Heh. Guess someone at CNN forgot to fax the narrative to their African correspondent.
I wish that someone had asked the president when he visited the slave depot, if he knew the religion of the people who supplied the slaves for it? And what the religion was of the people who ended slavery?
I’m guessing that was the last appearance that reporter will make on CNN.
Everyone knows that Islam was the first culture to eliminate slavery….except for its survival in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
/sarcasm off
Look at Don Lemon’s body language in the video clip. He is literally taken aback by the answer at first. Then as the correspondent completes her statement that Obama’s welcome as being “not unprecedented” Don’s body language seems to be very dismissive.
Also, I guess AP Reporter Todd Pitman didn’t get the memo either.
Considering that Ghana is in western Africa, the religion of the suppliers was probably Animist – i.e. that of the indigenous population. According to Wikipedia’s citation of “Early European Contact and the Slave Trade” by McLaughlin & Owusu-Ansah (1994):
“It is important to mention, however, that the supply of slaves to the Gold Coast was entirely in African hands. Although powerful traditional chiefs, such as the rulers of Asante, Fante, and Ahanta, were known to have engaged in the slave trade, individual African merchants such as John Kabes, John Konny, Thomas Ewusi, and a broker known only as Noi commanded large bands of armed men, many of them slaves, and engaged in various forms of commercial activities with the Europeans on the coast.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ghana#Early_European_contact_and_the_slave_trade
Here’s some trivia I just stumbled across: Kofi Annan is half Asante (also spelled “Ashanti”) and half Fante. Why doesn’t he follow Obama’s example of apologizing for his nation’s past? Surely he’s got some kind of lecture circuit thing going in his UN retirement.
Christianity did in fact end slavery. Of course, that was after they’d bought a hell of a lot of slaves. Neither religion gets a free pass on slavery.
Neither religion gets a free pass on slavery.
It still exists under Islam.
Christians practice sex slavery in Europe. What? They aren’t really Christian? Well, sure, but most muslims think that those who practice slavery supposedly within the confines of Islam shouldn’t be considered to be following Islam.
For that matter, in grad school, my roommate, an interesting character in many ways, was the son of someone who founded a particularly stringent offshoot of Lutheranism. My roommate was a good son, and so he believed the bible was the literal word of god and contained no errors (when read in the original language, whatever that might mean). He specifically believed slavery was ok, because it was in the bible. He was an ok roommate anyhow – one of our pasttimes was to argue over how big Noah’s Ark would have to be. He listened to Limbaugh a lot but he never sold me into slavery.
Back to Islam: like Protestantism, Islam is decentralized – there isn’t one unitary authority who issues fatwas. So various self-declared authorities disagree with each other. But slavery is banned in Saudi Arabia and in other muslim countries and wikipedia (such a great source) has this to say: The issue of slavery in the Islamic world in modern times is controversial. Critics argue there is hard evidence of its existence and destructive effects. Others maintain slavery in central Islamic lands has been virtually extinct since mid-twentieth century, and that reports from Sudan and Somalia showing practice of slavery is in border areas as a result of continuing war and not Islamic belief.
…most muslims think that those who practice slavery supposedly within the confines of Islam shouldn’t be considered to be following Islam.
…most muslims think that those who practice slavery supposedly within the confines of Islam shouldn’t be considered to be following Islam.
How do you know what most Muslims think? I think that the Sudanese would be pretty surprised to learn that they aren’t following Islam. So would many of the Saudis who keep slaves.
wikipedia (such a great source)
Yes, such a great source. Especially on topics like this…
…most muslims think that those who practice slavery supposedly within the confines of Islam shouldn’t be considered to be following Islam.
That’s funny, for hundreds of years Muslims attacked the northern Med coast, taking Christian prisoners for the slave pens of Islam. It was only that brash new country the USA that put a stop to it.
That’s funny, for hundreds of years Muslims attacked the northern Med coast…
They snatched them off the shores of Britain.
Dennis, I am talking about today. You aren’t seriously defending the slavery policy of the brash new USA are you?
Rand, slavery is banned in both Sudan and Saudi Arabia. It is condemned by religious authorities in both places. That’s not to say that slavery doesn’t exist, but you’re making into a religious issue. There are billions of people who consider themselves either Christian or Muslim and only a very few of them have anything nice to say about slavery, even in theory. My goofy roommate, or even the 50,000 strong Christian Identity movement (look it up) should tarnish Christianity, and I don’t think slave holders in Sudan should tarnish Islam.
