by “This is a Christian nation.” Assertions like this one, referring not to any officially designated faith but to something like the nation’s ethos or political culture or theological presuppositions, were common in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, similar claims were made (and they still are), but the “Christian” was often changed to “Judeo-Christian.” Many find all such assertions implausible or objectionable, of course. But for the sort of view that is being advanced, is “Judeo-Christian” an improvement over “Christian”?
Some find “Judeo-Christian” offensive, perhaps on the ground that while attempting to be inclusive the label in fact assimilates. In a world in which a fine-tuned capacity to be offended by all the proper provocations is cultivated as a mark of refined moral character, offense is probably inevitable, regardless of which label is used. But I’m curious about a more substantive question. Is “Judeo-Christian” more accurate as a description of the sort of claim that is being made?
Justice Douglas famously declared that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” How might that be true? Consider the following familiar assertions: 1. Equality. The American commitment to human equality– to the “equal moral worth” of persons– is most plausible and understandable on something like the religious assumption that all humans are made “in the image of God.” 2. Rights. The idea of inherent or natural human rights is most defensible on religious premises; the idea is, as Michael Perry argues, “ineliminably religious.” 3. Law. The American commitment to law– to some sort of “higher law” as well as mundane positive law– resonates best with a world view in which a Creator fashioned a cosmos that is orderly and intrinsically normative.
All of these assertions are contestable and contested, of course. But they have a respectable pedigree in the American political tradition, going back to the Declaration of Independence and before. (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights . . . .”) Now, though, to get back to my original question: it seems to me that these claims resonate with theistic premises– with belief in a “Creator” (as Jefferson said) or a “Supreme Being” (as Justice Douglas said)– but that none of them depends in any way on anything distinctively Christian. They do not depend, that is on belief in the Trinity, or in the Incarnation, or in the Resurrection, etc. In sum, these claims reflect beliefs that citizens who are Christians and religious Jews (and others) could share.
If that is right, then to describe the underlying beliefs as “Christian” seems seriously misleading. “Judeo-Christian” may not be adequate either, but it at least comes closer. I’m not sure about any of this. But I’d be interested if someone could explain how any fundamental American commitments rest on specifically Christian beliefs.
It may be that American law is more “Judeo-” than specifically “Christian.” It is much easier to draw implications for law from the Hebrew scriptures/Old Testament than from the Christian New Testament. There are a host of potential sources in the Hebrew scriptures–e.g., creation, fall, Moses standing up to Egyptian law, the Mosaic law, the rule of David and other Hebrew kings, the challenges to law of the prophets. The New Testament focuses much more on the transformation of the individual heart. It is the story of a people who were subject to Roman law and were not in a position to have much influence over it.
As Michael Novak has noted, all four names for God from the Declaration of Independence (Lawgiver, Creator, Judge, and Providence) were based on Hebrew names for God, rather than specifically Christian names such as Savior, Trinity, Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. Novak points to this as evidence of a “Jewish Metaphysics” underlying the founding. See his “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.”
How about the notion that our structure of government is premised on our fallen nature — e.g., separation of powers, checks/balances? Doesn’t the inescapability of sin, and the ultimate insufficiency of law, come closer than law, equality, or rights to being a “Christian” theme?
What would be more interesting is to look at implicit ideas within law rather than direct statement. For instance, the transition from ordeal to the ordo iudiciarius in the Middle Ages was undertaken by jurists who explicitly referenced actions of God in Genesis to develop norms of procedure. Based on these ideas, a French canon lawyer, Johannes Monachus, developed the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” – see this essay, for instance: http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm.
Although statements of morality as either Christian or Judeo-Christian may be inadequate, quite a bit of our “modern” law (including the language of rights) consists of Common Law and Roman law modified and extended by canonists working within an explicitly Christian framework.
–Jonathan
wow i like this very very much ….thanks man download hollywood movies free
Huh who cares for movies as me absolutely do it ? me much liked hollywood action and horror movies especially twillight eclips since me watched it from online movies as this place also one of the nice one.
i always watch online movies from Vimeo or Youtube, it is low resolution but most of the time sufficient.~~`
i love to watch online movies even if the quality is not superb compared to dvds”*”
online movies are cool, they might not have very high quality but at least you can watch lots of em .*`
watching online movies has been my past time this month, i really enjoy it :-`