Burn The Confederate Flag Day

So apparently a bunch of liberals are planning to burn the flag of the Confederacy on September 12th at their local tea parties. I joined their Facebook group momentarily and dropped this comment:

I’m just going to drop this comment and leave this group, since I don’t want something like this on my Facebook profile. You want to respond, message me or go here:
http://guffyconservative.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/burn-the-confederate-flag-day/

I’m assuming that by your intent to burn the Confederate flag you’re calling Tea Partiers racist. Well, ya’ll don’t know your history very well, do you?

Four of the Union states were slave states (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri), although Maryland arguably doesn’t count because of the heavy Union military presence due to D.C.’s location (Delaware also wouldn’t count for obvious reasons in this case).

Black Americans fought on both sides of the Civil War. [edit I attached this website]

The Emancipation Proclamation, for some reason, was not given until well after the war had begun. The reason? Abolitionists may have played their part, but really it was just a political maneuver. It weakened the South through the obvious and is credited with preventing Britain siding with the Confederacy.

Despite the above, Lincoln is one of my favorite Presidents. Would that be true of a racist?

The Civil War had plenty of contributing factors. Whether or not slavery was outlawed wasn’t a big issue. The issue was whether the federal or state governments would outlaw slavery. There was also the matter of a state’s right to secede.

And before ya’ll start calling me a racist, let me tell ya’ll a little about myself:
-Multiple black (American) and African roommates and friends (just check the friends list on my profile [edit http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130672693642828&v=wall#!/ncsuandrew])
-Indian adopted brother (http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=15086&id=1064715219&saved#!/profile.php?id=682838844&ref=ts)
-I’m going to Guatemala (Latin American nation) to help work on a school next week (and I’ve done so twice already).
-I voted for Alan Keyes in the ’08 presidential primary.

That all said, I understand the reasons motivating both sides in the Civil War, but I’d have to side with the Confederacy if forced to choose between the two.

Wanda Sykes @ WHCD – Response Part 2

Rush refused to acknowledge this woman’s comments any more than absolutely necessary, saying that people like her are “a dime a dozen.” I don’t really disagree, but I’ve got nothing better to blog on politically, so here goes:

And I keep getting asked the same question, ‘Are you nervous? Are you nervous?’ With this administration, what is there to be nervous about? If I do a good job, I get great press. If I screw it up royally, Tim Geightner’d give me a bonus! But I understand because it’s hard to poke fun at the President, because he’s so likable! Everybody likes him. There’s T-Shirts and bumper stickers. Listening to the radio and people are dedicating songs. ‘I’d like to send out ‘Always and Forever’ to Mr. President.’

What is there to be nervous about? Plenty, but let’s not get into that. I thought the Tim Geightner line was good. Now here’s where the butt-kissing and complete lack of logic begin to set in. She says it’s hard to poke fun at the President because he’s so likable. Two problems with this. First, he is Barack Hussein Obama! Aside from Biden, he’s probably the easiest political identity on the scene in America to make fun of! I’ve got a whole page devoted to his gaffes!

But more importantly, that “because he’s so likable” thing is pure idiocy! I make fun of a lot of people in my personal life. With one possible exception, I’m friends with all of them. The overwhelming majority of them are “likable.” That’s why I can poke fun at them, because they’re likable! It’s when someone isn’t likable that you have difficulty poking fun at them (at least to their face, which is what we’re talking about here).

And then she goes on to talk about how everyone likes him because of T-Shirts and bumper stickers and the like. She hangs out in blue states and sees lots of Obama stuff. Imagine that! In the red states, there’s a lot of stuff (not as much, McCain wasn’t nearly as conservative as Obama is liberal, so less concrete support, etc.) that’s for McCain, but not everybody loves McCain, obviously. And I’ll bet that there were people dedicating songs to Bush way back when, and I never really would’ve said that everybody liked Bush, except for the first few months after 9/11.

People love you and even the media! You guys have been very favorable towards the President. It’s funny to me that they’ve never caught you smoking,

“Even the media”?! Are you freaking kidding me?! We conservatives are ridiculed for claiming that the media is so liberal-biased when FOX exists and so on, but we have it here from the horse’s mouth! What do you mean, “even the media?” The media were the first ones to hop on the Obamatrain! And I second her take on the fact that the media’s never caught him smoking. How could they not? I just did a Google Image search for “Obama Smoking” and found tons of hits. Some are, no doubt, Photoshopped, but how come I haven’t seen a single clip of him smoking on CNN or FOX or MSNBC or any of the other networks? Granted, I don’t watch them often, but I certainly got more than my fill of Obama coverage last fall.

