When you first read this, you’ll think the author has to be pulling our legs — it’s got to be a satire site like Landover Baptist or something. But the woman sure does a fine job of maintaining a consistent tone, and I know people who think exactly like she does. Her latest entry is an attempt to justify slavery, and keep in mind that she is a black woman.
Here’s the distilled essence of her argument.
Just as wives are to be submissive to their husbands, likewise slaves are to be submissive to their masters.
It’s an interesting sentence that can be interpreted in two ways, isn’t it? I prefer to read that as a message to women that perhaps they shouldn’t put themselves in the position of slaves to their husbands.
At least not without a safe word.
Sounds very 18th century to me.Or maybe its some BDSM thing?
I think that every man is so same important. I condemn slavery and ask you let’s be not animals.
Let’s remember that we are people.
BDSM is also the first thing that came to my mind, ha ha!
Yes, master, I’ll obey… Oh, man, I need to do fewer erotica reviews. Strictly work-related, you know. *whistles innocently*
Ephesians, right?
“I do not believe slavery is wrong, because a) The bible does not condemn slavery and b) Slavery makes so much sense and to say slavery is wrong we rob the gospel off its meaning and even Election.”
This theist’s mind is really screwed up.
Christianity not only has the power to convince you not to bother trying to change bad circumstances, but to convince you that you deserve them. It’s people like this woman who throw the mental prison aspect of this religion into high relief, although it is always there to some degree. It’s sad to see a mind lost to fear and ignorance.
In a word: Ridiculous.
I’ve often wondered how it is that black people can stomach Christianity given that it condones slavery.
Jesus tapdancing christ. Often I think that the only difference between the utterly insane ideas of religious people and the utterly insane ideas of nonreligious people is that those of the nonreligious are at least born out of an (admittedly) entertainingly creative imagination.
Whereas this is just old-fashiong salad-picking bible thumping to suit one’s ends.
But then I remember that EVERY scripture is born out of imagination. But it’s no longer entertaining, nor creative. It’s just sad.
paz
Wow! Where did she get her time machine? I want one for Christmas.
Slavery is alive and well right now in sweatshops and brothels across the world. Some how I don’t think she would like the look of it.
Not that surprising really. This is the same woman who recently posted about her mental abuse of her four year old daughter and who is now calling the outrage over it “God hating”. Definitely the type who’d think slavery was a good thing.
People, you are missing the point. With the election of O-Man, now even blacks can own slaves. Da Bible tell me it OK to own a person…so’s I go now to buy one to do me wash.
After all, every ‘Merican has the duty to have someone else do their less desirable chores. That’s what Mexes, Chinee, and Dots are for!
Oh, when the Bibble was written, the difference between wives and slaves did not exist….except for that Christ guy. He seemed to think wimmens was jess as goods as mens.
Yep. I remember Grandpa, a Southern Baptist preacher, saying exactly the same thing. Of course, that was 50 years ago, and *he was white. And a Creationist. He also thought the Russians invented rock and roll. Sigh.
She’s just being a good fundamentalist. It’s all perfectly Biblical.
You household servants must submit yourselves to your masters out of respect, not only to those who are kind and fair, but also to those who are unjust. I Peter 2:18
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22
To this boy, one of the strangest things (and I’m quite sure I’m not alone in this crowd) is how the Bible is presented to us by Christians as the last word in morality despite being flagrantly pro-slavery so long as the folks being enslaved aren’t Jews just as it’s pro-genocide so long as it’s the Jews doing the genociding (“Joshua fit the battle of Jericho,” etc).
Frankly, I wish more Christians were that honest about their religion. It’d be so much easier to get rid of it. It’s denial, ignorance and delusion that provide them the cover they need to keep going.
I sometimes fantasize that slavery, due to some major catastrophe, winds up making a comeback but is presented as enlightened due to it having become biracial at both ends.
@ Karen #11
You’re right. It is the same woman. From her comments in the child-abuse post I think it’s pretty clear that she is truly mentally ill. It’s sad to me that so much sickness can be glossed over by religion. If you presented her same post back to her, but replaced the Christian references with Islamic ones many of the people supporting her would likely be outraged.
i find the blogger equally as contemptuous as the christian. please don’t describe yourself as some kind of atheistic genius because you can spot circular arguments.
not everyone can be a dawkins/myers/dennett…
This slavery issue seems to be the soft underbelly of the argument that the Bible is the best source (only) for human morality.
I posted earlier about my leanings towards re-entry into talk radio on behalf of rationalism, science and socialism (more on this later).
I believe that an airtight argument using slavery as an anchor makes it impossible to deny that human morality evolved PAST that of the Bible.
This is not a fight over dinosaur bones, carbon dating, etc. It’s a fight that cuts to the very heart of the 60’s peace-loving hippie Jesus. Don’t underestimate the impact of the Godspell Jesus (damn I’m old). Folks like Ted Haggard used it to build the largest freakshow in Colorado Springs. You’ll be hard pressed to find a story on his church that doesn’t include ‘rock concert environment’.
Now that I’m starting to raise a ruckus online about this slavery/bible issue I see PZ has highlighted someone who is religious enough to realize you can’t have it both ways, even one who is Black herself. Rather than abandon her faith, she would rather return to slavery? Uh-huh. Do you honesty think this is going to be the reaction of MOST people when confronted forcefully on this PROFOUND dilemma? I know the Christian Apologists have an answer to this that I haven’t researched yet, but any reasonable Christian has already given up on literal biblical interpretation. It’s the inerrant literalist Baptist or Pentacostals that I’d be confronting. They have less wiggle room than their Presbyterian, Methodist and even Catholic brethren.
I’d almost bet the Black lady who is posting this is a paid plant by rightwing enthusiasts. When I finally get visible enough for my Hannity or O’Reilly debate on American morality vis-a-vis this Christian Nation, they’ll be able to point out that “even SOME Black people are REVERENT(Patriotic?) enough to submit to slavery in the name of God (State?).
They might finally be rejected by a vast majority of Americans as soundly as the Republican party they surreptitiously shilled for in the last election cycle.
————-
————-
THETIMCHANNEL BONUS!!
Probably old hat to those in this forum, but still wanted to share:
The Indonesian Mimic Octopus
————-
————-
Enjoy.
And she has 3 children.
Poor kids.
I think this sums up the alternative interpretation:
http://hem.passagen.se/soman/SOMAN4.GIF
To Fatpie42 at #20
You obviously haven’t met my wife.
Enjoy.
This is typical christian word twisting. Slavery is just a term that means you really love god. A crusade is a really neat way of showing your commitment. The bloody reality is irrelevant unless you are really jazzed up, then it shows just how awesome god is. Reality and evidence are not deciding factors for her. Her statement that a marriage without submission wouldn’t last a week is a great example. She doesn’t need to look at evidence because she doesn’t use evidence in her arguments or her decision making.
“Just as wives are to be submissive to their husbands, likewise slaves are to be submissive to their masters.”
Well, having visited her website, “submissive” is not the adjective I would have selected to describe Jean Gasho-Musuka.
If anyone looked at the bottom of the page, it is sadly apparent that the morons are rallying:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/uk-sister-christ-threatened-40247/
http://dea-frommyhearttoyours.blogspot.com/2008/11/urgent-prayer-request-for-jean.html
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/ridiculous-accusations-refuted.html
http://timwitten.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/am-i-ready-for-persecution/
http://fbjasper.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/real-faith/
Fortunately, there are just as many, or perhaps more people calling this woman out as a criminal fool and unfit to raise an ant farm or a batch of sea monkeys. Normally, I treat religion like the eccentric, crazy uncle in the room. Just smile and keep a distance and everything will be all right. But cases like this really show the awful power in sharp relief that religion has on people and it makes me sick and angry. Religion should be like sex and drugs. It should take place between consenting adults. Children should not be involved.
