McCain: Iranians don’t share our “Judeo-Christian values”
McCain, at an event in New Hampshire some time ago, decided to express his anger with an intelligence report that downplayed the Iranian nuclear threat. Amongst other things, he had this to say:
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.”
There are several reasons why this is offensive to, well, just about everyone.
Before going into the list of people demeaned by those words I would like note that it would not be the last time McCain uses that term. As recently as last Saturday at the Saddleback forum said that America was founded on “Judeo-Christian values. The first article linked shows many other examples of McCain’s use of the term.
There are many reasons why I find the term both unconvincing and personally offensive, but I will limit myself to their ussage in this context. So let’s review people with every right to be offended by this statement:
Iranians: They are, after all, the people to whom this statement is dedicated. It’s very clear “we are good guys, Iranians are bad guys”. There is no attempt to separate regular Iranians from their rulers; all Iranians are held to be fundamentally different (and by implication worse) than Americans. Now, I’m not going to claim that Iranians love America (never mind that loving America maybe shouldn’t be a “requirement” to be considered “good”) but there are indicators that the Iranian people are a good deal more moderate than their rulers. Count me as not thinking it’s a very good idea to dismiss this and characterize every Iranian as morally inferior to us.
Muslims: Let’s not pretend what the real distinction is here. McCain could have used “American values” or “Western values”, he chose a religious phrase because Iran is a Muslim nation. By saying our “Judeo-Christian values” McCain is implicitly saying “they have Muslim values, which are different (read: worse)”.
I’m not an idealist, and anyone who knows me can tell you I have no particular love for religion, and especially radical Islam. Islam has, at this point in history, a much larger proportion hostile, homicidal, repressive and bigoted proponents than either Christianity or Judaism. But the term”Judeo-Christian” values, if used when speaking about Muslim people, has a clear message; Muslim values are fundamentally different from ours. Islam, by definition, is morally different, and Muslims cannot share our values. This is, of course, not a unique position. Many people hold it, and not all of them are Christians, or even religious. What it is is deeply flawed. Turkish Muslims are a prime example of how moderation is possible in Islam, but yet many will continue to see Muslims as a whole as fundamentally different from the rest of us, and insultingly dismiss moderates as exceptions or even “not real Muslims”. Words like Senator McCain’s do not help.
American Muslims: They deserve a spot all their own because they are in a special position to be doubly offended. Not only does this use of words demean Muslims, it says that they cannot be fundamentally American and fundamentally Muslim at the same time. Since we (Americans) have “Judeo-Christian” values (not Muslim values) an American Muslim is either not included as a Muslim or as an American.
All American non-Christians and non-Jews: Guess what? We exist! There are Hindus and Buddhists and Atheists and Agnostics all accross this great land of ours. I am not amused by hearing that my values, because I’m not Christian nor am I Jewish (sidenote: Do “Judeo-Christian values” include Orthodox Jewish ones?), I do not quite belong to that favored values group. Now, it can be argued that in fact I am influenced by this set of values by virtue of having grown up in a western nation, but the implication still is that my values are in fact rubbed off on me by a set of religious beliefs that I do not share, and that without those beliefs I would not have the requisite values.
Do I think McCain was purposfully trying to insult the above groups? No, of course not, he was trying to set up an “Us vs. Them” argument. In doing so he used very imprudent words. He could have easily said “Western Values”. He may not care, since he probably isn’t worried about offending all five of his Muslim supporters and nine of his Atheist supports, but I happen to think that someone striving to be the president of the United States of America should not use exclusionary language.
He didn’t say "Western Values" because what he really meant was "Republican values". That’s what conservatives mean when they say "Judeo-Christian values". Anyone who doesn’t believe like them/live like them is someone who doesn’t share those values.
So what ? he can say that anytime, it is true. They on the other side say much worse things and no one cares. I am tired of this politically correct thing of ours we have to exhibit at all times. That will be our downfall
You think James? You clearly then support a seperation between American Muslims and American Christians /Jews just because some extreme so called Muslim maniac leaders in the Middle East try to undermine your religion or your country when US is invading Iraq.
Also then, you are comparing the actions to bes of a candidate running for presidency in US to violent, out of rail Middle East leaders.
Sorry but I do not quite agree with you on that one.
Clauida, a very nice article where you show that at least some prejudices against Muslims can be removed if wanted.
I actually do NOT believe that when people use the word "Judeo-Christian", they do that to necessarily set themselves apart from Muslims. In fact, Judeo-Christian is really an invented coinage that was meant to include people of Jewish descent in what is really and ultimately a "Christian" United States of America.
