The line you won’t cross

When the current US president tried to Trumpsplain Catholicism to, um, the Pope(!) I commented on one post that he has officially entered his Henry VIII phase. 

Well, I was wrong.

You see, when Henry VIII had a beef with the Vatican, his response was ‘Fuck you, I’M the Pope now!’

Within hours, Trump has upped the ante to ‘Fuck you, I’m JESUS now!’ 

And to their great credit, his base are not happy about it.

A lot of people who chose to be on the right side of history from the beginning and follow the Jesus parts in the Bible are looking at the blowback from MAGAworld and saying, “Really? Of all the fundamentally un-Christian and blasphemous behaviour, that’s the line you won’t cross?”

It’s a fair comment but I don’t mind. I say it’s okay to do the right thing for the wrong reason. It would be better to do the right thing for the right reason, but so long as you’re doing the right thing, that’s progress and I welcome it.

If Trump has done anything for the world, it’s to show us exactly where everyone’s line in the sand is.

Be it sexual assault, bankrupting businesses, palling around with a known pdf, felony fraud (x34), refusing to accept the results of a free and fair election, inciting his mob to trash the capitol, stealing classified documents, calling journalists enemies of the state, filling the Cabinet with his favourite television personalities, belligerent expansionism, insulting allies, tantrums over bad press, building monuments to himself, hiring untrained goons who shoot citizens in the streets, starting a new foreign regime-change war after running on a platform of exactly not that, higher fuel prices, or sharing A.I. slop portraying himself as a Christ-like figure…

This will be Trump’s true legacy. Everyone alive from 2016 onwards will be partly defined by when and how they realised he’s a second-rate charlatan. Or if they did at all.

This time, it isn’t just a token expression of disapproval. Between this and the war, many of his supporters are openly wondering whether they’ve been conned, and questioning whether they ever should have believed him against all observable reality. This is fine. Some are even wondering if he’s the Anti-Christ.

And there will no doubt be others who see this as the god king’s genius at 40-dimensional chess. For sure, this is all part of the administration flooding the zone because – as I will expand upon in a future post – stupidity is easier to process than evil.

To those who are belatedly realising it, no shame, no judgement. Welcome back to reality.

All I ask is that you learn from this experience and act on what you’ve learnt.

 

On phobia vs scepticism

John Cleese has issued a few tweets over recent weeks suggesting that a better word for what is often called Islamophobia should be called Islamosceptic. 

Dr Cleese has had a few bad takes in his time but a look at his feed shows he’s mostly on the right side. I can respect anyone whose opinion on any given subject isn’t instantly predictable based on their other opinions, and I wish to take him up on his point in the intellectual spirit it was offered in. 

I accept Dr Cleese’s definition of a phobia as an “irrational over-reaction, as with spiders.”

Here’s the problem:

We are not always rational about what makes something rational or irrational.

I have two major phobias – heights, and large bodies of water.

I have argued (albeit facetiously) that being afraid of falling to my doom from a great height or drowning in the ocean are perfectly rational fears.

However, history has shown us that so long as the risks are respected and proper safety procedures followed, there is no rational reason to be afraid of either. That doesn’t stop my balls from shrinking up towards my intestines any time I’m in such a situation – or even when I see such a situation on television. In fact, media induced trauma has a lot to do with what we’re talking about and we’ll get to that a little later.

Perhaps I should call myself an acrosceptic.

I’m none too fond of spiders either, but where-ever possible I live and let live.

So while John’s points about ‘phobia’ being an emotive term which implies irrationality, and scepticism being a indispensable part of scientific method are well taken, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

For example: there are people who disagree with the interpretation of scientific data on human induced climate change which is accepted by 97% of climate scientists.

While I may butt up against the appeal to authority fallacy here, this is not a rational position for anyone who is not a climate scientist to take. Yet those who adopt it get to call themselves “climate sceptics.”

To be a climate ‘sceptic’ today is not to hold a rational doubt in pursuit of the truth. This is shown in the way most of their arguments are non-scientific, from conspiracy theories to “it was cold where I live last week.”

None of this fits a valid definition of ‘sceptic.’ But it would be wrong to call them sciencephobes. They are not scared of science per se. They happily accept air travel, pain killers, plastics, the internet. Some even accept vaccines.

No, they only fear science when the science is inconvenient to them. Or not even to them, but to those they have been listening to. For, what is there to fear from mitigating climate change? Renewable energy sources? Cleaner air and water? New industries and employment opportunities?

To find a rational fear of reducing climate change, we have to look to who has the most to lose from it. That is, of course, those who profit the most from the fossil fuel industry. And it turns out, a lot of them own media companies too. Those who don’t directly own media companies make large contributions to those who do.

I’m not saying it’s only the fat cats who benefit from the fossil fuels industry. There are thousands, if not millions of oil rig workers and miners who will have to retrain and find other jobs if we do this properly. Just as there were thousands of workers in the photographic film industry whose jobs evaporated in a space of about five years. Unless you thought for five seconds about their plight before ditching your instamatic for a digicam and then an iPhone, I respectfully ask that you pipe down about job losses.

Now that we have discussed phobia vs scepticism on a less emotive example than religion, let’s return to whether we should be saying Islamophobe or Islamosceptic.

The problem with both terms is they treat Islam as a monolith, which is it not, any more than Christianity, conservatism, or Collingwood supporters.

To question the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, and the tenets of the Quran is to be sceptical. It is not just part of scientific thinking but also theological thinking.

To fear for your safety because you saw someone on public transport in religious garb is irrational and can correctly be described as a phobia. The same goes for assuming a mosque is a terrorist hub for no other reason than that it is a mosque.

We all know (well, most of us do) that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church (Hey! They call it a church!) is not broadly representative of Christianity, despite the disproportionate amount of media coverage they receive. To assume it is would be phobic, not sceptic. 

Dr Cleese makes the very valid point that Life of Brian is in no way Christophobic. But based on his own explanation, he would be right to take umbrage at the film being called Christosceptic too. As he says, it is not sceptical of Christianity, just certain types of Christians. 

Valid criticism of Westboro has nothing to with criticising Christianity. This much is obvious. What apparently isn’t so obvious is that criticism Islam as a whole is a long way from criticising how certain adherents practice particular facets of their faith.

It’s a pity that no one seems to be able to tell the difference.

 

Not all Trump voters

The world has rarely seen such instant backlashes and counter backlashes as it has seen since the result of the US presidential election became clear.

There are many reasons and angles to these backlashes but the one I want to focus on here is Trump voters who are hurt and offended at the suggestion they are racists.

The hurt and offence are perfectly understandable. Although my feelings on the election have already been made clear, it’s obvious that millions of Americans decided that of all the depressing options that were presented to them, Trump was the least worst. I don’t doubt for a moment that nearly all of them had completely genuine and heartfelt reasons for making that decision, and that these reasons don’t even begin to resemble any kind of racism.

Just in case you need me to say it in as many words, I am happy to:
Not all Trump voters are racists.

But all racists are Trump voters.

Now if you find that statement simplistic, misleading and insulting (because it is!), then I suggest you reflect on that.

Remember this is the candidate who calls for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Now sure, maybe that’s not why you voted for him, but the last time I looked, you don’t get a line-item veto when you vote for a candidate.

Trump’s proposal was blatantly aimed at a notion that has pervaded right wing politics since 2001: not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. It’s patently untrue and unhelpful. And now you know how it feels.

Donald Trump was supported by the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, I’m not saying klansmen can’t be right about some things – what day of the week it is, whether it’s raining or not – but I don’t think those are the issues they endorsed Trump on. And for sure, Trump neither sought nor accepted the endorsement, but that almost makes it worse. When the world’s oldest white supremacist group completely independently decides they’re with you, does that not give you pause for just a moment?

Although I profoundly disagree with their choice, I sympathise with all the Trump voters who now feel they are expected to denounce racism before their views can be considered legitimate. It’s like being expected to denounce terrorism just because you’re a member of a faith that includes one seventh of the world’s population. No-one deserves to be considered guilty, or at least complicit, until proven innocent. No-one deserves to be automatically defined by the absolute worst examples of their group – not Muslims, not Christians, not conservatives, and not Trump supporters.

