Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[SteveH]

Being in debt is not the same as real slavery imo,  as many people have got themselves into debt unnecessarily by spending unwisely.

Debt-bondage, not merely debt. Look it up on Wikipedia. In general, finding out some facts about a subject by doing a bit of googling before jumping in with an ill-informed opinion is always a good idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/bonded-labour/

[Roses]

It should be an offence to use the Bible to control others, however that is achieved.

[Nearly Sane]

It should be an offence to use the Bible to control others, however that is achieved.

In practice other than banning the book how would that work?

[SteveH]

In practice other than banning the book how would that work?

Don't be silly - LR doesn't think things through, she just comes out with imo's, most of which involve either banning something or making it compulsory.

[Roses]

In practice other than banning the book how would that work?

I am not sure how it could be put into practise, but religious abuse is rife in this world, and something needs to be done about it

[Nearly Sane]

I am not sure how it could be put into practise, but religious abuse is rife in this world, and something needs to be done about it

I can't see anyway of carrying out this sort of restriction of expression that doesn't amount to a much worse version of  this type of abuse. You sound very 1984.

[Roses]

I can't see anyway of carrying out this sort of restriction of expression that doesn't amount to a much worse version of  this type of abuse. You sound very 1984.

Unless you have been on  the receiving end of religious abuse, you wouldn't understand how I feel about it.

[Nearly Sane]

Unless you have been on  the receiving end of religious abuse, you wouldn't understand how I feel about it.

How you feel about it isn't relevant given you can't articulate any feasible way for your proposal to be implemented, never mind that the restriction on individual freedom that seems to be required is a much worse version of what you object to.

[Roses]

How you feel about it isn't relevant given you can't articulate any feasible way for your proposal to be implemented, never mind that the restriction on individual freedom that seems to be required is a much worse version of what you object to.

Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.

[ippy]

Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.

If you feel like having a go at religion or religionists L R join us secularists they really don't enjoy our continual nibbling away at their privileges and there's plenty of them to keep nibbling away at.

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.

But in restricting that freedom you then abuse many others in exactly the way you want to stop. So you institutionalise  the abuse in your image.

[Roses]

But in restricting that freedom you then abuse many others in exactly the way you want to stop. So you institutionalise  the abuse in your image.

So are you saying we shouldn't restrict the freedom of ISIS and their abusive regime because it is based on their religious belief.

[Nearly Sane]

So are you saying we shouldn't restrict the freedom of ISIS and their abusive regime because it is based on their religious belief.

ISIS are restricted because of their criminal acts. If you want a regime that restricts thought because you don't like it, then you are just thinking in the same way as ISIS.

[Roses]

ISIS are restricted because of their criminal acts. If you want a regime that restricts thought because you don't like it, then you are just thinking in the same way as ISIS.

Christianity is not without extremists who have caused physical and mental harm to others.

[Nearly Sane]

Christianity is not with extremists who have caused physical and mental harm to others.

Is that supposed to mean something?

[SteveH]

Is that supposed to mean something?

"not without"?

[Nearly Sane]

"not without"?

That just makes it a non sequitur. What relevance is it to you wanting to restrict freedom in the same way as ISIS or Christian extremists?

[Gordon]

Freedom, which allows people to abuse others in that way is a very bad thing, imo.

Worth bearing in mind item 6 from Bertrand Russell's 'A Liberal Decalogue': ''Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.''

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

[Nearly Sane]

Worth bearing in mind item 6 from Bertrand Russell's 'A Liberal Decalogue': ''Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.''

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

Longer take from Robert Bolt

A Man for All Seasons (1960)
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake

[Outrider]

Your reference to how to treat a slave is I think from exodus 21:20. This passage assumes that somebody has a servant, for whatever reason. It's assuming that the servant is valued by him, since he paid for him/her, and thus would ordinarily treat them well, and that occasionally they might need to discipline them.

People are not items to be traded.  'Buying' people is the moral evil, here, considering other human beings as property is the fundamentally unjustifiable element of slavery - the potential ill-treatment after the fact is not the issue if there are no slaves.  You can suggest that there is some good in a treatise that advises slaves should be treated well, but it still fails as an explanation of morality if it doesn't call out the concept of slavery as wrong.

Note also that the pre-slave trade version of the Bible, the KJV, doesn't use the word slave at all, it's nearly always servant, and occasionally bondman if referring to a servant bought from a neighbouring country, cf Leviticus 25:39-46. In Exodus 21:20 the word should be translated servant. In the Leviticus passage there is a contrast between an Israelite who, due to poverty, has sold himself to a fellow Israelite. That person is to be treated like a hired worker, in contrast with the person bought from abroad as a servant (bondman/maid).

Which particular word is used doesn't change the fact that at least some of these were slaves and the book doesn't take issue with that.

The women taken as wives from defeated enemies may be in the situation where they have no husband to look after them, and so it could have been advantageous for them to be taken as wives for Israelites.

How nice for them... how about a work that suggests women be given rights and autonomy? Say?

The passage assumes they will be treated well, and the overall context in both these cases is the Sabbath commandment, which applies to foreigners living among the people as well, so that they would have a day's rest.

The whole forcible marriage bit isn't worth mentioning, so long as they are forced to observe someone else's 'holy day'... except, of course, that women don't really get that Sabbath off what with the household chores, the child-care etc.

But good to see God has his priorities in order - take foreign wives regardless of their feelings on the matter, but make sure they aren't doing anything outside the home on Saturdays because that's a big no-no...