Sadly, this does not surprise me at all. Back when the Promise Keepers were a force, at there gatherings, it was normal to have Native American and black men address the crowds. They would tell the mostly white and male crowd that what happened in the past was alright because now the Native American and black population could be saved.
Also, you had people like Wellington Boone who said things like; “I believe that slavery, and the understanding of it when you see it God’s way, was redemptive.”
That “SLAVERY IS NOT WRONG” post is, as far as I know, accurate in its interpretation of the Bible. She wrote:
That’s correct, I think. And nowhere in the Bible is anything said in opposition to the institution of slavery. In fact, slavery was one of the accepted conditions of society when the New Testament was written and nothing in the New Testament contradicts the slave code of Moses.
You’ll be a happy slave in heaven.
Fatpie42, that is an old anarchist motto. Wobblies also made use of it.
Norman Doering,
Yes, you could argue she’s just being honest about Christianity’s message: Be a slave! She admits people naturally find this message repulsive. But that’s what makes me suspect it’s a satire, aimed at putting people off.
In the ancient world, what was there to do with defeated people?
– Slaughter them
– Come to terms with them as subordinates
– Enslave them
Prison camps weren’t exactly practical because of the supply chain problems they entail. From my reading of ancient history, it seems like “come to terms with them” was the usual option that was tried first, and for trouble-makers it came down to slaughter or slavery. As some joker said, “Slavery brought you 7 of the 7 wonders of the ancient world.” Worrying about slavery’s morality was pointless because, until mechanized agriculture and construction started to become available, there was work for slaves to do. It wasn’t the moral dilemma that ended slavery in the US – it had a lot more to do with Eli Witney’s cotton gin and the economic differential between the industrialized north and hand-agrarian south.
We are acculturated now to despise slavery (this is me, dutifully despising) but when the topic comes up with regards to the ancient world, you can always stump the politically correct by asking “what else do you think they should have done with them? build prison camps? or resort villas to house them?”
Yes, I have made the following argument:
1) Is God the source of morality?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is slavery immoral?
4) Then, show me in the Bible where there is one word against slavery.
There aren’t any.
Therefore, either God is OK with slavery, or God is not the source of morality.
And, if you have a problem with slavery, then you are immoral, by your own definition.
That usually shuts them up.
Even more evidence, as if we needed it, that monotheism is utterly, irredeemably broken, and must be done away with at the earliest opportunity.
What really pisses me off is: If these people really believe that they are going to go to some big fantasy theme park in the sky when they die, and it’s so much nicer there than here, then why aren’t we allowed to just kill them?
The bible condones slavery because at the time it was written, slavery was commonplace and few if any people questioned it. To give credit where credit is due though, many of the most fervent abolitionists in England (which is where the movement really got off the ground) were religiously motivated. The quakers in particular were very active in the movement.
-jcr
I’m a little curious why the link goes to a blog commenting on the original rather than to the original itself. Did we really need the filter?
If you look at the bottom of her post, it is apparent that the morons are rallying:
http://rich-twoedgedsword.blogspot.com/2008/11/mother-is-persecuted-for-her-4-year.html
http://www.puritanboard.com/f71/uk-sister-christ-threatened-40247/
http://dea-frommyhearttoyours.blogspot.com/2008/11/urgent-prayer-request-for-jean.html
http://wordnverse.com/2008/11/18/prayers-needed-sisters-daughter-may-be-taken-from-her-for-child-abuse/
http://timwitten.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/am-i-ready-for-persecution/
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/ridiculous-accusations-refuted.html
http://radongas.blogspot.com/2008/11/christian-blogger-under-attack.html
Fortunately, there seems to be more people ready and willing to call her on the criminal stupidity she exhibits. This woman shouldn’t be allowed to own an ant farm or a batch of sea monkeys. Usually, I treat religion like the eccentric, crazy uncle in the room. I just smile and keep my distance to the best of my ability. But this post makes me so sick and angry. Religion should be like sex and drugs. It should only occur between consenting adults. No children should be involved.
If these people really believe that they are going to go to some big fantasy theme park in the sky when they die, and it’s so much nicer there than here, then why aren’t we allowed to just kill them?
Because we know better.
Of course, the question that keeps coming back to my mind is if they believe it, why don’t they kill themselves?
-jcr
Far more frightening than this woman’s lunacy is this little gem from the E&R comments section. Leave it to the “devout” to misunderstand the phrase “suffer the little children”.
Nick Gotts wrote:
Read more of her blog before you decide it’s satire. Then read some other Christian blogs.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html
Well that’s OK then. It must also support polytheism since that was commonplace then as well. I’m sure glad that God’s notion of morality is so flexible and relativist and not eternal or based on absolute notions of Right and Wrong.
“Mary perfectly understood what it meant to be a slave of her Lord, and if you are truly saved, you will not find the concept of slavery insulting or evil.”
Isn’t it special that in one little sentence a person can wipe out all the horrors of slavery.
Frederick Douglass saw through pro-slavery Christians way back in 1846:
The religion of the land, so far from being opposed to this state of things, is the great supporter of it. What I mean by religion is simply this–Various bodies calling themselves Christians defend the system and encourage it. These bodies are the Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Universalists, and others. The churches in the southern states are corrupt to the very core. They have men-stealers for members, for ministers, for class-leaders, for sabbath-school teachers, and for every office from that of steward up to that of minister. We have men-stealers to build our churches–human beings sold to buy Bibles for the heathen! The pulpit and the auctioneer’s platform stand near each other. The Blood-stained gold goes to support the pulpit, and the pulpit covers the infernal business with the garb of Christianity. The man who preaches “Thou shalt not steal,” is he who keeps the slave in bondage, and steals not only his body, but destroys his soul. He who preaches, “Thou shall not commit adultery,” denies to millions the rite of marriage. He who stands forth and says “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye have eternal life,” makes it punishable with death to learn any portion of them.
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1081.htm
Oh its her. Is she still scaring the pants off her little girl ? The woman is a mental health nurse! Does anyone know if social services have been alerted as was strongly advocated when she last came to attention? I can not bring myself to read her craziness again, these things take their toll. When the business with her daughter came up I spent ages trawling through her site and also those of some good people who were attempting to reason with her. IIRC she lives in the English North West and has a husband about whom nothing was known.
1) Is God the source of morality?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is slavery immoral?
4) Then, show me in the Bible where there is one word against slavery.
A good way of whacking the morality of god is to play a game of “10 commandments” with a group of kids. Have an adult moderate and take notes while the kids come up with a list of 10 commandments. 10-14 year old kids that aren’t stupid work best. Give them 20 minutes or so (they’ll get bored) and then vote the list or otherwise finish the exercise. When done, turn to the proud parents and say “See?? Your 13 year old kid, in 20 minutes, came up with 10 commandments that are more moral and sensible than your ‘god'” Game, set, and match.
1) Is God the source of morality?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is slavery immoral?
4) Then, show me in the Bible where there is one word against slavery.
A good way of whacking the morality of god is to play a game of “10 commandments” with a group of kids. Have an adult moderate and take notes while the kids come up with a list of 10 commandments. 10-14 year old kids that aren’t stupid work best. Give them 20 minutes or so (they’ll get bored) and then vote the list or otherwise finish the exercise. When done, turn to the proud parents and say “See?? Your 13 year old kid, in 20 minutes, came up with 10 commandments that are more moral and sensible than your ‘god'” Game, set, and match.
