Saturday, November 29, 2008

Zombie racist of the day

(Well, technically zombie racist of nearly four months ago)

The Virtuous Woman, who informs us that "Slavery Is Not Wrong".

The Bible tells her so, you see:
With the issue of Slavery Christians are often put in a corner because they are trying to defend God and at the same time the bible nowhere directly attacks slavery. The bible does not condemn slavery. So Christians try to act like Job's friends and try to defend God in a rather foolish way by condemning slavery, as if God forgot to do it Himself in the bible. I think this is a very unwise thing for a Christian to do because if slavery was wrong, God would have said so himself. But He doesn't say its wrong.

It's true, the Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong. That should be a good indication that the Bible is an antiquated product of barbarians, and it should be treated as such rather than as the quintessence of morality and virtue. But no, Christians like her start with their conclusions ("the Bible is the word of God, and God is the arbiter of morality"), and try to fit fit everything else into that. Ergo, atrocities like slavery, genocide, and child murder are good because God says so, and God is good. Well, those trying in any way to be consistent say so... the others just ignore all the horrible things God commands in the Bible. Or they don't know about it.

But I wonder if she just lifted her arguments straight from John Fletcher's Studies on Slavery. Compare this:
I understand that there is so much evil in slavery, when masters abuse their slaves. That is wrong. The bible condemns treating others in an evil way. So this is not the issue. But slavery in itself is not wrong. Just as husbands can abuse wives, does it mean marriage is evil? Or parents can abuse their children, does it mean parenting is wrong? Because masters can be evil to their slaves, it doesn't mean that slavery is wrong. Just as wives are to be submissive to their husbands, likewise slaves are to be submissive to their masters.

...If the bible would have condemned slavery then the gospel itself would have been robbed of its meaning on some way. If slavery is wrong, then wives should not submit to their husbands, children should not obey parents, women should became equal to men and preach in churches ( which is forbidden in the bible by the way), and mostly no one should call Jesus their master or submit to the authority of God.

with this:
Or will he venture to extend his argument, and say that the command of marital and filial obedience proves nothing in their favour; since we are commanded to yield a like obedience to the king, although that king be the wicked Phocas? The fact is, the mere character of chief magistrate, of husband, of parent or slaveholder, is quite distinct from the character which their acts may severally heap upon them. It is, therefore, quite possible for us to reverence and obey the king, yet hold in contempt the person who fills the throne.

Civil government, the relations of parent and child, husband and wife, and slavery itself, are all ordinances of Divine wisdom, instituted for the benefit of man, under the condition of his fallen state. But because these relations are in accordance with the ordinances of God, it by no means follows that the abuses of them are so.

Suppose those who wish to abolish the institution of marriage should present the same argument in their behalf which Dr. Wayland has in this case, it will surely be just as legitimate in the one as the other. But will not Dr. Wayland readily say that there is no parallel between the particular relations compared? We doubt not, he would consider it too stupid to even require refutation.

See? Slavery is okay, because if we had to treat all humans equally, that might also apply to women.

Or how about this?
Such men would fashion the traffic to suit themselves, and would, doubtless, make their business an exceedingly wicked one. But none of the enormities named, or that could be named, constituted a necessary part of the institution of slavery, or necessarily emanated from it. What enormities have wicked men sometimes committed in the transportation of emigrants from Germany and Ireland? Wicked men, intrusted with power, have, at least sometimes, been found to abuse it. Is it any argument against the institution of marriage, because some women have made their husbands support and educate children not their own? Or, because some men murder, treat with cruelty, or make their wives totally miserable and wretched? None of these things were any part of the institution of marriage, but the reverse of it.

Christian morality: stuck in the nineteenth century. Or earlier.

Via Pharyngula, via Evolved and Rat/i/onal.

[Edit] I am reminded of something else. The Virtuous Slaveholder says "I have had disagreements with some Christians as they say slavery is wrong, its as if they are implying that God forgot to put that in the bible, but i disagree."

Indeed! Well, let's not leave it at that--what else do people do that suggests God might have made a mistake? Oh, right: they believe in racial equality.
If God Almighty had intended these two races to be equal, He would have so created them. He made the Caucasian of handsome figure, straight hair, regular features, high brow, and superior intellect. He created the negro, giving him a black skin, kinky hair, thick lips, flat nose, low brow, low order of intelligence, and repulsive features. I do not believe that these differences were the result of either accident or mistake on the part of the Creator. I believe He knew what He was doing, and I believe He did just what He wanted to do.

We believe in God, and we are willing to accept His work just as it fell from His hands. But these people who profess to believe that "a white man may be as good as a negro if the white man behaves himself" are not satisfied with God's work in this regard. They are quite sure that they can make a better job of it than did the Creator, hence we find them attempting to remove the black man from the menial sphere for which he was created, and where he may be useful, to a higher circle for which he is entirely unfitted and where he is perfectly useless.

No comments: