Propaganda, Bush Style

First, let me write that if you like Keith Olbermann’s program, then write in! It seems the extreme right wingnuts took offense to Keith calling a spade a spade, and are now deluging MSNBC with vitriol of the most inflammatory nature. Fire up your e-mail clients and write to countdown@msnbc.com.

Second, I’d like to point out the new version of propaganda that Rove has perfected: the timing of news releases to coincide with trivial news articles. It was no mistake that Faux News covered the Aruba story almost non-stop for five months. Everything else in the news at the time was extremely negative for the Republicans. Now, however, with the recent media feeding-frenzy over the resurrected JonBenet Ramsey case, one has to wonder: what else was going on?

The Republicans have become masters at misdirection. When news that is critical of the administration, or can be seen as a huge indictment on the activities of certain Republicans, they trot out the smoke and mirrors. Most people wouldn’t notice this unless if they do a fair amount of digging around on the Internet. Let’s face it: most people are lazy when it comes to keeping abreast of public and civil affairs. The Right Wingnuts use this to their advantage, as it seems all five media conglomerates that control the majority of print and broadcast media are riding in the GOP’s pockets.

Think the Smoke and Mirrors argument is a little hokey? Check out this link from Think Progress. Yes, that’s right, Honorable Judge Taylor found:

“In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids.”

Who in the media reported this? I’m a news junkie, but I found not one whisper, one tittle of information on this in the broadcast news. (My television is usually tuned to CNN most of the day, and MSNBC for Olbermann’s show.)

A better understanding of the issues surrounding this case can be found on this article written by Thom Hartmann. Also, check out this link on the “coincidences” between the release of unfavorable news items towards the administration and the raising of the threat level. Scroll down half the page to get to the Top 10 list, written on October 12th, 2005, is enumerated by Keith Olbermann.

To wit- the Bush Administration broke the law. A federal judge has found that not only was the law broken, but the Constitution was violated as well. Rather than cover this news, the media decided that a decade old sensationalistic news story was more worthy of top coverage. The GOP gets another “Get Out of Jail Free” card yet again.

How is this not propaganda?

Ripping into the Rhetoric

If you paid attention to the news yesterday, you would have noticed in between the attention that CNN and Fox paid to the Jon Benet Ramsey Case and some coverage of Hurricane Ernesto, that Ronald Dumsfeld, er, Donald Rumsfeld, made a speech at the VFW. In this speech, he used the usual rhetoric of accusing people who do not believe in the policies of the current administration to Nazi sympathizers and enablers prior to World War II. The last time such inflammatory rhetoric was used by the government was during the McCarthy era, wherein accusation of being a communist equaled instant guilt, and any who opposed McCarthy were labelled as Communist Sympathizers.

One of the reasons why I’ve been on such a rampage about the terms “fascism” and “reason” lately is because this administration has turned into the very thing that all Americans should loathe. While paying lip service to the ideals that we Americans hold so dear (such as ‘one man, one vote’, capitalism, equal rights for all, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, even if you do not agree with the other person’s viewpoint, freedom of the press, freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, and on and on) they have systematically worked up pogroms to expunge much of these freedoms. Much of this has been done under the guise of accusing those who would oppose the expatriation of these rights as being an enabler for the terrorists. Enough is enough!

Finally, there was a person who stood up to the rhetoric. In standing up, not only did he delve into the historical perspectives and showed exactly what happened, but he countered almost all of the points that the Secretary of Defense made. Hopefully, others within the broadcast media will start to make similar stands in the upcoming weeks.

For those of you who do not watch “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”, take a look at this segment:

War Widows

Just found a very interesting article pertaining to one Honorable <ahem> George W. Bush and a war widow. The topic? Iraq. The setting? Maine.

