Before I link to Paul Copan’s article, (H/T The Poached Egg), I want to say that I actually don’t see why atheists are so bothered by slavery, since there no such thing as morality if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then slavery isn’t wrong. It’s just unfashionable in some societies who have evolved one way, versus other societies that have evolved to think slavery is OK. Whatever has evolved is right, on atheism – there is no transcendent objective standard by which atheists can condemn any practice as wrong. They also can’t prescribe moral behavior, for at least two reasons. First, there is no reason to be moral on atheism if you get more pleasure from being immoral and you can escape the consequences. Second, there is no free will on atheism, because matter is all there is and the interactions of particles in motion is determined by the laws of physics that govern matter.
Having said that, let’s assume slavery is wrong, which it is on Christian theism, and see what Paul Copan has to say about the practice of slavery and the Old Testament.
Excerpt:
We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts — much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.
In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-in employee, temporarily embedded within the employer’s household. Even today, teams trade sports players to another team that has an owner, and these players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled — like in the Old Testament.3
Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself” (Leviticus 25:47). A wife or children could be “sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times — unless kinfolk “redeemed” them (payed their debt). They would be debt-servants for 6 years.4 A family might need to mortgage their land until the year of Jubilee every 50 years.5
Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not impose servanthood— as in the antebellum South.6 Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite homes.
The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood — unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself to him (Exodus 21:5). Masters were to grant their servants release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Leviticus 25:35–43). A slave’s legal status was unique in the ancient Near East (ANE) — a dramatic improvement over ANE law codes: “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”7
An Israelite servant’s guaranteed eventual release within 7 years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release-year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood was not an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, this was voluntary (typically poverty-induced) — not forced.
On Tuesday, leftist lackey Chris Matthews went on a jaundiced tirade against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s speech for the Iowans for Tax Relief. Specifically, he derided Rep. Bachmann’s citation of John Quincy Adams as one of this country’s forebearers who worked tirelessly for abolition.
First, of all, let’s look at this post on Big Government which explains what John Adams did.
Excerpt:
As a Founder and the second President, it’s true that John Adams put the Republic above what was then an impossible issue to resolve. It is inaccurate to suggest he was a proponent of slavery with no role in its ultimately being eliminated in the U.S. No, he did not sacrifice the forming of a Republic for it, which is precisely what a strong position against it would have meant. But he did make his sentiments known (for more), taking pride in never having employed a slave. He is said to have found it “repugnant” and he argued against the Southern position that blacks not be included in population figures during the Continental Congress.
Now back to Letitia and John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams.
John Quincy Adams: according to biographies of Adams’ life, he repeatedly attempted to introduce bills by abolitionist groups into Congress calling for the abolition of slavery. Such was the opposition to his ongoing attempts, Southern Democrats passed a number of gag rules in order to prevent Adams from introducing any more abolitionist bills.
“Throughout he was conspicuous as an opponent of the extension of slavery, though he was never technically an abolitionist, and in particular he was the champion in the House of Representatives of the right of petition at a time when, through the influence of the Southern members, this right was, in practice, denied by that body. His prolonged fight for the repeal of the so-called “Gag Laws” is one of the most dramatic contests in the history of the U.S. Congress. The agitation for the abolition of slavery, which really began in earnest with the establishment of the Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, soon led to the sending of innumerable petitions to congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, over which the Federal government had jurisdiction, and for other action by congress with respect to that institution. These petitions were generally sent to Adams for presentation. They aroused the anger of the pro-slavery members of congress, who, in 1836, brought about the passage of the first “Gag Rule”, the Pinckney Resolution, presented by Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina. It provided that all petitions relating to slavery should be laid on the table without being referred to committee or printed; and, in substance, this resolution was re-adopted at the beginning of each of the immediately succeeding sessions of congress, the Patton Resolution being adopted in 1837, the Atherton Resolution, or “Atherton Gag”, in 1838, and the Twenty-first Rule in 1840 and subsequently until repealed. Adams contended that these “Gag Rules” were a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and refused to be silenced on the question, fighting for repeal with indomitable courage, in spite of the bitter denunciation of his opponents. Each year the number of anti-slavery petitions received and presented by him increased; perhaps the climax was in 1837, when Adams presented a petition from twenty-two slaves, and, when threatened by his opponents with censure, defended himself with remarkable keenness and ability. At each session, also, the majority against him decreased until in 1844 his motion to repeal the Twenty-first Rule was carried by a vote of 108 to 80 and his battle was won.” (Source: NDDB biographies, http://www.nndb.com/people/370/000026292/)
Incidentally (or not incidentally, if you believe in Divine Providence as I do), in the last year of Adams’ life, he mentored a young Congressman to work toward abolition. This Congressman later went on to become the 16th President of the United States. Oh, what was his name? Abraham Lincoln.
She then links to this Youtube video showing the details of the connection between John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
Letitia is a friend of mine, so I recommend that everyone read the rest of her post. Her blog is called “Talitha, Koum”. There’s a Biblical meaning to that phrase.
My thoughts
I’m going to compare Chris Matthews to Michele Bachmann to see which one has more education, more experience and higher moral standards.
Education:
Let’s review Matthews’ academic history. He has a bachelor degree in something, no site will say what, from the College of the Holy Cross. When people don’t say what the degree is in, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is something totally useless like drama or music or education or women’s studies. And he did one year of graduate work in economics before DROPPING OUT. He then spent some time working as a police offer on Capitol Hill.