Even interpretted as a warning to women, it’s problematic. It assumes that slaves have a choice, which they do not. Slavery is the state of be bound into servitude (and submission) beyond your control.
It’s also worth pointing out that slavery is maintained through violence and the threat of violence. Submission is learned through violence and the constant threat of violence. Consider this – look at some of the comments about Jenny McCarthy in the recent thread here, how violent some of them are. You don’t like something a woman says, make a joke about watching her die some painful death. It sends a message to ALL WOMEN that if they have an opinion or any form of self-assertion that might be unpopular, they face punishment for it.
Grow up in a society with those messages, find yourself faced with a violent man who is determined to have you do his will, and you realize that it’s not really about a women “putting themselves in a position of being slaves to their husbands.”
Here’s a better lesson: why don’t men just stop treating women like they’re sub-human?
1) Is God the source of morality?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is slavery immoral?
4) Then, show me in the Bible where there is one word against slavery.
A good way of whacking the morality of god is to play a game of “10 commandments” with a group of kids. Have an adult moderate and take notes while the kids come up with a list of 10 commandments. 10-14 year old kids that aren’t stupid work best. Give them 20 minutes or so (they’ll get bored) and then vote the list or otherwise finish the exercise. When done, turn to the proud parents and say “See?? Your 13 year old kid, in 20 minutes, came up with 10 commandments that are more moral and sensible than your ‘god'” Game, set, and match.
Of course there are the outlier kids who might come up with something dumber or more evil than jehovah, but that’d take a lot of work on their part. I love the way this skewers parents between faith and pride. But then I’m evil.
(Ooops – sorry. Double post. Hit stop and edited and posted again)
(oops, sorry for posting this “oops sorry” posting)
(sorry! oops!)
@blueelm
I’m not sure she would get upset. A good swath of fundies are actually somewhat jealous of their crazier-than-them cousins in other religions. For example, the woman behind the Jesus Camp documentary expressed sorrow over the fact that American Christians don’t teach their children to despise non-Christians on the same level as do Muslim nutballs do.
dAVE @ # 29, 1) Is God the source of morality?
2) Is the Bible the word of God?
3) Is slavery immoral?
4) Then, show me in the Bible where there is one word against slavery.
There may be a problem with this aproach. If you ask anyone with a little knowledge of ethics, they should know that Plato, in the Euthyphro, demolished the idea that the gods are the source of morality. Nevertheless, it may work because the bible-bashers probably don’t know this bit of logic, despite it having been known for over two millenia, from one of the most famous philosophers.
This woman is only 26 years old. She has only been a Christian for a couple years now. And on top of that she spent the first 17 years of her life in Zimbabwe. Don’t they still practice slavery there? She is not your typical American fundamentalist. I’m not defending her…I’m just saying, she’s young and probably has very little experience in thinking for herself.
From her blog profile, she ‘studied and worked as a Mental Health Nurse’.
Prima facie evidence that schizophrenia is viral and contagious?
No, I think it’s worse than her just having little experience in thinking for herself; look at a previous post made by that Jean woman.
Best response on that blog:
MudSkipper said…
You are really turning me on Jean.
1) a Mental Health Nurse
2) Dominatrix
3) Black Woman
3 very big points for you.
05 August 2008 22:43
Regarding the BDSM aspects of viewing husband as master and wife as slave, I don’t know if you’ve seen any of the “Christian Domestic Discipline” web sites like this one (NSFW):
http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/
Here’s a description from this web site:
I’m in favor of sexual kink between consenting adults and I’m glad that these folks have discovered this form of happiness for themselves.
I made a post there. Here it is:
“Once again, I am disgusted by the ancient “wisdom” of the Bible, and the superiority of modern morals, however flawed, is made all the more blatantly obvious to me. When a black woman advocates slavery, I know there must be something horribly wrong with her religion.
I’m glad that there are many people here who recognize that Jean’s views are unjustifiable in any context but a Biblical one. Her arguments are not unlike those of pre-Civil War slaveowners.
Slavery is not a God-approved privilege, but a crime against humanity, as Exodus 21:20-21 shows. A master could beat his slaves to the brink of death, without fear of punishment.
“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].”
Surely anyone who can recognize the value of humans beings as greater than that of money, who can recognize that slavery is a terrible crime against the rights all humans should have, has outgrown the need for such a primitive “morality” as is found in the Bible.”
from: John C. Randolph @ 31
The quakers in particular were very active in the movement.
———-(you may use dashes for style…lol)
Sure, I don’t mean to nitpick you on this, but I really think it more truthful that HUMAN MORALITY EVOLVED (Quakerism wasn’t the only Christian sect opposing nor the only motivation for opposition to slavery) past it. We shed the ‘virus’ as Dawkins might say.
I find it slightly unnerving to give any credit to a religious sect based on the Bible for fighting against slavery IN THE NAME OF THEIR RELIGION. As individuals I give them a tremendous amount of credit. Any argument they made would have been a humanist one. From the research I’ve done this morning, it would appear that even the New Testament condoned the practice. They might not have realized it (or maybe they did?), but they weren’t fighting against slavery so much as they were fighting against a literal use of the Bible as a means of measuring ‘justice for all’. They were fighting against THEIR OWN RELIGIONS.
I think it’s safe to say that the Christian tradition survives today only because the majority of those who claim belief have evolved (reinterpreted) the literal texts into a more reasonable worldview. True religious nutjobs (literalists) are as rare as homosexuals, making up no more than 5% of the population. They’ve just been obnoxiously overexposed because we had an inbred dry drunk with a 12-step God delusion running the ship of state.
I mean no offense to the homosexuals, who like the Christianists, have recently received more media exposure than their actual numbers represent. It’s unpleasant to some, but necessary as well. We’re going through a ‘gay acceptance’ sequence in our civil evolution right now and the media is mirroring that. FWIW, it helps that I actually am entertained and amused by homosexuals which is definitely not the case for the Chistocrats. I’m already hearing rumors of Oscar, Penn, Milk. You go girl!
This is not new. It’s almost exactly akin to what was going on with the Jews and the media in this country about twenty years ago. The Jews are also a substantial minority with a long (and recent) history/memory of persecution. Am I the only one who remembers early cable TV when the Discovery Channel was all Nazi all day long, Schindler’s List was Milk, and the homosexuals were still in the midst of their own AIDS holocaust?
Make Love Not War.
Enjoy.
There’s also a thread about her mental abuse of her kid on Richard Dawkin’s forums though you have to be registered to see it. :(
Someone posted that they’re doing something about it. This is referring to Jean’s post about her daughter.
———-
By Alan B:
Posted by Middle America Momma on Jean Gusho-Masuka’s blog:
Christians,
This is the phone number of the Agency that is persecuting our Sister in Christ…
Then follows the number for the Lancashire Social Care Services. I telephoned them to warn them that they may expect some nuisance calls. They didn’t seem to be aware of the subject matter – perhaps it was a different department. After I explained the context (alleged Child Abuse) and after the lady took advice from her supervisor, it was suggested that I contacted the Lancashire police. Which I duly did. After going through all the explanations again, they took the website details and are now looking into it.
——–
The guy who owns that blog is a totally fucking knob-head, whether I happen to agree with that particular point or not.
Thanks. My waffles are ruined this morning.
What do you mean ‘satire’? We are in the trenches fighting the war on Christmas here!
Reynold at #48
Jeebus dude. Here’s a comment I left on that post at her website:
From what I see here, a good lawyer has a prima facie case against you for child abuse. You might want to consider seeing if you could get your posts retracted/removed because self incrimination by virtue of public confession is gonna be a hard rap to beat.
