Slavery Started 400 Years Ago in the U. S.
The first slave ship arrived in Virginia 400 years ago. It had 20 slaves on board who were auctioned off to the highest bidders. That the practice of keeping humans as slaves found its way to the U. S. is not surprising. What is alarming is that the practice remained legal for about 250 years. It remained legal longer than it has been illegal.
Was not the U.S. founded as a Christian nation?? And, weren't we big on "freedom?"
The irony is these terms, "Christianity" and "freedom" were used to justify both the practices of slavery and later segregation. The terms are still being used to take away rights of citizens. Slaves entering the U.S. came in without rights. Once rights were granted they were not taken away. Taking away rights already granted has almost never happened. That is until now.
Today, under the guise of "religious freedom", some religious people want the "right" to deny hotel rooms to gay couples. They want to take away abortion rights from women that were granted decades ago.
That religion is trying to take away rights allows us to understand how slavery could have had the support of government for 250 years. When religion is allowed to take over minds things that would otherwise not be logical seem logical.
Religion trains people to think in the most peculiar ways. Why, for example, would an otherwise competent person conclude that an invisible god is more likely to be "real" than a person standing in front of him saying, "I am Jesus Christ." If there was another person standing nearby who said, "Yes, he is Jesus Christ," it would not help at all.
That a large portion of the U.S. public could again believe practicing slavery is a "religious freedom" seems not out of the question.
Jon; You imply Christianity was at the heart of slavery. You fail to note the most influential element against slavery was Christianity, and other branches of Christianity which had nothing to do with slavery hadn't yet substantially arrived in the US at the start of the civil war.
ReplyDeleteYou fail to mention Arab slave traders, and the blacks that captured blacks for the slave trade.
One question before you start throwing stones, How many of those slave owners were atheists. There had to be some since the US was not a Christian country.
Helper, "You imply..." I stated near the beginning slavery "...arrived in the U.S." Everyone knows the Quakers were instrumental in the Underground Railroad (my wife is doing research on their role in Iowa). I don't need to repeat that here. And, yes there had to be atheists who had slaves. You and I have different goals. Mine is to remind ourselves that if for 250 years U.S. citizens could believe God blessed them for having slaves that idea could enter people's heads again. It starts with people who believe in a god. You goal is to split hairs about different branches of Christianity, your own being the only correct one.
ReplyDeleteHow wrong you are. Your goal is to systematically degrade Christianity with any excuse possible. My goal is to reveal the inaccuracies and outright dishonesty in your attempts.
DeleteRe. "split hairs" , and "the only correct one" ; too weak to be of any significance, and out of context, (another tactic of yours).
DeleteJon; In your conflation, you forget black tribes in Africa captured local black enemies for export to enlarge their territories, and eliminate competition. Those slave ship captains and dealers were not a bastion of Christianity of any sort. There is also documented evidence there were black slave owners, (see Snopes), "splitting hairs" is a lazy cop out. Equally, so is your "only correct one". I'm sure you won't publish my last post, but that will simply prove your dishonesty, and your obsession against all of Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI said slavery arrived here. Everyone knows there were tribal leaders in Africa supplying the slaves. There were even children of tribal leaders who came to the U.S. and lived with prominent white slave holders and went to school/college. I was merely explaining that religion opens the mind to avenues of thought that endorse ideas like slavery and segregation. This is just a fact. Your hair splitting of what various branches of the faith may or may not believe is unimportant.
DeleteAnd again you conflate. There are, and were those in the religious community that NEVER "opened their mind to avenues of thought that endorsed ideas like slavery and segregation".
DeleteYour "hair splitting, and "various branches of the faith may or may not believe is unimportant"; does not explain your self admitted activity of atheists in slavery. In the end, your point and conflation is--------pointless. Publish that if you dare.
Delete"those in the religious community that NEVER.." I said the Quakers helped with the underground railroad. Member you missed that. "self admitted ...atheists in slavery" I stated there in all probability atheists who held slaves. I don't know that for a fact, it's just likely. I have never heard of an atheists that held slaves and if I did hear I would try to find if he said atheism supports slavery. There were Christians who said their faith supported slavery. So far as I know, no atheist ever said atheism supports slavery. (Try hold back you temper when you make you inevitable response to this. And, read what I wrote so I don't have to keep repeating it. Thank you.)
ReplyDeleteI read closely what you wrote thank you. You said Quakers. There were others in the past that also rejected slavery. Some of them came to the US at the start of the Civil War, and were not involved in the institution of slavery. Stop with the broad brush of accusation. That there were Christians that supported slavery does not mean all. Entire areas , (especially in the North and West, slavery was not a common practice. The economics of slavery in an agrarian society gives question as to why the excuse for it. profit and cheap labor, was the reason, and a twisted use of the Bible and the political excuse to support it. (More evidence of the hazards of mixing religion and politics.) An old professor of economics should understand that. In time, the industrial revolution would have put an end to slavery as it was known. Note, I did not say the end of Jim Crow, which was entirely a different matter, after the first blush of reconstruction.
DeleteJon; Entire libraries have been written about all the nuances and history of slavery in the US alone. A small flippant opinion of yours is not sufficient to be called reliable.
Deletehelper "..and a twisted use of the Bible...to support it." That's where your argument falls apart. One person's "twisted use of the Bible" is another's absolute "truth."
DeleteJon; you should be familiar with "twisted use of the Bible". You do it all the time.
DeleteSo you believe the KKK and Arian Nation, and other like minded sympathizers use of the Bible is not twisted, This is good to know.
You are allowed to twist the Bible any way you want. There is no one to stop you.
