best. But I do care about the history of ideas, and my thinking is "are you now, or have you ever been" is not a good way to start an honest debate of philosophies. But maybe I'm just hard-core.

We could talk about the importance of the individual's right to perceive reality as they see fit within the confines of a mutually-respectful society, or you could call me a Whinger. Which you choose to do is up to you.

The headline image of a jew holding the strings of the leftist party is right out of a 1930's playbook.

If the term "Judeo-Christian" is such a universal phenomena that all Jews and Christians throughout the Western traditions know it, why are American right-wingers the only ones using it?

It's a word that got tested in focus groups, and it makes Fundies look less anti-semitic. It's a safe word for people who don't like to admit they themselves are very sympathetic to fundementalist impulses. Fucus groups realized "Judeo-Christian" will get more traction than Fundamentalist.

And of course I said no such thing. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite. What we're calling the Enlightenment Culture is always under the attack of whoever has the club at any given time. Ratatosk instinctively understands this, I just think he takes things a little too far. What I hypothesize is that certain elelments of Judaism and Christianity, when mixed with Plato, Aristotle, and their antecedents, produced a system of thought that led to societies where individuals were allowed to flourish outside the parameters set by their masters.

(Think feudal here, dude. It may be hard, if can't imaging a job where you couldn't just say "fuck you" to your boss and walk out one day without worrying about a crossbow bolt in your back.)

What I was saying is where we are now is a pretty remarkable thing. Our society seems to be remarkably robust (people keep trying to get into the our countries for some reason), we are the strongest block of nations on this planet (I am charitably including Europe in the "we"), and what "we" have in common is heritage from Greek and Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians. So maybe to be fair all of us "right wingers" should identify our cultural values as "Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian."

But then the Epicureans might get pissed. And hell, Algebra (and hence the mathematical foundation for Cartesian mathematics and philosophy, and of course everything after) came from Arabia. So in chronological order let us call it Epicurean-Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian-Arabic values. Happier, dude?

Theyse are still the values that your average suicide bomber wants to blow to oblivian. But if that thought causes you less stress if you call them "Judeo-Christian" instead of the long form (or the more elegant "Enlightenment") well, sleep tight.

neodude:

I guess you lost the argument about Bat Ye'or, so now you're obsessing over semantics. By the way, I'd like you to prove that the term "Judeo-Christian" has "right-wing" origins.

Antoine:

DeGaulle and France did not abandon Israel in 1968, they abandoned Israel before the Six-Day War so your claim that France was motivated by Israeli desire to hold on to (some or all??) territories is pure crap. The US was the only major country that gave a damn when the Arabs announced their intention to "finish what Hitler started", and we were too bogged down in Vietnam to do anything about it.

neodude:

I guess you lost the argument about Bat Ye'or, so now you're obsessing over semantics. By the way, I'd like you to prove that the term "Judeo-Christian" has "right-wing" origins.

Antoine:

DeGaulle and France did not abandon Israel in 1968, they abandoned Israel before the Six-Day War so your claim that France was motivated by Israeli desire to hold on to (some or all??) territories is pure crap. The US was the only major country that gave a damn when the Arabs announced their intention to "finish what Hitler started", and we were too bogged down in Vietnam to do anything about it.

Sorry for the double post.

But the notion of "Judeo-Christian" is quite a mystical one. Grounded on feeling, not rationality or traditional faith.

Sorry NeoDude,

your non-argument relies purely on a rhetorical device. You still haven't shown me how cavemen were able to live in caves even though they never used the word. It's simple logic.

There have been many books written by many different thinkers and scientists conserning "caveman"

"Judeo-Christian" is strictly a Christian Fundementalist phenomena. An attempt to soften the racist and anti-semitic theology.

If only Leftist Buddhist spoke of "caveman" in the entire history of the Westen tradition, I would be suspicious of it's use.

People who would like to find a common bond to hate and lie about other people, hide behind a sloppy feel-good word. It is only supposed to make those who use it exist in a world where they are not responsible for thinking and investigating. You heard the word, you liked it, and use it....that's very irresponsible.

It also shows that those who use it have know knowledge of the religions they are misusing (Judaism and Christianity). These religions are only poltical tools to hate...since you have no knowledge of these faiths and really do not care for them, but in only a cynical political way. You assist a right-wing attempt to create a culture/idea/philosophy that only exist in a Christian Fundementalist mindset.

The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4803.htm

NeoDude (and Ratatosk?) - Are you seriously linking to Information clearing house??, the place that links to Nation articles like "Democracy=Criminality"

Talk about anti-Enlightenment. What’s next, links to the Weekly World News? At least they’re trying to be funny.

Did you know that al Qaeda is planning to use suicide camels?

Mary,

Can you show me "judeo-christian" being used outside of an American right-wing/Fundamentalist politics/context?

