Judeo-Christian ethics

==Ethical value system==
{{see also|Christian ethics|Jewish ethics}}
The current American use of "Judeo-Christian" — to refer to a value system common to Jews and Christians — first appeared in print on 11 July 1939 in a book review by the English writer [[George Orwell]], with the phrase "… incapable of acting ''meanly'', a thing that carries no weight the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals."<ref>{{cite book|author1=George Orwell|author2=Sonia Orwell|author3=Ian Angus|title=George Orwell: An age like this, 1920-1940| year=1968|publisher=Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.|page=401}}</ref><ref>Mark Silk (1984), Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition in America, ''American Quarterly'' 36(1), 66</ref> 
Orwell repeated the term in his 1941 essay: "It was the idea of human equality—the "Jewish" or "Judeo-Christian" idea of equality—that Hitler came into the world to destroy."<ref>{{cite book|author1=George Orwell|title=Complete Works of George Orwell|year=2013|publisher=Delphi Classics]}}</ref>

Orwell's usage of the term followed at least a decade of efforts by Jewish and Christian leaders, through such groups as the U.S. [[National Conference of Christians and Jews]] (founded in 1927), to emphasize common ground. The term continued to gain currency in the 1940s. In part, it was a way of countering [[antisemitism]] with the idea that the foundation of morals and law in the United States was a shared one between Jews and Christians.<ref>Mark Silk (1984), Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition in America, ''American Quarterly'' 36(1), 65-85</ref><ref>Sarna, 2004, p.266</ref>

Orwell was not the first to publicly speak about the moral commonality of Jewish and Christian traditions. On May 19, 1939, [[Albert Einstein]], in a speech at Princeton Theological Seminary, explaining the importance of moral principles for modern science, emphasized: "The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition."<ref>{{cite book|author= Albert Einstein|title=Out of My Later Years| year=1950|publisher= Philosophical Library|page=23]}}</ref>

And back in 1884, three years after a large-scale wave of anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia, [[Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)|Vladimir Solovyov]] (Soloviev), a prominent Russian philosopher and Christian writer, wrote in his essay "The Jews and the Christian Question":

"Our religion begins with a personal relationship between God and man in the ancient covenant of Abraham and Moses, and is confirmed in the closest personal unity of God and man in the New Testament of Jesus Christ, in which both natures exist inseparably, but unmerged as well. These two covenants are not two different religions, but only two stages of one and the same Divine-human religion, or speaking in the language of the German school, two moments of one and the same God-human process. This single and true Divine-human Judeo-Christian religion proceeds by a direct and magisterial path amid the two extreme errors of paganism, in which first man is absorbed by Divinity (in India), and then Divinity itself is transformed into a shadow of man (in Greece and Rome)."<ref>{{cite book|author1=V. S. Soloviev|author2=Vladimir Wozniuk|title= Freedom, faith, and dogma: essays by V. S. Soloviev on Christianity and Judaism|year=2008|publisher=State University of New York Press|page=52]}}</ref>

===Franklin D. Roosevelt===
The [[First inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt|first inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (FDR), in 1933, the famous speech in which FDR declared that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", had numerous religious references, which was widely commented upon at the time.  Although it did not use the term "Judeo-Christian", it has come to be seen by scholars as in tune with the emerging view of a Judeo-Christian tradition.  Historian Mary Stuckey emphasizes "Roosevelt's use of the shared values grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition" as a way to unify the American nation, and justify his own role as its chief policymaker.<ref>{{cite book|author=Mary E. Stuckey|title=The Good Neighbor: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Rhetoric of American Power|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3_tHBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT55|year=2013|publisher=MSU Press|page=55}}</ref>

In the speech, FDR attacked the bankers and promised a reform in an echo of the gospels: "The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."<ref>See [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/  Roosevelt, "'Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself': FDR's First Inaugural Address"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220604164155/http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/ |date=2022-06-04 }}</ref>  Houck and Nocasian, examining the flood of responses to the First Inaugural, and commenting on this passage, argue:
<blockquote>The nation's overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian response to the address thus had both textual and extratextual warrants. For those inclined to see the Divine Hand of Providence at work, Roosevelt's miraculous escape [from assassination] in Miami was a sign—perhaps The Sign—that God had sent another Washington or Lincoln at the appointed hour. ... Many others could not resist the subject position that Roosevelt ... had cultivated throughout the address—that of savior.  After all, it was Christ who had expelled the moneychangers from the Temple. ... [Many listeners saw] a composite sign that their new president had a godly mandate to lead.<ref>Davis W. Houck and Mihaela Nocasian. "FDR's First Inaugural Address: Text, Context, and Reception." ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 5#4 (2003): 649-678, quote p 669.</ref></blockquote>