DeleteSlavery in what is now the USA was practiced by Native Americans against other Native Americans. No one can suggest they were Christians when this was instituted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
ReplyDeleteMatt re: Slavery was practiced by native Americans... Yes, and by black people in Africa by other black people. I did not say Christians started it. I said Christians (some) used their religion to justify it.
ReplyDeleteYour headline is not true, then. "Slavery Started 400 Years Ago in the U. S."
DeleteActually, you said it was introduced 400 years ago when 20 slaves shuffled on a slave ship and on to what is now USA soil. Everything else in your article is all about the flowering of slavery from this incident, not one mention of Native American or Black slavery of Blacks. It's as if you had an agenda.
DeleteMatt: "Your headline is not true, then 'Slavery Started 400 Years Ago in the U.S.'"
DeleteIn one way you are correct. In another way I'm correct. I made it a point to use "U.S." and could have added "or pre U.S. colonies." The pre U.S. colonies like Virginia, which had the most slaves, were white Christian enclaves. That the African continent and Native Americans had slaves is not relevant to my blog because I was writing about Christian justification of slavery. Neither African nor native on this continent were Christians so their slavery was not relevant. Others who practiced slavery may have used their religions to justify it. The point is religion is unregulated and allows anyone to claim religious justification, no matter how absurd.
Matt: "It's as if you had an agenda." You are welcome to refer to it as an "agenda". I refer to it as a topic. The topic was the role of Christianity in justifying slavery and later segregation. It seems like you feel that if Native Americans and Africans approved of slavery that made it a fine and upstanding practice.
DeleteJon @ 4;26; At last! "I said Christians (some) used their religion to justify it. I amplify "some". Bottom line; It is not Christianity, but those who wrongly use the Bible to justify slavery and Jim Crow , then go on to inject that into the secular.
DeleteAs I told you recently, you are free in interpret the Bible any way you choose. So were the Southern whites who used it to justify slavery and later segregation. To get mad because some have a different view than you and then moved that view into law is to focus on the wrong problem. The actual problem is religion itself. It allows people to do this. Some branches of the faith are doing it at this moment with abortion. Abortion is never condemned specifically in the Bible. But scheming believers wrongly claim it says a human life begins at conception. The same with gay marriage.
DeleteJon; Why are you so angrily defensive when I point out that some do mix religion and politics for their own purposes. That is what one of your big arguments is all about. Don't get into a hissy fit when I agree that there should not be a merger (syncretism) of church and state, (and state and church). You miss the point completely. We don't corporately intrude into matters of state, including who to vote for. Conversely, we reject any movement of the state, or anyone else for that matter to demand anything related to what we teach, believe and practice. I have clearly stated this before, but you forget in your enthusiasm to broad brush everything Christian.
DeleteYour; 10;15 states that "religion is unregulated" That is a blatant falsehood. Our Book of Confessions (Statements of beliefs and practices) is the solid regulator. All our churches strictly adhere to them, and include them in our constitutions. If they don't they are removed from the roster. Our church was born out of forced co-mingling with the Calvinists by the State Prussian Union. (that's another story), so we are clearly aware of the dangers of the intrusion either way between state and church, and church and state.
Again, I am glad to see you finally admit in your4;26 that "some use religion to justify it." If you had said that at the onset, I would have remained silent.
"That is a blatant falsehood." You seem to be saying that because your branch regulates itself the entire genre of Christianity is regulated. "That is a blatant falsehood."
ReplyDeleteJon (who can't read); I said all OUR churches. NOT "The entire genre of Christianity is regulated". For you to interpret my statement as you desire is blatant ineptitude in the skill of accurate reading. I would have thought you would have learned that when they "learned" you to read down there in Ioway.
DeleteI know you said "our" churches. But, the blog is about Christianity, not "your" church. In terms of numbers your church is relatively insignificant. The big ones, Catholic and Southern Baptist, are up to their kesters trying to put religion into government. Christianity as a general genre is what the topic here is and putting a halo over small parts is something you can do on your own time.
ReplyDeleteThis is your blog. You can do with it as you wish, but to refuse to print rebuttal is to show the weakness of your argument, and you know it.
DeleteYou can make the rules here, but you cannot make the rules for a good solid argument.
I'll go over this again, slowly. Your church regulates itself. It is self regulated. No body outside your church regulates what your church claims as its doctrine. No body anywhere regulates what people who claim to be Christians believe. Christianity is UNREGULATED. This is why anti abortion and anti gay marriage can be claimed as "Christian" beliefs. There is no definition for "Christian" beliefs. If history repeats itself, you will try to take up space here arguing that because your denomination is self regulated all Christianity is regulated. Probably you will not see it posted.
ReplyDeleteSome do, some don't. Don't put everyone in the same box.
DeleteThe difference is between "synods" and "associations". With synods, (synhodos;(Latin) moving together in agreement) there is defined regulation. with associations, (like Baptists) there is none. For example; the Southern Baptists is an association, with a wide definition of beliefs and practices from church to church. There are over 20 associations. Different box.
"Different box" They are all the same in that there is NO GOVERNING BODY which regulates what any of the claim as their beliefs. The entire faith floats in a sea with no rudder. It travels downwind so the direction changes with the weather.
ReplyDeleteYo Jon; Re. No governing body. The exact words used by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Then there's the "governing body which regulates what any of the claims as their beliefs." in the Catholic Church, known as the Magisterium. Yes, that is working well for them, as per your desire. Yes sureeeeee. I think you are on to something. Bet you won't publish that too.
DeleteReading my 10;42, I'm afraid I was not clear. re. Your "no governing body"statement. I should have omitted the "no" regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses, as per your quote. They indeed use the term; "Governing Body" for their leadership. Obviously indicating a governing body. In like manner the Magisterium is the governing body of the Catholic Church.
DeleteWe have a governing body of work, called the Book of Concord, and has been in place for 500 years without change.