I hope we can all learn from this. I hope Trump voters who feel slandered perhaps have a little more empathy for their Muslim sisters and brothers than they, and their candidate, might have had before. And I hope the people who rightly objected to the idiotic smearing of all Muslims can refuse to make the same mistake just because they feel right is on their side this time. If you’re a Trump supporter, I’ll still ride with you. You can sit beside my friend in the hijab. We might all find something to talk about.
  
 

Neither Christian nor Grown-up

I wrote recently about how, despite the initial worries of certain segments of the left, the Abbott government is demonstrably not a Christian government.

We are spoilt for evidence of this, but Joe Hockey’s latest effort deserves special attention. In a further attempt to convince both the public but more importantly, the cross-bench senators of the wisdom of his budget, Mr Hockey has been on what the media insist on calling a “charm offensive.” If this is Joe Hockey laying on the charm, I’d hate to see him on a tin-eared galoot offensive.

Mr Hockey tried to deny that the poor would be disproportionally disadvantaged by changes to fuel excise on the ground that the poorest don’t have cars or if they do, they don’t drive very far. (Gee, why do you think that might be, Joe?)

Of course, it didn’t take long for it to be shown that as a proportion of income, the poorest spend far more than the wealthiest on fuel. Even I would expect Mr Hockey to be aware of this fact, mainly because it was his party that claimed pensioners were going to freeze to death because of the carbon tax. Just you just imagine how they would have screamed if Wayne Swan offered an argument of convenience that the poorest spent less whole dollars on heating than the rich because they live in far smaller houses?

As a good Christian, Joe Hockey should have known better to attempt such an argument because he should be aware of the lesson of the widow’s two mites, mentioned in the Gospels of both Mark and Luke.

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
- Mark 12:41-44

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
- Luke 21:1-4

It would seem that by Mr Hockey’s calculations, your contribution is measured only by its comparison to other contributions and not, as Jesus suggested, by its comparison to what you have to give.


I’ve also written a few times about the government’s juvenile assertion that they are a grown-up government.

Again, evidence to the contrary is rife, but our prime minister’s comments on Scottish independence deserve special attention. He started out well, saying,

“What the Scots do is a matter for the Scots and not for a moment do I presume to tell Scottish voters which way they should vote.”

He should have left it at that. If he had, everything would have been fine, but then the Mr Magoo of international diplomacy couldn’t help himself, adding:

“I think that the people who would like to see the break-up of the United Kingdom are not the friends of justice, the friends of freedom…”

Um… WHAT??
We know Abbott is a master of avoiding questions so why choose this moment to be so candid? Clearly monarchist Abbott’s reflexive love of all things empire kicked in. If he had been alive in 1900, he would probably have argued against federation too. And he’s perfectly entitled to hold those personal views but you never take sides publically in another country’s affairs, especially not an ally.

Here’s how a grown-up would handle it: Write this down, Tony, in case you need to refer to it in future.
“That is entirely a matter for the people of Scotland. Whichever way the vote goes, Australia will maintain a strong and fruitful relationship with Britain and also an independent Scotland, should there be one.”

Was that so hard?
  
 

Relax; this is not a Christian government

Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me

 - Matthew 25:40

In the lead-up to the last election campaign – which is to say, ever since before the 2010 election campaign – a common criticism of Tony Abbott and much of his front bench centred around the fact that they are apparently devout Christians and many are specifically Catholic. In the rich seam of things to be critical of the Abbott cabinet for, it’s a fairly minor detail. It was, and is, cited most by the kinds of people who get an instant hate-boner at the mention of anything resembling faith. The fear was that they would not be able to separate their religion from how they manage government. I think we can safely say now that the government has absolutely no problem keeping their Christianity out of how they conduct the affairs of the nation.

Before going any further, it’s only fair to state where I’m coming from and my credentials for saying this. I’m a Catholic too. “Lapsed,” is probably too strong a word, but suffice to say our parish priest (who is a lovely person, you’d like him) might recognise my face from the funerals I’ve attended this year but wouldn’t remember my name. I was brought up Catholic and still identify as Catholic. This is why I say with confidence that the policies expressed by Tony Abbott in opposition bore no resemblance to anything I was ever taught, and in government, even less so.