Gary Scott Smith stresses that Roosevelt believed his [[Social programs in the United States|welfare programs]] were "wholly in accord with the social teachings of Christianity."  He saw the achievement of social justice through government action as morally superior to the old [[laissez-faire]] approach.  He proclaimed, "The thing we are seeking is justice," as guided by the precept of "Do unto your neighbor as you would be done by."<ref>{{cite book|author=Gary Scott Smith|title=Faith and the Presidency From George Washington to George W. Bush|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780195300604|url-access=registration|year=2006|publisher=Oxford UP|page=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780195300604/page/236 236]}}</ref> Roosevelt saw the moral issue as religiosity versus anti-religion.  According to Smith, "He pleaded with Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to transcend their sectarian creeds and 'unite in good works' whenever they could 'find common cause.'"<ref>Smith,  ''Faith and the Presidency '' p 194.</ref>

Atalia Omer and  Jason A. Springs point to Roosevelt's [[1939 State of the Union Address]], which called upon Americans to "defend, not their homes alone, but the tenets of faith and humanity on with which their churches, their governments and their very civilization are founded." They state that, "This familiar rhetoric invoked a conception of the sanctity of the United States' Judeo-Christian values as a basis for war."<ref>{{cite book|author=Atalia Omer and Jason A. Springs|title=Religious Nationalism: A Reference Handbook |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=blLVIW8sthYC&pg=PT72|year=2013|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=72}}</ref>

Timothy Wyatt notes that in the coming of World War II Roosevelt's isolationist opponents said he was calling for a "holy war."  Wyatt says:
<blockquote>Often in his Fireside Chats or speeches to the houses of Congress, FDR argued for the entrance of America into the war by using both blatant and subtle religious rhetoric. Roosevelt portrayed the conflict in the light of [[good versus evil]], the religious against the irreligious.  In doing so, he pitted the Christian ideals of democracy against the atheism of National Socialism.<ref>Timothy Wyatt, "America's Holy War: FDR, Civil Religion, and the Prelude to War" ''Memphis Theological Seminary Journal'' (2012) v. 50 [http://mtsjournal.memphisseminary.edu/vol-50-1/america-s-holy-war-fdr-civil-religion-and-the-prelude-to-war-by-timothy-wyatt online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220618131638/http://mtsjournal.memphisseminary.edu/vol-50-1/america-s-holy-war-fdr-civil-religion-and-the-prelude-to-war-by-timothy-wyatt |date=2022-06-18 }}.</ref></blockquote>

===Lyndon Johnson===
Biographer Randall B. Woods has argued that President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] effectively used appeals to the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition to garner support for the civil rights law of 1965. Woods writes that Johnson undermined the Southern filibuster against the bill:
<blockquote>LBJ wrapped white America in a moral straight jacket. How could individuals who fervently, continuously, and overwhelmingly identified themselves with a merciful and just God continue to condone racial discrimination, police brutality, and segregation? Where in the Judeo-Christian ethic was there justification for killing young girls in a church in Alabama, denying an equal education to black children, barring fathers and mothers from competing for jobs that would feed and clothe their families? Was Jim Crow to be America's response to "Godless Communism"?<ref>Randall B. Woods, "The Politics of Idealism: Lyndon Johnson, Civil Rights, and Vietnam." ''Diplomatic History'' 31#1 (2007): 1-18, quote p 5; The same text appears in Woods, ''Prisoners of Hope: Lyndon B. Johnson, the Great Society, and the Limits of Liberalism'' (2016) p 89.</ref></blockquote>

Woods went on to assess the role of Judeo-Christian ethics among the nation's political elite:
<blockquote>Johnson's decision to define civil rights as a moral issue, and to wield the nation's self-professed Judeo-Christian ethic as a sword in its behalf, constituted something of a watershed in twentieth-century political history. All presidents were fond of invoking the deity, and some conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower had flirted with employing Judeo-Christian teachings to justify their actions, but modern-day liberals, both politicians and the intellectuals who challenged and nourished them, had shunned spiritual witness. Most liberal intellectuals were secular humanists. Academics in particular had historically been deeply distrustful of organized religion, which they identified with small-mindedness, bigotry, and anti-intellectualism. Like his role model, FDR, Johnson equated liberal values with religious values, insisting freedom and social justice served the ends of both god and man. And he was not loath to say so.<ref>Woods, ''Prisoners of Hope'' p 90.</ref></blockquote>

Woods notes that Johnson's religiosity ran deep: "At 15 he joined the Disciples of Christ, or Christian, church and would forever believe that it was the duty of the rich to care for the poor, the strong to assist the weak, and the educated to speak for the inarticulate."<ref>Woods, "The Politics of Idealism" p 3.</ref>