Posted on 12/06/2017 2:07:36 PM PST by Liberty7732
William Wilberforce was a 19th Century English political leader, devout Christian and the driving force behind Great Britain’s ban on slavery. He employed a principled Biblical understanding of the inherent value of every person and a practical willingness to compromise and take very small steps at times.
He is revered — by those who know his story. He was as morally upright as they come, although he would have decried such a description. His Christian life was the central focus of his life and he was a relentless fighter for what he believed was right — despite being barely five feet tall and sickly his entire life.
So for the voters of Alabama, including many Christians who are unsure if they can vote for Roy Moore, perhaps Wilberforce provides a way of measuring the decision by a man who more than understood the dilemma. It’s not as simple as maintaining total purity in whom one will support, or the end justifies the means.
Wilberforce was at once both a moral immediatist in abolishing slavery — he believed it must be 100 percent dismantled immediately — and a strategic incrementalist with a long-term view to take each necessary step to reach abolishment. His style and exhortations could in a sense be used to argue against a vote for Moore. But his actions tended more towards a vote for Moore.
Clarke Forsythe, M.A. in Bioethics from Trinity International University, wrote of Wilberforce in Politics for the Greatest Good:
“Although Wilberforce sponsored a motion for general and immediate abolition annually for several years, abolition came not immediately and totally, but in intent and in effect, incrementally. The slave trade was incrementally reduced by regulations and partial prohibitions, and those incremental reductions were tied, in public debate, to issues of national interest rather than strong arguments of morality – “justice” and “humanity” – which were reserved until the final stroke. The incremental reductions served to eliminate the fears raised by the claims of the slave traders. Though Wilberforce and his allies had the strongest moral motivations, they exhibited strategic, tactical and rhetorical flexibility in their actions and arguments in large part because they stayed focused on the end result and did not confuse the goal with their motivations.”
Compromise and sacrifice
Wilberforce’s choice to introduce a bill every year for the immediate abolition of slavery was a decision that politically eliminated him from ever becoming Prime Minister, which many thought he could probably obtain. But after going nowhere a few rounds, he began a more long-term approach that some refer to as incrementalism.
He was able to pass a bill banning the slave trade in certain parts of Africa and to certain parts of the colonies. It was a tiny step to slow the trade. He passed a bill limiting the number of slaves that can be shipped on British ships and a series of proposals called “amelioration bills” for better living conditions for slaves. This was argued on the basis of creating “humane” conditions on slave ships. Clanging words to our ears, but another step in reigning in some of the suffering by reducing the total trade.
These and other bills acted to reduce the profit and value of slavery. That, in turn, reduced the political support for the slave trade until it finally reached the point that Wilberforce and his allies in Parliament could bring the hammer to the cracking institution and finally destroy slavery in Great Britain and throughout the British Empire.
To accomplish this, Wilberforce not only compromised on immediate abolition, but he worked consistently on the incremental bills with members of Parliament who supported the slave trade and even participated profitably in it. He could be criticized for cooperating with slaver interests and not fighting to get full abolition sooner. And it was surely distasteful at times. But historians generally agree that without the incrementalism that reduced the political support, there was too much power in the slave trade to get full abolition passed.
The Wilberforce model has served as a bit of a guide — although not unanimously — for those who believe abortion is as morally abhorrent as slavery. Laws such as banning abortions once a baby in the womb is pain capable, waiting periods and requirement on mothers to see an ultrasound are in line with incrementalism even though the two issues are not completely analogous.
Tying these together a bit, the difference between Roy Moore and his opponent, Doug Jones, on the issue of abortion could not be more stark. Moore is pro sanctity of life from conception while Jones favors a woman’s right to kill her baby until the moment of birth.
Where would Wilberforce stand on this option, when Moore has a more questionable moral past than what is known about Doug Jones?
If Wilberforce had maintained a personal purity on who he would work with and what he would compromise — and stuck with total immediacy regarding the end of slavery rather than taking some bad to get more good — it seems unlikely he would have led the abolishment of slavery and that wicked institution would have continued to destroy lives for years or decades.
Can the same argument be made for Moore regarding abortion and federal judges who would rule more strongly in favor of personal freedoms — and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and expand religious freedom? Is that an acceptable trade? Alabama voters will have to decide that one.
Islam versus Western Civilization on Slavery
Oh Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives
to whom thou hast paid their dowries; and those
slaves whom thy right hand possess out of the
prisoners whom Allah has assigned to thee.
