Lee didn't own any slaves, he freed the slaves that were inherited from Mrs. Lee's side. He did what he thought was his duty. What would you do if an army was heading toward your home? Your hatred of Lee has skewed your sense of historical perspective.
Lee didn't start the war, he didn't want the war but felt bound by the sense of duty that was part of the chivalric code of the era.
You need to cite the verses Paul wrote condemning slavery. The verses I'm familiar with that he wrote told the masters to treat their slaves well and for the slaves to obey their masters.
Slavery of course is bad, but back in history many thought it was good because it introduced the slaves to Christianity. That's why it's difficult to judge those who lived in the past by today's standards.
Good Point
The much-abused phrase of jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal" is explanied here in its histroical context. As Rawel states under the system of monarchy the king is supreme to all citizens, and above the common law. The king is declared and denoted as the "Sovereign." Therefore his will is law whereas his subjects are bound by law. Under the republican system, the people of the sovereign community are sovereign; there, no one person is above the law, hence "all men are created equal." Nowhere in Jefferson's statement is there to be found the notion absolute human equality. Jefferson belived in human inequality and in a society of degrees. Jefferson advanced the principle that the people of a political community were equal, and he promoted the idea of equality of opportunity.
He is fighting because his code of honor requires it. An army of westerners has invaded his homeland in the Arabian peninsula and the middle east generally. Israel, supported by the US, occupies Muslim land, as does Spain, Greece and Serbia.
Osama didn't start the war, the west did, in the 1920s by destroying the caliphate, in 1948 by establishing Israel, and in 1492, by driving the Moors from Spain.
Osama, by Muslim belief, culture and logic, is an honorable, valiant, brave and just warrior. His religion commands him to do what he does, and it is a duty upon all Muslims.The brave and moral among the Muslims, though, are the ones that refuse to kill innocents, or convert by the sword, or wage violent jihad.
Neither Robert E. Lee or Osama Bin Laden used their talents in the service of what we would consider good, and as a result, are not deserving of honor or glory. They had personal honor, under their own moral codes, that I will readily admit, and said as much several times.
My point regarding conversion was not to claim that Lee made a deathbed conversion, but to state the true fact that not all Christians believe that just because someone repeats the tenets of faith do they get a free pass into heaven. Some crimes might just be deserving of hell no matter how truly you believe in Jesus Christ, perhaps because if you truly believed in Him, you would not be capable of committing the sinful acts. You deny Him with such acts.
From the letter to Philemon:
“For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love— and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus.” (1:8-9 NRSV)
“I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.” (1:10- 14 NIV)
Paul is saying that his correspondent should release Onesimus from slavery. Paul will not command it, but ask him to do so, as a Christian doing the right thing. Funny that there are still Christians who try to justify the practice of slavery 20 centuries later. It was and remains a sin for a Christian to enslave another human. The Spanish recognized this; their priests argued that the Indians were humans and not animals, and so not subject to slavery, but to conversion. Once it was admitted that they were human, slavery was forbidden.
Very Good point