Profile photo for Michael Safyan

In general, I distinguish “appropriation” and “appreciation” by:

  • Attribution: are prior sources recognized/credited? Or are they denied?
  • Authenticity/originality:
    • Is authenticity claimed (or implied)? If so, is it actually authentic?
    • Is the new version sufficiently different from the original? And, if not, is lack of authenticity appropriately disclaimed?
    • If new rather than authentic, does the change subvert the intent of the original in a way that is likely to be offensive?
  • Sincerity: is the goal sincere? Or is it to parody/mock/demean?

I don’t think that Christianity and Islam are inherently appropriative. I also think that some Christians and some Muslims may, at times, engage in certain behaviors that are appropriative (but are not demanded by either religion). To give an example, while there is no problem with someone who is Christian citing the book of Matthew for the golden rule, it is problematic when Matthew and Jesus are credited as the source for the golden rule, ignoring the fact that Jesus in Matthew is quoting the earlier text in Leviticus. In this example, my basis for deeming it appropriative is the lack of proper attribution to earlier sources.

Although Judaism, itself, drew inspiration from other sources (e.g. the flood story of Noah predates Judaism), I don’t know many Jews who would deny that the flood story exists in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other sources (and I would also consider anyone who engaged in such denial to be appropriating).

See also:

Related answers:

View 4 other answers to this question
About · Careers · Privacy · Terms · Contact · Languages · Your Ad Choices · Press ·
© Quora, Inc. 2025