While reading the recount of the meeting, I was struck by how cold, impersonal, and genuinely disinterested the POTUS was in concern to the human collateral that has been offered up in the name of a war founded in lies, deceit, and treachery. (Yes, treachery, there is no other way to view the Valerie Plame and Joseph Smith affair.) The number one thing that can be seen when parsing through government records, reports, and data provided by the GAO is that this war was almost entirely founded on the notion of enriching the compatriots of those associated with the Foundation for a New American Century. No one else has been enriched by this. The “value” of this war is questionable, at best. Not to mention the fact that by going into Iraq has drained resources needed to keep North Korea, Iran, and China in check when it comes to nuclear weapons and economic extortion. From the journal:

‘But Halley has just given me a much more detailed account of her meeting with Bush. She told me that she went much farther in her criticism of the President, telling him directly that he was “responsible” for the deaths of American soldiers and that as a “Christian man,” he should recognize that he’s “made a mistake” and that it was his “responsibility to end this.” She recounted to me that she was “very direct,” telling Bush: “As President, you’re here to serve the people. And the people are not being served with this war.” ‘

Before some of you criticise me, there is one thing that I want to make very clear here: I am not a “peacenik”. I do believe that War is a tool that needs to be used from time to time, as human greed, stupidity, ego, and corruption are everywhere and does not seem inclined to disappear anytime soon. However, before this most potent and lethal of all tools is used, I believe that other options have to be exhausted first. World War II was a mistake, in my opinion. We should have entered into the fray sooner. Vietnam was another mistake. The policy of the “Communist Domino Effect” had no basis in reality, but, then again, no one was able to actually study Communism without be branded a Communist themselves during that era. (Also for the record, I loathe communism as it makes everyone a slave to everyone else, a notion that I find despicable.) We should never have entered into Vietnam, no matter how hard the French pleaded with us.

In effect, wars such as Iraq are lost as soon as started, as there is no objective, no concise analysis of the geo-political structure, no plan for the aftermath, no framework that has been developed to deal with guerrilla insurgents. It was most especially lost when the one goal that was defined was “Democracy”. This is a mistake, as Freedom and Liberty only exist when a person wants to fight for it. It cannot be imposed from the outside, just like any other value.

Continue on to read the Journal from TPM Cafe.

Where is the Outrage?

Okay, I’ve about had it. I’m tired of people not utilizing their critical thinking skills. I’m tired of people just accepting a proposition because someone in authority said that this is the way things are. Most importantly, I’m tired of the mangled mess the English language has become in the media. Case in point: Islamo-Fascism.

I know this phrase sounds great for provoking fear, especially since it is aimed at middle-aged Caucasian Christians. The fear that it evokes is great for boosting readership to Blogs and for spiking the ratings game in favor of an article, newscast, radio show, or forum. The ratings are good for delivering advertising and widening one’s mind share in the info-tainment industry that used to be a News Industry. However, all of these things are bringing people more into the keeping of fantasy, fear-mongering, and irrationality then into the light of seeing new facts, evidence, and reason. The main culprits at this juncture are (gasp!) the Neo-Conservative talking heads, lead by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and Bill o’Reilly. You would think that with their track record of breaking ethics, lying, terrorising their audience, and distortion of the truth that people would take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

First off, to educate most people who haven’t been bothered to actually research anything that they’ve heard, there is no such thing as Islamo-Fascism. Fascism is defined by Mussolini, the first leader of a Fascist state, as corporatism. A better definition would be to define fascism as the marriage of governance to corporate power. In extrapolation of this definition, we see that the wealthy elites are the ones that control the direction of the country. However, here are some other qualities of a fascist regime:

1. Within a fascist state there is extreme nationalism, with a xenophobic outlook on other nation/states and peoples; usually expressed with an outpouring of flags, memorabilia, mottoes, and other emblems of nationalism.
2. Scapegoating. Facsist regimes increasingly scapegoat the “other” as the cause of the nations problems. This usually takes the form in labelling as the “enemy” liberals, intellectuals, unions, academics, scientists, and others, either inside of the state, or outside, but usually both.
3. Censorship, either through direct state control of the media or through indirect economic means. Actual news is anathema to a fascist regime and its policies, so the news must be replaced with propaganda.

While there are other tell-tale symptoms of a fascist regime, I believe these are the most obvious ones that a person should watch out. All of these took place within the states of Italy, Germany, and Spain during the Second World War, but those states do not by any means exemplify the only ways that a fascist regime can exist within the world stage.

Now, take these definitions and apply them to the Middle East and Muslims, can we see any Fascism? I do not believe so. The thing that I see when I look at the political structure of the Mid-East is state after state that is an Autocratic Theocracy, a much different animal from Fascism. Most political scientists would agree with this assessment.