Religious child abuse is not confined to fundie Mormon sects who marry their kids off age 11. I can assure you that many of us commenting would not find favor with your practices in a CIVIL court environment.
Enjoy.
Amber @41 said “You don’t like something a woman says, make a joke about watching her die some painful death. It sends a message to ALL WOMEN that if they have an opinion or any form of self-assertion that might be unpopular, they face punishment for it”
As a woman I must disagree with the ALL WOMEN remark. While the death jokes are rude I never personally felt them to be diected at all women, just one woman.
Nor do I find in my travels that all men treat all women like they are sub-human, quite the contrary. Some men do treat women badly, there is no doubt about it, as some women treat men very badly. But ALL? A blanket statement that I find unconvinvcing.
The blog writer nailed her reasoning right to the cross:
Exactly. Christians such as Dinesh D’Souza who insist that concepts such as liberty, autonomy, constitutional democracy, and human rights were derived from the Bible and Christian-type thinking have failed to grasp or recognize the basic theme of the Abrahamic religions. Not only is the cosmology structured in the form of a hierarchy: so is the moral system.
If you read the Bible for its literary and historic meaning — and not in order to find ways to thrust current enlightenment principles into the text — it’s clear that our entire purpose here on earth is to learn to gladly, willingly, and eagerly submit to a Master. Not only will we be rewarded for doing this — the reward is intrinsic in fulfilling the given role of human, a being created for a purpose: Obedience.
Whether God is framed as a King, a Father, or even a Personal Best Friend, the narrative structure is still what the writer perceptively calls “slave talk.” One must learn to give up self-will and self-thought and self-concern for a Higher Authority: this is the only way you will learn to fit into your niche. The more we practice this habit of mind on earth, the easier it will be in heaven. “The concept of total submission and slavery is at the very heart of Christ’s gospel.”
Steve Caldwell @50, that website also offers an online boutique, perfect for your split-crotch pantaloon shopping needs.
#28 Marcus Ranum
What he said.
Before the Industrial Revolution, animal power including human power was the workforce.
Where slavery is still endemic, I suspect the thrill of the master/slave relationship is pertinent.
I’m not sure if one could make a case that that woman is criminally insane, but she certainly doesn’t deserve any sort of offspring.
I keep saying we need to offer people who have an IQ under 100 free sterilization for tax credits. We cannot afford to have pervasive stupidity in society.
I suspect promotional voluntary eugenics would certainly reduce fundamentalists’ numbers by two-thirds as soon as the oldest of them start to die – many of them are so poor and so stupid they’d almost certainly take the tax credit.
So much for the enlightened ages. She doesn’t appear to be a woman who can be reasoned with about this stuff so it won’t matter how many times people try to correct her or get her to see the world another way.
It’s unfortunate.
Does “Let my people go” imply a criticism of slavery? I can see a Christian bringing that up in defense of the bible.
Other than that, perhaps we should start framing Christians as Pro-Slavery.
@Katherine,
Please don’t go down the sterilization path. I think we can all understand and agree with your anger and distaste at this foolish, criminal woman but sterilization cannot be the answer. If your suggestion was in jest, I apologize for my hasty comment.
Katharine, that’s a big can of worms you’re prying open, especially considering the history and inherent biases of IQ testing. Plus IQ tests are not necessarily a good indicator of parenting ability, because stupid !=evil.
Besides, you probably wouldn’t weed out many religious morons, who often consider sterilization a mutilation and a sin.
There are groups that fund abortions and even tubal ligations for poor women who don’t want any more children. It’s not based on IQ, but on helping women who want to take control of their child-bearing but can’t afford to. I think it’s better to empower people to make responsible reproductive choices than to bribe them to get their bits cut out.
Yes, and as a result of their beliefs they were denounced as heretics and persecuted by the established church. The exception that proves the rule.
I feel sick for her children. She is the antithesis of what I want to be as a parent.
In the post referred to by Reynold (#53), She talks about how her daughter cannot be a good girl no matter how hard she tries, because we are all filled with sin etc., so her daughter is a “bad” girl. This poor kid is already learning self-hate in a big way.
Children are not bad, they behave badly at times, and that is when you are needed as a parent to teach them the difference between good and bad behavior.
I surprised more Christians don’t proffer this argument, given that the whole point of Christianity is learning to be completely subservient and happy about it. (And don’t tell me they wouldn’t like their god to reward them for being faithful by making them the masters of the planet praise Jesus.)
Of course, the vast majority of them aren’t really subservient to their god; they’re subservient to peer pressure and the dominate-alpha’s among them, who tend not to condone such things as slavery . . . at the moment.
IQ is not necessarily the issue with these nutcases (well, sometimes yeah it is). Some of them are quite intelligent, just not rational. They are very good at doing the mental contortions required to twist their minds around a nonsense belief.
It’s like trying to swim with an anchor tied on, if they would just cut the rope they would be fine.
Slavery isn’t all that bad.
Why me and the little misses often find it brightens up ones day to strap on the ol’ red rubber ball and stilettos, take turns tying one another down, and get out the poker. Heck, sometimes we get the whole family involved…even sparky!
Good boy sparky!
Since most of you are ignorant, what the Bible actually say about slavery in the New Testament:
1) If you are a slave, you should not fight to be free, but accept your condition and devote yourself to Christ.
2) If you are a slave owner and your slaves are Christians, you should free them and treat them as brothers.
3) If your slaves aren’t Christians, you should try to convert them (although in certain times and places slaves weren’t viewed as people so conversion wouldn’t be technically possible).
Anyway, that’s what it says.
This lady was in the blogospherical news recently for her post on how she treats her kids, bringing them up like they were some scum. I had read the slavery justifying post then. It is older. So it isn’t really her latest attempt. I had flagged her blog then, as I am sure many of us did. I am surprised blogger has done nothing about it yet. What’s more important though is that some humanist organization rescue her kids from her clutches before they evolve into something like her.
In response to my rather gentle comment suggesting the woman seek legal council noted here in this thread on comment 56, I got this ditty where he/she threatens ME with legal action (LOL):
—————
Tim says,
“From what I see here, a good lawyer has a prima facie case against you for child abuse.”
Where is there any evidence of child abuse here sir? Let me ask you this, do you think it is okay for a mob of people to trample to death another human being all for the sake of, let’s say, a toy for their kid? Is that what we should teach our children? To go after what you want, no matter what the cost?
“You might want to consider seeing if you could get your posts retracted/removed because self incrimination by virtue of public confession is gonna be a hard rap to beat.” Are you ‘threatening’ this woman and her child sir?
“Religious child abuse is not confined to fundie Mormon sects who marry their kids off age 11. I can assure you that many of us commenting would not find favor with your practices in a CIVIL court environment.”
Again, what are YOUR guidelines for child rearing sir? Let us hear them, please. THEN AND ONLY THEN will you have any right to say anything!
“Enjoy.” My my, we are feeling a bit ‘cocky’ behind our keyboard today, aren’t we? Your post is indeed a ‘threat’ to this woman, and she has every right to bring legal action against you sir!
—————–
29 November 2008 11:53
Blogger Tim said…
name redacted (buy a vowel)
“Enjoy.” My my, we are feeling a bit ‘cocky’ behind our keyboard today, aren’t we?
——
I end all my correspondence that way. It’s as recognition and tribute for a fallen comrade.
I am obviously not the only one who sees abuse here, so who is on the high horse here?
I don’t expect you to understand common logical fallacies (you’re religious after all), but linking a mob trampling to this individual case of what many view as confessed child abuse is what I think is called a ‘straw man’. Google isn’t just for atheists.