Rand, slavery is banned in both Sudan and Saudi Arabia.
In Europe, when sex slavers are caught, they are punished.
What do they do about it in Saudi Arabia and Sudan? And of course, in Saudi Arabia, all women are pretty effectively slaves.
I just find it ironic, and sad, that American blacks turn to Islam, because they blame Christianity for slavery. They can only do that if they are historically ignorant. I was just wondering if the president shared their ignorance.
Gah. Sudan and Saudi Arabia are evil tyrannies. I’m not going to try to untangle this. I’m just going to say it again: a billion people! Just for starters, the muslim world does not equal the arab world. Some Muslim guy in Bombay who works in a computer store (or his counterpart in Detroit) would feel outraged by what you often say about Islam, and you yourself aren’t even intentionally directing your criticism toward people like them. My overall assessment: when you talk about Islam, you paint with an overly broad brush, in a way that would be utterly laughable to this audience if you did the same thing with Christianity.
Don’t “paint with a broad brush,” just attribute all your ideas to “some Muslim guy” like Bob does. That’s the way to win arguments!
just attribute all your ideas to “some Muslim guy” like Bob does
Well, you gotta admit that “some Muslim guy” is probably a more reliable and a more consistent source than Wikipedia.
would feel outraged by what you often say about Islam
I am so tired of “outraged Muslims” ploy, considering what their co-religionists do in the name of Islam and Allah. Whining is for losers.
I was just wondering if the president shared their ignorance.
After the Cairo speech?
After the comment about American exceptionalism?
No you weren’t. You already know.
Sudan and Saudi Arabia are evil tyrannies.
Yes. Evil Islamic tyrannies. Saudi Arabia in fact considers itself the center of the Muslim world, and millions of Muslims agree. There is nothing comparable in the Christian world, and hasn’t been for hundreds of years.
Rand – the Islamic world is not monolithic. I’ve known Turks who were very open, progressive and drank alcohol, in one memoriable case, to excess. (Chief Engineer of a Turkish frigate – I was part of the party that had to carry him back to his ship). I’m told that Indonesia, the world’s most populous Islamic country, is fairly relaxed. Egypt, another Islamic country I’ve been to, is somewhere in the middle.
Saudi Arabia has a lot of problems. Blaming them on “Islam” is not particularly helpful. Rather, the problem is the subsect of Islam (Wahhabism) that they practice.
I don’t think Rand wants to help them.
the Islamic world is not monolithic.
I didn’t say it was.
Blaming them on “Islam” is not particularly helpful.
Neither is sticking your head in the Arabian sand about it.
There is nothing comparable in the Christian world, and hasn’t been for hundreds of years.
There have been worse things “in the Christian world” much more recently. The typical practice of slave keeping in the United States was worse than what you find typically find in Saudi Arabia. Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR were both “in the Christian world”.
There have been worse things “in the Christian world” much more recently.
They are not happening today.
Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR were both “in the Christian world”.
In neither of those regimes was Christianity the state religion (and in the USSR, it wasn’t even tolerated). You just keep that head in the sand along with Obama, though. Maybe you can talk to each other down there.
In neither of those regimes was Christianity the state religion
I suppose so, but here are an interesting set of photos showing the interactions of Hitler and other Nazis with Christian leaders and participating in Christian practices. I’d never say that Hitler was a Christian, but what was going on here? The first photos are lame, but scroll down and you’ll see some shocking photos.
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm <– I have no idea about the main site, but I assume the Nazi photos are real.
In defense of Uncle Joe, he didn’t practice slavery per se, those were just prison camps. Prison camps had existed way back since Tsarist times as well, and people were imprisoned for much the same motives. Even today there is such a thing as hard labor in some western nations prisons (admittedly in a smaller scale).
Hmmm.
So, the Islamic world isn’t monolithic, BUT the vast majority of Muslims all agree that slavery is wrong and immoral and illegal and those who practice it aren’t even considered Muslims by the vast majority of the decentralized, non-monolithic Islamic world.
Did I get that right?