O.

[Christine]

Hi Spud,

I didn't say you were trying to justify slavery.  I said you were trying to justify the unjustifiable.  Not slavery, in this case, but the abject immorality of (parts of) your so-called good book.  (The qualification is in deference to Dicky Underpants who seems to know what he's talking about.)

It can be hard to understand your points, as words' meanings seem fluid to you.  For example, when you said that "every inclination of the human heart" was towards evil, because that's what it says in the Bible, you didn't mean every inclination of human beings is evil, you mean something bizarre, obscure and totally unexplained about 'evil' inclinations originating somewhere different from 'good' ones. 

It's easy to sound like you're giving answers when you don't need to be consistent, logical or clear.  Some of them even sound quite impressive if you don't think about them too much.  Or at all.

And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.

[Roses]

Hi Spud,

I didn't say you were trying to justify slavery.  I said you were trying to justify the unjustifiable.  Not slavery, in this case, but the abject immorality of (parts of) your so-called good book.  (The qualification is in deference to Dicky Underpants who seems to know what he's talking about.)

It can be hard to understand your points, as words' meanings seem fluid to you.  For example, when you said that "every inclination of the human heart" was towards evil, because that's what it says in the Bible, you didn't mean every inclination of human beings is evil, you mean something bizarre, obscure and totally unexplained about 'evil' inclinations originating somewhere different from 'good' ones. 

It's easy to sound like you're giving answers when you don't need to be consistent, logical or clear.  Some of them even sound quite impressive if you don't think about them too much.  Or at all.

And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.

A  good post, which sums up Spud's rather muddled responses very well.

[Outrider]

Christianity is not with extremists who have caused physical and mental harm to others.

The Roman Catholic church, which has actively covered up paedophilia amongst its clergy offering these people the opportunity to abuse further children? The various women pushed into Magdelene laundries in Ireland (and similar institutions in other countries)?  The Ku Klux Klan?  The Crusades?  The homophobic laws of modern day Uganda and other central African republics?  The pro-gun, anti-contraception, keep 'em poor mentality of modern US Evangelical Republicanism?  Centuries of justification of slavery, racism and misogyny explicitly from religious origins?  And these weren't even extremists, in their time, some of them aren't considered extremists in the present day.

Are you suggesting that these people aren't or weren't Christians?

I am constantly amazed by 'Christians' in modern Western democracies taking the hard-fought advances over religion that the Enlightenment and modern secular human-rights based civilisation have wrought and pretending like they are the 'true' Christianity.  The modern Anglican church is what you get when you take Christianity and strip away all the parts that modern sensibilities points out aren't justifiable - if you want dyed in the wool genuine unabridged Christianity go somewhere that reality and the 20th Century haven't had an impact on it - go check out Uganda, or the southern US states and you'll see how Christianity causes physical and mental harm when there aren't ethics being enforced to stop it.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The Roman Catholic church, which has actively covered up paedophilia amongst its clergy offering these people the opportunity to abuse further children? The various women pushed into Magdelene laundries in Ireland (and similar institutions in other countries)?  The Ku Klux Klan?  The Crusades?  The homophobic laws of modern day Uganda and other central African republics?  The pro-gun, anti-contraception, keep 'em poor mentality of modern US Evangelical Republicanism?  Centuries of justification of slavery, racism and misogyny explicitly from religious origins?  And these weren't even extremists, in their time, some of them aren't considered extremists in the present day.

Are you suggesting that these people aren't or weren't Christians?

I am constantly amazed by 'Christians' in modern Western democracies taking the hard-fought advances over religion that the Enlightenment and modern secular human-rights based civilisation have wrought and pretending like they are the 'true' Christianity.  The modern Anglican church is what you get when you take Christianity and strip away all the parts that modern sensibilities points out aren't justifiable - if you want dyed in the wool genuine unabridged Christianity go somewhere that reality and the 20th Century haven't had an impact on it - go check out Uganda, or the southern US states and you'll see how Christianity causes physical and mental harm when there aren't ethics being enforced to stop it.

O.

No, it was a typo. Doesn't make it any more relevant to wanting to suppress freedom.

[Roses]

The Roman Catholic church, which has actively covered up paedophilia amongst its clergy offering these people the opportunity to abuse further children? The various women pushed into Magdelene laundries in Ireland (and similar institutions in other countries)?  The Ku Klux Klan?  The Crusades?  The homophobic laws of modern day Uganda and other central African republics?  The pro-gun, anti-contraception, keep 'em poor mentality of modern US Evangelical Republicanism?  Centuries of justification of slavery, racism and misogyny explicitly from religious origins?  And these weren't even extremists, in their time, some of them aren't considered extremists in the present day.

Are you suggesting that these people aren't or weren't Christians?

I am constantly amazed by 'Christians' in modern Western democracies taking the hard-fought advances over religion that the Enlightenment and modern secular human-rights based civilisation have wrought and pretending like they are the 'true' Christianity.  The modern Anglican church is what you get when you take Christianity and strip away all the parts that modern sensibilities points out aren't justifiable - if you want dyed in the wool genuine unabridged Christianity go somewhere that reality and the 20th Century haven't had an impact on it - go check out Uganda, or the southern US states and you'll see how Christianity causes physical and mental harm when there aren't ethics being enforced to stop it.

O.

Pardon my typo, which I have just corrected.  I despise the RCC.