Government policy should never be based on religious doctrine but I honestly wouldn’t mind if the government were a bit more Christian. By that, I mean Christian in deed, not in dogma. Some of the most Christian people I know are atheists, and that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with reciting The Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of parliamentary sittings. I have more of a problem with the way members, especially those who believe, ignore their vow to be humble, to advance the true welfare of the people of Australia, and to forgive those who trespass against us, immediately after they dutifully say Amen.

There are many examples of how this government doesn’t remotely reflect any genuine Christian principles but for reasons of space and time, I will limit this piece to three, which will eventually bring us up to last week.

Firstly, and most obviously, there is the way we treat asylum seekers.

The last time Tony Abbott appeared on Q and A, which was months before the 2010 election, he was asked in as many words, What would Jesus do when it came to asylum seekers? Mr Abbott’s now famous response was, “Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean, Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia.”

To anyone with the slightest hint of Christian training, this response is clearly the rambling of an idiot clutching at straws. Matthew 25:40, and the preceding verses if you care to look them up, clearly tell us that whatever we do for our fellow people, however lowly they may be in any way, we do for Christ. Therefore, it makes no difference if they are “genuine” refugees or indeed “queue jumpers.” If you’re a Christian, then what you do to them, you do to Jesus – Himself, a refugee. Would Mr Abbott or his fellow Christian, immigration minister Scott Morrison lock Jesus up on Manus Island? They probably wouldn’t if they knew it was Him, but if you follow Christian teachings, then they already have.

My next example is the view of many in the government that penalty rates be abolished. The reasoning behind this suggestion is that we have a 24/7 economy now and paying people extra on weekends is a relic of a bygone age. It’s a fair argument to make if you want to look at it that way. But I distinctly remember being told that same-sex marriage would go against Australia’s Judeo-Christian (whatever that means) heritage.

The Bible has a lot more to say about the Sabbath than it does about who can and can’t marry. The fourth Commandment is: Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. The only part of the Bible to make a slight reference to homosexuality also forbids the wearing of dissimilar fibres. That would count out anyone who has ever worn a silk tie with a cotton shirt and wool blend suit – in other words, probably everyone who has ever sat in parliament. Even non-religious MPs on both sides of politics have cited this vague notion of a Judeo-Christian heritage as an argument against marriage equality. I believe this is mostly a way of trying to intellectualise the fact that they don’t like poofters, or want to be liked by people who don’t like poofters.

Secular society has adopted the idea of an institutionalised day of rest, to spend with loved-ones, far more than it has adopted any specific form of marriage, “traditional” or otherwise. Yet, when it comes to additional compensation for giving up this day of rest, those who claim to have Christian values turn around and say, “Bugger the Sabbath, stop living in the past. A day’s work is a day’s work and you should be grateful to have it.” Am I the only one who finds these positions somewhat contradictory?

Of course, there’s always some cognitive dissonance in politics and this is already plenty for the government to be able to say it is developing policy for its constituents (whoever they may be) ahead of their own professed faith.

For me, the final straw came with Treasurer Joe Hockey’s address to The Sydney Institute last week. Firstly, responding to criticism that the budget is unfair to the poor with a speech to a right wing think tank funded by business interests probably says it all about who you’re really governing for.

On the issue of fairness, Mr Hockey said:

This year the Australian government will spend on average over $6,000 on welfare for every man, woman and child in the country. Given that only around 45 per cent of the population pays income tax, the average taxpayer must pay more than twice this amount in tax to fund welfare expenditure.

In other words the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian.

Is this fair?

It’s clear from his tone that Mr Hockey thinks it isn’t. And that’s fair enough, in isolation.

Some Christian denominations, although not Catholicism specifically, encourage people to donate 10% of their income to charity. Others actually require it. This government, however, not only resents making a less than 8.5% contribution to those less fortunate, it thinks you should too.

It’s clear there was never any risk of this government embedding any kind of Christianity into its agenda. The only kind of theocracy they are moving towards is a kind of right-wing social Darwinism beloved of those who never got over their Ayn Rand phase.

Mr Hockey, if you and your cabinet colleagues begrudge less than ten percent of your work going to help those who need it, that’s your prerogative, and you are entitled to argue your case by any and all means available to you. 
But please stop calling yourselves Christians.

