lots of things have been rationalized through the ages for those two things.

The problem with line of thinking is that were it not for the tacit support of millions of ordinary people without individual power or wealth, slavery would not have endured. Whether or not the man who wrote that pamphlet actually believed is irrelevant, because his audience obviously did.

Seems that when Cain killed Abel, God cursed him and his descendants with dark skin so the righteous would be able to identify their dark souls.

Oh, and menstruation? Yeah, that is a Curse from God, too.

i know folk who were taught that dark skin is inherited from the Mud People. Seems before God made Man from Clay, he made Man from Mud, which didn't please him. So he started over with White folk.

I don't remember the origin story for Republicans.

the child of Noah who looked at Noah naked and drunk in his tent.

those old testament values

Wars have been fought over these kind of disagreements.

I'm an atheist now, and this particular bit of church tradition was never taught at my church growing up. But the curse of Ham and Ham being the father of black people (just as Ishmael is traditionally the father of Arabs) is an ancient tradition in Christianity, super useful for racists, slavers, and bigots. As you imply, the war in Rwanda used the curse of Ham to really get the neighbor-killing going.

I'd never heard of the mark of Cain being used in this way, but sure enough there it is

The old man gets shitfaced and passes out naked with his junk hanging out for everyone to see, but that isn't a shameful act, oh heavens, no. Ham walks by and notices, and goes tell his brothers about it so they can go toss a blanket over their disgusting drunken pig of a father, so he can pretend to have some dignity. And then Ham gets cursed, along with his descendants until the end of time.

You have to be really twisted to think there's anything right and just about that. It's no wonder that story was used for millennia to justify atrocities.

but then, we are talking about two religions who also think that Abraham is the _hero_ of the story where he is ready to kill his son because the voice in his head told him to.

Gave excellent perspective for the Senate hearings this week starring Crackpot, Forced Birther, Plantationist ("Originalist&quot Kavanaugh and the back up band of GOP Senators normalizing/ soon confirming his white suprematist, paternalistic, misogynistic,sadistic Slaveholder religion and politics.

to get back there today.

No matter the cost to the rest of us.

The more authoritarian the sect, the bigger the loop hole it pushes.

There arguably would never have been a civil war had some of them not pleaded for secession.

And why wouldn't they? The bible effectively endorses slavery. It's the consequence of getting your morals handed to you from stone age charlatans.

I don't think there's a single passage that even suggests that the ownership of other human beings as property is A Bad Thing.

about what the old Hebrew texts meant to the people who passed them down, generation by generation

Nowhere is slavery as a practice condemned. Instead rules for how to be a good slave owner are set down.

A god's gotta have priorities.

nothing in the passage from then to now --- neither the hazards that were encountered, northe particular political problems of each time, nor the assumptions common at any moment, nor the individuals actually available for the journey --- is easily understood as we glance backwards through the most recent to the more ancient

Over two and a half millennia after it started collecting stories, the practical Hebrew tradition doesn't seem to have evolved in the direction that your own interpretation "better to be owner than slave" would suggest, which perhaps indicates some limits to the depth of your reading

exodus condemned slavery. It didn’t. The only thing “wrong” was which tribe was enslaved.

Maimonides was revising how to be a good slave owner in the 1200s, as late as the 1600s Jewish commentaries on proper slave ownership were being written, and of course Jews owned slaves where it was legal.

Like other religions, they discovered slavery was immoral pretty much coincident with or after it was widely outlawed.

Prof. James A. Diamond

... Although it sanctions the institution of slavery, biblical law begins the process toward abolition, a process still unresolved in various parts of the world, by regulating and restricting the absolute control a master could exercise over an Israelite slave ... Nahmanides creates a parallel between the Israelite owner freeing his slaves and God freeing the enslaved Israelites; thus by releasing the Hebrew slave, the Israelite owner follows in God’s ways ... In the final section of his Laws of Slavery, Maimonides, expresses moral discomfort with the idea, endorsed by the Torah, that an Israelite master is to work his non-Israelite slaves with harsh labor ... This codified recommendation represents the high water mark of Jewish law in expressing noble and equitable ideals ... Maimonides raises the stakes for the normative value of his advised treatment of slaves by transforming it into a bedrock of the entire Jewish legal framework ... No verse better captures what is perceived as the modern liberal ideal of “all men are created equal” than Psalms 145 in Maimonides’ reading ...

