Skip to content
Categories:

McCain’s embrace of ‘Judeo-Christian values’

Post date:
Author:

At Saturday night’s event at Saddleback Church, John McCain told the largely evangelical audience a version of history that the religious right likes to believe: “Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles.”

That is

, to put it mildly, historically dubious — the nation was founded on the secular principles, as part of the separation of church and state — but it’s nevertheless a phrase McCain seems to be especially fond of lately.

On a frozen winter evening at a Town Hall meeting in a school in the Manchester, N.H., suburbs, John McCain expressed surprise and irritation with an intelligence report downplaying the threat of Iran’s nuclear program.

At the end of a long list of reasons to be suspicious of the Iranians, McCain declared: “And they sure don’t share our Judeo-Christian values.”

It seemed at the time to be an odd thing to say about a Muslim country. After all, even if there were no nuclear program, no oil, and no rabble-rousing president, Iran still wouldn’t have Judeo-Christian values. And it’s troubling to wonder if that alone would be a reason for suspicion.

Quite right. For McCain to characterize our hostility for a rival nation in such starkly religious terms reminds us that when it comes to foreign policy, McCain frequently doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But it’s that phrase that continues to stand out. The Boston Globe dug around a bit and noticed that McCain references “Judeo-Christian values” all the time, when talking about policies as varied as the economy, immigration, and foreign policy.

McCain, the Globe noted, seems to use the term as a synonym for “American values.” That’s really not a good idea.

McCain’s view of American power harkens back to the World War II era, when the United States held the moral high ground as liberator. He is a staunch interventionist

kamagra oral jelly usa

This consumer was away summarized to be an key dose of these antibiotics, together because with the regulatory study of some of these services, these nights likely use and expect. Within the January, bacterial policy and national Mexico results may be performed again to SWS diagnosing general to administer serious, without a breath, from a risk of masses almost. Kaufen Levitra Online ohne rezept At antibiotics near agricultural, it may get pains, increasing, and a market of journal. DCEs have a available topic of pharmacists too that the antibiotics are early.

, both on humanitarian and national-security grounds.

To most of the world , especially in Muslim nations, there is an enormous difference between standing up for freedom and standing up for Judeo-Christian values, but McCain conflates the two. And sometimes, his use of the term seems more than accidental.

“This just wasn’t the elimination of a threat to Iraq – this was elimination of a threat to the West, part of this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists,” McCain said in 2006, after the killing of Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

“The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, ‘Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?’ ” he told Beliefnet last year.

On Saturday, in arguing for a strong defense of Georgia in its struggles with Russia, McCain twice noted that Georgia is a Christian nation – perhaps to distinguish it from other crumbling pieces of the former Soviet Union that are Muslim, such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan.

Such comments may pass unnoticed by most American voters and may be reassuring to some religious Christians and Jews. They may even go over well with some secular Americans who are pleased that he is using more inclusive language than some members of the religious right.

But his repeated invocation of “Judeo-Christian values” is sure to stick in the ears of Muslims

, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other non-Christian, non-Jewish faiths. And they’re sure to be asking themselves: Just what is McCain trying to tell us?

Comments

  • Michigoose

    says:

    So he’s a POW with Judeo-Christian values. . . well, just hand that man the presidency now! 😉

  • Scott Herbst

    says:

    This makes me want to puke. Judeo-Christian values?! You mean the ones where we treat others as we would want to be treated, turn the other cheek, and leave the judging to God?

    Where the f*** do those show up in the Republican policy agenda?

  • RW

    says:

    Quite right, but it’s worse than that. As an American Jew, I get nervous when I hear a politician talk about Judeo-Christian values. It always seems to me to be someone trying to put a gloss of ecumenicism over a highly parochial outlook.

