Better than 'JudeoChristiMoslem' [Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος]

I used to use the term "Judeo-Christian" casually, because it was a phrase I heard other people use, it reflected the fact that Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism, and I didn't know there was anything wrong with it.

Later, after having it politely pointed out to me that many Jews don't like the term because it's often used more out of "see, I'm being inclusive" spin than precision, and because it sometimes (often?) comes across as if the speaker were trying to paint Judaism as a subset of Christianity ... I started being more careful when and how I used "Judeo-Christian". I've restricted it to those times when I am specifically talking about those elements which Jews and Christians do have in common.

But I'm becoming even less comfortable with it. Both because I worry that even though I'm careful to only use it when it's what I really mean, readers may react to it as though I'd used it carelessly; and because when I'm talking about the things Christians and Jews have in common, I should usually (always?) be reminding myself that Moslems share the same things.

So I'm looking for a word or phrase that basically means "People of the Book" but is as uncumbersome -- as convenient in speech and writing -- as "Judeo-Christian". (Besides, "People of the Book" is a noun phrase, and "Judeo-Christian" functions as an adjective. I want an adjective.)

Anybody got a word or phrase that means what I mean, concisely?

January

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1 1	2 1	3 1	4 1	5 1	6 1	7 1
8 1	9 1	10 1	11 1	12 1	13 1	14 1
15 1	16 1	17 1	18 1	19 1	20 1	21 1
22 1	23 1	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Abrahamish?

[link] [reply]

I generally go with "Yahwist"

"Of the Western monotheist tradition," maybe. I guess I don't have much of a problem with "Judeo-Christian." I have never heard the complaint you mention, that it implies Judaism is a subset of Christianity. It seems more likely to me that it was simply an easier verbal construction than "Christo-Jewish." Merriam-Webster puts the term's introduction at 1899 and defines it simply as "having historical roots in both Judaism and Christianity," so in my opinion anyone who would apply much deeper meaning to it is not on very good footing.

Hmm, something based on "book," perhaps. Latin for book is "liber," so "liberal" has the right literal meaning, but I guess it has too many other connotations already... :-)

I usually say JCI, for Jewish-Christian-Islamic. Can be used as a noun or an adjective, and it's very portable. The only downside is that the TLA-ness of it all can make it come off as a bit flip or even insulting, when that's not intended at all.

My fallback has been to refer to them as the Major Monotheisms.

(Thought I'd give a shout out to a fellow Baltimoron, btw.)

personally, i think you're worrying too much about this. you can't please all the people all the time, and frankly, i'm deeply suspicious of anyone who manages to be offended by "judeo-christian" on the grounds that it implies that judaism is a subset of christianity. "judeo" comes first, and to me it implies that christianity is a subset of judaism. which i'm pretty sure is actually true.

admittedly, i say this as an atheist. but i say it as an atheist who was raised by a lapsed catholic and an agnostic baptist, and the majority of whose friends are either jewish or are pagans who were raised jewish. i can't help thinking that people offended by such a term may be more interested in finding something to be offended by than actually concerned about accurate terminology. some people just aren't happy unless they feel like an oppressed minority; i'm put in mind of someone who told me he was hesitant to put a christian fish symbol on his car because he feared anti-christian vandals. in this country, that makes about as much sense as whining about what a tough time white college-educated males have of it.

i'm very outspoken -- as you know -- and i hope i haven't managed to offend anyone today. but as a writer, i can't help but be a little offended myself by the verbal contortions to which some people go in an attempt to avoid offending anyone, by which they often succeed only in being vague, wordy, and sometimes ridiculous. (personhole cover, anyone?)

precision in language is a good thing, but unnecessary detail is not. most people can be trusted to get the idea when you use a term like "judeo-christian", but if you're really concerned about it, i suggest using words that everyone will know: "jewish, christian, and islamic". inventing your own term will only create more confusion.

that makes about as much sense as whining about what a tough time white college-educated males have of it.

I see your point, but I'm not sure that's actually equivalent. Vandalism is real, and if he feels the need to protect his car by not marking it with things that make some people angry, that's reasonable. It's possible he was implying anti-Christians are more numerous, or more dangerous, or something, but my first thought would be that he feels being identified with *any* group makes one a target.

