OK, now I have officially seen the Worst Thing Ever.

[lunadelcorvo]

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm

This is a Christian Slavery Apologetic. No, really. This article is a diatribe about how slavery in the south wasn't all bad, only the parts that were not in conformity with 'biblical slavery,' and 'biblical slavery' is OK, and fine and good because the Bible says so.

I quote:

"Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves."

And

"Today if an abortionist sought membership at either of our churches, he would be refused unless he repented and abandoned his murderous practice. But if our churches had existed in the ante bellum South, and a godly slave owner sought membership, we could not refuse him without seeking to be holier than Christ. Such a desire would be wicked, and this wickedness was at the heart of the abolitionist dogma."

This nutjob claims that Southern slave owners vigorously opposed the slave trade as 'wicked,' but evinced no hypocrisy by owning slaves. After all, they were doing the poor slaves a favor by taking them into Christian homes...

"The slave trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it, and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way. But if we were to look in history for Christians who reflected this biblical balance — i.e. a hatred of the slave trade and an acceptance of slavery in itself under certain conditions — we will find ourselves looking at the ante bellum South."

I mean, wow. Seriously?

Read the article - I can't begin to relate how mind-boggling it is. The level of mental contortion required to actually advance such a position is... well, it's bloody insane.

Comments

[celtickittenmew.livejournal.com]

It is at moments like these that I am at once confused, angry, and amused. Let's see, the Bible gave guidelines for those who already owned slaves (not those seeking to purchase them) in order to promote kindness and a change of heart from the slaveholders in a time when the practice was common. Secondly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the slave-trade practices of Europe or America as it relates to the Antebellum South and in no way condones the practice. To say so would be uneducated cherry-picking by a desperate believer in the idea that the "War of Northern Aggression" continues to the present. Third, the idea that abortion and slavery are comparable is ludicrous as the one item deals entirely with one's own body and functions; whilst the other deals with the issue of owning and controlling another human being's body and functions. To say that abortion is murder while slavery is mere folly is like saying that alcohol imbibed while driving is a killer but cigarettes are a harmless vice. Give me a break. These weekend wiseacres make far more money than they should off of people's pain, ignorance, and gullibility.

[raven-moon.livejournal.com]

"uneducated cherry-picking by a desperate believer"

And there you have the Right Wing/Neo-Con/Fundie/Dominionist/Millenial philosophy summed up quite eloquently. "We have to live by Biblical morality, and not interpret it in any way, except for those parts we really don't like."

I'm not sure which are worse, the cherry-pickers, or the ones who *really* do want to follow all of it....