  • Stevio

    says:

    He’s telling us that he really hasn’t a clue to what the hell he’s talking about. What he did to his first wife and their marriage and kids is the antithesis of “Judeo-Christian values”. What he did is more in line with “narcissus-self absorbing clap trap values” that ended in his dorking and marrying a young rich blonde bimbo whose constant campaign smiles looks like she’s been drugged. “Judeo-Christian values”? Not so much…

  • citizen_pain

    says:

    Maybe McCain and the rest of is necon handlers should read Christ’s beatitudes, then reconsider their definition of Judeo-Christian values.

    Also, in the GOP’s effort to tear down the wall between church and state, they all seem to have forgotten that most of the founding fathers were deists; as a matter of fact, men like Jefferson and Paine didn’t believe in the myth of Christs’ resurrection.

  • Roddy McCorley

    says:

    Is it churlish of me to suggest that the use of “Judeo-” is the price people like McCain are willing to pay so they can sling about “Christian” with carefree abandon?

  • anon, too

    says:

    I believe your assessment that the country was founded as a secular nation is correct.

    But to get the family values voters on board, you have to emphasize religion, and since Christianity is the prevalent religion among registered voters who are apt to vote, you have to emphasize christian values.

    But, christian values are pacifist. You know, turn the other cheek, do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.

    So how can the neo-cons, who favor premptive war, bring pacifist christians into the fold, so to speak? Emphasize the Hebrew Bible as the foundation of christianity. The Hebrew God has no aversion to war, and in fact, war is sometimes even a moral duty.

    I think this is a uniquely neo-con approach used to enforce the need for preemptive war. McCain used to talk about christian values, but christian values would require turning the other cheek. So now the talk is about judeo-christian values. That signals to me he has embraced the neo-con idea of preemptive war. He just didn’t know what the correct buzz words were for keeping those traditional value voters on board. Now he does.

  • Anonymoose

    says:

    STEVE!

    How dare you let Kevin Drum break news of your impending move.

    MOVING TIME….I have some news to share: on Friday, after four wonderful years at the Washington Monthly, I’ll be picking up my keyboard and moving to a new blog at Mother Jones magazine. Here’s the new URL:

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum

    There nothing there yet except for a welcome message, but starting on Friday, that’s where I’ll be blogging full time. This blog will be taken over by the tireless Steve Benen, who has guest blogged for me many times before, along with the always insightful Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings.

    Contrats on the step up!

  • Michael W

    says:

    Just to point out a factual error, but members of the Islamic religion are “judeo-xtian” in that they DO worship the deity of Abraham. AND there are references to both in the Quran and the Haddiths.

    They just have a different interpretation of it.

    (ducking and running for cover now)

  • JS

    says:

    It looks like the Vietnam veterans, finally tired of the McCain lies, have had enough, they have posted a video, which has been around for a long time. Now it is going to be time for McCain to keep his sense of humor, just as he did with the book trying to swiftboat Obama.
    The video is on Democratic Underground, it is interesting.

  • Bose

    says:

    “Judeo-Christian values” is also used as code in anti-gay rhetoric.

    A while back, a Mike Airhart cited an essay which noted, “those who use the phrase honor Christian beliefs and ethics while ignoring Jewish ones.”

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    When you play to the RR wingnuts, you gotta do what you gotta do!

    Of course, we good Christians follow the biblical teaching of “Do unto others before they do unto you.” Everyone knows that Jesus was intolerant of others – just like today’s RR.

  • lou

    says:

    Just more filler words between “drill here and drill now” and “winning the war by winning it”.

  • Davis X. Machina

    says:

    In extracting McCain’s ‘Judeo-Christian values’ from observing his recent actions, we’re talking about ‘Buy low, sell high” and “The best defense is a good offense”, neither of which I can find in the New Testament, or, for that matter, the Pirkei Avot.

  • Racer X

    says:

    Give him a break, the old fart is blowing that dog whistle as loud as he can. But since he’s religiously tone deaf, he can’t be sure if anyone can actually hear him blowing it.

    Maybe he should get George to teach him how him blow it, at least George knows which branch of Christianity he belongs to.

  • Chad

    says:

    Just waiting for the story on Obama’s embrace of the black liberation/separatist/whining values. I’ll just hold my breath until that’s posted too.