Threaten? Surely you jest? From what I have read, other concerned humans have already contacted the authorities whose job it is to investigate and adjudicate these types of matters. Might surprise you, but there are laws outside the bible to deal with injustice and might be considered more of a crime to look away than report it. I’m invoking the Good Samaritan defense. You do know about that one don’t you? ROTFLMAO.
My expression of advice is worth what you paid for it. It is offered as friendly advice, not legal council, though I’ve seen the same advice proffered from Christian advocates (..she needs to get a good CHRISTIAN lawyer….lol.)
As to her complaints against me, I’m not hard to find.
Enjoy.
———–
Enjoy.
Steve Caldwell (#50) said, with regards to “Christian Domestic Discipline”,
This presumes, of course, that the relationship is in fact based on informed consent. Greta Christina covered this point better than I could (in a mildly NSFW manner).
Because that would be a sin. Blasphemy to be exact. You see, only the Lord is the lord over life and death…
Ever noticed that life insurances don’t pay in case of suicide, except in Japan?
Which is still incredibly high. Over here, they make up more like 0.05 %…
What evidence do we have that he’s a dry drunk? I mean, the fact that he says so? LOL. On his birthday in 2006 or 2007, he was supposed to shake someone’s hand and almost fell over. He also fell over while riding a bike. And what was that pretzel incident exactly…?
It is patently obvious that mizzy Christian is mentally sick.
She apparently had an abortion and that has rebounded extremely badly…her self hate and loathing are endemic throughout her blog entry.
She is apparently suffering from Münchhausen by proxy syndrome and her daughter is on the receiving end of her insanity.
I hope the authorities can sort it out soon as possible…but I have no faith in religion and even less in the social services…so not expecting miracles here.
This has doodly squat to do with religion per se the woman is ill and mentally incapable of rational decisions …although she is using religion as an excuse for her behaviour…what is really disturbing is the number of god fearing clones that are praising her for her behaviour…that is where religion does have a case to answer…someone somewhere is not explaining the bible properly in a truly Christian context…while someone else is twisting and lying to promote an abhorrent and viciously sadistic version as the truth…
She is getting these ideas from somewhere…
Time is that this whole fundamentalist bandwagon has to be regarded as anti-social and criminal… prosecutions must happen…bugger this right of worship nonsense…at the very least this loser must be sectioned with or without her consent…she is very ill to do that to a child…and the authorities must regard it as a case for action…
That child is going to be …if not already…irreparably damaged.
What more must occur before they get the kid out of that poison?
The way it is going they will only get her out in a bodybag…well done! another inquiry to burn up tax money..another lucrative little earner for the law circus..and another statistic for the records
Just please cite the verses you have distilled these conclusions out of.
I have no idea why they do in Japan but religion is not the reason insurance companies here exclude suicide from benefits. The reason is much more practical, it would cost the insurance companies too much money if someone could take out a big policy to benefit his family and then off himself.
However ideologically flattering you might find that conclusion, it does not follow from the fact that a person who commits premeditated stupidity in the first degree, and earns the antipathy of rational human beings for it, happens to be a woman.
The head of the local evangelical association recently wrote a letter to the editor defending slavery and expressed dismay when others wrote condemning his stance. He was subsequently defended by other evangelicals who pointed out that he was teaching the word of God.
Such people appear to be personally amoral, looking only to external authority for guidelines as to what may be right or wrong, acceptable on unacceptable, in any given instance.
After reading through her blog I find a single comment about her husband being a “non-believer”.
Must be wonderful for him to be married to her then. Imagine the daily shit the poor bastard has to put up with.
Bride of Shrek. They deserve each other, but at least he’s morally free to divorce her in a civil court whereas she considers herself to be his slave bride and would worry about burning in Hell forever over a divorce.
Conservatives define marriage as the slavery contract between a man and a woman irrevocably bonded by GOD. That’s the connection here.
Enjoy.
Is referring to one’s self in the nonspecific third person (“this woman”) a symptom of mental illness?
Re: “Dry” Drunk Dubya:
“On his birthday in 2006 or 2007, he was supposed to shake someone’s hand and almost fell over. He also fell over while riding a bike.”
He also wiped out on a Segway, which is supposed to be impossible.
There’s actually a more recent photo of him drinking an alcoholic beverage of South American origin. A Peruvian pisco sour. Google is your friend.
Enjoy.
Well, tradition is the reason, and the reason for the tradition is religion…
Way too few people would do that to pose a financial risk. Even, apparently, in Japan.
Oooh, this is frustrating. Why does everyone keep saying that my church, the Landover Baptist Church, is joke? It’s not a joke for those of us who have found our salvation there. So, for any Christians reading this, who are you going to believe, this athiest evolutionist egalitarian or your fellow Christians and the Bible?
Google us, you just might learn something.
People like this remind me of that famous phrase (first spoken by Dan Quayle I believe): “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind.”
“the bible does not condemn slavery, because the whole concept of Christians serving God would be meaningless.”
Dang! She was SO CLOSE to getting a clue.
Waitaminit… isn’t devotion to God meant to be voluntary per the Big Guy hisself? So why would he punish infidels? That would be illogi… oh, never mind.
I left the following comment on that blog post under the same name:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=665800124788984797&postID=2310007576850085857&page=1
It states:
Given that the book of Titus was written after the new covenant, the Christian literalist is forced to concede that God condones slavery.
Here are the relevant verses (Titus 2:9 – 10):
9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
If the Bible is truly the inerrant word of God, than God had ample opportunities to provide instructions to people for all times after the New Covenant regarding slavery. He complicitly condones the practice by providing both instructions to slaves (found elsewhere) and the administration of slaves by their Christian masters (found in the above chapters [should have stated “verses”, not “chapters”).
A god who commands us elsewhere in the NT to love the least of us like we would our supposed savior Jesus Christ would surely command us to free our slaves from bondage.
Me? I think the idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is one of the most idiotic ideas ever formulated by a human and that slavery is an abhorrent and evil practice we should also commit ourselves to abolishing. Anyone at the teen-ager level who is halfway smart and hasn’t been brainwashed by conservative Christian churches can see the Bible’s contradictions, illogical premises (like I just pointed out), and often – the promotion or condoning of downright evil practices such as slavery or stoning women adulterers (along with some very good ideas as well, like the idea of grace, and treating others like we would like to be treated – though those ideas are not unique to the Bible but instead predate it by several hundred years).
Posted by: davidst | November 29, 2008
Since most of you are ignorant, what the Bible actually say about slavery in the New Testament:
1) If you are a slave, you should not fight to be free, but accept your condition and devote yourself to Christ.
One of the many reasons why some people called christianity a religion fit for slaves. Do not struggle; do not fight; there is not reason to try to improve your conditions. You are where the big sky daddy wants you to be.
Oh, nice way to come into this blog, calling most of the people ‘ignorant’. You are sadly mistaken on that. But the good news is you have already shown yourself to be a dumbass. Play nicely now or bigger and meaner people than me will start playing “troll stomp”.
Judging from her blog, she’s into Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and BDSM. “Little Fundy Chicks, Big Fundy…Bananas” is screaming to be made! Somebody call Larry Flynt!
I would not for one moment condone NON-consensual slavery. Not for one moment.
Now, consider this: For some people the thought of living in a committed relationship as Master and slave is a desirable thing. They may not be driven by religious conviction, but they have a need to live such a way.
May I cite some websites that may be of interest to those wishing to know more or possibly wishing to live such a life.