If you were such a Western traditionalist, you would be able to investage the essay's truth value. If you are so knowledgable about the Great Judeo-Christian culture, then point to its academic legacy? Has there been rabbinical and theological papers on this grand culture?

Or are you embarssed that you have been holding water for the Falwell and "End-Timer" types?

Secular Jews and believing Christians, beware, the great Judeo-Christian culture is a sham, to get the less informed on board.

Neodude: "People who would like to find a common bond to hate and lie about other people, hide behind a sloppy feel-good word"

You mean like the word "kufr"?

Explain how people's using the term "Judao-Christian" represents a political tool to hate and lie about others. Does it make any difference to you if we use the term "enlightenment values" to describe what it is the "west" seeks to defend?

Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Relations

Salutary reading for all who speak glibly about the Judeo-Christian tradition. Also offers extremely helpful ideas for sensitizing participants in Jewish-Christian dialogue to the plain fact that Christianity and Judaism are not on all fours for the purposes of comparison and identification.

-----------------------------------------------

© 2005 International Council of Christians and Jews

Neodude reads just like a thread trasher who used to haunt The Diplomad's site. Diplomad's gone now, and up pops Neo here- just ignore him, he doesn't know his philosophy, his religion or his history well enough to contribute here. We all know what happens when you feed a troll.

The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition in the Neocon Commentary

It's fascinating, really, that there is a line drawn between the "Judeo-Christian" God and the "Islamic" God; that is akin to uniting Hindu and Muslim views of the divine, and then opposing them, together, to Christian views of the divine. That doesn't mean anything, it's just the strategy of racists and dull supremacists, who can't think through a problem if their lives depended on it (Isn't it odd that the Jewish idea of the divine is somehow seen as compatible with the Christian one?)

neodude:

Once again I challenge you to prove that the term "Judeo-Christian" is strictly a phenomenon of Christian fundamentalists and/or the right wing. I have heard the term used for decades, before 9/11 it never had the implications you are insinuating. You are the one making these pronouncements - do some research and prove the origins of the word if you are so sure of yourself.

Neodude - I don't think Bat Ye'or is concerned about whether the Islamic God is or is not the same God as the Hebrew God or the Christian God. We're talking about showing tolerance and granting equality for people who worship different Gods, or choose to reject God altogether. Islam has a different historical track record, which continues TODAY - on that issue than do western democratic societies, which adhere to enlightenment values. Unless you want to make the claim that living in Iran is similar to living in the United States?

Maybe I should take Les's warning to heart about feeding the troll...

The severe anti-semitism of Early Christianity was not happening by accident. They are two seperate traditions. Do you think any survivors of the Holocaust considered themselves "Judeo-Christian"

Many Christians and Jews (Conseravtive, Orthodox, whatevr) who are in discourse do not and would not use judeo-Christian because they knew it is a right-wing Christian parlor trick.

They are fused to fit a Right-Wing poltical agenda and not grounded in tradition and respect for the two cultures.

The pograms and violent anti-semitism of Christianity were not a fluke. You are playing with history to satisfy a right-wing Christian political game.

I know why right-wing Christians do it, but many of you Secular Jews and Secular Christians should be ashamed of yourselves being used this way. Are you that hard-up to get along that you have to just go with the flow, cause it makes you feel good?

Neodude: Are the right-wing Christians persecuting the Jews here in the US? Persecuting the Hindus? Persecuting the Buddhists?

What does the point you are trying to make have to do with what Bat Ye'or is talking about, which concerns Islam and dhimmitude?

Right-Wing Christian preachers have increasingly used the term 'Judeo-Christian' to cover up anti-Semitism sentiments. This became popular in the early 1980s with Jerry Falwell's attempt to appease Jews regarding his secretarian rhetoric. Right-Wing Christian preachers aim to emphasise Christianity's Biblical and Jewish origins through the use of the term, however, they omit 'Judeo' when speaking to Christians alone. This indicates the merely external usage of the term to hide racist attitudes against Jews. Furthermore, the belief that Christianity originated from Judaism is inaccurate

An increasing number of Christian politicians are employing the term Judeo-Christian in their speeches to general audiences. In the last few years I've read variations of the phrase ad nauseum: "Judeo-Christian traditional values"; "Judeo-Christian political effort"; "Judeo-Christian theism"; "Judeo-Christian Republicans"; "Judeo-Christian lifestyle of Bible-believers."

This curious construct, while not new, gained currency in the early 1980s. At that time, the sectarian rhetoric of the Reverend Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority alarmed the Jewish community. To ease Jewish concern the Falwell camp began to employ the term Judeo-Christian, saying that, after all, Christianity is based on Judaism. Cynically, the forces of exclusion embraced a terminology of inclusion.