Yes. Now replace “Islamic” with “Christian” and repeat – it will also be true: the Christian world isn’t monolithic, BUT the vast majority of Christians all agree that slavery is wrong and immoral and illegal and those who practice it aren’t even considered Christian by the vast majority of the decentralized, non-monolithic Christian world.
On the other hand, pro-slavery Christians claim to have God on their side. And it is not just an idle boast — they’ve got it in writing!
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”
— God (Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44)
“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
— God (Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20)
There are many more such quotes, and from the New Testament too:
“Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily…”
— God ( Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22)
Of course, the Koran endorses slavery too. That so many people of both religions have got it into their heads to just outright ban slavery, well, to me that seems simply miraculous! Praise the Lord!
Bob-1:
And the last government of a nation that was both Christian and pro-slavery is which one? Any in the 21st Century?
Whereas the practice of slavery seems to be ongoing in Saudi Arabia, yet we don’t seem to see many (any?) cases of those people being prosecuted.
It may not mean that the Saudi government condones it, but it surely suggests that they are not exactly cracking down on it, either.
Of course, you’ve blithely claimed that Nazi Germany was part of the “Christian world.” Does meetings between Hitler and the mufti of Jerusalem also place Nazi Germany in the Muslim world?
Of course, the Koran endorses slavery too.
Bob, when Islam has a Reformation, get back to me.
Rand, obviously not all of Christiandom did go through a Reformation, so one isn’t necessary for the kind of change you are looking for. Pro-slavery Christians in America are currently inevitably protestant. Although, in general, when you find something horrible being done in the name of Jesus, such distinctions are not predictive.
For example, take Rwanda. It is an overwhelmingly Christian nation, with a mix of both Catholics and Protestants (less than 5% Muslim and 0.1% traditional indigenous). In 1994, genocide was practiced by both Catholics and Protestants, even including pastors and priests and nuns. After the number of converts to Islam tripled, because Rwandans noticed that the Muslims hadn’t participated. See “en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Rwanda”
On the other hand, Indonesians wear Islam well.
Here’s an article you might like — it shows how Obama (and Hilary Clinton) are screwing up by treating Indonesia, the nation with the largest number of muslims, as “a muslim nation” instead of as a secular democracy which just happens to have a majority-muslim populace. That’s what you’d like to see, right? See “www.newsweek.com/id/206229”. Or better yet, read the Jakarta Post (it is online) for a few days — you’ll see a modern majority-muslim society, still working out the kinks of its recent history and ongoing problems, but free of the religious extremism that you’re concerned about.
Whoops, here’s the link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/
If you visit in time for the July 13th edition, scroll down for the election coverage – it is very similar to how an American newspaper would do it. Actually, it reminds me of The Onion more than any other newspaper, but it is completely serious.
I hope this doesn’t make Bob-1’s head explode:
“The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
– God (Leviticus 19:34)
This relates to the second of the cited passages. How does this jive with Ex. 21:20? Simple – the Exodus passage does not condone slave beating; it specifies when criminal penalties will be applied and when they will not.
Bob-1 demonstrates a common fallacy: equating toleration with advocacy. It’s the same error behind the assumption that narcotics-prohibition-opposing libertarians necessarily favor the recreational use of narcotics.
Why should we assume that the Bible portrays God as having enshrined all his ideals in the Israelite constitution? The Bible doesn’t say that. It certainly isn’t the case with marriage; the ideal was explicitly monogamous, but Mosaic Law doesn’t prohibit the practice (except with regard to kings, some of whom broke the law big-time).
The precedent here is tolerating a common human practice with some limitations. Same goes for slavery.
Regarding the Colossians passage, Paul defended due process, not slavery. The real challenge is coming up with a CXhristian defense of certain revolutions; I have concluded that revolution is just when the State abolishes due process, the sort of thing our Declaration of Independence documents.
The Biblical ideal of community rests in Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond [slave] nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul didn’t care about politics – but he was laying a philosophical foundation that would undermine various tyrannies, including slavery.
Bob-1 seems to have found his meme: “pro-slavery Christians”.
I again ask:
Name a pro-slavery Christian government in the 21st Century.
The business with Rwanda is amusing as well. Was Rwanda governed as a Christian theocracy? (The fact that they had both Protestants and Catholics would suggest not.)