In contrast, Michele Bachmann has a B.A. and a J.D. and an LL.M in tax law from the College of William and Mary, a prestigious law school. That means she has completed her bachelor degree, doctorate in laws, and a post-doctoral degree in tax law. She worked as a federal tax lawyer before starting a successful career in politics.
Campaigns:
Matthews is a Democrat, who has worked for Democrats and he has even run for office as a Democrat.
When Matthews first arrived in Washington, D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police. Subsequently, he served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania’s 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary. Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration, and later worked for six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O’Neill, playing a direct role in many key political battles with the Reagan administration.
Michele Bachmann meanwhile has run for office at the state and federal level and won numerous times, in a blue state, no less. In all, she has spent six years as a state senator, and 4 years as a congresswoman, and was just elected again. She has not ruled out a run for the Presidency in 2012.
[…]the conservatives will find the evils of sodomy, the evils of, uh, uh, infidelity, the evils of sex of any form. It seems like the conservatives don’t like sex and they’re very focused on that and the liberals are focused on social injustice.
So he rejects Biblical morality on sex. And why should we be surprised? He is a Democrat -the party of John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, Eliot Spitzer, etc. For Democrats, affairs are OK – they never resign because they think that there should be no rules around sex. My opinion is that he is an atheist like most Democrats, although he is not going to come out and say that.
Note what being pro-abortion really means. Being pro-abortion means that one group (adults) can choose to kill another group (the unborn) simply because it makes them happier to do so. To make this sound more palatable, they marginalize an entire group of human beings to being non-human trash. As Frank Turek recently noted, this is EXACTLY what slave-owners did. Slave-owners marginalized an entire class of human beings to trash because it made them happier. If Matthews had been alive during the time of slavery, he would have been a slave-owner. He would have called abolitionists “terrorists”, just like he calls pro-lifers “terrorists”.
In contrast, Michele Bachmann is an outspoken evangelical Christian. Her views are consistent with the Bible across the board.
On a recent installment of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews could not contain his mocking laughter as he announced the breaking news that Michele Bachmann had been appointed to the House Intelligence Committee. Matthews does not make any case to support the idea that Bachmann lacks the competence to be on the intelligence committee; to him it is simply a forgone conclusion based on her gender and political leanings. Matthews has made trivializing remarks about Christine O’Donnell as well. During O’Donnell’s campaign, Matthews dismissed her as a “cute” girl that is “just having fun.” Somehow, conservative women are inherently bimbos.
However, the most glaring examples of the bimbo narrative are focused upon Sarah Palin. Matthews, along with many in the mainstream media, have repeatedly accused her of lacking intelligence. From the outset of her emergence upon the national stage Matthews has questioned her intelligence: calling her an empty “vessel” that lacks “independent thinking” which will be filled up with conservative rhetoric. When Palin’s first book deal was announced, Matthews was quick to dismiss: “If she can read, if she can write, she’ll make money.”
Last Friday, preemptively criticizing an upcoming appearance on Hannity, Matthews compared Palin’s appearance to an infomercial that would be “selling makeup foundations.” Palin was to discuss the recent blood libel comment she made in response to accusations that she incited the Arizona shootings.
On “Hardball” Thursday, Chris Matthews responded to critics who claim he recently made sexist comments about Hillary Rodham Clinton, which they say is part of a history of similar conduct.
Controversy erupted after Matthews made remarks on Joe Scarborough’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC that “the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win there on her merit.”
Naturally, Michele Bachmann won’t do this – she is an intelligent woman. She knows how hard it is to actually finish graduate school and win election campaigns… unlike Chris Matthews. She actually finishes what she starts… unlike Chris Matthews.
The Bible is often criticised for either supporting or not condemning the institution of slavery. So how should we treat portions of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments that relate to slavery? Why does the Old Testament contain laws regarding the treatment of slaves? Does Paul condemn or affirm the institution?
Bob Price is a former US church minister whose doubts about the Bible led him to ultimately reject evangelical Christian faith. He says that the Bible is a book that reflects the time it was written in. Slavery was acceptable and the early Christians regrettably followed suit, and did not challenge the prevailing status quo.
David Instone-Brewer is a New Testament Scholar at Tyndale House, Cambridge. He says that, in its cultural context, the Bible goes as far as it can towards an anti-slavery message and that Christians have been at the forefront of anti-slavery movements.
This debate is the greatest debate I have heard in months! This is that Robert M. Price guy who is an expert in the historical Jesus who hates evangelical Christianity and has 2 PhDs. He’s extremely radical. But in this debate he was totally awesome. He was so easy to listen to, and he made perfect sense. Everything he said was moderate and reasonable.
And the Christian guy that Justin lined up was solid and well-prepared. About two-thirds of the time, the Christian they get is some useless pastor with no training. But this time Justin got a great scholar – winsome and informed. He made our side look good.
Related goodness
I noticed that Brian Auten linked to this Tawapologetics review of Rodney Stark’s book on history and Christianity, and it includes a section on Christianity and the practice of slavery. In my home, we have all of Rodney Stark’s books on our bookshelf.
Here are the main points from the slavery part:
First, slavery has been an institution in human cultures since before the Egyptian pyramids, all around the world.
Second, while European nations did delve into widespread slavery, the Church was hardly complicit in the practice.
Third, how monotheism provided the moral framework to condemn and outlaw slavery.
Fourth, details on the formation of the anti-slavery movement and Christianity’s involvement in it.
Fifth, enlightened secularism had little impact on the abolitionist cause.
I knew some of that stuff already from reading about the history of slavery and the abolition movement in Thomas Sowell books. But if you don’t know about it, you should read the book review.
WINTERY KNIGHT 