When the religious right uses "Judeo-Christian" to whom does the term actually refer? According to Charles R. Phillips, author of a popular political handbook used by the religious right, people who embrace "Judeo-Christian values" are those who oppose abortion, homosexuality (they call it sodomy), "pornography as an art form," and "sex education that neglects chastity and condones free distribution of condoms."

Robert Simonds, head of the National Association of Christian Educators, a group dedicated to electing candidates who hold "Judeo-Christian" values to school boards, writes, "America is great because devout Christians and courageous politicians have used biblical values to shape our political institutions." "America," he adds "is not the product of secular humanism, atheism, or any other false religion. America is the fruit of God's eternal truth in Christ, the Ten Commandments...."

When speaking exclusively to Christians, however, Simonds drops the "Judeo": "The Christian religion (the Bible) is the basis for all morality (right and wrong)."

In 1989, the Reverend Pat Robertson formed a powerful new political organization. Although he continually preaches on "Judeo-Christian values," he named his group the "Christian Coalition," not the Judeo-Christian Coalition.

And lest there be any confusion among "the faithful" as to whom the term truly applies, Jimmy Swaggart, writing in The Evangelist, used the term Judeo, but added "Christian" in parentheses.

Christian politicians employ "Judeo-Christian" in their external appeals because they know that overt expressions of anti-Semitism are political suicide.

An examination of Christian history fails to support the hypothesis that Christianity has its roots in Judaism. In fact, Christianity borrows more of its customs from paganism than from Judaism. Two of Christianity's central holidays, Christmas and Easter, have their roots in paganism. And Sunday worship is pagan, not Jewish--even Jesus kept the Sabbath on the seventh day. The question remains, "Isn't Christianity derived from the teachings of Jesus, who was Jewish?" No, Jesus never intended to start a new religion. Paul founded Christianity, using a mythical Jesus as a basis.

If people need to link Christianity with its roots, then "Pagan-Christian" is the proper term. "Judeo-Christian" is false and misleading. While "Judeo-Christian" may be used to placate Jews, they should be aware that the use of the term does not include them.

Skipp Porteous' commentaries on the religious right appear regularly in FREE INQUIRY.

I see. So you are comparing right-wing Christians like Jerry Falwell to the preachings that go on in Saudi-funded mosques, the hate rhetoric that is widespread in the Muslim world, the teachings of violent jihad (kill or convert the non-believers or force them to pay a tax), the slaughter of Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians taking place in Muslim dominant societies today, the treatment of women under Sharia law and so on. And because Jerry Falwell (or whomever) is using some sort of poitical code language to disguise his anti-semitism, western society is full of hate and has no business criticizing Islam or being concerned about its spread? Is that what you're getting at here? God knows I am probably spending more time struggling to understand your point than I perhaps ought to.

The Right-Wing attempt to distort history with words like 'Judeo-Marxist' or "Judeo-Christian" is dangerous.

Blind Fundementalism (Christian or otherwise) usually relies on these distortions to manipulate the uneducated. Whether, in the US or Saudi Arabia.

Fundemntalists should not be trusted, Falwall or Sistani or what ever cleric...and you shouldn't help them.

To return to the original post, there are a couple of glaring flaws in the theories of Ye'or:

1. What's going on in parts of Europe right now isn't 'Islamization' or 'dhimmification' but a gradual process of secularization that's been going on from the time of the Enlightenment. This process is equally puzzling to (vast minority) Islamic threads in our societies as it is to Christian sections. There is no zero-sum game between Christians and Muslims going on - they are both gradually losing a battle to separate church and personal belief from public life. Indeed, were it not for 9/11, there is a good chance that Christian fundamentalism and its Islamic counterparts would have begun a tentative alliance - viz. the cooperation between the Vatican and Arab states over the AIDS/condom issue in the 'Third World', an agenda that a Bush administration may have had some sympathy with, for better or worse. Chrenkoff has blogged on this, and I agree with his analysis.

2. Note: this applies only in some parts of Europe. Anyone who has spent any time in southern Europe would know that talking about 'Arabization', of elites or otherwise, in these societies is ludicrous. These are societies where the church (Catholic or Orthodox) plays a far greater role in public life than even supposedly God-fearing America. Neatly packaging 'Europe' as Ye'or does is ignorant stereotyping. Secular traditions are long and strong in UK/France etc. Not so in Spain, Italy, Greece.

Only those commentators in Europe on the extremes of left and right take this 'dhimmi' stuff seriously. It's crazy conspiracy nonsense.

And on a couple of Ye'or's specific claims:

"Many Europeans agree with Said’s theories. Many don’t believe that their culture is worth preserving."
- rubbish. 99% of people have never heard of Said. And it only takes about 5 mins anywhere in Europe to see that we are individually and collectively proud of our cultures.