This site is not about Master/slave relationships per se, but focuses on male dominated relationships.
http://www.takeninhand.com
For those wanting to know more about the concepts of “Consensual Enslavement”, I recommend:
http://www.enslavement.org.uk
Finally, for those who see the “patriarchy at it’s worst”, I offer this:
http://www.venus-on-top.com
JMHO
Oooh, “troll stomp”, my favorite sport. I’ll start the popcorn. Now where are my boots?…
Following up on several comments, way back in paper-only days, The Nation had a section called “The Weak in Review.” In it, they cited an Alabama legislator stood up in their legislature and declared, seriously, that “to be against slavery is to be against God.”
I have a list of states I will never live in; I have a sub-list of states I feel nervous flying over (lest my flight is grounded for some non-divine reason for even 15 minutes, and I fail to praise Jebus for being alive). Alabama is on both of them.
I have kin down there, who keep telling me, “You have to come and visit sometime.” Not bloody likely.
This woman gives morons a bad name. Her understanding of history is only slightly less pathetic than her understanding of the Bible. People in “Biblical times” mostly sold themselves into slavery because they were poor and couldn’t provide for themselves? Did she miss the OT passages where, in addition to wiping out entire civilizations, they sold the women into slavery?
It’s an idiotic book compiled by a bunch of nomadic patriarchal shepherds. Slaves, like sheep, were a commodity of exchange. Women were property. Their “loving” God orders genocidal campaigns, approves of sacrificing children, and devolves into a psychotic paranoid when the issue of other Gods arises.
And they think this is the word of God? Madness.
There are always incredibly stupid fucktards among us. This woman is one of them. Her every argument shows the stupidity. Her parents should have been tested for a minimum IQ and not have been allowed to procreate (in her case concreate, there is nothing pro- about her).
I’d like to say that this is a hoax, but I’ve actually had people attempt to justify the Biblical view of slavery to me. Of course, it’s only right in a certain historical context – for some reason, none of these people thought it was a good idea to reinstate this God-sanctioned institution today. Funny that.
I’m still not sure that this isn’t a satire.
That said what on earth has the colour of her skin got to do with anything?
The author of the piece in question supposedly came from Zimbabwe (and no to one of the precious commenters, they don’t have slaves there – nor do they cook missionaries in big iron pots). To expect her to be especially sensitive to thew question of slavery is akin to expecting a British person to be extra sensitive towards Russian serfdom.
Amber #41:
“look at some of the comments about Jenny McCarthy in the recent thread here, how violent some of them are. You don’t like something a woman says, make a joke about watching her die some painful death. It sends a message to ALL WOMEN that if they have an opinion or any form of self-assertion that might be unpopular, they face punishment for it.”
Puh-lease. She’s an idiot, that doesn’t have anything to do with her being a woman, and that shouldn’t have even crossed anyones mind. Are you saying that any women who is publicly advancing a stupid and dangerous cause should be given a free pass because she’s a woman?
Yeah, it’s extreme to joke about her death, but if women take jokes about her to be about ALL women, then maybe women really ARE as irrational as the stereotype says.
“Here’s a better lesson: why don’t men just stop treating women like they’re sub-human?”
*ahem* Weren’t you just trying to make some kind of point about stereotyping?
Hm. Would that have been Charles Davidson?
From the Christian Domestic Discipline site linked in #50, crotchless bloomers!
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=17732859
‘That said what on earth has the colour of her skin got to do with anything?’
Well black skin and slavery seem to have a history…matters not a flying jot what part of Africa this bint originated from the fact is as a black female her views are really quite extraordinary if not to say sick….
One might regard the point that religion and slavery are quite happy bed fellows with religion being the dominant that is the godly way apparently…the church has approved of slavery openly and in fact were the main owners in the not so distant past..just seems damned ugly but completely typical of religion that a so called Christian black female can be into being dominated…probably soundly thrashed by her better…and advocate slavery as god’s chosen peccadillo…
The woman is ill…her views are not valid..she is obviously incapable of rationalisation…except as a method for promoting a evil version of the so called good book…she hates herself…she is riven with guilt and she mentally abuses her child then is proud of herself to such an extent that she openly brags about it in public…WTF …by any measurement of barking that has got to be near the top…if not floating a few thousand metres above it…
That woman need not be fake though she’s a flake :)
I may be wrong but she refers to concepts like Election and the total and complete depravity of human beings from birth so i think she’s a calvinist. Calvinists are really into the whole suffering for christ, being a slave to christ thing. They sneer at fellow protestants who tell people that having god in one’s life leads to happiness and good things etc. They generally believe that being happy isn’t the point. The only thing that counts is obeying God’s law.
estboro baptist church’s views (godhatesfags) are similar to this though they really really revel in the hatred that God supposedly has for humans.
The only thing that surprises me much about her is that she’s african. I’m not aware of calvinism making much inroads on that continent, except among the afrikaner ( dutch reformed church )who brought it with them from Holland.
Make Love Not War.
or to be more specific: Fuck, don’t fight.
Yeah, the New Testament is pretty clear – slaves, don’t run away, even if you are presented with an opportunity. This makes Harriet Tubman a highly unchristian figure in American history, if you insist on taking the Bible at face value down to the last letter.
I have to respond to Marcus at #28: Your rationale for slavery reminds me of the insincere concern some meat-eaters feign for the fates of all those domestic animals that will become extinct if we don’t eat them. “I eat beef because I care.”
“What should we do with all these conquered peoples?” Really? Your reading of history is woefully inadequate if you’ve gleaned that “coming to terms with them” was usually the first option. Acquiring slaves–and other resources–was a major reason for conquering people, not an unfortunate side-effect. So your question for the politically correct is either ignorant or disingenuous. Conquered people aren’t throwing themselves at the gates, begging to be enslaved. Conquerors go out looking for them.
It might surprise you to learn that work gets done even when people are not enslaved–if the work is worth doing. Pyramids and monuments, not so much.
I’ve never understood African-American religiosity*. How they can have, as a people, experienced what they’ve experienced and yet still believe in an all-powerful yet all-loving god is beyond me.
How do they justify his repeated inaction to the injustices they’ve faced – and are, indeed, still facing today?
*Not that I really understand anyone’s religiosity, but it’s easier to believe a ruling class might think it’s special
davidst @ 71
You forgot the biblical instructions for selling your daughter into sexual slavery
Wowbaggger #108
Because the life of the slave was one of quiet desperation where the thought of escape was impossible and those they loved were repeatedly ripped from them never to be seen again. This was even true of those that managed to escape. None could ever dream of anything in the temporal life, certainly not advancement. Since then, the AA community has been ritualistically targeted by the descendants of the slave-owners who have insured that upward mobility is difficult and that escape from their neighborhoods nearly impossible. Add to this senseless killings that go unpunished, the targeted assassination of every leader that stands up for them or is merely prominent and black for generations as well as the generations after slavery where blacks were selectively targeted for murder simply to enforce the status quo. A threat that is revived with each new hanging of the noose.
Essentially the AAs have etched into their cultural memory that no one is letting them out of the shitter, so if they want to see a day they don’t have to be afraid, where they can be who they are without reprisal, they have to believe in a magical fairy pony-land in the clouds.
With such chains they bind themselves further.
Sigmund @99 “That said what on earth has the colour of her skin got to do with anything? The author of the piece in question supposedly came from Zimbabwe…………. To expect her to be especially sensitive to thew question of slavery is akin to expecting a British person to be extra sensitive towards Russian serfdom.
Sigmund, there is a nuance you may be missing; the black America slaves come black African people who were stolen from their lands, homes and families and put into slavery.
Very possibly she could have ancestors who were stolen to becomes slaves. A bit different from the British/Russian serf example.
If I’m not mistaken, the Persians paid their laborers a decent wage (for those times), and still ended up with some impressive public architecture.
