Posted on 05/31/2009 9:26:02 AM PDT by Freepmanchew
Well stated.
There is a whole spectrum of slavery. The US was built up under a system of "indentured servants", where the poor of England volunteered to become servants for seven years in exchange for their sponsor/master paying their passage to America. At the end of seven years they were free, and their master was obligated to furnish them with tools and supplies so that they could set themselves up independently.
Interestingly, blacks coming over were initially only servants for seven years, until Anthony Johnson sued to have his servant become his lifetime slave
According to the earliest known court records, slavery was first established in Virginia in 1654, when Johnson convinced the court in Northampton County that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, .. a black man.The amusing thing is that Anthony Johnson, the founder of black slavery in Virginia, was himself a black man who came over as an indentured servant.
Thanks. :-)
Can I revisit an earlier question? Is abortion condemned in the Bible? The sacrifice of newborns is, of course, condemned in no undertain terms, but is abortion? Does the argument that slavery may not be evil possibly undermine the argument that abortion is evil?
Thanks for the ping!
I would say that would depend on the manner of slavery. If as a result (assume historical context here) of a war campaign and you did not surrender but were captured, then I would say that you have the right to continue to resist. Does that right to resist extend to the right of killing? The short answer is no. Just as with modern laws of warfare, if you are captured, killing a guard in an attempt to escape can and often is punished as murder. You may attempt to run away, but you can not kill someone in your attempt.
If the manner of enslavement was VOLUNTARY (again, assume historical context) as in selling yourself to pay off your debts (no bankrupts court in ancient times). Then you do not even have the right to resist. You have to serve your time. That is why there was a limit to the slavery.
If you were made a slave by factor of birth, then once again, I believe you have the right to resist by leaving. I do not believe you have the right to kill someone in your attempt to run away.
Ask the libtards why they are having about ancient slavery when the arabs and muslims are currently supporting and conducting the modern version and no CRITICISM of it comes from them....
Well, there was that whole Isaac thing....
Wondered when you might show up.... :-)
Good point, but God did stop him and it was more for a test to see whom Abraham loved more. But good question.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I understand your point about escaping P.O.W.’s. I presume that Geneva Convention and military regulations apply in such circumstances. I have to believe you are not saying that a civilian hostage could not kill a terrorist in order to escape, for example. Let’s say, then, the civilian was not a hostage per se, but was just plucked off the street to serve as a houseboy in the local mosque. I’d say he had the right to kill anyone who stood between him and freedom.
We are all slaves to the government—if not now, when Obama is done with us.
Well LT someone had to say SOMETHING...and any chance I get to twist the nose of libtards should not be wasted LOL
“Historically, whites owned whites, blacks owned blacks. Slavery in the ancient world was not dependent on race.”
I think in some parts of contemporary Africa, blacks do own black slaves.
I believe we are in agreement. In modern military terms, it is conditional on two events, first surrender and second, control.
An individual that is continuing to resist and has not surrendered to a military can be killed on the spot. A person who has surrendered has exchanged their freedom under terms of treaty so that they might live. As such, under law, they have to abide but such laws. There is a grey area, that is covered but the rules of “control”. That grey area is when someone wishes to continue to resist but is unable to. This can be from either not having the means to resist, (out of war supplies) or physically unable to resist as in wounded.
The rule of control can be summarized as a situation where a soldier has been placed under the control of the opposing military. Meaning that a formal surrender is not required. This allows the victor to go into a hospital and take control of all wounded personnel as if they had surrendered because they are no longer physically able to resist.
As for the Terrorist scenario that you present, a terrorist is not operating under the rule of law. As such, they are conducting criminal activities and threatening the life of the individual. At that point in time, the right of self defense applies and the hostage has the right to use what ever force is available to them to remove themselves from the life threatening situation.
I like Rousas Rushdoony’s take on the question - biblically speaking, slavery is a bad thing that should nevertheless be tolerated in certain circumstances as the lesser of two evils.
It should first be pointed out that hereditary chattel slavery - like we had in the Antebellum South - wasn’t biblical slavery. The OT had a number of limitations on slavery that related to Jews. But those limitations should apply to any Christian by extension. They included a seven year term and the care for elderly slaves. Biblical slavery is more like a definite-term labor contract that could be specifically enforced.
None of those protections applied to negro slavery in the old South, which was more like the institution that St. Paul knew and dealt with in Philemon. Even that unbiblical, chattel slavery was to be tolerated, while understanding that the institution was inconsistent with the dignity of Christians who are saved before God.
So, I’m a Catholic, but I find Rushdoony’s take on the issue quite convincing. Rushdoony compares it to polygyny - it’s a bad thing overall, but it should be tolerated under certain conditions as the lesser of two evils.