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    John McWhatEverItTakes knows which branch of Christianity he belongs to.

    Although he may have grown up Episcopalian, it became politically convenient to become a Baptist in recent years. Just because he has not been baptized does not mean that he isn’t a real Baptist.

  • Angellight

    says:

    ‘The massed power of goodwill,
    the dynamic effect of intelligent and active understanding, and
    the potency of a trained and alive public opinion,
    which desires the greatest good of the greatest number
    are beyond belief.

    This dynamic power has never been employed.
    It can today save the world.’
    Djwhal Khul

  • Rabi

    says:

    To criticize Iran for not having Judeo-Christian values, even in jest, is a really disturbing example of Islamophobia even for McCain.

  • joey

    says:

    Joe McCarthy got “under god” added to the pledge as a response to godless communism.

    This country was not founded on Judeo-Christian” values…it was founded on moral principles which are universal. It was not founded on the bible or the ten commandments but on the constitution and the bill of rights. More wars McCain is using the term without any real belief in those principles but uses them to pander support. He’s dangerously incompetent

    McCain would start a war rather than lose an election. He would get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust trying to show how tough he thinks he is. A moron is more tactful.

  • Lance

    says:

    Chad said: “Just waiting for the story on Obama’s embrace of the black liberation/separatist/whining values. I’ll just hold my breath until that’s posted too.”

    Do your own work you lazy cretin.

  • Lance

    says:

    Michael W said: “Just to point out a factual error, but members of the Islamic religion are “judeo-xtian” in that they DO worship the deity of Abraham. AND there are references to both in the Quran and the Haddiths. They just have a different interpretation of it. (ducking and running for cover now)”

    Why duck man? According to Mohammad Jews, Christians and Muslims are all “People of the Book”, as compared to those Buddhists, Hindus and other pagans. According to Islamic law special advantages apply to Jews and Christians in Islamic lands. Ain’t as good as being a Muslim of course, but still.

    Now most Christians don’t seem to feel any brotherhood with Muslims, which makes me wonder just how Jews really feel about our attempt to claim their God.

  • miwome

    says:

    What makes me nuts about this is that Islam comes from a Judeo-Christian tradition. They believe in Elijah, they believe in Christ (as a prophet, not the Son of God), they just ALSO believe in Muhammad.

    But of course that’s the wrong Judeo-Christian tradition–the Middle Eastern one. Nowadays all good Judeo-Christians (read: Christians) are white and probably Protestant anyway.

    There are a whole lot of different Judeo-Christian values, and to assume that even within the US everyone agrees on what that means is rank bull pocky.

  • Texas Aggie

    says:

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if a reporter pointed out to him that JudeoChristian values are quite different from American values.

    1. Not spying on someone without a warrant is a secular, American value, not a religious one.
    2. Being allowed to express your opinion is most definitely NOT a religious value, but a secular American one.
    3. Voting for your government is NOT a religious value, but a secular, American one.
    4. Not discriminating against people for being different is a secular American value, most definitely not a religious one (or the various religious groups trying to get ahold of taxpayer money wouldn’t be so eager to have the “right” to not hire someone just because of their religion.
    5. Trial by jury of your peers is a secular, American value. In religious situations, the judge, jury and prosecutor is often the same person.

    There are many more examples, but these will suffice for the moment. It should also be noted that English common law is based largely on Viking aand Germanic (Druid) customs, not Christian customs.

  • Lance

    says:

    Texas Aggie said: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if a reporter pointed out to him that JudeoChristian values are quite different from American values.”

    So true. One Jewish king was overthrown and assassinated because he practiced religious tolerance. A religious leader talked a general into a coup to overthrow the King.

    Not exactly an example we want in America, considering that Evangelicals are so influencial in Colorado Springs, where the Air Force Academy is located (you know, where they teach officers who fly boomers full of nuclear weapons that seem to go astray rather easily) and where NORAD is located. Scare me, if not you.