The comparison with Indonesia is interesting. Indonesia has sought to remain secular—an aim backed by a military government that the Left denounced for the longest time. And the forcible separation of East Timor (a Christian enclave) has stoked a rise in Islamic fundamentalism—not that the Left, which long held up E. Timor as a cause celebre, actually cares much about that consequence.
Note, too, that the government in Indonesia has released several of the Bali bombers, in the face of pressure from the likes of Jemaat-e-Islamiya.
Lurking Observer, why focus on governments? Ordinary Germans made the Holocaust possible. These Germans who were part of “the Christian world”, yet there is great resistance by most people, including me, to blame Christianity for the evil that consumed Nazi Germany.
Even when evil is committed in the name of Jesus, most people, including me, resist the idea that Christianity itself is at fault. I’m just saying that Islam should receive the same treatment. Various evils — fascism, violent triumphal nationalism, slave holding, genocide, terrorism, and tyranny will all take place against a religious cultural background, and sometimes religion will even be cited as the justification for such behavior, but in the case of mainstream religions such as Christianity and Islam, religions which millions of good-hearted gentle fundamentally decent and moral people practice, there is no need to blame the religions themselves. My answer to Alan below applies to you as well:
Alan, thank you for the interesting biblical analysis. I think that there is a interesting separate discussion to be had here, but with regard to this comment thread, I think you’ve nicely illustrated my point: You can take a provocative excerpt from the Bible or Koran, and interpret it in different ways.
When Rand says that slavery still exists under Islam, he can point to various slave holders who will use scripture to justify their slaveholding. But you can also interpret the scripture differently, and will reject the idea that slave holding is something God condones. The vast majority of both Christians and Muslims have rejected slavery while remaining faithful to their religious beliefs.
These Germans who were part of “the Christian world”, yet there is great resistance by most people, including me, to blame Christianity for the evil that consumed Nazi Germany.
Which is appropriate, since Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of Nazism, despite your desperate attempts at moral equivalence.
On the other hand, as another commenter pointed out, the Mufti of Jerusalem was an enthusiastic fan. Mein Kampf remains a best seller in the Arab world. This is also not a coincidence, regardless of how politically uncomfortable it makes you feel. But just keep talking to the president with your head under the sand…
The Pope could have spoke out, but instead, the Vatican signed agreements with Hitler. Look at that link again: http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm What was going on there?
The Mufti of Jerusalem was appointed by British authorities, and they would have arrested him if he hadn’t fled.
The Arab world is not the Islamic world, no matter how uncomfortable this might make you feel.
The Arab world is the center of the Islamic world and funds the spread of Islam, just as the Vatican is the center of Catholicism. I can’t imagine why you think that I would feel “uncomfortable” about anything that you ignorantly bang out on a keyboard.
In all sincerity, I don’t understand why you keep railing on about Islam when you could simply criticize “violent Islamic extremism”, “violent islamic fundamentalism”, and “Islamic fascism”. Just realize that you’re talking about a tiny percentage of the world’s muslims.
I don’t “realize” that because the percentage isn’t as “tiny” as you want to stick your head in the sand about. But keep talking to the president under that sand, and turning our nation into a second-rate power, and Israel into another Judenrein…
You can interpret a text many ways, but only one of those interpretations – that which reflects the original intent – is correct. The bigger and older a text, the more effort it takes to discern the original intent.
The difference between myself and the slaveholders who said that Paul was pro-slavery, aside from the latter defending their own selfishness, is that I look at the greater whole and not just a single verse. Jesus regarded all humans with equal value, and more valuable than anything other than God himself. The rest of Christianity must be consistent with that ideal.
If someone prescribes certain behavior with regard to X, that someone either favors X, or is trying to find the best adaptation to X. If slavery is inherently antithetical to the Jesus ideal, Paul must be doing the latter.
On the subject of undermining slavery, I should have grabbed this documentation earlier (emphasis added):
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
“And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”
Slaves serve masters, masters serve slaves.
(Complicating the analysis is that “slave” describes several different types of institutions in the Bible. Someone could and should rude a book.)
On another topic, the contrast between, say, Indonesia and Arabia, points out this principle: people are the products by multiple influences. If Indonesia and the Arabian peninsula have differing attitudes toward Islam, I suspect that the former are shaped by their pre-Islamic cultural heritage, having come late to the faith. Always look at all of the cultural indicators; religion is just one of ’em.