In fact, the entire "Western" civilization has Christian roots and this very civilization has excluded Jews for a long time, not to mention ethnically slaughtering the group on more than one occasion. It is really in the 20th century that the concept of a "Judeo-Christian" value system was inculcated in people’s brains to promote the idea that Jewish people, too, were part of the Western civilization.
So when I hear McCain speak out about the "Judeo-Christian values", I do NOT feel offended in any way because he is actually telling the truth. (Although I reject the idea that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian OR Christian values because historians say that is not accurate.)
However, today’s America is precisely molded with values that I would call "Christian" especially because that has been my personal understanding of the social and societal dynamics of the country. If people want to sound inclusive of people of Jewish descent and call their values "Judeo-Christian", that’s quite all right with me.
So America today has Judeo-Christian values, some people may not like how that sounds, but it is the reality. It IS also another reality that Iranians do NOT share those "Judeo-Christian" values, whatever these values are meant to be. I understand that the implicit assumption about this Judeo-Christian value system is that it has a monopoly on the "good" and the "right", meaning that other value systems, such as Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam are not supposed to have the same authority on what is the "good" or the right thing to do.
Of course it’s the old us-versus-them punchline, and I see many politicians revert back to these types of punchlines all the time especially when someone needs to beef up security credentials to sound like the guy who can beat the "evil".
I don’t see a lot of differences between Obama and McCain on this issue because in my "Muslim" opinion they both posit themselves as very "Christian" and HENCE qualified to lead the country. I find both Obama and McCain to be equally insincere in their affirmations to ingratiate themselves to the Christian crowd (and let’s not forget McCain has called evangelicals "agents of intolerance" and still trying to compensate for that), but the difference for me is that McCain actually has a good understanding of the Middle East and the dynamics of Islamic terrorism as well as the war. AND Iran is certainly ruled by some very very "bad" people who oppress the population and raise the hostilities in the region.
Iran is truly a horrible country to be living in and there’s no reason to try to find some kind of moral equivalence in this case, and I don’t think anyone above is doing that. But McCain’s simplicity may raise eyebrows, one can even mention the American role in the making of the Ayatollahs of this country, but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground or the reality that Iran today truly has a terrible regime.
On another note, a lot of people who supported the war in Iraq are now against it because they saw that war in Iraq was not going to be a profitable enterprise. In my opinion, withdrawing from Iraq before its time to save money and resources is morally wrong, and will further prove to the world that America went there only for oil. IF McCain does not have a better option than to put it in the simplistic "we-need-to-be-there-because-we-are-defeating-evil" terms to explain to the American people the larger issue of why we cannot betray the Iraqis especially when progress IS being made, then I cannot object to what he says all that much.
Ha, when I first read the post I couldn’t help but feel that it’s a bit condescending to believe that Muslims can’t grasp the fact that most Americans do consider this nation to be fundamentally built on the values of Christianity (which derive in great part also from Judaic values and laws) and yet the expression of that isn’t necessarily exclusive of other faith traditions which share many of the same basic values.
Fortunately, Selin came along with an excellent comment to prove this point- while true that some Muslim extremists will choose to hear ‘Judeo-Christian’ in a negative, exclusionary way and will counter it with inflammatory rhetoric about holy wars, there are certainly also a good number of intelligent Muslims in the world who can understand that it’s just a label for our particular values (because of our religious tradition) which may or may not be shared.
BTW, the home page is not loading correctly.
Let’s not pretend what the real distinction is here. McCain could have used “American values” or “Western values”, he chose a religious phrase because Iran is a Muslim nation. By saying our “Judeo-Christian values” McCain is implicitly saying “they have Muslim values, which are different (read: worse)”.
The words of Mr. McCain are also a message for the more conservatives electors, like their words against the principle of the abortion.
Islam has, at this point in history, a much larger proportion hostile, homicidal, repressive and bigoted proponents than either Christianity or Judaism.
The evangelical fundamentalism constitute one of the more important reasons of the calamitous war in Irak. The transformation of Irsrael after 1967 (Six-days-war), 1977 (first Likoud government) and 1995 (infamous assassination of Y. Rabin), into religious, or even bigot, State, which constitue a real treachery of Zionist ideals (Zionism was secularist, and often socialist, ideology), is one of the more important reasons of the actual absurdious butchery in the Near East.
