Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

This is one of many, many areas I am not knowledgeable about. When did the term "Judeo-Christian" come into prevalence as to describing the culture that this culture was founded upon?
Thanks.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Multiple meanings:

The earliest uses cited by the Oxford English Dictionary of the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Judeo-Christianity" date to 1899 and 1910 respectively. Both terms appeared in discussions of theories of the emergence of Christianity, and with a different sense than the one common today. "Judeo-Christianity" here referred to the early Christian church, whose members were Jewish converts and still considered themselves part of the Jewish community.

However, earlier German use of the term "Judeo-Christian"—in a decidedly negative sense, contrasting with the one prevalent in the twentieth century—can be found in the late writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who emphasized what he saw as neglected aspects of continuity between the Jewish world view and that of Christianity. The expression appears in The Antichrist, published in 1895 and written several years earlier; a fuller development of Nietzsche's argument can be found in a prior work, On the Genealogy of Morality.

The present meaning was for the first time used on 27 July 1939 with the phrase "The Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals" in the New English Weekly. The term gained much greater currency particularly in the political sphere from the 1920s and 1930s, promoted by Liberal groups which evolved into the National Conference of Christians and Jews, to fight antisemitism by expressing a more inclusive idea of the United States of America than the previously dominant rhetoric of the nation as a specifically Christian Protestant country; By 1952 President Elect Dwight Eisenhower was speaking of the "Judeo-Christian concept" being the "deeply religious faith" on which "our sense of government…is founded."

The term became particularly associated with the Conservative Right in American politics, promoting a "Judeo-Christian values" agenda in the so-called culture wars, a usage which surged in the 1990s. Hot topic issues in the battles over the Judeo-Christian tradition include, in a typical example, the right to display the following documents in Kentucky schools, after they were banned by a federal judge in May 2000 as "conveying a very specific governmental endorsement of religion":

an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, which reads, "All men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

the preamble to the Constitution of Kentucky, which states, "We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution"

the national motto, "In God we trust"

a page from the congressional record of Wednesday, February 2, 1983, Vol. 129, No. 8, which declares 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" and lists the Ten Commandments

a proclamation by President Ronald Reagan marking 1983 the "Year of the Bible"

a proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln designating April 30, 1863, a "National Day of Prayer and Humiliation"

an excerpt from President Lincoln's "Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible," which reads, "The Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man."

The Mayflower Compact, in which the colony's founders invoke "the name of God" and explain that their journey was taken, among other reasons, "for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith"Prominent champions of the term also identify it with the historic Pilgrim–Puritan Protestant tradition. The Jewish Conservative columnist Dennis Prager, for example, writes:

The concept of Judeo-Christian values does not rest on a claim that the two religions are identical. It promotes the concept there is a shared intersection of values based on the Hebrew Bible ("Torah"), brought into our culture by the founding generations of Biblically oriented Protestants, that is fundamental to American history, cultural identity, and institutions.

Liberal secularists reject the use of "Judeo-Christian" as a code-word for a particular kind of Christian America, with scant regard to modern Jewish, Catholic or more liberal Christian traditions.

Usage has shifted again, according to Hartmann et al., since 2001 and the September 11 attacks, with the mainstream media using the term less, in order to characterize America as multicultural. The study finds the term now most likely to be used by Liberals in connection with discussions of Muslim and Islamic inclusion in America, and renewed debate about the separation of church and state.

It is used more than ever by some Conservative thinkers and journalists, who use it to discuss the Islamic threat to America, the dangers of multiculturalism, and moral decay in a materialist, secular age. Dennis Prager, author of popular books on Judaism and antisemitism, Nine Questions People ask about Judaism (with Joseph Telushkin) and Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism, and radio commentator, has published an on-going 19-part series explaining and promoting the concept of Judeo-Christian culture, running for three years from 2005 to 2008, reflecting the interest of this concept to his listeners. He believes the Judeo-Chrisitan perspective is under assault by an amoral and materialistic culture that desperately needs its teachings.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Read Chapter 15 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall. That will put you in the picture Johnny.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

This is one of many, many areas I am not knowledgeable about. When did the term "Judeo-Christian" come into prevalence as to describing the culture that this culture was founded upon? Thanks.