  

 

The Rules: ‘Happy Holidays’

If you’re the kind of person who gets their knickers in a twist over people saying ‘Happy Holidays,’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas,’ then that’s your prerogative. Just don’t pretend to care about the Season of Goodwill.

If you won’t accept a greeting in the spirit in which it’s offered, and instead use it as a semantic excuse to get angry about something, then with all due respect, that’s not the way to Peace on Earth, my friend.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, whatever! It doesn’t matter. Just be happy for Christ’s sake.


I say all the above as a Catholic.
Happy Christmas.
 

 

Why are you still a Catholic?

This was the question addressed in this article sent to me by my friend Foomeister (and if you’re not following her on twitter, then you’re a fool to yourself and a burden to others).  It makes some interesting points, but I’d like to answer the question in a slightly more direct way.

The continuing revelations of scandals within the Catholic church has produced a sense of Schadenfreude among anti-Catholics of all persuasions which is palpable.  It’s terribly easy to point to cover-ups of sexual abuse, suspect accounting and centuries of other misdeeds and wonder how anyone can possibly remain connected to such people.  I’ve written before that if you want to point to the crimes committed by the church and in the name of religion, you’ll get no argument from me.  So why am I still a Catholic?

Well, let’s apply the same thinking to different issues…

Why are you still Australian after what was done to the aborigines?
Why are you still American after the invasion of Iraq on false pretences and all the abuses that followed?  Alternatively, if you’re a crazy person, why are you still American after Obama and socialism?  (For the sake of time and space, I am restricting US examples to this century.)
Why are you still German after nazism?
Why are you still South African after apartheid?
Why are you still Irish after the IRA?
Why are you still Israeli after Palestine?
Why are you still Palestinian after Israel?
Why are you still Zimbabwean after Mugabe?
Why are you still Iranian after Ahmadinejad?
Why are you still Chinese after Tibet?
Why are you still Russian after Bolshevism, Stalinism and Putin?
Why are you still British after… I don’t even know where to begin?
Why are you still white after centuries of abuse of other peoples based on the assumption, both explicit and implicit that whites are the superior race?
Why are you still male after rape?

Truthfully, that last one is the one I struggle with the most.  In Trouble Every Day, Frank Zappa says, “I’m not black but there’s a whole lot of times I wish I could say I’m not white.”  Well, I’m not a woman, but there’s a whole lot of times I wish I could say I’m not a man.

Some may say that gender, race and nationality are simply accidents of birth, while faith and religion are acts of free choice.  Alright then, let’s go further…

Why do you still support St Kilda after Nick Riewoldt and Ricky Nixon?
Why do you still listen to Michael Jackson after the child abuse?
Why do you still watch Mel Gibson films after the bizarre anti-Jewish tirades?
Why do you support any team Michael Vick has been on?  (You know, I bet I could fill several pages just with football teams.)
Why do you still read Jeffrey Archer after he perverted the course of justice?
Why do you still watch Seinfeld after Michael Richards’ racist rant?
Why do you still listen to Phil Spector records after he killed someone?

The answer to any one of these questions is the answer to all of them.  Believe it or not, you don’t actually have to approve of spousal abuse to say that Ike Turner had some great riffs.  Some have said they’ll never watch a Mel Gibson film again.  Well, I hate to break it to you this way, but he’s already been paid for them so it won’t make a lick of difference whether you ever rent Braveheart or The Year of Living Dangerously again.

Whatever your cultural background may be, you don’t have to look too far to make a connection with shame and atrocity.  The only way to completely detach ourselves from it would be to evolve into a new species and find another planet to live on.  Even then, you’d run the risk of starting the whole cycle over again, and you have no idea what those Martians got up to.

Why am I still a Catholic?  Because I’m sophisticated enough to understand that there will be people who I agree with on certain matters that do bad things.  Likewise, there will be people who I agree with on certain matters who do good things; there will be people I disagree with on certain matters who do good things; and there will be people I disagree with on certain matters who do bad things.

Can you name a single person on Earth whose views and actions you agree with and endorse 100%?  Do you associate only with those whose views and actions you completely endorse?  If so, I would suggest that either you need to get out more, or you don’t know these people as well as you think you do.  I have serious disagreements with the hierarchy of the church, just as I have serious disagreements with the Australian government.  Frankly, I can’t think of any kind of hierarchy that I’m all that keen on.  It doesn’t change who I am.  I’m still Catholic, I’m still Australian, and dammit if I’m not still male.