Why, then, would the right-wing press within this country refer to Islamo-Fascism all the time? Outside of fear, I believe that the answer lies with the psychological concept of “projection”. This is a feature by which a person attributes to others the ideals, values, and fears that the person adheres to. With the U.S. having taken an extreme turn to the right, most right-wing commentators are unwittingly subscribing to a political philosophy that they say they do not agree with, and yet do agree with according to their actions and their indirect rhetoric. It is akin to the Creationist labeling Evolution as a Faith, even though it is nothing like a Faith. Or the adulterer accusing others of committing adultery. The analogy can go on and on.

For example, let’s look at the title of a book written by one repugnant wing-nut, Michael Savage. The title of the book? _The Enemy Within_. If you read the book with a definition of fascism to the side, you would immediately see that everything that he accuses Muslims and Mid-East countries of doing are the same things that he is doing. While evoking the cry of “Islamo-Fascism!” he has set himself up as a Fascist as well. Will the irony never cease?

To quote from an anonymous source, “If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!”

Console Wars Become Developer Wars?

Okay, if you follow the news on X-Box 360, the Nintendo Wii, and the Sony Playstation 3 are all in a three way war for the top selling console game box. Each delivers innovation. Each delivers more graphics than the previous generation. Each says that they will have newer and better games available for their respective systems. Which one would you bet on?

To tell you the truth, I think the one thing that most people who work in the gaming entertainment industry is that the name of the game is Fun. Learning curves should be low, re-playability should be high, and variation between games should also be high. However, I think most of the veterans of the industry have sunk into the rut of looking at more improved graphics than anything else. I would venture to say that this used to be a concern back in the previous generations of game machines. Anyone who grew up with an Atari 2600 or Nintendo Entertainment System like I did can well remember playing games on their home console systems, and then going to the arcade to play the same exact game, but with much better graphics and sound. Not to mention that the arcade version of the game usually had more levels and options to utilize during the course of the game play as well. Some of this disparity was made up during the release of the Sega Genesis, but most of it was not addressed until the advent of the Playstation 2 and the original X-Box. Now, we have graphics and sound that are much above the level that was established to have in the arcade, but in the comfort of our own homes with the options of Digital Surround Sound, High Definition Televisions, the ability to substitute our own music for the game’s soundtrack, and so on and so forth. Obviously, like in any other field, the home consoles are reaching a point of diminishing returns if the sole focus would be upon graphics.

With the X-Box 360 taking the usual approach to a gradual evolution of graphical and music capabilities that are dictated by market forces for that which is considered appropriate to a consumer driven market, Sony’s dictate of bringing the newest and the best to the market irrespective of price, and then Nintendo’s strategy to place a “new” way of interacting with the medium, which will bring the higher profits? Well, according to the news that has been leaked by each company, Microsoft is still subsidizing each 360 console unit it sells to a modest extent, with the hopes of making up the market subsidization through licensing deals, which is pretty much de riguer within the gaming industry. Sony is taking this approach also, but to a much higher level, as each unit of a Playstation 3 will be heavily subsidized in the hopes of introducing their Blu-Ray High Definition DVD technology into households under the guise of a “gaming” system. While Sony and Microsoft share a similar marketing approach to the issue, it seems that Microsoft’s more modest goals well drive developers over to their platform, as it has been stated within the Gaming Trade Press that porting a PC game over to the X-Box 360 takes considerably less effort than porting the same game over to the Playstation 3. However, in stark contrast to both of these approaches, Nintendo will not be subsidizing their console. The reason for this is that their is more modest graphical technology within the Nintendo Wii, which means that at a much lower price point, a Nintendo Wii will still generate revenue for the company. Also, with respect to licensing deals, it seems that Nintendo is cutting their developer costs to create games for the Wii, and the news so far is that it is just as easy, if not easier, to develop a game for the Wii as it is for the X-Box 360. The reaction is that devlopers for the Sony Playstation are dropping their development for the Playstation in favor of the Wii and the 360.

By now, if you looked at the links provided for the specifications of each console, we are left with a question: which game system would you be willing to buy for your family this come Holiday Season?