I don't know when that term became prevalent, but common sense tells me the founders based their principles upon Biblical precepts, which starts out with the Old Testament, which embodies Jewish or "Judeo" values, followed by the New Testament, which is centered around Christianity, and Christianity is not contradictory to the Old Testament, but essentially compliments it and fulfills it.

I like the following description from Wikipedia quoting an article in the Washington Post published in 1991. I really like how it calls attention to the fact that this country was founded upon the idea of the rights and responsibilities of the individual rather than those of groups. Common sense itself should tell us that the Declaration of Independence embodies that principle by declaring that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Follow this up with the Bill of Rights that protect us and our property from the government and from others. I have talked to those that have studied the old Jewish law, and they indeed see a resemblance of our laws springing from those laws. In the Old Testament, you can read about oxes being gored and who is responsible for restoring that ox, relative to who owns it and who owned the ox that gored it, etc. Obviously, private property rights were established as important those few thousands of years ago, and many of those same principles are embodied in our laws today. I don't know if students going to law school learn this or not, but I think they should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian
"In our country, "Judeo-Christian values" is shorthand for a complex idea: the common culture of the American majority. The values are called Judeo-Christian because they derive from the complementary ideas of free will, the moral accountability of the individual rather than the group, the spiritual imperative of imperfect man's struggle to do what is right and the existence of true moral law in the teachings of Christ and the Jewish prophets. Along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they are the political and cultural heritage of the Founding Fathers. The declaration and the Constitution define the source and the limits of state power. But they do not tell us how a moral life within this society should be led. While they have provided a durable structure for America's success, only Judeo-Christian values, freely held by the majority, explain its continuing realization. These values are not identical with the Christian religion, although they manifest its universal insights. Americans, as the Founding Fathers hoped, uphold the Constitution, but live according to "Judeo-Christian values"."

0 Replies

A big round of applause for okie. I came to a2k this evening to post a cartoon that was sent to me and thought I would check the threads I have been posting to.

What did I discover?

That several of okie's posts were thumbed down multiple times and that he blamed me when I have been busy all day, talking to my daughter and daughter-in-law and looking at knitting, quilting and crocheting projects and working on a children's book project.

Cute.

I suspect that okie's posts were thumbed down because of the way he posted his cut and paste message.

He used a large, dark, bold and ugly type face.

It was posted in his usual style: cramped up, word upon word without white space.

Hint: Break your messages up into discreet paragraphs and separate sentences and avoid using that bold typeface.

The second reason his cut and paste of Washington's proclamation may have been voted down is he tried to link it to RJB's comments on food. Non sequitur.

1 Reply

GEORGE SOROS in his 1995 book, page 145, [I]Soros on Soros[/I], wrote:

I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Why would anyone vote down Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation, pom? Why would anyone be that disrespectful to this country, and to the holiday we all just celebrated?

Needless to say, I am not only disappointed, but disillusioned with the liberal factions in this country that seem to have lost respect for the most sacred and meaningful traditions and principles that this country is founded upon.

P.S. pom, if you did not vote down the post or posts, my apologies. I think I said I just suspected you, however, as I have no idea who does that most of the time.

1 Reply

This is frustrating. We are having the wrong types of discussion. Instead of debating the size of the stimulus package, we should be talking about the fundamental way that our economy works. I'm talking about the entire concept of fractional reserve banking, the existence of the federal reserve, and manipulation of the money supply.