The crimes of islamist terrorists are the most spectular of atrocities committed by monotheist fundamentalists, but it is not evident that their number of victims is also the far most great.
If Mr. McCain was not so ignorant, or so demagogue, he would know that the Iranian/Persian civilization is one of the more ancient culture in the world, that the Islam was adopted by Persians more than thousand years after the beginning of their civilization, and that the so-called “Judeo-Christian culture” come, for a part, from Persian culture.
I feel closest to an Iranian atheist and progressist than an American, or European, bigot Christian, or Jew.
There is nothing wrong with what McCain said. As a Muslim, I am not offended. Many Iranians are extremists. I can say the same about quite a number of other Islamic Republics.
The Iranian leaders didn’t come to power because of a minority of extremists, but by a majority of extremists. They actually don’t have Judeo-Christian values, they have Corrupt PseudoIslamic values.
And I’m absolutely sure, that McCain was referring to the Iranian leadership, to assume he was trying to be racist against Muslims, is like me picking words from your whole day’s speech out of context to find something that hints at hatred.
With all due respect Jonathan, still we should not be left in a position to have to read between the lines.
McCain should be clear on what he is actually making reference to and if he is not, misunderstanding him or interpreting him differently should not be considered as an outburst of hatred.
I myself as a Muslim Turk prefer him to be chosen rather than Obama because I support him in his foreign policy plans for US.
Then again, even if Muslims may be considered as a minority in United States, if McCain is making a factual statement, then it is fine but if not, it should be no suprise to anyone when someone loads other meanings to what he is saying considering the prejudices against Muslims in today’s world.
Yet another clear sign that a possible McCain administration would in fact prolong the downhill spiral of American prestige. I find McCain uttering stupidities gives a truer picture how he stands to propagate Bush’s legacies, which are in fact devoid of so-called Western values.
Isn’t that ironic?
McCain is not devoid of Western Values, he is not hateful of Muslims, he is not hateful of anyone. People that know him personally vouch this, he wouldn’t be running if he was a racist/hateful person. McCain did not imply to being racist to Iranians or Muslims, interpretting his statement that way is a gross exaggeration that would make propagandists excited.
Making such absurd statements, absurd claims by misinterpreting his statements, comparing him to Bush, and other disrespectful tactics at degrading McCain’s service to this country and his leadership skills and his character as a human being, is simply wrong.
I don’t go around calling Obama a Muslim, or calling Obama a racist even if he called his grandmother a "typical white person". So I expect the same level of respect for McCain from commenters and bloggers.
Sometimes people forget that either McCain or Obama would make a decent president. They aren’t horribly disgusting candidates like Kerry, John Edwards, or Pat Buchanan. What we differ on is that I think Obama is simply not a good candidate, and that there are stronger democratic candidates that were a possibility before.
Claudia, I wonder what you–and some of the Muslims here–would say to the argument that there may be many moderate Muslims, but if a Muslim is moderate, in the Western idea of what moderate means, he isn’t really serious about his religion, because Islam is a fundamentally stricter religion than Christianity.
Personally, I think its more important to point out that there are shared human values despite religious differences; without whitewashing over the fact that religions are different and sometimes hold values that are different from each other. Many major religious may have a common point in their values since you can say all religion has the same root, but there’s no reason to deny the differences. It may also be that all religions are in the mould that they can change to accomodate the more general, broader sense of shared human values, but religions have been evolving over history.
People who are griping about how ‘Judeo-Christian values’ is a codeword for ‘Republican values’ should realize that social conservatives have defined their thinking in reaction to people on the left, especially in academic settings, who have been challenging what they themselves refer to as Western, Christian values. People act as if they never heard a politically liberal person challenge the correctness of Western or Christian thought. When someone on the right tries to say that America was founded on Christian values, they’re trying to say that the strong Christian culture at the time of the Enlightenment was an integral foundation for all the thought, presuppositions, and asumptions behind the idea of natural law. (they’re saying this contrary to the perception that Christianity has been anti-enlightenment / anti-science)
If we do go back to history we could see at the same time Christians were reconciling antique philosophy with their religion, Muslims were starting to reject it. The Muslim scholastic Averroes (who is featured in Raphael’s School of Athens) was rejected by subsequent Muslim thinkers.
It isn’t a sin to mention that Muslim values and culture have been different, although people need to emphasize our shared human values.
I must agree with redfish.