Fundies Gone Wild

Well, I have to say, this woman actually brought me back to my childhood. Yep, these were the type of people I grew up with. My friends wondered why I didn’t like fundies until they saw this video…

Slavery and Translations

Now that I actually have the time to construct a sound argument about the passage in I Timothy that June from the Artist Thinker Blog has been waiting for, I’m actually glad that I decided to wait this long. Not only that, but I’m glad I forgot to respond to the passage to begin with. It was fortuitous indeed that this post should go into this passage in detail, as I think I’ll be touching upon the corners of other fallacious doctrines in fundamentalist Christianity which holds up their whole world-view. How? Well, let’s just say that the passage that June quoted is one of the most ambiguous, mis-leading, and vague passages in the New Testament, as far as linguistics, semiotics, and translations go. How could this be? The answer is rather simple if you have spent any time at all translating texts from the extant living languages in the world, and should be extrapolated into more and more difficulty when dealing with dead languages that still have written colloquialisms and idioms that are no longer understood, not to mention concepts and words that cannot be translated into English because the current English language simply does not have the precepts to understand these ideas. Of course, the same is true in reverse, but hardly serves our purpose for translating some sections of the ancient texts.

Let’s start off by reading 1 Timothy 1:8-11 in different versions, shall we? Let’s see if the words “slave trade” actually show up in the various passages. After all, this is a very specific occupation that actually had it’s own word within the Greek, Aramaic, Latin, and pidgin vernacular of the time, so if the original text utilized the Greek word for slavery, slave trade, and so forth, than the other translations should adhere to this as well. Especially since this is a list response enumerating specific incidents of morality, so the cry of “idiom” should be very far off. First, let’s take a look at the passage in the original language for those of you who may be using bastardized study aids that were manipulated to support one particular viewpoint, rather than trying to arrive at the truth:

8 oidamen de oti kaloV o nomoV ean tiV autw nomimwV crhtai,

9 eidwV touto, oti dikaiw nomoV ou keitai, anomoiV de kai anupotaktoiV, asebesi kai amartwloiV, anosioiV kai bebhloiV, patrolwaiV kai mhtrolwaiV, androfonoiV,

10 pornoiV, arsenokoitaiV, andrapodistaiV, yeustaiV, epiorkoiV, kai ei ti eteron th ugiainoush didaskalia antikeitai,

11 kata to euaggelion thV doxhV tou makariou Qeou, o episteuqhn egw.

Of course, the translation that June posted can be found here. This comes from the New International Version of the Bible. For some of the purists out there, let’s look at the King James translation. After all, the English language has had the word and the conception of slave and slavery for quite some time now, haven’t we?

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

For “menstealers”? Well, Old English has been known to be extremely vague, and “menstealers” might be construed as “slave traders”, along with a dozen other options. Okay, let’s find another translation that might be a little bit more specific. From the Amplified Bible:

8 Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [for the purpose for which it was designed],

9 Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,

10 [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers–and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine

11 As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

What a neat little translation, in both senses of the word at this juncture! We have gone from slave traders, to menstealers, to kidnappers! Wow, the enormity of it all! Well, let’s try out another translation:

8 We know that the Law is good, if it is used in the right way. 9 We also understand that it wasn’t given to control people who please God, but to control lawbreakers, criminals, godless people, and sinners. It is for wicked and evil people, and for murderers, who would even kill their own parents. 10 The Law was written for people who are sexual perverts or who live as homosexuals or are kidnappers or liars or won’t tell the truth in court. It is for anything else that opposes the correct teaching 11 of the good news that the glorious and wonderful God has given me.

Again, we have the term “kidnapper”. What is going on here? Why is it only in the NIV translation that we have the term “slave traders”? If we look at the original Greek version that I posted at the top of the article, we see that the term that is being translated is the Greek word “adrapodistai”, the stem of which is andrapodistes. In _Strong’s Concordance_ we see that this word is enumerated as 405, and the Concordance gives a meaning of:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer — one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

Here we find that the term “slave dealer” has been defined as one working illegally with the slave trade, one who goes beyond the limits of propriety in the search for profits. In this passage, we again see that there is no out right condemnation of the practice of slavery, but rather an admonition to adhere to the Law in practicing the trade.