Quran 33:50
So enormous, so dreadful, so irredeemable did the
(slave) trade’s wickedness appear that my own
mind was completely made up for abolition.
William Wilberforce
All married women are forbidden unto thee save
those captives whom thy right hand possess.
This is a decree of Allah for thee.
Quran 4:24
You may choose to look the other way, but you
can never say again that you did not know.
William Wilberforce
Slavery is part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad,
and jihad will remain as long as there is Islam.
Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan
Saudi religious leader
This is a no-go brainer.
If the accusers can NOT offer any reliable proof (as is the case with Roy Moore’s accuser) then morally they should be ignored.
Just because someone accuses you, it does not automatically make it an honest accusation.
By continuing this conversation, in this manner, we are giving these false accusations validity.
Wilberforce was a great man and his anti-slavery campaign was entirely inspired by his Christian and conservative convictions !
Never let the Marxists forget it!
Writer should get to the real point of William Wilberforce. He was a sinner and reveller who later found grace and forgiveness:
“Wilberforce was not always a Christian. Indeed, he was born into the privileged class, and that culture, much like today’s Hollywood, loved gambling, fancy clothes, fast horses, drinking and gluttony. Furthermore, he had denounced the deity of Christ after attending an apostate church much like today’s liberal ones. But in a secular sense, he was succeeding very nicely, entering parliament at 21, and was a good friend of William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), who would become the UK’s youngest ever Prime Minister at 24.”
https://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero
I’m sure there would have been trash papers, complainants and all manner of accusations against him given our modern hysteria.
So the question is will the good people of Alabama forgive him EVEN IF any of these phony accusations are true? I would think a resounding yes and then vote for him.
If you get a chance, watch the movie “Amazing Grace”. Used to live in the area he hailed from.
While Judge Moore is pro-life and against same sex marriage, and a Vietnam veteran...
as Gov of Mass, TWO Time draft dodger Willard signed a healthcare bill which included $50 abortions and pushed for homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts ...
While Judge Moore is a conservative, Willard prides himself as a “moderate progressive”
The last time Willard ran for the Senate in 1994 he ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy...even teddy was amazed...
In 2002 he ran for Gov of MASS pushing for abortions for underage girls...with permission from judges if their parents objected...
During a debate for the GOP primary, late 2007 he told the story of his aunt dying during an illegal abortion and that was the reason he was for legal abortion, and he related how his own mother Lenore Romney had run for the US Senate in for Michigan on an abortions-for-all platform and how proud he had been of her for doing so...this was 1970, THREE YEARS before Row V Wade...
Willard is a sick murderous ghoul...a life long abortion pusher...and a life long liberal...
Willard never met a liberal issue that he didn’t embrace and adopt as his own philosophy warts and all...
Plus the habit of liberals to falsely accuse innocent conservatives...
Further, before Paul of the New Testament was a Christian, he was the Saul who killed Christians. Yet, God found a way to change his heart and use him for His own purpose.
Therefore supporting him against his Marxist opponent is a no brainer.
But even if they were true I'd see Moore as the lesser of two evils and still support him.
Unless I’m missing something, a very disturbing premise of your piece is a presumption that Roy Moore is guilty of molesting children.
Another disturbing thing is that you just signed up to Free Republic.
That’s a great point!
I don’t think the Marxists ever knew it!
Really good movie about Wilberforce (of course, anything with Albert Finney is by definition worth watching). If he’d been an American it’s a certainty he’d have been a Republican (Whig, actually, but that’s just a pesky detail).
I’d agree with that with on caveat: Wilbeforce repented and sought forgiveness. Moore has done neither, at least publicly. That may be because the accusations are not true, but it is a difference.
Satan is the accuser of the brethren, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe him.
GREAT post.
Wrong on both counts. Disturbing.
The article says “Christians who are unsure if they can vote for Roy Moore,” seems to imply if you believe the allegations, because without the allegations they would OBVIOUSLY be voting for him.
And I’ve been a Freeper a long time, dude. I just hibernate at times.
Unlike Wilberforce, Moore does not strike me as a man who is willing to compromise on his principles. Certainly not one as strongly held as his position on abortion.
This was my first thought as well. The author speaks as if he accepts the claims of these convenient accusers.
I just saw Gay State Conservative summarize better. The accusers are probably not truthful, but even if they are, as the lesser of two evils, Moore is still the only choice.
Excellent movie. It's in my DVD collection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.