Islam is a fundamentally stricter religion than Christianity
Do you think really that the way of life of Turkish, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian… Muslims is stricter than the way of life in Christian Europe during the Middle Age, or even before the French Revolution? Or that this kind of Muslims are not really Muslims?
When someone on the right tries to say that America was founded on Christian values, they’re trying to say that the strong Christian culture at the time of the Enlightenment was an integral foundation for all the thought, presuppositions, and asumptions behind the idea of natural law. (they’re saying this contrary to the perception that Christianity has been anti-enlightenment / anti-science)
The Catholic Church was strongly against the Enlighment until the 1960’s, and even today, the authors of Enlightenment are generally disliked by the Vatican. Voltaire, Diderot, d’Alembert, d’Holbach, Helvétius… were strongly anti-Christian. Kant was an agnostic, hated by both Catholic and Protestant.
The American « civilian religion » is an invention of the Eisenhower administration. US was one of the less religious country of the world during the 1780’s and the 1930’s.
On the other hand, many ideas of the French Revolution and Enlightenment were welcomed by a large part of the Ottoman administration, during the reign of Selim III (1789-1807) and during the Tanzimat years (1839-1878). The Young Turks were admirators of Western Liberalism.
Quite right Lucrece.
Just because in some Islamic countries the religion is lived in some extreme forms making fear as the controlling factor does not mean that this is the real Islam.
Islam is a religion of tolerance contrary to what is trying to be shown of it and I can even say that some Catholics act far more strict than some Muslims.
No redfish, to me, moderate does not mean not being serious about one’s religion, it just means being able to live your religion without going into any extremes, fasting and praying but not spreading propaganda at the same time or not taking lives just to spread your religion as a matter of fact. If people think that ignoring their religion and turning themselves to west when seeing themselves still belonging to that particular religious group is right and this is what being moderate or modern, unfortunately I do not share their thoughts.
Jonathan, as far as I am concerned noone is calling McCain racist here, his statement can be misinterpreted that is all. If he is making a factual statement, there is no prob. Of course Muslims differ from Christians or Jews in many ways, noone is denying that. To me, we should not be repeating the obvious that may result in further seperation, instead as redfish put it, we should emphasize shared values more.
islam is not a religion of tolerance, I urge people to watch "Islam what the west needs to know" it is on DVD
islam is not a religion of tolerance
OK, but do you think really that the religion which produced the Inquisition, the Wars of Religion, the 30-years War, the Conquistadors, the Franquism, the Oustachism, the clashes in Ireland… is really a religion of tolerance?
A monotheist religion of tolerance does not simply exist.
A monotheist religion of tolerance does not simply exist.
Correction: there are few exceptions (the Quakers, the Alevis, the Liberal Judaism), and many case of intolerance in other kind of religion, including the Buddhism. A French TV channel diffused recently a documentary about the non-conformist buddhists, persecuted by order of the dalai-lama.
Lucréce, I have to correct you on Franquismo. Franco imposed his rule through the ideology of Fascism, not Christianity. Oh yes, the Spanish Catholic Church was certainly complicit and the theology adapted to make Franco a "righteous ruler" and impose deep religious belief in every Spaniard, but it was not Catholicism that created Franquismo, it was Fascism that used Catholicism to it’s ends.
Lucrece
The authors of the enlightenment had a range of thought, they were primarily Deist, and being deist they believed in Christian values but believed that Christian values could be derived from reason, and that we didn’t need doctrines from the pulpit to inform us. Its interesting you took great care to pick out the more atheistic ones (especially Holbach, who wasn’t as significant as the others) while excluding the more deist ones. Nonetheless, their interest in Natural law was derived from previous Christian scholastic philosophy, the idea of the Enlightened monarch, and the desire to find God’s order in nature. Rousseau’s philosophy is directly antecedent to Hobbes’ philosophy. (Many references in Enlightenment thought to either God or the Creator, including in the US Constitution). In the following century, Christianity remained strong, while incorporating enlightenment thought, although 19th century philosophers tended towards pantheism. The Catholic Church has had a mixed (love-hate) relationship with philosophy and science, they actually promoted a lot of study and learning, the first universities in Europe were religious institutions. The Church however, tended to support the orthdox science, which is why they attacked Galileo by using Aristotle. Christianity has always been a syncretic religion, being accepting of science only when it could reconcile it with its theology.
In other words, I’m not denying that thinkers were often at odds with the Church–but I’m saying, there’s a reason the Enlightenment happed in the West.
