Friday, May 20, 2011

More on "Judeo-Christian"

At Religion in American History here. See in particular this comment by author Kevin M Schultz here. And this too.


Angie Van De Merwe said...

Thanks so much, Jon!! Goldman has some very good points concerning Cohen's publication.

I really appreciated what Netanyahu said today about Israeli borders and how Jewish refugees were accepted into Israel, whereas, Arabs did not recieve their own...Maybe this is particular perspective, as I am not familiar with the particulars of that political history.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I might add that at the time of cerating Israel, at least one knew that it was most probable that the Palestianian would have to be "addressed". Has the time finally come? Or are we headed toward WW3?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I hate to add another comment, but I just could not leave out the Enlightenment as of importance in Goldman's view and in Jewish identity...

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Whether one understands the "Jew" as an ethnic, religious, or minority position, the "Christian" part of our country embraced them all in "Give me the poor, the outcast..." on the Statue of Liberty at Ellis Island.

But, time changes needs of particular countries, though their ideals, might remain the same. Our nation's need presently is not to embrace our ideals, but to focus on the facts and face the realities of our country's viability! And that can't be done in embracing ideals, never do "ideals" "pan out" in the real political world, unless one want to die for an ideal...which our military do.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Per our wars around here about what or who is "Christian," the author of the second linked piece [Professor] Mark Silk writes:

There's always been something peculiar in the claim that belonging to the same tradition means that you've always gotten along fine. No one would say that the heretics of Late Antiquity or the High Middle Ages (Arians, Donatists, Waldensians, etc.), didn't belong to the Christian religious tradition, much less that the Catholics and Protestants who fought each other to a standstill in Early Modern Europe didn't.

Bold face mine. Jon.


BTW, the author of the first linked piece, Chris Beneke, commented approvingly yesterday on Prof. Silk's piece written in January just yesterday. Moi happened to mention Silk's work in Benerke's comments section. Probably just a coincidence.

But seriously, that's what the sharing's all about. Even the estimable Gordon Wood [via John Fea] notes "no single historian can know everything."

Each one of us who shares with everybody else makes us all better. Cheers to all here gathered, and keep on rockin'.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The heretics were still labelled (judged) within the Church, by their doctrines.

And monotheism is still a belief about "God"....Let's ask the question why "God" has to be assumed? Is "Providence" in the Founding era, a little like "Spinoza's God"?

What is there is no "God", that means, no "personal God"? Is that to be considered, or is that "off topic" because we want to confine the conversation and steer it in the direction of "Religion"?

Religion will always cause wars because one cannot experiment on "God", only people's beliefs about "God" and people will always differ about that...So is it productive to discuss "God"? Wasn't that the stance toward the political realm that the Founders took?