The recent recession was the result of the federal reserve artificially inflating the economy by increasing the money supply. With all of this cheap, artificial money available, banks gave out massive amounts of loans. When those loans went into default the banking system itself became gravely endangered. Now we are trying to solve the problem - ironically - with a "stimulus package", which basically amounts to printing more artificial currency. We are then pumping this artificial currency into the system, which results in a "recovery" because, as the money filters throughout society, people are spending more - they're doing things like paying bills, buying cars, etc. But what is really happening is akin to borrowing money on a credit card to pay off another credit card - you solve the problem but create an even bigger one.

This gives the impression of a real recovery, but it's not. The recession was caused by the fed pumping fiat money into the system. We are now "solving" the problem by pumping even more fiat money into the system. This simply adds another layer to America's already-delicate pyramid of cards ...... it means more inflation, more instability, and it means the next crisis will be even larger. We are already trillions of dollars in debt, how many more boom/bust cycles can we go through? How mcuh more debt can we accumulate and how much more can we dilute the true value of the dollar by essentially counterfieting trillions in bogus currency?

Last time people lost confidence in the banks. Sooner or later people will lose confidence in the dollar itself. The entire system is unsustainable. Awareness of these problems is largely behind the dramatic rise in gold prices over the last few years - some people recognize the instability of the dollar and are flocking to assets that have real (not artificial)value like gold.

We need to return to a gold standard. That means every dollar should be redeemable in a corresponding quantity of gold. This is the only way to ensure that money has real value behind it. The last thirty or so years that we have been off of the gold standard has been a grievous mistake. The transition will be painful. But in the long run it will benefit everyone by creating a higher standard of living, a stable economy, and it will allow people to retain the value of thier money (instead of being indirectly defrauded by the federal government, whose irresponsible printing of currency essentially amounts to legalized counterfeiting that dilutes the value of all of our money.)

Abolish the fed, go back to a gold standard, and shrink government massively. That's the solution IMO.

1 Reply

@okie,

Your post had three negatives when I read it.

I told you why it was voted down. It was the way you presented it and the fact that your short intro made it a non sequitur.

There was no disrespect shown to Washington, except, perhaps, by you.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

The term became particularly associated with the Conservative Right in American politics, promoting a "Judeo-Christian values".. a usage which surged in the 1990s.

It;s a neocon usage.

After 2001 only the neocons insisted on it and most of them are jews. After the WMDs in Iraq turned out to be neocon propaganda the term fell into disrepute where it belongs. I never hear it used by the Tea Party except for Gov. Palin who should know better about our "Israeli allies". No more allied with the US than the North Koreans if treaties are anything to go by.

1 Reply

@ShadesOfBlue,

ShadesOfBlue wrote:

Abolish the fed, go back to a gold standard, and shrink government massively. That's the solution IMO.

We don't have enough gold, even Ron Paul agrees we have to move to a mixed standard.

0 Replies

@electronicmail,

electronicmail wrote:

BillW wrote:
The term became particularly associated with the Conservative Right in American politics, promoting a "Judeo-Christian values".. a usage which surged in the 1990s.
It;s a neocon usage.
After 2001 only the neocons insisted on it and most of them are jews. After the WMDs in Iraq turned out to be neocon propaganda the term fell into disrepute where it belongs. I never hear it used by the Tea Party except for Gov. Palin who should know better about our "Israeli allies". No more allied with the US than the North Koreans if treaties are anything to go by.

I should have known it was the Jews fault!!! And of course the "neocons." If only the libs could have succeeded with the final solution, none of this would be happening.

1 Reply

@okie,

Wrong again, Final solution and Nazis are exteme right wing conservationism - Fascism is far right, Socialism is far left. One thing cons can't get straight is who they are.

In fact, there are a majority of the major countries in the world that are now controlled by conservatives. You guys just listen to Glen Beck to, to much. Beck is a stupid liar. For some reason - he is generally wrong, wrong, wrong. Best thing to do is if Beck says it - the truth is the exact opposite. Damn, the truth of the truth is, if any conservative says it, it is an out and out lie.........

Quote:

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.

Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined extreme right-wing political views along with collectivism.

Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Wrong again, Final solution and Nazis are exteme right wing conservationism - Fascism is far right, Socialism is far left. One thing cons can't get straight is who they are.

This is one thing leftists cannot and perhaps more accurately "will not" get right, because they realize the truth is goring their ox. The truth is inescapable, BillW, when you look at the specific beliefs and policies of the Nazis and Hitler, they are clearly leftist. All you have to do is look at the Nazi 25 points, read Mein Kampf, and review history. Do not make something complicated out of something that is really pretty simple. Use common sense, and do not listen to leftist professors and revisionist historians that have a vested interest in protecting the reputations of socialist philosophies. You don't have to be a "scholar" to know what 2 + 2 is. Sheesh, the whole reason Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews was because they represented the greedy capitalism of the evil Jews in Germany and Europe.

Read the following, BillW, and instead of denigrating the author, try facing the truth with an open mind. In other words, debate the issue with honesty and historical facts, instead of the so-called credibility of the author(s). History is not the sole property to interpret as they please by leftist professors and historians. Try having the courage to face this subject with some honesty about what is left and what is right in this world. In fact, even if you wish to argue it from the standpoint of the 30's and 40's, Winston Churchill could have told you what Hitler was. He was a cheap socialist more closely related to communism and Stalin than he was to the conservatism of the Western Allies.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
Hitler was a Leftist

I would also suggest, Bill, that instead of denigrating me or my links, or listening to other posters looking down their nose at my arguments concerning this, actually read them with an open mind. Ever since this subject began to be debated on this forum, and I have made the argument that Hitler was a Leftist, I have received mostly grief over it, but I think I am accurate to say that virtually all of the sarcasm pointed at me has never addressed the facts or evidence, but instead just lamely point out that scholars and historians consider Fascism on the far right. However, the evidence is on my side, and I am not the only one that has awakened to this now. Many conservatives have awakened to this, and have written many good articles and even books about this. We are tired of conservatism being wrongly aligned with the leftist madman, Hitler. Hitler and Fascism being on the far right could not be further from the truth.

3 Replies

@okie,

As a postscript to the above, I would like to encourage all to read George Soros article that was published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1997. If you think about what he wrote, it is almost eerie how his thought process about "The Capitalist Threat" is similar to some of the same crap that Hitler was thinking. Hitler also railed on and on about evil capitalists, as brought on Germany by the Jews, and so he viewed capitalism evil, just as he also considered communism as an enemy.

Here is the point. Do you believe for a minute that Soros is on the far right? Not on your life, Bill. Soros is a leftist, and so was Hitler. I am not comparing Soros to Hitler in regard to Hitler's hatred, but I do compare them in regarding their position on the political spectrum. I would also say that we now have a better understanding of what the political spectrum is, we do not need to resort to some outmoded view as might have existed in Germany in the 20's and 30's.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97feb/capital/capital.htm
quote from Soros in the above article:
"The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."

0 Replies

@okie,

You're still wrong about this entire subject, and still quoting the same idiot you did before.

Hopeless, Okie. You just don't give a **** about any argument which goes against your narrative, do you?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Your post is so predictable. Would you dare to have the courage to actually address the actual evidence that the author of the articles points out? No, probably not, cyclops, I doubt you will, because you cannot face this subject objectively and honestly.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Your post is so predictable.

But you re-posting the same faulty bullshit isn't predictable?

Quote:

Would you dare to have the courage to actually address the actual evidence that the author of the articles points out? No, probably not, cyclops, I doubt you will, because you cannot face this subject objectively and honestly.

It's already been done in depth on this forum, and you are dead set on proving that it is a waste of time; you have never listened to any counter argument that anyone made, you ignore evidence that doesn't match your narrative, and you pretend that the body of world historians are all fools - while your one dude is a genius. Tell me: why should anyone bother engaging you on this subject? You don't care what anyone else has to say.

