The American Judeo-Christian Club and The Politics of Exclusion

Rarely will Arab or South African Christians, for example, be admitted to the American Judeo-Christian club. The political and social criteria of this suspect version of Judeo-Christianity precludes the universality of such a term. The term's use purposely excludes those whose political objectives do not align with the American political or religious far right. An Arab American or African American who rejects Israel's violence against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians and its violations of international laws is automatically excluded from the Judeo-Christian umbrella regardless of faith. How convenient.

The definition of this neo-Judeo-Christian tag in itself is amorphous. It's neither scientific nor legal. Its connotations are culturally understood, with a wink. It can be defended openly in harmless terms when need be. Therein lies the term's attraction to a growing minority who see a need to flaunt this divisive label to distance themselves from "others" without incurring the wrath of a politically correct culture.

This desire for cultural "ranking" is not new to the American right. If it were not the Arabs or Muslims, it would have been the Irish Catholics. And if it were not the Irish Catholics it would have been the Blacks, Natives, Chinese, Mormons, and so on.  This resistance to inclusion is a time-honored tradition and today what Arabs, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others are enduring is a manifestation of the American right's aversion to tolerance. For obvious political reasons having to do with the Israeli occupation, Arabs and Muslims are bearing the brunt of this calculated exclusion.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Islam is deeply grounded in orthodox Judeo-Christian values and does not clash with its core values. Adherents to Judaism and Christianity together form the People of the Book who are the only two religions accorded additional reverence by Muslims. Admittedly, as with all religions, Islam has also been a victim of comparable political abuse.

Much to the American exclusionists' dismay, all three Abrahamic religions are byproducts of Semitic cultures, norms, and values of the Middle East, not the West. Moses and Jesus were as blond and blue-eyed as much as Mohammed was blond and blue-eyed. Only in Hollywood Jesus turns Nordic. Mohammed was a descendant of Abraham just as Moses and Jesus were. All write from right to left. Attempts to depict Judeo-Christian values as Western and separate it from its Eastern roots are grossly revisionist.

Those who wave the revisionist Judeo-Christianity card ignore the simple fact that only a minority of American Christians and Jews live up to orthodox values and dictates of the three religions such as the Ten Commandments. What is Judeo-Christian about engaging in common practices such as premarital sex, usury, gambling in Las Vegas, and starving children in Iraq? This is anything but Judeo-Christian or Islamic. While not necessarily contradictory, there is nothing Judeo-Christian or Islamic about democracy, human rights, and separation of church and state.  To the contrary they were simply tools to protect against the abuse of power and religion.

Going back in time, was slavery and genocide Judeo-Christian? Absolutely not. Was democracy and liberal thought Judeo-Christian? Not from a Spanish Inquisitor's perspective. So what does it mean to belong to the right-wing Judeo-Christian club. Is it to justify Israel's transgressions in biblical terms? What about Christians who refuse to do so, are they anti-Semites and unchristian? To the contrary.

The Judeo component of the white American Christian club is a politically convenient addition. After all, anything perceived as purely white American Christian would appear too supremacist and could incur the wrath of a powerful Jewish establishment. So they have invited the American Jewish right who welcomed this separation from other Semites, the Arabs, and are delighted to parrot the exclusionist mantra that once led to their own exclusion and resulting violent anti-Semitism. What strange bedfellows.

It is easy to unwittingly engage the exclusionists in a debate on their own terms. Exclusionists must be denied the opportunity to be treated as spokespersons of Judaism or Christianity. The debate should not be one of religious differences. It should be positioned as a debate between an intolerant camp and another which is accepting, enlightened, and truly representative of divine values.

Exorcised of any self-serving political agenda, Judeo-Christian values include universal values few can argue with. But as always, heavenly dictates fall prey to man's imperfections. As long as the American mainstream remains a bastion of liberal values, the forces of division will be checked regardless of the misleading banners they often hoist.