I’d also like to say that we have, technically speaking, slavery in the United States. After all, we can draft young men and women to serve in the military. That’s involuntary servitude by definition. We also have prisons. Again, involuntary servitude. Both of these forms of slavery are allowed and I think most would agree that they’re necessary under certain circumstances. The main thing for our Constitution is that due process be followed. Neither form is anything like unlimited chattel slavery as we had in the South for that reason. It’s subject to limitations and applies only to the state. If it is, then liberty can be taken by the state but not by any other.
But there is also another kind of slavery that is chattel slavery that we have with us today. Unbiblical, chattel slavery is when one person (or class of persons) is given over to another person (or class of persons) for the unlimited use by that other person. Abortion on demand fits this definition to a “tee”. With abortion on demand, one class of human being (unborn babies) are given over to another class of persons (pregnant women), who may do with them as they please, including killing them. That is chattel slavery at its worst.
In sum, some limited forms of involuntary servitude are biblically allowed. Chattel slavery is not biblical, although St. Paul tolerated it (although he certainly would have condemned the murder of a slave by a master). Abortion on demand is the worst form of chattel slavery, since it entails by definition the murder of the slave by the master.
I disagree also, as i do with those who simply look at the requirements of slave owners, in a society in which this was a intractable cultural institution, which requires a situation to be managed, in contrast to aggressive detrimental attempts at abolishment.
By allowing a greatly ameliorated form of slavery which works towards societal abolishment, which we now take for granted, Christianity as a minority faith can exist in such cultures.
It may shock Marxist theologians and advocates of the social gospel, but while it certain disallows abuse and tyranny, etc., and promotes just the opposite, the N.T. is not foremost concerned with social revolution of the world without, but of believers being spiritually victorious in whatsoever situation they or the church finds itself.
Christianity was not birthed with a silver spoon in its mouth, and its Founder was birthed in a feeding troth, and the apostles were treated as scum of the earth, and yet it grew by purity in power and in population.
2 Co 6:9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
The Bible has eternity first in view, and then works to effect change on earth. God’s will as done in Heaven’s life sets the example for that on earth, and love for God is what primarily motivates man, over that of men rulers, etc, and there is more than just a requirement to obey one’s master in the verse you quote. Servanthood is esteemed, and while they (we) are to be “doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men,” as God will reward them, so also masters are required to “do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with Him.” (Eph. 6:8,9).
Add to this that owners must give just and equal recompense (Col. 4:1), and those who withhold pay are condemned in no uncertain terms, (Ja. 5:4-6) and an escaped slave (in Rome that was bad news) was offered back to his owner, but no longer as a slave, but a brother, even as Paul himself, (Philemon) and freedom was to be sought if it could be had, (1Cor. 7:21) together with the 2nd great command, and we have a better idea of what was required of a slave owner. That being that even slaves choose to stay then they would be family if believers, and if not, then woe to them who hindered their conversion. (Mt. 18:7; 2Cor. 6:3)
Excellent post, mostly correct, I would like to offer a minor point of correction.
Lets review the 13th, (section 1 only - section 2 says Congress can enforce section 1):
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Pay close attention to the “involuntary servitude”. This was added for the reason of allowing VOLUNTARY service. Had it not been included, the 13th could have been interpreted to require payment for all services rendered, effectively killing off any form of community or religious service.
However, for the discussion of your points, it opens an area that has not yet been discussed. What is the law if someone WANTS to be a slave? Rare, yes, unheard of... no.
So minor nit is that in addition to the government still being permitted to be a slave owner / indentured servant / prisoner ... there exists the possibility of VOLUNTARY slavery.
I think slavery, which was the greatest curse in American history, came about for exactly the same reason we are now innundated with illegal aliens, and why we have offshored our manufacturing to the ChiComs. Selfish, short-sighted people wanted someone to do work white Americans would not do, or have the work done cheaper. If people make "generation of wealth," or "economic growth" the sole deteminant of policy, they are cutting their own throats in the long run. If we hadn't had slavery, we wouldn't have 0bama and socialism today. As Solzhenitsyn said, the conflict between good and evil runs through each human heart. If enough individuals only want cheap cotton (in slave days), or cheap electronics (today), and will sacrifice the country's future to get it, then the country as a whole is doomed.
You make an excellent point on the 13th amendment.
I would quibble as to whether a person wanting to be a slave (I’m talking about biblical slavery) is a rarity. I rather doubt it. Many people who, for whatever reason, just have a hard time coping with basic life decisions would love to have a kind master making all those decisions for him/her.
I’d wager that if we actually allowed time-limited, specifically enforceable labor contracts (perhaps with a few other protections within the biblical spirit) we’d have quite a number of takers.
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.