As I said in the beginning of this article, I stated that there were other issues with this passage of text that strikes at the core of linguistics and translation. The reason for this is that this passage is quoted most often, in addendum to a passage from I Corinthians, to be a blanket condemnation of homosexuality as well. However, some scholars have stated that the term that has been translated as “homosexual” within the confines of this text is a made-up Greek word that Paul utilized to convey a clear and specific message pertaining to the sexual mores at the time. The term, “arsenokoitai”, meaning men + beds, had a very unusual implementation within the language, and has been translated as masturbators, perverts, effiminate, sexually immoral, sin against nature, sodomites, ad nauseum. How should this word tie into the surrounding passage? After all, Fundamentalists are constantly accusing others of taking Scripture out of context in order to justify their views of the Bible. Well, by looking at the surrounding analogies that the author made, we can see that this debate of homosexuality actually ties in with the current discussion of Slavery. Let’s take a look.

Within this passage the author used duets and triplets of sinfull behavior to describe for whom the Law was intended. First there is the lawless and disobedient, two related categories of sinful behavior. Then there is the ungodly and the sinners, also two related categories. After this, the author cites the unholy and profane, which I think most reasonable people would also conclude that a relationship between these activities exist. Then we have three types of murderers, those of fathers, those of mothers, and manslayers. Then we have the whoremongerers and the “arsenokoitai” and kidnappers. How do we go from these other groups to this last set of iterations? Well, the author has shown that he is linking together groups of similar sinful discourse, so it would be prudent to assume that he is still doing this with this next to last set in the passage, especially since the last set of behaviors, the liars and perjurers, concludes the analogy with yet another set of categories that are intrinsically linked. Let’s look at the terms in the original Greek.

The first of the terms is “pornoi”, which comes from the Greek stem word “pernemi”, which is the infinitive for “to sell”. Pornoi refers to an enslaved male prostitute. A more prudent interpretation of arsenokoitai is one who sleeps with an enslaved male prostitute, and the last term andrapodistes refers to one who illegally enslaves others. We see that the common theme running through this triplet is Slavery. More specifically, it is dealing with a form of illegall slavery that was common at the time that the author seems to be condemning.

Again, we have a comment from June:

In fact, the only reason why slavery has been abolished and seen in such terrible light is because of the Christian nations. If not for that, it would be continuing on today. There was no one else who condemned it. NONE.

Well, actually, if we look at history, we find out there was one group of people that actually condemned slavery within the limits of their historical perspective and mores: the Muslims. If you recall your history, while Europe was languishing within the Dark and Middle ages, an Enlightenment movement was sweeping the Muslim nations in the Middle East. In fact, most of the basis of our current mathematics and sciences are firmly established within the Muslim Enlightenment. They had indoor plumbing and gas lights while English and French farmers and peasantry had none. They had great mathematical minds that were translating the lost texts of Euripides, Demosethenes, Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek philosophers into Arabic, and then expanding on them. Also, they were formulating plans for the eventual abolishment of the institution of slavery. As we can see from the Quran:

“Three types of people will stand apart on the day of Resurrection as My enemies – and an enemy of Mine will be doomed; a man who vowed in My name then betrayed, a man who sold a free person as a slave and appropriated his price, and a man who employed a worker and had him do the assigned work then failed to pay him his wages.”

I could go on and on, but it is obvious from even a cursory inspection of the Quran that there is blanket condemnation of the practice of slavery, unlike the Jewish Torah or the Christian New Testament.

Much Ado About Everything

It has been a few days since I last posted something, and I apologize for that. However, I was reminded of a quote from one of my favorite Sci-Fi authors yesterday because of all the intensely differing stuff that I’ve been doing and learning. The quote? Here it is:

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, give orders, take orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” -Robert Heinlein

I have certainly been living up to his proclamation in the last few days. Lately, I’ve been patching dry wall, replacing light fixtures, laying out new flooring, re-ordering the placement of electrical sockets, building the foundations for a deck, learning Python (a scripting language that is very efficient and something that I’m going to use from now on when it comes to SQL database searches), writing a book review (For a book by Terry Goodkind, I’ll post it later), manipulating images with the GIMP for inclusion of future articles on this blog, changing spark plugs on my car, changing the oil on the car (might as well, I was already out there and had the items to do so), applying for my new classes this quarter, making gourmet Salmon meals for my neighbors this past weekend (I live in the Pacific Northwest, and some of the salmon runs are starting right now, all I can say is DELICIOUS!), hiking the Cascade Mountain range with my dog, and the list goes on and on and on. Right now, I’m back to my normal routine schedule, so I should have much more time for posting articles and such.