Don't let any of that stop you, though, from continuing to make a fool out of yourself.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

BillW wrote:

Wrong again, Final solution and Nazis are exteme right wing conservationism - Fascism is far right, Socialism is far left. One thing cons can't get straight is who they are.
This is one thing leftists cannot and perhaps more accurately "will not" get right, because they realize the truth is goring their ox. The truth is inescapable, BillW, when you look at the specific beliefs and policies of the Nazis and Hitler, they are clearly leftist. All you have to do is look at the Nazi 25 points, read Mein Kampf, and review history. Do not make something complicated out of something that is really pretty simple. Use common sense, and do not listen to leftist professors and revisionist historians that have a vested interest in protecting the reputations of socialist philosophies. You don't have to be a "scholar" to know what 2 + 2 is. Sheesh, the whole reason Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews was because they represented the greedy capitalism of the evil Jews in Germany and Europe.

Read the following, BillW, and instead of denigrating the author, try facing the truth with an open mind. In other words, debate the issue with honesty and historical facts, instead of the so-called credibility of the author(s). History is not the sole property to interpret as they please by leftist professors and historians. Try having the courage to face this subject with some honesty about what is left and what is right in this world. In fact, even if you wish to argue it from the standpoint of the 30's and 40's, Winston Churchill could have told you what Hitler was. He was a cheap socialist more closely related to communism and Stalin than he was to the conservatism of the Western Allies.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
Hitler was a Leftist

I would also suggest, Bill, that instead of denigrating me or my links, or listening to other posters looking down their nose at my arguments concerning this, actually read them with an open mind. Ever since this subject began to be debated on this forum, and I have made the argument that Hitler was a Leftist, I have received mostly grief over it, but I think I am accurate to say that virtually all of the sarcasm pointed at me has never addressed the facts or evidence, but instead just lamely point out that scholars and historians consider Fascism on the far right. However, the evidence is on my side, and I am not the only one that has awakened to this now. Many conservatives have awakened to this, and have written many good articles and even books about this. We are tired of conservatism being wrongly aligned with the leftist madman, Hitler. Hitler and Fascism being on the far right could not be further from the truth.

Okie posted the Truth!

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Your post is so predictable.
But you re-posting the same faulty bullshit isn't predictable?

If it is so faulty, it seems someone would be able to point out specifically where it is faulty, not just some aimless criticism of my entire point. You seem to miss the point, cyclops, that none of my evidence has ever been specifically proven wrong. For instance, can you prove that Hitler loved the Jews and their capitalist influence? If Hitler was such a rightee, he would have loved them, cyclops, I hope you realize such a simple point or concept?

Quote:

Quote:
Would you dare to have the courage to actually address the actual evidence that the author of the articles points out? No, probably not, cyclops, I doubt you will, because you cannot face this subject objectively and honestly.

It's already been done in depth on this forum, and you are dead set on proving that it is a waste of time; you have never listened to any counter argument that anyone made, you ignore evidence that doesn't match your narrative, and you pretend that the body of world historians are all fools - while your one dude is a genius. Tell me: why should anyone bother engaging you on this subject? You don't care what anyone else has to say.

Don't let any of that stop you, though, from continuing to make a fool out of yourself.

Cycloptichorn

Just the opposite, cyclops. I have been the one citing specific evidence in depth, and the links I have posted also deal with specific evidence and points. The counter arguments have consisted entirely of general criticism of me and the author(s) of the articles that I have linked. I have challenged anyone to actually cite their arguments, if they are specific, but nobody has taken me up on it yet. If you care to do it, I would suggest going to the ruthless dictator thread, however, instead of muddying up this thread.

However, this subject does have some bearing on the economy. I have been reading Jerome Corsi's book titled "America For Sale," and it is somewhat eerie how some of the same old leftist fascist beliefs keep arising again and again. So to manage a free market economy, it is important to be aware of some of the pitfalls that can enter the equation.

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know