Should Americans not study European history and claim it as part of their cultural tradition because they had a revolution and created their own new form of government?
From a religious standpoint, Christians moved beyond the Jew and invited Jews to adopt the new law. Therefore Christianity is a superset of the old law, and saying "Judeo" is meaningless. And in a sense the Jews here are right: if they refuse to accept Christ, they aren't "Judeo-Christian". Why use the term at all?
From a historical/cultural standpoint, it's kind of subjective. Judeo-Christian is fine with me but I understand why others disagree, and again saying "Christian" already implies Jewish contributions to the empire. Greco-Roman (itself redundant) and Anglo are also accurate descriptors that you can combine with Christianity to describe pre-American culture. Even those leave out the pagan traditions that Christians coopted. It's still argued today how much Europe was shaped by Christian leaders vs. pagan traditions.
Should Americans not study European history and claim it as part of their cultural tradition because they had a revolution and created their own new form of government?
From a religious standpoint, Christians moved beyond the Jew and invited Jews to adopt the new law. Therefore Christianity is a superset of the old law, and saying "Judeo" is meaningless. And in a sense the Jews here are right: if they refuse to accept Christ, they aren't "Judeo-Christian". Why use the term at all?
From a historical/cultural standpoint, it's kind of subjective. Judeo-Christian is fine with me but I understand why others disagree, and again saying "Christian" already implies Jewish contributions to the empire. Greco-Roman (itself redundant) and Anglo are also accurate descriptors that you can combine with Christianity to describe pre-American culture. Even those leave out the pagan traditions that Christians coopted. It's still argued today how much Europe was shaped by Christian leaders vs. pagan traditions.