Judeo-Christian
Last updatedWhat to know
Judeo-Christian, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, is a term that has been used in political rhetoric since the mid-20th century to promote the idea that what is shared between Jews and Christians (some religious texts, customs, and values) is the basis of Western civilization and a core element of American political identity. The term is related to beliefs about the religious identities of the United States’ founders and the belief that the US is a “Christian nation.” The term groups together theological and religious elements from Judaism and Christianity, two distinct and internally diverse traditions, and invokes a sense of shared values and intertwined fates between Jews and Christians that critics of the term say is misleading.
Those who oppose use of the term Judeo-Christian say that in contemporary usage, it conflates two huge heterogeneous religious groups, presuming they share the same beliefs and interests, which stands in contrast to the Christian Church’s historical persecution of Jews. The term Judeo-Christian also does not acknowledge other religious groups (e.g., Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, atheists, etc.), which serves to exclude them from political discourse.
While earlier usages of the term Judeo-Christian exist, the term was popularized in the United States during and immediately following World War II when interfaith organizations promoted the idea to offer national solidarity after the Holocaust and to signal shared anti-communist and anti-fascist commitments. The word was also used by liberals in the fight for civil rights, such as in Martin Luther King Jr.’s assertion in 1960 that racial discrimination stands in opposition to “our Judeo-Christian tradition.” Evangelical Christians and the Republican Party used the term in the 1970s to support their political influence through an implied societal consensus of their policies. Today, the term Judeo-Christian is often used as a right-wing slogan employed to increase xenophobia against Muslims and to restrict immigration and LGBTQ+ rights, all perceived by some as threats to historically dominant Christian values.
When deciding if and when to use the term Judeo-Christian, it’s important to keep in mind that the phrase has become loaded and often serves to “other” religious minority groups. Also take into account critiques that the term inaccurately portrays Christian and Jewish interests as unified, ignores the history of antisemitism within the Christian Church, and alienates other religious groups from an assumed political consensus. Moving away from the term requires a reframing of American history and political identity that does not take the assumptions behind the term (e.g., that American Jews and Christians are unified) at face value. When quoting or critiquing the term Judeo-Christian, an explanation of how the phrase is used to further a particular political narrative might help contextualize the reasons for moving away from it.
Additional resources
- Why ‘Judeo-Christian Values’ are a dog whistle myth peddled by the far right (The Conversation)
- The Problem with the ‘Judeo-Christian Tradition’ (The Atlantic)
- How Judeo-Christian is the US Constitution? (Religion News Service)
- You Need to Take the Religious Left Seriously This Time (Politico)
Summary
Judeo-Christian is a term that has been used in political rhetoric since the mid-20th century to promote the idea that what is shared between Jews and Christians (some religious texts, customs, and values) is the basis of Western civilization and a core element of American political identity. It’s important to keep in mind that the term has become loaded and often serves to “other” religious minority groups. Also take into account critiques that the term inaccurately portrays Christian and Jewish interests as unified, ignores the history of antisemitism within the Christian Church, and alienates other religious groups from an assumed political consensus. When quoting or critiquing the term Judeo-Christian, an explanation of how the phrase is used to further a particular political narrative might help contextualize the reasons for moving away from it.