https://thetorah.com/the-treatment-of-non-israelite-slaves-from-moses-to-moses/

the assumptions of readers, the political currents of their times, the obstacles that obstruct progress in certain directions, and a host of other factors --- none of these are (in any sense) invariant for all times. As conditions change, certain problems simply disappear, and if we may not ourselves even see them without careful effort

Footprints are made by feet but they are not feet

We can see the footprints but the landscape has changed; parts have disappeared; new forms have arisen. We cannot see the dangers they tried to avoid; what looks to us like a tedious detour may, for them, have been an inspired shortcut; and what we now see as an easy amble, may have been a tricky path for them

has disproven that the Bible is against slavery time and time and time again. It's one of the things modern Christians cannot get their heads around - that their book clearly endorses slavery and never condemns it.

Look it up on YouTube. Hours of endless entertainment as people squirm with this truth.

and are saying la la la la


that's fine. you do you

it presumes a development that is complicated and mixed, not based on pure ideas but based on the evolving peculiarities of conflicting interests and histories

In my world, I can simultaneously see someone like Thomas Jefferson as a brilliant beacon, spreading the idea of democracy, while he is at the same time a hypocritical slave owner, treating Sally Hemings as both mistress and as a sex toy that was his property

The world has always been full of such contradictory figures, simultaneously villain and hero, depending on the shifting light. What should I make of Georgia plantation owner David Dickson, for example? On the one hand, he is a thoroughly reprehensible scoundrel, who raped a twelve-year-old slave girl. Then he allowed his own mother to raise the child of that rape as a Southern belle. And in the end, he left his vast fortune to that same child, so that one of the richest people in Georgia after the Civil War was the mixed race woman, Amanda America Dickson. His irate relatives attempted to have his will overturned but finally failed completely in that legal effort

The dead always lived in their own times, which always died with them when they died. Our task is not to reshape the past, which is something completely beyond our ability to do, but rather to shape the future, which is something we might actually accomplish to a degree

I object to your posting heavy bandwidth in a thread intended for discussion. I do not object to your posting of text. I would not object if it was ONE example, but several impacts my phone and is not appreciated.

A standard technique to derail discussion.

Howe's hymn had its origins in earlier religious songs, and even the various John Brown's body songs contain explicitly religion language, such as:

He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord!

or

The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
On the grave of old John Brown

or

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be

Such language continues to appear in Howe's hymn:

I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel ---
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal"

This view does not suddenly appear with the outbreak of Civil War: it was already well-established in abolitionist circles

None of my text posts from eleven days ago produced any discussion from you

What's that got to do with your hymn spam?

... Brown's Christian faith was a central and defining theme of his life ... He believed that God had called him to give his life (which included the likelihood of dying) in the antislavery cause and for the black man's freedom. He did not have a wacko view of religion. Most people in that era believed in divine providence and "vocation," or calling. Brown believed God had called him to this work and he felt compelled to try to do something and after failing at Harpers Ferry, he happily resigned himself to dying for the cause. If this makes him appear fanatical today, it's probably because we are far more secular overall as a nation, and tend to judge religious people of the past from our psychological, agnostic oriented intellectualism ... Despite being a theological conservative, John Brown was socially progressive, particularly when it came to matters of "race" and justice ... John Brown was not only anti-slavery, but believed that blacks and other non-whites were made in God's image and that all peoples were equals as humans. This is also a religious belief, but it had such a complete impact upon his social and political life that he was seen in his day as "fanatical" because he was among a relatively small segment of whites in the U.S. who actually treated blacks and Native Americans as peers and colleagues ... He believed in Christianity and the vocation of the United States as the inheritance of the "city on a hill" vision of the early Puritans. He believed that a republic was fundamentally incompatible with chattel slavery and racial prejudice. He believed that black people, if given freedom and power, would function as well as whites because we all come, in the words of St. Paul, from "one blood." Notwithstanding his humanity, errors, and failures, Brown believed in freedom, equality, and human rights for all people when many of the "greatest" leaders in this nation either were outright racists or were conflicted, hypocritical, and inconsistent advocates of "liberty" ...

http://abolitionist-john-brown.blogspot.com/2010/11/q-what-were-john-browns-beliefs-my.html

... On October 16, 1859, he set his plan to action when he and 21 other men -- 5 blacks and 16 whites -- raided the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry.

