|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2010 : 19:18:11
|
An article I found here.
Basically, Sarfati does a job of cherry-picking history:
1) He ignores the xian historical ties to slavery
Sarfati goes on:
[Rodney] Stark documented that even back in the 7th century, Christians publicly opposed slavery. The bishop and apologist Anselm (c. 1033–1109) forbade enslavement of Christians, and since just about everyone was considered a nominal Christian, this practically ended slavery.
But this begs the question: if slavery was "practically ended" in the 7th century, then how was it the case that, several centuries later, the Christian nations of the West were back at it and enslaving Africans and Native Americans by the millions? Try as he might, he can't sidestep the fact that the colonial powers were emphatically Christian and used Christianity in their moral justifications for slavery (such as the Hamitic hypothesis - an ugly bit of racist pseudohistory that Sarfati is right to reject, but there's no denying the fact that this was the accepted view throughout the Christian world for several centuries). |
2) He ignores freethinkers who fought slavery
Let the record show that none of these revivals produced corresponding surges in abolitionist sentiment.
And it wasn't only Christians who led the fight against slavery. On the contrary, freethinkers played a role as well. In my post on the freethinker Abner Kneeland, I pointed out how his lecture hall was the only place in Boston that would give the fiery abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison a place to speak after the churches turned him away. As Garrison later said:
It was left for a society of avowed infidels to save the city from the shame of sealing all its doors against the slave's advocate.
Garrison himself was a freethinker who said, "The human mind is greater than any book... All reforms are anti-Bible" (source)
And Robert Ingersoll, the great agnostic orator, fought for the Union in the Civil War and was likewise an unflinching foe of slavery:
|
Long quote from Ingersoll follows.
3) He ignores (well, in this case, he tries to whitewash) the bible's stance on slavery:
| As an examination of the context makes clear, this was only a condemnation of those who kidnapped and sold people into slavery in ways other than those that the law permitted. Slavery through approved methods is a pervasive and inescapable feature of the Bible in general, in both New and Old Testaments. Sarfati also ignores verses which state that Christian slaves are doing God's will by obeying their masters, and that for a slave to disobey or rebel is blasphemous to God (1 Timothy 6:1). |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 06/10/2010 19:19:15
|
|
CMI's Jonathan Sarfati refuted on slavery
