OK. That’s not really the title to the book. It was Jon Stewart’s suggested title during his interview of Sam Harris on the Daily Show. But as Sam said, it would have made a good subtitle.
It’s time for us all (scientists and non-scientists) to get off our asses and get to work.
For too long the semi-official position among scientists and other otherwise reasonable people has been this with regard to morality: Science has nothing to say about it. But it does. In fact, it is the only way we have of getting our morals right.
Obi-Wan Kenobi isn’t our only hope. Science is.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Sam Harris | ||||
| ||||
The God of Abraham gets slavery wrong. Slavery is probably the easiest moral question we’ve ever had to face. And if this book [the Bible] was written by an omniscient deity, the true source of moral wisdom in the universe, it should at least get the question of whether it’s right to own people and treat them like farm equipment right. It doesn’t get that question right. The God of Abraham clearly expects us to keep slaves.One of the reasons I haven't been posting much lately is that I've been harassing Doug Wilson at his blog. (The other is that I'm reading Sam Harris' new book.) I've especially been pestering him on the issue of slavery, which he used to call "a wonderful issue" about which "the Bible speaks most directly, again and again."
Here’s what he said in Southern Slavery As It Was.
The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented in this booklet is that we will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this "inflammatory" position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here.I'm trying to find out if Mr. Wilson still believes that slavery is "wonderful issue." I'm guessing that he doesn't, since he no longer likes to talk (out loud) about it.
...
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?
I wonder if he agrees more now with the Bible or with Sam Harris?
I'll let you know if I get an answer.
(I recommend that you all visit Doug's blog. But if you do, be nice. Don't call the folks over there ignorant sluts. That really makes them mad.)
October 7th Update: Apparently Doug Wilson's view of slavery hasn't changed, at least it was the same in 2005 when he published Black and Tan. Here are some excepts.
The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that I am saying (out lout) that a godly man in 1850 could have been a slave owner. But this “inflammatory” position is the very point where the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. p.46So I guess Doug Wilson and I don't agree on everything anymore.
…
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, malum in se, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians in slave-owning cultures to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe? p.46
…
The radical abolitionist maintained that slave-owning was inherently evil under any circumstances. But in this matter, the Christians who owned slaves in the South were on firm scriptural ground. May a Christian own slaves, even when this makes him part of a larger pagan system which is not fully scriptural, or perhaps not scriptural at all? Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ’s laws governing such situations, the Bible is clear that under such conditions Christians may own slaves. p.51
…
The bible teaches that a man may be a faithful Christian and a slave-owner in a pagan slave system. p.52
…
As far as the apostle [Paul] was concerned, nothing can be plainer than the fact that a Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good standing of the Christian church. p.52
…
But apart from the slave trade, in a slave-holding society owning slaves per se was not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it outright, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way. p.55
…
It is time for us to stand and declare the truth about slavery and to expose the failures of the abolitionist worldview.p.58
…
When we set aside the teaching of Scripture on slavery, and begin to equivocate on what the Bible actually teaches, it was soon discovered that nonbelievers would not let us get away with it. It turns out that there are actual non-Christians out there who have read the Bible and who know what it says. p.62
13 comments:
Slavery. Why are we still talking about slavery and Bible? The Exodus book was written by people who thought that slavery was okay.
We are still talking about slavery, Randomdude, because people still believe in the Bible.