Medieval Europe was not strict and fundamentalists like some people think. The clergy was morally minded, but had no control over the peasantry, and you can find writings by priests at the time complaining about how the peasants were being lewd, drinking, following pagan rituals, and were not close to the way of Christ. The average person in Europe actually became more religious, not less, with the Renaissance. Then following the Renaissance, with the Protestant Reformation, people became even more strict about religion. The Reformation may have opened thought, but at the same time people became less secular, the two things aren’t opposed.
The fact is, that secularism has always existed alongside religious piety in Christian society, and has often been at odds. In the Renaissance, people were both extremely pious and extremely secular. In some periods the religious elements of European society attacked the secular elements, and today its the opposite. Its because at the core of Christian theology is the belief that God’s laws are the laws of nature. Christianity also arose in the Roman Empire as a way of taking away spiritual authority from the state (see Augustine).
Islam, however, has always been tied to more theocratic government. Simply put, Islam is different from Christianity. That doesn’t mean that people in the Muslim world have no valid criticisms of the West or Christianity, or no values of their own worth something. Many Muslims have long criticised Christianity and Judaism as corrupting the word of God through interpreting it and believe the relativistic, postmodern belief system in the West right now is a direct result of Christian thought. Ie, many of them would agree with me that Christianity lead to deism which led to pantheism which led to atheism.
You seem to think that when I say Islam is more strict I’m implying thats a bad thing. I’m not making judgment as I think there are plenty of ways to criticize Western culture. And even as Christianity tries to be syncretic about different ideas, Christian societies have tended to be exlusionary, while Islam has always accepted people of every race as long as they followed Islam.
Understanding Islamic values doesn’t mean transposing Christian values onto Islam or Islamic valuse onto Christians.
US Declaration of Independence, not Constitution I mean
Watch this I urge you to watch this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
I don’t think deism mean what you think it means. See more here.
Michael ,
I know what Deism means, the deists of the Enlightenment specifically argued, though, that the moral truths of Christianity could be discovered through reason.
Michael,
Its important to understand that Enlightenment deism was not just a position about whether or not God intervenes in the universe, they talked about God in metaphysical terms, often in Platonic terms as simply a first cause or source of creation. They largely rejected mythologizing about God although they believed in Christian morality.
According to Qoran, you can not force anyone into believing in Islam.
It is a religion of tolerance for who actually wants to open up himself / herself to it by actually reading what Qoran says not through following what some maniac dictator leader forces upon them.
I can not say the same for Judeoism though for instance, can I? Is it open now for me to join in?
I agree with you redfish, strict does not necessarily imply bad and it may well mean containing preserved values which I believe Islam is in the first place. But to be honest when you say strict about a religion, it brings into mind more of force and oppression then anything else and unfortunately it is how it comes out in some extreme Islamic countries which make people think that this is the actual Islam.
After living in this country for 20+ years, I returned to Iran last March. I noticed every time the news anchor was about to read a report about America, he/she used the term "Judeo-Christian " with demeaning and negative undertone, to refer to the American government. The Islamic law(sharia) supersedes the human rights. For example, I learned my beautician’s daughter in-law who was accused of committing adultery was stoned to death public! Islamic studies are mandatory at all levels of education and even the ancient Persian history has to mention Islam. Christian and Jewish minorities don’t have equal rights to jobs and are treated as 2nd class citizens. Worst of all, if someone openly leaves Islam, he/she can face death according to Islamic law. These are just a few observations, there is more. Please wake up and know the truth, there is a deep hatred toward America and Israel in the hearts of practicing Muslims in Iran and other Muslim countries. Muslim background Christians can be wittnesses to such truth. There is no moderation in Islam according to the Quran. A true muslim can not be friends with Jewish or Christian people. Muslims can only make friends with Christian and Jewish people to convert them to Islam. Once the invitation is rejected, that person is considered unclean has no worth in their eyes and is sight of ‘Allah’.
MMA, just out of curiosity, why did you return if it is such an unlivable place? We get it that minorities can’t live there neither can women. In fact, living a dignified and humane life must be difficult in a culture that exploits religion to create monsters out of human beings.
But are you just making all this up pretending to have an inside scoop? Reflecting hear-say stuff as if it’s your first-hand experience? The way you bash the entire religion of Islam brings your authenticity into question because it makes your first-hand claims less credible. Generally people who have true experiences with Muslims refrain from using cookie-cutter statements like yours because reality is much more nuanced than your claim that "A true Muslim can not be friends with Jewish or Christian people". That sentence made me think that you’re a fake.