In Worldnet Daily’s ‘lets rape unfaithful women’ OpEd is the following sentence:
“There may be a genuine moral argument against rape to be made outside of the Judeo-Christian ethic, but I have yet to hear it.”
– how very deaf you must be.
I’ve noticed increasing reference to the so called ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition. This lumping of Judaism with Christianity together with the claims of Millennium Christian radicals is an insult that could possibly lead to injury, since historical precedent suggests that jews will eventually get the blame.
Given that there are three religious sects that worship the same deity and find common ancestry in Abraham: Judaism, Islam and Christianity, reference to the Judeo-Islamo-Christian, or, more elegantly, ‘Abrahamic’, tradition makes some sense.
The permutation: ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ stems, obviously, from the fact that Christianity supersizes the Torah into its own edition, whereas Islam rewrites it.
But what of the other alternatives:
Given that Jews come from the same region and lived peacably with Arabs (even with a community in Mecca) while Christians tended to persecute Jews as outsiders, reference to a Judeo-Islamic tradition would have made sense historically.
Given that Muslims and Christians believe Jesus was a prophet and have religions that are far closer in date of origin than Judaism, then perhaps an Islamo-Christian tradition makes sense.
Judeo-Christian is a term used to sound inclusive, when in fact it conpicuously excludes Islam while including Judaism as a possibly reluctant and vulnerable ally.
It is a politically incorrect attempt to be politically corrrect, by those who complain about political correctness.