While I prep the next article on the question of Christianity and Slavery, why don’t you good fellows check out this clip from Hardball? I find it sad that the GOP hasn’t even bothered to change their talking points yet. The points of talking that they concocted a while ago were false sounding when they first came out, and now their is no excuse for them to keep on spouting the same false, misleading messages. Now that it seems the corporate owned media is back on track for bringing public accountability to this administration, albeit in extremely limited amounts, maybe we will see some more progress in getting the truth out, coming up with a plan for bringing or men and women home safely, and prosecuting the war profiteers who put our nations service members in jeopardy. (Kellog, Root, and Brown as well as Khaki International, I’m looking right at you!!!)

Artist Thinker | Slavery Condoned

If you have read the comments in the previous section detailing the debate between myself and the writer of the Artist Thinker Blog, you know that June had made some comments concerning that Christians were responsible for the abolition of Slavery, armed with Theology based in the Biblical Scriptures. My point of contention is that the verses that June had posted are taken out of context, and if looked at in the light of other Scriptures, can be seen to only address slavery in the light of Hebrews being enslaved to other Hebrews. They say nothing about the enslavement of other races. Also, within the Scriptures of the New Testament, there is no repealing measure to the practice and establishment of slavery. Instead, what is called for is an egalitarian communion among the members of the Church within the confines of the Church. Slaves are still expected to serve their masters whole-heartedly and cheerfully.

Some of the first Scriptures that June quoted are taken from the Old Testament, directly from the Holiness Code. (Or the Law, as the Hewbrews knew it.) Rather than quoting the verses in full, I will link to them to the On-Line Bible, wherein the reader can read the verses in any translation that they prefer. First are the verses from Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and Leviticus 25:35-55. (I will get to the verse from I Timothy shortly.) As we can see, all these verses deal specifically with the practitioners of the Law in regards to slavery; i.e., they may sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay off debts or to make ends meet for themselves and their families. However, these verses do not pertain to the practice of taking slaves from other races, tribes, or nationalities. Indeed, we find that in Leviticus 25:44-46 that the Hebrews were allowed to take slaves from other tribes, and that this practice of enslaving others extended to all the slaves progeny. To quote, for those too busy (or lazy) to look at the link:

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This exemplifies in totality the outlines to Law in which slavery may be practiced. However, June also posted from Deuteronomy 15:12-18, which has nothing to do with Slavery, but rather Indentured Servitude. While in our day and age the difference between the two seems relatively minor, in those eras the difference was rather huge within the societies that such concepts operated.

Then, June asserts that slaves were not to be treated with ill-will. From Deuteronomy 23:15-16 we see that slaves were not meant to be given back to their masters. However, as we can see from previous excerpts from the Law, this verse only refers to those Hebrews that were taken as a slave and escaped, seeking refuge. Indeed, June then goes on to quote from Ephesians 6:9. Let me post this so all those can see the clear and inherent contradiction that June does not seem to grasp:

“9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”

From this verse we can see that there is no abrogation in the doctrine of Slavery. Rather, followers of Christ were expected to treat their slaves well. Nothing was stated about Slavery being an immoral, unethical institution.

Then, June posted two excerpts from the New Testament purportedly showing that slavery was sinful. These come from Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:26-29. However, these verses have nothing to do with slavery, but instead show the egalitarian spirit in which the Church was to operate in accepting new converts and the social communion that was to be shared. Indeed, if we look at Ephesians 6:5, we see that:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

as well as Colossians 3:22, which states:

“22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

Hence we see that there is no such construction of the abolition of slavery being inherent within the Bible as June asserts. At this point, I would have to agree with the essay by Charles Bradlaugh that, “I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men professing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognizing freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity.”

In conclusion, we see that the Bible actually condones the practice of slavery, the New Testament reiterates this support within the praxis of just rule over another, and nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that condemns the practice as immoral, unethical, barbaric, and wrong.

Changing Themes

I’ve decided to change themes today. While I like the Quentin look, it seems to be a bit more suited to those people who discuss literature and in-depth heady theologies, and does not lend itself very well to embedding pictures. My main concern with the theme is that it does not show the hypertext links that I utilize all over the place in order to show the documentation that I refer to when discussing a topic.

Anyone have a suggestion for a theme that is clean, coherent, has hypertext links show up distinctly, and can be used better with pictures?