Showing posts with label Slavery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Slavery. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Biblical Marriage & Traditional Christian Values

How can one argue with what's in the Babble?  

Come on, conservative Christians, let's stick up for "traditional" values and legislate these religious beliefs:
I came across this chart on Facebook.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

A Response to Donald Trump's Racism and Disregard for the Dignity of Every Black American

     Baratunde Thurston's heartfelt response to the undying Gospel According to Hate and Racism that fueled the release of President Obama's birth certificate to Donald Trump's Tea Party.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Good Christian Men's Quotes on Women

     Here's a Sunday School lesson on what some venerated Catholic saints and revered Protestant reformers had to say about women.
     What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.     -- Saint Augustine
     Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.     -- Saint Augustine 
     Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God.     -- Saint Augustine
     As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.     -- Saint Thomas Aquinas
     Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.     -- St. Albertus Magnus
     Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.     --Clement of Alexandria,Church father, venerated as a Saint until the 17th century
     If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there.     -- Martin Luther
     Woman was made for only one reason, to serve and obey man.      -- John Knox
     Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born.     -- John Wesley
     A wife should submit herself to the leadership of her husband. Leadership in the church should always be male.     -- Southern Baptist Convention (2000)

Here are a few extra saintly quotes, concerning slavery and heretics.

On Dealing with Heretics
     It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.     -- Saint Augustine, Treatise on the Correction of the Donatists,
     The Donatists were deemed heretics because they questioned the sacramental efficacy of corrupt priests.  In today's context, the Donatists would be asking the following: "Is a priest, who is a serial rapist and abuser of children or a bishop that enables abuse, really able to stand in the person of Jesus at the Mass and confer god's grace?"  Sounds like a reasonable inquiry considering the amount of harm some priests and bishops have done.
     If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy    -- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
     Slavery is not penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.     -- Saint Augustine
On Astronomy and the "Virgin" Birth
     To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.     -- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Trial of Galileo, 1615

Sources:

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Bible Thumping Hypocrite

     Just received an email that had this legendary letter that was written to Dr. Laura (Mikkelson) Schlessinger in 2000.  This was in response to her denouncing homosexuals as a "mistake of nature."
         Via Amazon.com
     For more on her hypocritical use of the title "Doctor," her nude photo scandal, her renunciation of Orthodox Judaism, and her violations of her own black and white morality lens, click here for Snopes.com's report on the letter, whose author is unknown.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Via Harper Collins       
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
     To read more about the numerous hypocrisies that the holy "doctor" Laura has committed, click here.  

     For the some of the nude photo spread Laura did back in her trying-to-break-into-show business days click here and here.
Dr. Laura's Pasties from 24ahead

Monday, April 19, 2010

Is the Tea Party a Neo-Confederate Rebellion?

     In this weekend's New York Times, Frank Rich responds to some Tea Party members' recent actions that smell of racism and Confederate revival.  No one is making up this connection.  Members of the very Christian Tea Party are proudly asserting it themselves, some even calling for another Civil War.  So much for rendering unto Caesar--hypocrites.