Wowbagger #108 wrote:
People who frame their personal life through a religious narrative often don’t look at the big picture. They pick up the story from the point where they are at that very moment, as a main character — and they’re getting near the climax, where everything is about to come right again. They can therefore give meaning to their suffering. It’s a sign that the happy ending is near, and it will be all the happier because of the contrast.
We often think in stories. Religion encourages us to think of our lives as a tale of Everyman. All the pain of those before you is background; the punishment of the damned is a foil; accidents and tragedies are plot devices. Faith in God is an unyielding commitment to the belief that nothing really bad ever has happened, is happening, or will happen. There’s nothing but a satisfying story with a happy ending, always and forever, amen.
Cerberus, #110
Well put.
The more I think of it the more unpleasant it becomes – I suspect that while being beaten and exploited they were also indoctrinated into religion by the white slave-owners, who told them there was a god, and that it was god’s will that they were slaves and it’s in the bible.
If the slave-owners demanded the slaves adopt xinanity or face additional punishment the slaves would have raised their children to believe in order to protect them from harm, and the children passed that belief on as genuine. I guess they could have taught them the truth and that they had to lie about their belief, but that’s far riskier; safer just to lie to the kids.
What gets me now is why they don’t see through it and toss it aside. By retaining it they’re leaving one set of shackles on.
“Some people couldn’t get a clue if they were drenched in clue pheromones, dancing in a clue field in the middle of clue mating season, wearing a clue suit, and shouting ‘Cloo! Cloo!’.”
(…Strange. I would have bet money that I’d found this quote on Pharyngula once and copied it into my quote archive. But it’s not there. Nor is it anywhere on teh whole wide intarwebz except for two places, according to Google, and even then with misspellings in both. What happen? Somebody set up me the bomb?)
The pyramids, though, were not built by slaves.
If memory serves, the pyramids were not built by slaves, but rather by peasants drafted into the workforce on a seasonal basis (farmers conscripted by Pharaoh to drag stones when the Nile was in flood and farming was impossible).
Wowbagger #114 wrote:
No, from what I understand, that’s not how most of the American slaves interpreted the Bible. Instead, they took the book and saw themselves as being like the Israelites enslaved in Egypt, or under the Romans. They took the role and viewpoint of the main characters, as most people do. Their suffering showed that they (and their captors) were being tested by a God who would deliver them soon, and set them free. If not on this earth, then in heaven.
Go down, Moses, Way down in Egyptland; Tell old Pharaoh, to let my people go…
David Marjanovich #115 wrote:
Someone recently used it on scienceblog’s NeuroLogica, and Steve Novella said he wanted to borrow it for the podcast. Maybe that’s where you saw it?
Very hard to imagine in Zimbabwe.
Of course that’s where phenomena like the Nation of Islam come from.
In my opinion she is obviously in such denial and guilt about her deep submissive sexual nature, she does what all sexually guilt ridden religious fanatics do, she makes it the fault of an evil being who has corrupted the society around her. God has chosen her to help defeat that evil and deliver his word. Then she can revel in her “chaste” submissiveness because she is being submissive to God by his command. Classic projection.
I have great empathy for her children, especially since I believe the chances of even one them leading a healthy mental life are depressingly low.
No, I saw it maybe two years ago, and Google doesn’t find the occurrence in NeuroLogica (just Yahoo and MySpace).
Sastra, #117
Oh, okay. I can see the logic (of sorts) in that. But it’s very sad.
David Marjanović, #119 wrote:
It makes a whole lot more sense to me than xinanity – can anyone blame them for hating white people? Probably a good thing for the US that they don’t, though.
Skemono (#101):
Could have been the late Massa Davidson. I remember reading the remarks in the late ’70s or early ’80s, but I’m sure he didn’t limit himself to one speech. God constantly needs defending, poor li’l thing.
@ 50,
Thank you for that astonishing link ! That would seem like thinking the bible through to its logical conclusion….Astonishing !
What does it say about master/slave BDSM relationships tho? LOL
mayhempix @ 120,
I think she is mentally ill,repressed sexuality is probably this lady’s smallest problem.
Re: #28 (Marcus Ranum)
Finally, someone who has a sense of the materialist concept of history (dialectical/historical materialism of Marx/Engels). As technology changes, so do social systems. Slavery was overthrown in the US because of the chaffe between slavery as an economic system and the far more productive capitalist system. Even if there weren’t people who found it repugnant morally, it still would have been overthrown.
Now if we can just get to the next step and overthrow capitalism…
Gene, you just had to write that, didn’t you? Now we’re going to be bombarded with libertarians who, after sending out their equivalent of the bat-symbol*, will rush here to argue with you.
*A silhouette of Ayn Rand
Frank says “If I’m not mistaken, the Persians paid their laborers a decent wage (for those times), and still ended up with some impressive public architecture.”
Well yes, receiving payment for one’s labor is a very basic definition of “work worth doing.” Certainly that’s the only reason I go to my job every day! My point was that people can be motivated to do all sorts of work, if there’s a reason for it–slavery isn’t the only way to get work done. But I still contend that they were unlikely to voluntarily build large monuments, with no compensation.
When Marcus said “there was work for slaves to do,” he seemed to imply that the work wouldn’t have been done, otherwise. If farmers were indeed “drafted” to build the pyramids but weren’t compensated, they were slaves, albeit temporarily. If they were paid, then obviously slavery wasn’t necessary. Which invalidates his point about “the seven wonders.”
i wish i hadn’t gone to look at those two posts, especially the one about her daughter. i’ve some awful PTSD/Catholic Guilt problems where i learned to hate myself as a kid because I could never be “good enough” for God (yet somehow he was supposed to love me anyway? yeah, that just made me feel guilty for never being able to live up to the expectations) – easily the #1 reason I’m now agnostic/atheist. i mean, it’s healthier for me.
anyway, it’s so upsetting to see all the comments defending that woman’s actions as not abuse. from what i can tell, she’s doing just what my family and school and church did, trying to tell me all about how wonderful god is for loving me even though I’m no better than a worm and everything i do is sinful. yeah, that’s not something kids should be told. kids aren’t able to compartmentalize their thoughts the way adults can, and even adults can have trouble with those ideas.
i’ve been under stress lately because i’ve been trying to build my self confidence and apply to grad school, and that stupid post has gone and upset me. i should’ve known better than to read it. :(
the best part? one of the commentators decided to tell me (i think she was talking to me, though she misspelt my name, which was right there in front of her) that my parents, school, and church raised me properly and that i don’t actually hate myself. (because feeling self-hate while knowing that it isn’t normal to self-hate isn’t possible?)
it’s a pity that this kind of thing is so commonplace as to be waved off as ‘normal religious guilt’ and the social workers probably won’t find anything wrong, should they investigate the household (or any other households in the country). i hope that they can reverse her brainwashing, at least, and protect her kids’ from any more emotional abuse.
Ann writes:
Your rationale for slavery reminds me of the insincere concern some meat-eaters feign for the fates of all those domestic animals that will become extinct if we don’t eat them. “I eat beef because I care.”
It’s not my rationale, you moron. I was not there at the time. I was not born until 1962.
“What should we do with all these conquered peoples?” Really? Your reading of history is woefully inadequate if you’ve gleaned that “coming to terms with them” was usually the first option. Acquiring slaves–and other resources–was a major reason for conquering people, not an unfortunate side-effect.
I was referring to the Greek/Roman/Hunnish/Khanate/Han/British approach of showing up, kicking the headman/king/whatever’s ass and saying “NOW you are part of OUR EMPIRE. Be good citizens or we’ll have the hoplites/legionnaires/redcoats/janissaries flatten you.” Some of the bigger slave empires (think Persia or Ghengis Khan’s empire) were enlarged rapidly by the promise to the local headman that they could keep their head attached as long as they put it to the great Khan’s foot – pronto. In that case, did the empire just gain a new border province, or did it just gain thousands of slaves?