Brown was wounded and quickly captured, and moved to Charlestown, Virginia, where he was tried and convicted of treason, Before hearing his sentence, Brown was allowed make an address to the court.


. . . I believe to have interfered as I have done, . . . in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it be deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I submit: so let it be done."


Although initially shocked by Brown's exploits, many Northerners began to speak favorably of the militant abolitionist. "He did not recognize unjust human laws, but resisted them as he was bid. . . .," said Henry David Thoreau in an address to the citizens of Concord, Massachusetts. "No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature. . . ."

John Brown was hanged on December 2, 1859.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1550.html

Address of John Brown to the Virginia Court at Charles Town, Virginia on November 2, 1859

... Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case), -- had I so interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends -- either father, mother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class -- and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

The court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done -- as I have always freely admitted I have done -- in behalf of His despied poor, was not wrong, but right. Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments. -- I submit; so let it be done! ...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2943t.html

All these posts of yours mean nothing. No one is updating the hate originally written in the Bible. The passages on slavery are still there. So are the other passages that call for stoning women and gays. The Bible may as well have been written yesterday.

Here's how science works. Take it as an example. When new discoveries are found to prove old knowledge wrong, the old texts are thrown out and revised. Maimonides can say whatever he pleases, it doesn't change a thing. As long as those passages remain in the Bible, the Bible is irredeemable. Those who give it credence are supporting the hate inside, they are not making things better.

of those old texts and the readings of the plantation owners, you would have us dismiss Brown's readings immediately and take the view that only the readings of the plantation owners can be accepted

I think that, at the very least, your rigidity and lack of imagination disqualify you from commenting credibly on social history, since you cannot really understand the attitudes of the various protagonists

strongly suggests that the hymn was already known in the black community; and that fact might affect the meaning of the use of the tune in John Brown's Body. That Howe set out to rewrite John Brown's Body is well-known and leaves no doubt that her hymn is abolitionist in its intent

So this little sequence nicely suggests the abolitionist hymn tradition, in which the publisher Garrison participated, as well as the theological underpinnings of Brown's suicidal rebellion, and it shows some connections to the black community, stretching from the time before to the time after

This provides multiple independent lines of evidence against the view you suggest in your OP, that "religion" is responsible for slavery --- and therefore, of course, some people will screech that such evidence is "spam" or "gish gallop"

Religion didn't invent slavery, it legitimized it. Still does. The passages are still there. You can't sing them away.

... Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ...

It slows down everything, and is just plain rude. Thanks.

that aspect of your own browsing experience

I don't mind images, and my broadband is very, very fast. However, not everyone has access to such speed. What you did was rude. You attempted to hijack and slow down a thread. Not nice.

that I'm hijacking the thread indicates you aren't even reading it

I think I'll guess you just put out your net out to trawl for reactions

who paid their salaries. There were abolitionist preachers in the south, but they couldn't get jobs or were even forced to leave the state.

They generally won't tolerate a god that disagrees with them. Preacher says what they want to hear, or he's out.

Even so, the abolitionist preachers had to do some fancy "interpreting" of the Scriptures to back up their position that God opposes slavery, while the pro-slavery people could just read what's there.

Regressive policy is mostly endorsed by Christians in this Country.

Just look at any poll on what the majority of Christians support and vote for.

Having split from co-denominations in the North over the theological justification of slavery in the 1840s, southern Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches refused to reconcile themselves to a new reality in the 1860s and 1870s

What happens, of course, is that people often adjust their views to justify their practices. Chattel slavery in the US was not a product of particular religious views: rather, particular political and religious views were themselves produced by the economics of chattel slavery

Economic interest can have powerful effects on the mind: until 1750, the colony of Georgia (uniquely among all the colonies) banned slavery, but Georgians finally persuaded the Trustees to overturn the ban, arguing that it kept them from becoming rich

William Lloyd Garrison
Garrison & Knapp, Boston, 1834
https://hymnary.org/hymnal/SASH1834