     "They were fighting for the same things that people in the 'tea party' are fighting for now," said Grayson Jennings, first lieutenant commander of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which lobbied McDonnell to issue the proclamation.  If Jennings's views are any measure, the group's on the political fringe. He said he'd favor seceding again -- "tonight is not soon enough" -- because of high taxes, illegal immigration and energy legislation.  Jennings's views about what he called the "War of Northern Aggression" are also pretty far out. He said linking the Confederacy and slavery was a "tired old argument."
     In response to McDonnell's redacted version of the Civil War, Mr. Rich reveals McDonnell's not-so-inclusive track record:
     McDonnell had been widely hailed by his party as a refreshing new “big tent” conservative star when he took office in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, in January. So perhaps his Dixiecrat proclamation, if not a dream, might have been a staff-driven gaffe rather than a deliberate act of racial provocation.
     That hope evaporated once McDonnell was asked to explain why there was no mention of slavery in his declaration honoring “the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens.” After acknowledging that slavery was among “any number of aspects to that conflict between the states,” the governor went on to say that he had focused on the issues “I thought were most significant for Virginia.” Only when some of his own black supporters joined editorialists in observing that slavery was significant to some Virginians too — a fifth of the state’s population is black — did he beat a retreat and apologize.
     McDonnell isn’t a native Virginian but he received his master’s and law degrees at Pat Robertson’s university in Virginia Beach during the 1980s, when Robertson was still a rare public defender of South Africa’s apartheid regime. As a major donor to McDonnell’s campaign and an invited guest to his Inaugural breakfast, Robertson is closer politically to his protégé than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ever was to Barack Obama. McDonnell chose his language knowingly when initially trying to justify his vision of Confederate History Month. His sanitized spin on the Civil War could not have been better framed to appeal to an unreconstructed white cohort that, while much diminished in the 21st century, popped back out of the closet during the Obama ascendancy.
     But once again you’d have to look hard to find any conservative leader who criticized McDonnell for playing with racial fire. Instead, another Southern governor — who, as it happened, had issued a Confederate Heritage Month proclamation of his own — took up his defense. The whole incident didn’t “amount to diddly,” said Haley Barbour [Presbyterian], of Mississippi, when asked about it by Candy Crowley of CNN last weekend.
     On the Tea Party, racism, integration, health care Mr. Rich states:
     Most Americans who don’t like Obama or the health care bill are not racists. It may be a closer call among Tea Partiers, of whom only 1 percent are black, according to last week’s much dissected Times/CBS News poll. That same survey found that 52 percent of Tea Party followers feel “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people — nearly twice the national average. And that’s just those who admit to it. Whatever their number, those who are threatened and enraged by the new Obama order are volatile. Conservative politicians are taking a walk on the wild side by coddling and encouraging them, whatever the short-term political gain.
     The temperature is higher now than it was a month ago. It’s not happenstance that officials from the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Virginia and Mississippi have argued, as one said this month, that the Confederate Army had been “fighting for the same things that people in the Tea Party are fighting for.” Obama opposition increasingly comes wrapped in the racial code that McDonnell revived in endorsing Confederate History Month. The state attorneys general who are invoking states’ rights in their lawsuits to nullify the federal health care law are transparently pushing the same old hot buttons.
     “They tried it here in Arkansas in ’57, and it didn’t work,” said the Democratic governor of that state, Mike Beebe, likening the states’ health care suits to the failed effort of his predecessor Orval Faubus to block nine black students from attending the all-white Little Rock Central High School. That battle for states’ rights ended when President Eisenhower [Presbyterian] , a Republican who would be considered a traitor to his party in 2010, enforced federal law by sending in troops.
     How our current spike in neo-Confederate rebellion will end is unknown. It’s unnerving that Tea Party leaders and conservatives in the Oklahoma Legislature now aim to create a new volunteer militia that, as The Associated Press described it, would use as yet mysterious means to “help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” This is the same ideology that animated Timothy McVeigh, whose strike against the tyrannical federal government will reach its 15th anniversary on Monday in the same city where the Oklahoma Legislature meets.

Other images used in this post are in the public domain.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Gov. McDonnell Apologizes for Nixing Slavery from Confederate History Proclamation, but Is It Enough?


    On Wednesday, the Roman Catholic Governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell (Republican), apologized for omitting slavery from his proclamation of April as Confederate History Month.  In the AP video embedded below, McDonnell defended his omission of slavery in the proclamation saying:
     "I didn't mention it [slavery] solely because I was trying to keep focus on the war aspects of it [Confederate history]." 
     As if the Confederates weren't fighting the war so that they could keep their slaves?  Come on, governor.  Give me a break.

     "The proclamation issued by this Office designating April as Confederate History Month contained a major omission," McDonnell said in a statement. "The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed." McDonnell also called the nation's first elected black governor, L. Douglas Wilder (D) of Virginia, and the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D-Norfolk), to apologize after they said they were offended by the document. McDonnell told them that he would alter the proclamation to include slavery and acknowledge that it was the cause of the Civil War.
     "Major omission" indeed.  On the tails of the Texas Board of Education's decision to amend the textbooks used by the majority of our nation's youth and the arrest of a Christian militia group in Michigan for planning armed revolt against our government, what is going on with conservative Christians in our nation? 

     Apparently they have no interest in learning from the mistakes of the past.  Rather, they would erase historical atrocities, like slavery and state-imposed religion, so that future generations can repeat the discrimination and violence that our American ancestors fought and died to defeat.

     Here's some of the response from Elle at Shakesville "On Collective (and Selective) Memory to McDonnell's love of Confederate heritage:
    You know, I am not at all surprised by the fact that Virginia's Governor Robert McDonnell proclaimed April Confederate History Month. My (Louisiana) parish has done it before and I'm sure it's not an anomaly in the South.
    But what gets me, what always gets me, when I see people loving on the Confederacy and declaring that their flags and memorials are all about heritage, is the selective, largely one-sided memory they have. The "Old South" may have been all moonlight and magnolias in their recollections, but there were four million or so people who, I'll bet, remembered it quite differently.
    Encouraging people to remember the Confederacy includes encouraging them to remember that those states left the Union largely because of their fear that Abraham Lincoln would not just stop the expansion of slavery, but abolish it all together. Remember that these people were willing to go to war to protect their right to own and exploit other people. That dims the moonlight a little bit.
    The irony is, it is "heritage" to remember the Confederacy, but we are never supposed to talk about slavery. McDonnell urges people to "to recognize how our history has led to our present," but when we talk about how slavery has very real effects on our present, that is dismissed. It ended a century and a half ago, after all, and to talk about it is to search for grievances and dwell on the past or however that argument goes. The proclamation itself makes no mention of slavery, just vague allusions to "a time very different than ours today." McDonnell himself suggested that slavery was not important enough to merit mention in a proclamation about remembering the Confederacy.