I know Steve(which is my name)what is wrong with them ;)
I do love Sam attack on Christians and Slavery. As it tends to avoid the historical evidence. He ignores the historical fact that first groups oppose Slavery were Christians. First, Quakers then Methodists and Baptists were the first to oppose slavery for religious reason and in principle. The first major organization to oppose slavery was, yes you guessed, Christian. (http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=482) The heart and soul of the abolition movement was founded and populated by Christians and most historians rightly claim that with out the Second Great Awakening, there would have been no abolition. The same for the work of Wilberforce and the fight to end Slave trading in England. BY the way many of the Deists and Enlightenment movement viewed Slavery in pragmatic terms, (Think Thomas Jefferson) that it was a necessary evil. It WAS THE PUSH BY CHRISTIANS THAT CALL FOR IT ABOLISHMENT that ended the practice. By Sam, the Glen Beck of atheists, has never let evidence and fact get in the way of a good rhetorical argument. Moreover, unlike Sam Harris, many Christians are still actively working on the Abolition movement. (Anyone who thinks Slavery is gone, lives, like the good Dr. Harris, in LaLa land.
Tito,
I do love Sam attack on Christians and Slavery. As it tends to avoid the historical evidence.
Well, that wasn't his point, was it? His point was that the Bible approves of slavery, and in fact it does in both the Old and New Testaments. So if the Bible was inspired by God, it was inspired by a God who was wrong about slavery. (Unless you, like Doug Wilson, think slavery is right.)
Sam point is based on very bad exegesis. The groups I mentioned that first opposed slavery did so out a commitment to scripture with Galatians 3.28 being their found text. Sam has gone into a prooftexting search of the bible to prove his point. (He has become as good a master at this) As to Doug Wilson, I can not speak. I never heard of man, but I tell you I have been active with the Free the Slaves movement, and I am active out of my faith. (http://www.life-and-faith.org/2010/05/free-slaves-dr-bales-and-breaking-of.html)
Finally, reading Wilson's quotes you provided, I would be incline to think he is like Sam in doing bad exegesis.
The first people to oppose slavery weren't quakers. The first group of people to oppose slavery were slaves.
"The first people to oppose slavery weren't quakers. The first group of people to oppose slavery were slaves."
Agreed.
And will you now post Dr. Dr. Kevin Bales Ted Talk, (http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_bales_how_to_combat_modern_slavery.html) and get active in eliminating Slavery once and for all. Dr. Bales runs Free the Slaves a non-religious movement to stop modern slavery.
To quote Jesus, "Do you love me...then feed my sheep." While that may not be your motivation, it is time we, to quote you all got off out "asses" and start working.
The major abolitionist groups were all Christian, and were very motivated by their religion, undoubtedly. The problem is that southerners were also very devout and turned to scripture to justify slavery. They accused abolitionists of cherry-picking the Bible to support their own agenda. In a proper moral guide there should be NO QUESTION that slavery is wrong.
Christians do many noble things. Almost every Christian I know is tolerant and generally very reasonable. Many are exceptionally moral specifically because of their faith. But it's because of their ignorance of the Bible that this is possible. Almost every Christian I know simply ignores the unpleasant parts of the Bible.
The point is...
while it's undoubtedly true that sincere Christians were behind the abolition of slavery - and hurrah for them - they didn't get the idea of abolishing it from the bible.
" The point is...
while it's undoubtedly true that sincere Christians were behind the abolition of slavery - and hurrah for them - they didn't get the idea of abolishing it from the bible."
Actually, Wilberforce and the others used to cite Gal 3.28 as their founding text. Along with many text in Isiah (freeing the oppressed). Also, in an interesting side note, many historians have made the claim that one of the reason for not allowing Slaves to read was the Exodus story was to close to home. In fact, the slave owners may have been right to fear that as the Moses story was pick up by the slaves as a liberation narrative. Another interesting side note, many slave owners had a very sticky realtionship with missionaries who wanted to convert slaves. Many were tar and feathered and in a few cases hanged.
That was different, though; historically, it meant the oppressed Israelites... but, who cares about that -- let's go on and on about all the good things Christians did! :-D
...
...wait, you're saying they brutally murdered people in the name of faith?
...
...and they did what to women? :-O
...
..erm... you know what? Forget what I said. :-/
Also, is it just me, or did Jon Stewart get really hung up on the scientific basis of morality? It's almost as though he didn't take it seriously... :-/
Post a Comment