April 19, 2005
GOD IS A PARTISAN:
Losing our religion (Jonathan Zimmerman, 4/20/05, CS Monitor)
They still don't get it. If you want to see why Democrats keep losing national elections, look no further than the most recent controversy over President Bush's judicial nominations.GOP majority leader Bill Frist will participate this Sunday in a conservative Christian telecast that denounces Democrats for threatening to filibuster the nominations. "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias," declared the Family Research Council, which is sponsoring the telecast, "and it is now being used against people of faith."
And the Democrats' response? "I cannot imagine that God ... is going to take the time to debate the filibuster in heaven," Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois said Friday, denouncing Senator Frist for lending his name to the campaign. "God does not take part in partisan politics," echoed Senate minority leader Harry Reid.
That's bad history, and even worse politics. Every great movement for social justice in America has been powered by religious sentiment.
...and the great injustices for the most part by science, secularism, and pragmatism. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 19, 2005 10:59 PM
So, there were no injustices prior to the Enlightenment?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 20, 2005 7:12 AMIn America? No.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2005 8:15 AM"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5 (New International Version)
There's one that can't be laid at the door of "science, secularism, and pragmatism".
Posted by: Brandon at April 20, 2005 2:42 PMIt's also not an injustice.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2005 2:47 PMAmerican slavery and the slave trade was not an injustice?
Posted by: Brandon at April 20, 2005 2:54 PMEphesians predates American chattel slavery, about which it's possible to be ambivalent in terms of its injustice. There was certainly nothing unjust about traditional slavery.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2005 3:00 PMThat is the point. Biblical injunctions were used by Americans to support and preserve the institution of slavery - an institution that pre-dated the Enlightment. And it was only after the Enlightenment that chattel slavery was eliminated from the (western) world.
Posted by: Brandon at April 20, 2005 3:06 PMNo, American slavery was a function of the Enlightenment. Blacks were believed to be biologically inferior.
Posted by: oj at April 20, 2005 3:41 PMSlavery is as damaging to the society--any society--that practices it as it is the slave.
American slavery was not a function of the Enlightenment--it started as soon as Europeans discovered equatorial Africa.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to when the Catholic Church got around to condemning slavery.
After all, if it was the Enlightenment that was the problem, it should have been immediately, right?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 7:12 AMJeff:
That's counter-historical. Every great society practiced slavery for some extensive period of time. Ours, which has been man's best, got rid of slavery but practices abortion.
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 7:49 AMOJ:
Perfect non-sequitor.
The damage slavery causes to the practicing society and how many societies practiced it are completely different considerations.
BTW, I missed that update on just when the Catholic Church got around to condemning slavery.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 12:03 PMJeff:
what damage? They thrived.
Catholic condemnation of chattel slavery came early:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/128/53.0.html
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2005 12:15 PMOJ:
If slave-holding societies "thrive" with respect to free societies, all societies would be of the former kind, and none of the latter.
From the cite I noted several things:
1. The complete absence of the term "Enlightenment"
2. The existence of chattel slavery in the Americas long predating the Enlightenment.
3. The article's careless conflation of enslaved indigenous people with enslaved Africans. The Church had very different ideas about whether the latter had souls, a notion the article neatly missed.
And this:
While Christian theologians were able to work their way around the biblical acceptance of slavery ...
Never mind the how (undoubtedly involved vigorous handwaving), why?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at April 21, 2005 6:18 PMAll free societies held slaves. We reached a point though, during the Enlightenment, where we decided to just kill enemies by the millions instead of enslave them. Likewise, the scientific notion that blacks and Indians are inferior to whites has been rejected because of Christian activism--most obviously in the English anti-slavery movement and our Civil War.
the Enlightenment precedes America.