[link] [parent] [reply]

well, i can see your point too -- but in this case, the person specifically said he felt he'd be targeted for being a christian. while it's unfortunately true that there are a few rabid anti-christians running around out there, i think he was more likely to have his car vandalized because it wasn't an american car. or because it had virginia plates. or because he looked like he might be gay. so yes, identifying as a part of any group could theoreticlaly make you a target.

but man, what a crappy way to live life, obsessing over all the people who might be out to get you. as

dglenn knows perhaps better than anyone, people can be surprisingly tolerant if you give them the chance to be, instead of walking around with a chip on your shoulder daring them to be offended -- or to offend you.

i think he was more likely to have his car vandalized because it wasn't an american car. or because it had virginia plates. or because he looked like he might be gay.

Or because some people think vandalism is fun, and he was there. Yeah, I agree. Just trying to see all sides. (I'm a Libra, but if that bothers you, I can change... ;))

(I'm a Libra, but if that bothers you, I can change... ;))

i'm a capricorn, but if that bothers you, check back in 20 years. *grin*

Its strange, thats the second time recently I've come across the concept of judeo-christian being somehow insulting to those of the Jewisih faith (and I don't *think* the previous occurence was in your lj), but I have always taken it to be "stemming from old testament/historical tradition common to both", at best putting Christianity as a subset of Judaeism... I think its the knowledge and attitudes of those reacting badly to your correct usage of the word that's at fault on the whole, for yes, it would probably be most accurate to include islam in the equation, oh and lets add various elements of mithraism, zoroastrianism and where else did things get borrowed from? lol
I'm not sure there is another academic word that covers the same thing.

...either going with one of the meritorious suggestions put forth by the wise posters hereabouts, or else simply telling people who are offended (for whatever reason) to get stuffed. If everyone Bowdlerized their dialogue to the point where no one was offended by anything anyone said, we'd either wind up in Orwell's nightmare, or Kahlil Gibran's paradise, depending on how cynical you're feeling at this moment. Remember that while legitimate offenses are not exactly few and far between, neither are hypersensitive language brownshirts (she said, evading Godwin's Law handily by means of ample vocabulary). Given your usual pattern of discourse, I'd be more worried about the latter than the former, if I were you.

Then again, you could avoid the whole problem by simply not talking about contentious subjects like religion with people whom you don't know well enough to be sure they're not going to rip off your head and barf down your throat over issues of nomenclature. That might be counterproductive, though, and I would recommend the "Get stuffed!" option over it.

Dearlove, what is, is. What has happened between tribes has happened. What people believe, they believe. I tend to agree with merde and moviebear, but I offend all comers cheerfully any how, since my relationship with whatever is is mine. Other people with names for their religion is theirs, tradition happens, and if they want to get precious about how it's referred to with someone of a different persuasion, they need to spend more time contemplating their personal relationship with it. Then doing something about it. You're the finest specimen of a Christian I've ever encountered. Oh the stories of lesser humans who called themselves so.
Fret not over mere terminology. I'll go along with the theory that anyone who can't stand the reference to the current triple monotheology (yah, tongue firmly in cheek and serious attempt at a straight face) is looking for a big whine.
It's nice of you to consider them. Poor souls.

I think that by being careful to use the term only when it's truly applicable, you're already pretty far ahead of the pack. Some Christians use the term when they really mean Christian-but-not-Jewish values, and then get offended when you point out the problem. You're being careful not to do that.

If you're still looking for a term, though, I think "Abrahamic" is the most concise and unambiguous one I've heard so far.

Abrahamic religions. *nod*

To those saying that it's ridiculous to be offended by "Judeo-Christian"... words have connotations. Connotations may offend. That's why we get cascades like Negro -> colored -> black -> Afro-American -> African-American, and why reclaiming a term like "queer" is so controversial and so powerful. Many people who use "Judeo-Christian" really mean "Christian, oh, and we kinda like Jews" or something, because they often evince utter ignorance of Judaism's differences from Christianity. I don't much want to lump myself in with that sort of ignorance, so I avoid the term.

Yup. A lot of terms that arise out of efforts to be inoffensive turn out to be problematic because they are instead born out of ignorance. You gave a good example of this, though you might not have meant to. I do not use the term "African-American" to mean black; I have a (white) friend who emigrated from Africa, and I have black friends who are not Africans, and there are plenty who aren't Americans either. (What term do they use in England, I wonder?) Terms should say what they mean and mean what they say.

Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

Better than 'JudeoChristiMoslem'

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

I suggest...

Oh, My Goodness Gracious

(no subject)

(no subject)

a side issue

Links

January