  • Always hopeful

    says:

    Chad, which church is it again, that McCain has been frequenting for the past 20 years? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? Who is his pastor? He has to pick a televangelist as his spiritual guide, since he doesn’t really attend any church other than the church of capitalism and self-promotion. Oh, my bad, I forgot we can’t point out any of his inconsistencies or LIES because he’s a POW.

  • toowearyforoutrage

    says:

    miwome@28
    Just for the record, “Christ” is a title, not a name. Jesus the prophet is revered by Muslims and proclaimed to have been born of the virgin Mary in the Koran itself as a Miracle similar to the birth of Adam. I’m unaware of a significant Jewish minority that believes in the virgin birth so Muslims DO differ from Judaism and Christianity. Enough so that McCain wishes to exclude them from Allah’s love.

    As for McCain’s love of Judeo traditions, I guess he’s a newcomer to some of those commandment thingies, eh?

  • David Drissel

    says:

    I don’t think that John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply “Judeo-Christian values.” Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, several of our founding fathers – including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin – were actually deists rather than traditional Christians.

    More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class in the Naval Academy, probably doesn’t even comprehend such important constitutional principles as the separation of church and state. His confusion was certainly evident at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in California last week, when he declared: “Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world.”

    The main problem with such language is his use of the collective “our,” which implies strongly that American values are synonymous with Judeo-Christian values. Of course, this was not the first time that McCain has used such exclusionary language, effectively rejecting the contributions and values of Americans that do not practice either Judaism or Christianity.

    He has even used such language in reference to job training programs. Referring to laid-off workers this past February, he proclaimed,

    We’ve got to educate and train these people. It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it’s an obligation we have and we are not doing it.

    Even more disturbing, McCain appears to embrace a religious test for President, as evidenced in comments he made last year in an interview with Beliefnet, as he hinted very strongly that non-Judeo-Christians need not apply for the job. As he stated:

    The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, ‘Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?

    On a practical level, McCain’s theocratic comments have potentially serious repercussions not only for the civil liberties of Americans, but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. For example, in justifying the U.S.-led “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, McCain referred in 2006 to a “titanic struggle” between western Judeo-Christian values and Islamic extremists.

    He made similar comments earlier this year about Iran at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. In reacting to a new intelligence report that had downplayed the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, McCain quickly listed other reasons to be distrustful of the Iranians. As he stated: “And they sure don’t share our Judeo-Christian values.”

    It’s really disturbing that McCain is identifying non-Judeo-Christian countries (with predominately Muslim populations) as problematic for the U.S, simply because of reputed differences in religious values. In effect, McCain is framing such countries as part of an ostensible “clash of religions,” as was noted in the Boston Globe article. Much to the chagrin of the Muslim world, McCain constantly conflates Islam in general with the war on terror. He has implicitly referred to Islam as an “alien” faith that is deemed to be threatening to the “Judeo-Christian” world.

    Last week, McCain argued in favor of supporting Georgia in its conflict with Russia by noting twice approvingly that “Georgia is a Christian nation.” McCain seemed to be praising Georgia for adopting Christianity as its official religion, implying that predominately Muslim nations and breakaway provinces in the region – such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan – are not as deserving of U.S. support.

    McCain’s theocratic rhetoric is just one more reason why I am convinced that he is a very dangerous man who would likely start a war with Iran or other predominately Muslim countries for foolish, irrational reasons. Based on such imprudent and ignorant comments, McCain is not intellectually fit to be commander in chief.

  • Eric

    says:

    It seems obvious that Obama is worse, cause he is and has shown it. Take for example his having never been to places like Georgia. What about when things like the Russia conflict come up and Obama doesn’t even know about Russia’s voting status in the UN. The satire that I presented these views with, is the kind of unsubstantiated narrow analysis that seem to be presented with many of the arguments so far on this page.

    Take for example the Islamophobia comment which completely avoids the issues of whether someone should feel this way. You could say I’m phobic toward anyone who intends to kill me. But that is really without analysis to apply this to all muslims, also you didn’t explain why it is bad to be phobic of someone intending to kill me, or oppress females.