There is a view that all Christians and particularly Catholics must publically denounce sexual abuse by the clergy or else be tainted with the same crime.  It’s a ridiculous affront to natural justice which, quite ironically smacks of another great shame of the church, the inquisition.  We don’t stand for Muslims being expected to either denounce terrorism or be presumed to support it.  If you need me to tell you I’m against child abuse lest I be presumed to support, or at least accept it, then I don’t think I have anything to say to you at all, for I don’t think it would make any difference either way.

If you are able to associate only with people you completely approve of, and completely dissociate yourself from all those who do any wrong, then I can only admire the simplicity of your lifestyle.
 

Definition of cognitive dissonance:

Robert Mugabe claims to have the support of Zimbabweans.
Educated, politically aware westerners say: “You’re a corrupt dictator!”

Vladimir Putin wins Russian presidential election.
E.P.A.W: “Yeah, right!”

Hamid Karzai declares victory in Afghan elections.
E.P.A.W: “Oh, that was so rigged!”

George W Bush said he was protecting the world from terror.
E.P.A.W: “No you’re not, you twit!”

Pauline Hanson: “I represent mainstream Australia.”
E.P.A.W: “Oh, shut up, you silly woman!”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wins the Iranian election.
E.P.A.W: “As if! The real Iranians all hate him.”

Cardinal George Pell is the head of the Catholic Church in Australia.
E.P.A.W: “Duh, okay!  Catholics must be teh crazy people if they have him as leader.  Why they no kick him out otherwise?”
   
  

What is a Judeo-Christian?

There were two rallies held in Canberra today for those with nothing more urgent to do on a Tuesday morning.  The lesser of the two was to protest against gay marriage – something that is not on any legislative agenda right now.  I’ve already said just about all I have to say on the topic of gay marriage HERE but a comment that leapt out at me was the assertion by DLP senator John Madigan that Australia was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

There is really so much wrong with this very short statement that the senator must be given credit for efficiency.  To believe such an assertion, you would have to believe at least one of three things:

1. That Australian Aborigines were the first Judeo-Christians
2. That it’s Christian to murder and dispossess the native inhabitants of a country and use that country as a dumping ground for society’s outcasts, or
3. The continent of Australia is Jesus as a land mass, accepting those rejected by the ruling class.  

It bothers me that elected representatives confuse the white settlement of Australia with the white settlement of America.  But my broader question is regarding the entire notion of Judeo-Christian values.

I have never met a Judeo-Christian.  I’ve met Christians.  I’ve met Jews.  I have never met anyone who is both.  You tend to be either one or the other.  Or neither.  But not both.

It seems to be accepted that using the term “Judeo-Christian,” recognises the Jewish heritage of Christianity.  After all, Jews and Christians share half a Holy book so there is some crossover.  But this makes the “Judeo,” prefix redundant.  The Jewish origins are implicit in the word Christian so why bother adding it?

The term “Judeo-Christian,” usually only comes up when some of the more militant elements of the Christian right want to start playing the victim.  Whenever I hear the term, it suggests a couple of things.  I get the impression that they want to avoid simply saying “Christian,” since that might make them seem intolerant of others, so while they want everyone to be Christian, they don’t mind the Jews quite so much as some of the others.   There’s also a patronising undertone.  There’s an implication that Jews are considered Christians who haven’t quite made it yet.  Certain people on the lunatic fringe of the right wing (read: Ann Coulter) have come out and said as much.  It’s an insult to both faiths.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share a common root.  Islam considers Jesus to be one of the most important Prophets of God – just not quite as important as Mohammad by their reading.  Yet nobody talks about Christo-Muslims.  Nobody talks of Christo-Islamic values.  Typically, Christians do not observe Jewish festivals such as Passover, Yom Kippur or Hanukkah, even though they are just as relevant to the Christian faith as they are to Judaism.  So long as people practise either one or the other, don’t talk to me about Judeo-Christian traditions because I don’t believe there is any such thing.  I’m cool with just about any faith, but I am bothered by misrepresentations of faith and misuse of language.