So your question for the politically correct is either ignorant or disingenuous.
I was being neither ignorant nor disinenuous – I was being sarcastic. It’s a whole different attitude.
It might surprise you to learn that work gets done even when people are not enslaved–if the work is worth doing. Pyramids and monuments, not so much.
It doesn’t surprise me at all.
If you look at the way technological civilizations have evolved, you only have the Leonardo Da Vincis sitting around coming up with fanciful new weapons (OK, so his didn’t work so well…) while some other shlub works the field to feed them. The amount of surplus available directly affects the energy you can expend on research (and art, or whatever) – that’s why preindustrial civilizations used human capital freely whenever they could. I’m not excusing it – why should I? It’s the past! But it’s silly to go around trying to translate our current repugnance for slavery (dutifully repugnant I am, though I descended from Norwegian immigrants…)
With respect to slaves being paid a “decent wage” – it’s pretty much always one of those situations where it’s the only game in town. Wage-slavery was (and is) quite a real phenomenon; it’s just plain old slavery with a few capitalistic trappings hung over it.
Slavery only became immoral when it ceased being cost effective. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
Morality is inherently a function of choice. If the alternative is genocide, slavery is more moral. If the alternative is emancipation and education, slavery is less moral.
In a similar way, that’s one of the things that’s always blown me away about the Navajo code talkers in WWII.
If you look at the history of the US government and the Navajo, there are broken treaties, murder, forced marches and dislocation, and mass slaughter of tribal members’ cattle and sheep in the name of protecting the domestic market.
If that same government had done such things to my people, and had then turned around and come to me for help, under the circumstances, I’d have told them where to put it in no uncertain terms. The code talkers not only did not do so, but they rose to the occasion spectacularly. It is possible that without them, the Pacific war would have been, at best, much harder fought, and possibly lost.
I can only conclude that, in general, they are much better persons fundamentally than I am, and–given history–that we are lucky that that fact is true. I’d say a similar thing is true regarding your comment as well.
I’m sorry she did that to you, keri–it takes some nerve to decide you know better about someone’s experience than they do themselves, and proceed to publicly lecture them about it. it sounds like you see through her, though, and that’s good.
one of the kindest things that anyone has ever done for me was when I was freaking out about applying to grad school, and almost gave up without applying, my friend Page talked to me about how we always judge ourselves harder than anyone else does, and how lots of us feel like we are “impostors” compared to others in our group (there’s even a name for it, the “impostor syndrome”).
He basically talked me down, and kept me going to apply, and going to grad school was the best thing I ever did with my life. I know I don’t know you well enough to talk about specifics, but from your post about what you’ve come through, it’s clear that you are strong and brave enough to have overcome some very insidious programming, without growing bitter.
remember that, if you ever have doubts about your self-confidence, or whether you deserve to apply to school. it’s not an easy path, but at least for me, I found it worthwhile. but I almost didn’t apply, because of a crisis of confidence, and one of the best things anyone ever did for me was when Page encouraged me not to let the doubts deter me, but to go ahead through the doubt and apply anyway.
Don’t worry: slavery is coming back to the US bigger than ever. You have slavery now, of course, via the penal system. But soon, with the changes to the bankruptcy system, debt-slavery is going to be *huge*.
why is it that nearly every single system of our country is so screwed up? Prison, education, economic, industry/ big business, and all three parts of the Federal government, and many many smaller local governments are worse. Woe betide the U.S. of A! how can we possibly maintain that we are a superpower? oh well, there’s that whole military thing, good use it’s been recently. Isreal’s tiny effecient army is putting ours to shame on a daily basis. Please, anyone correct me!
Marcus Ranum @ 130:
Yes, exactly!
I have always maintained that the real credit for the abolition of slavery belongs properly to James Watt. All that stuff about slaves rising up against their masters, or former slave-owners having sudden realisations, is post-hoc rationalisation.
I have no doubt that if there had not been invented an alternative source of large amounts of kinetic energy besides human muscle power, then slavery would be going as strong today as it ever had. This is one of the cards I keep up my sleeve for use in discussions with those who romanticise pre-Revolutionary times — along with the one pointing out that fiftieth birthdays are a modern invention.
clinteas #125
“I think she is mentally ill,repressed sexuality is probably this lady’s smallest problem.”
Repressed sexuality often produces extreme neurosis or is a symptom of it or greater mental illness. It is a manifest of the problem, not the smallest.
Blake Stacey,
ty for the link to GC’s post about CDD.I continue to be astonished about this.
Not really – although not shipped across the Atlantic. The Arab slave trade reached far down the East coast of Africa and quite a way inland. In the nineteenth century the Ndebele invaded from the south-east as part of the Mfecane (Time of Troubles) following the foundation of the Zulu state. The Ndebele took much of the best land and subordinated the majority Shona – whether any Shona were enslaved I don’t know, but it seems very likely. Then the British invaded, and imposed forced labour – not so far from slavery. In the liberation war, all sides coerced labour. At least Mugabe offers something new – enforced idleness because the economy’s collapsed.
And I thought my own bizarre office mate was the only one! She is from the Caribbean and praises slavery for having brought her ancestors out of heathen Africa to the New World where they could learn Christianity and hard work from the highest culture in the world, that of England (and later, its spin-off of America). She is also a misogynist who says that women have mental limitations and she would never want to work for a woman. Of course, she is the same individual who regularly tells me some of the most insane things I have ever heard.
‘If slavery were wrong than God would have said so’
Exactly, god never said pedophilia or abortion were wrong either. Time for all of God’s followers to obey his word!
If we’re going to include any possibility of slavery involving someones ancestors (or relatives of someones direct ancestors) then we might as well include everyone likely to read this thread. Slavery was such a ubiquitous system worldwide I doubt a single one of us isn’t historically connected to it in some way or the other.
In Europe alone slavery was an important economic aspect of the Roman Empire and was widely practiced by Celtic and Viking cultures amongst many. Even before European involvement in the African slave trade slavery was used by the British as a means of dealing with the Irish populace displaced during its invasion and plantation, tens of thousands of whom were shipped to the west indies as slaves during the 17th century.
I can perfectly understand why African Americans would be especially sensitive to slavery – most of them are probably direct descendants of 18th or 19th century slaves. Its pure speculation, however, to claim that the fundie author of the article in question is similarly connected. For all we know she might be a descendant of slave traders rather than slaves.
Good post … I look forward to another …
Having read a couple of this woman’s posts, I cannot help but think she is starving for attention, and uses the blog to get it. May be being a stay-at-home mother is not all it is made out to be.
I say, good. Everyone (especially creationists) should listen to this twit, and submit to the rule of their Darwinian Overlords and to the authority of the International Atheistic Evolutionary Science Conspiracy, and STFU. That would solve a lot of problems. Don’t you think so? ;-)
As we say all the time, Landover Baptist is not a parody, it is a Divine Revelation™. The revelation here is all of what this person quotes is in the Good Book®. As our Loving Savior ™ savagely punishes us at the slightest misstep by encouraging us to enslaving other people Jesus is not asking us to do anything He is willing to do Himself. GLORY!
PS Repent atheists before you are bent over a magma vent in Hell. Charles Darwin can’t save you, only Jesus can.
Really, Marcus? Someone calls you on your poor logic and they’re automatically morons? Nice argumentation technique.
Your original post was a great example of begging the question, and your response didn’t fix it. And yes, slavery wasn’t considered immoral when it was commonplace—so what?
it would appear that even the New Testament condoned the practice. They might not have realized it