The policies of the EU towards Israel mirror Arab policies.
- rubbish. If the Palestine situation continues to improve, Israel will be signing special trading relationships with the EU for sure. And perhaps 'associate member' status will be a logical conclusion here. The ties of cash and democracy are far stronger than extremists might like to think.

This multicultural 'alliance' is currently cemented by European fear of terrorism.
- rubbish. Multiculturalism predates the major terrorist threat by more than a decade, and is only now being questioned.

Europe seems to accept its current dhimmi status, and does not seem to be willing to defend traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values.
- rubbish. Christianity is on the decline here, though still dominant in many countries. Our traditional 'Enlightenment' values are however held as tightly as ever.

Believe this stuff if you want to. It's a neat theory. But it has no relationship with reality.

Solomon – thanks for the link to your post on Ye’or’s lecture at Brandeis. Interesting stuff, especially the information about Dawa, Dar al Suhl and Dar al Harb.

This was also helpful -

"Ye'or feels that people in Europe have welcomed this Islamization because they are more interested in opposing Christianity. Europe is actively rejecting its roots [Aside: Given the negative way many in Europe view their history, this is not at all surprising.] This is in stark contrast to the United States and President Bush where they are proud of their Judeo-Christian background.:

Ye’or anticipates this divide-and-conquer anti-Judeo-Christian argument, and she understands its purpose. I knew she was a big-picture kind of person.

were it not for 9/11, there is a good chance that Christian fundamentalism and its Islamic counterparts would have begun a tentative alliance - viz. the cooperation between the Vatican and Arab states over the AIDS/condom issue in the 'Third World'

Now it’s my turn to say rubbish. What do you know about Muslim fundamentalist attitudes towards Christians? What are their attitudes towards kufr, what is najis, what do Wahhabis think of polytheists?

Fundamentalist Muslims would probably object to the use of condoms in the third world because it would reduce the population of potential slaves. Slavery is legal under fundamentalist Islamic law. But considering that the Saudi Wahhabi state confiscates bibles and prosecutes Christians for practicing their religion (trying to convert people from Islam brings a sentence of death) within the Kingdom, the possibility of an alliance between established Fundamentalist Arab & Christian churches is very unlikely.

Most Europeans have never heard of Said, but most European & UK elites would agree with his opinions on the prejudices of a Western viewpoint and the evils of colonialism and imperialism. Just read Le Monde or the Guardian.

Can you prove that the stated policies of the EU towards Israel do not mirror Arab policies? From what I’ve seen, it appears to have been true in the past. But, like you, I can’t see into the future, so speculation as to what will happen if Arab nations decide to stop fighting Israel is irrelevant.

Is Christianity and strong national identity generally on the rise in Europe, or is it in decline? It’s not clear from your comment.

Ms. Ye’or’s point was that the Euro/Arab alliance exists, and its existence does not seem to be helping Europe in the fight against terrorism. You can call it dhimmi status or you can call it a commitment to multiculturalism. Either way, anti-Semitic violence and Muslim gang violence are a problem, things aren’t getting better and the question is, what will Europe do about it?

Neodude - frankly the Islamists make Falwell look like a flaming left-winger in comparison but the fact that you are so concerned about the Christian fundies makes me feel less paranoid for being concerned about what Bat Ye'or is describing. So thanks for that.

I hope Jarndyce is correct and that the concept of Eurabia is "overwrought" and "hysterical" as I beleive Michael put it once. I get the impression that it's one of those "time will tell" sort of things. One issue e.g. concerns the Palestinian-Israeli issue which Bat Ye'or sees as part of the global jihad. Evidently the Europeans (like Jarndyce) don't see it that way. What unfolds in the next few years in terms of the I/P peace process should give us some idea of who is right.

Mary
Most Europeans have never heard of Said, but most European & UK elites would agree with his opinions on the prejudices of a Western viewpoint and the evils of colonialism and imperialism. Just read Le Monde or the Guardian.

I don't know about Le Monde, but I'd bet that most writers for The Guardian have heard of Edward Said.

As for the 'dhimmification' thing, people everywhere are likely to choose safety to freedom especially when conditions change slowly. There are already laws being proposed (?already passed?)in Britain in order to appease Muslim demands that Islam not be critisized. Whether people willing to call that the beginning of 'dhimmification' depends on whether they're too proud to admit that they're cowards who gave up their freedom under a little bit of pressure.

It comes down to questions like this one: in twenty years will critisizing Islam start riots in the streets in Europe? Will Europeans have already accomidated to Islamist mob violence? Will the holcaust still be taught in schools? Will Muslims be given a pass for domestic violence?

- I hear that these changes have already shown up in France where, for instance, teachers are afraid to teach the history of the Holcaust in schools.

In this context 'dhimmification' will just mean that Muslims have used threats of violence to intimidate European society to lowering it's standards toward Arab levels.

I don't know exactly how likely this is, but it's certainly not an impossible.