But that’s the thing about you, sir. You’re so likable because you’re so accessible, playing basketball. I bet you rappers even give you their demo, ‘Hey, can you get this to Jay Z. for me?’ And you’re taking the First Lady out on dates. I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised if I walked past the White House and see you out there mowing the lawn. Don’t let him get a John Deere, please.

I don’t mind politicians like Obama putting on these shows of normalcy. It’s a necessary evil of politics. But, can I just ask when he has time to be president between the basketball games, the dates, and, most importantly, his constant additions to the new series Obama: The Most Common TV Guest? And the day Obama’s out mowing the lawn with a John Deere is the day I seriously reconsider my desire to own one of those hats.

And you just hang out, you – and I think you hang out too much. What was that, you and Joe Biden out getting hamburgers. The two of you can’t hang out together! Whose idea was that, Nancy Pelosi’s? Man. Man. ‘Why don’t you boys go out and get a bite?’ You know she was a Hillary supporter, what’s wrong with you? Oh, and God forbid if Joe Biden falls in the hands of a terrorist. God forbid if there’s ever a hostage situation. We’re done. Oh, they won’t even have to torture him! All they have to do is go ‘How’s it going, Joe?’ He come out with stacks of information. ‘What’d you do, did you waterboard him?’ ‘No, I just said ‘Nice weather’ and he’s still talking! I can’t listen to him anymore! It’s like torture!’

I’m not really sure how Sykes meant the first half of this. But I have a few ideas. First, it’s bad for Obama to be seen with Biden for reasons related to the latter’s intelligence and speaking abilities. Second, Pelosi wants something bad to happen to them because she was a Hillary supporter. Third, and most likely, if Obama and Biden are together, that increases the risk of them being taken out at the same time. If that were to happen, Pelosi would become President. I get chills in my spine just thinking about it. All the liberalness of Obama without any of the incompetence and not nearly as much humor.

And see, if you guys are running out like that, that’s why there’s the Secret Service, man, come on. You guys gotta stay on point, all right? You gotta step up your game. You may be a little nervous when those shoes got past you. They’re throwing shoes at Bush, maybe you’re a little nervous, but I did speak to the head of the Secret Service and, to their defense, he told me that, ‘We just don’t know how much footwear they stocked.’

Joke about the shoe thing if you want. After all, it is one of the funniest political “events” in recent history. But don’t make fun of the Secret Service for it. That’s like making fun of the military for any “failures.” Now, as I’ve said before, I don’t approve of Christians joining the military for a variety of reasons I’d be happy to discuss with anyone who’s interested. But I don’t make fun of them, and would never do so. (Oh, by the way, that “don’t approve” thing doesn’t extend to the Secret Service). These guys are working hard trying to keep people alive who they may or may not approve of or have voted for. My friend’s dad is the head of communications or something at the White House (Secret Service). And, in case you’re wondering, he didn’t drink the Kool-Aid. But he’s still hard at work keeping Obama alive. I guess what I’m saying is that they’re politically neutral. Leave them out of it.

I gotta say this about President Bush, man, he knows how to leave town, right? Never heard anything from him. He’s just quiet. He left like that house guest who breaks something in your house – They hurry up and get out of there before you find out. You look at your beautiful vase. You’re like ‘What the ****? Who broke my vase?’ And I gotta say, he broke a lot of stuff, sir. He broke a lot of stuff. I mean, you thought you were find a new home. You got a fixer-upper, huh?

I feel like a broken record responding to this anti-Bush fanaticism, but here we go. Former President Bush is doing what a former president is supposed to do. We have a new president, and the old one’s supposed to leave everything to him. That’s exactly what Bush is doing. As for him not saying anything, can you blame him? Every time he opened his mouth, even if he didn’t say anything wrong or stupid, the media and the Democrats unleashed their attack dogs on him, unless he was rolling over for them. He still said what he had to because that was his duty as President. But now that the responsibility’s gone, why should he risk further ridicule? Unlike Cheney, he doesn’t really stand for much in the way of conservatism, so what reason does he have to stay on the scene?

I agree with Wanda Sykes that Bush broke a lot of stuff. Not nearly as much as she’s probably talking about, but a lot. Mostly, that took the form of over-the-top spending. And you can’t criticize Bush for that (those of us who were against it can, but Sykes can’t), especially since Obama’s doing “more of the same” or, more accurately lots and lots more of the same. Yes, Bush broke a lot, but Obama would’ve done more and continues to doe so.

And there’s a lot of things that need to be fixed. And you’re trying to help and I’m amazed that there’s some people who won’t even allow you to help. Like what’s up with all these governors not wanting to take the money? Who turns down money? Maybe you should get Opra to give it away. Opra’s like ‘Okay, Governors. Look under your seats!’

Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but Obama’s doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done to fix them! He needs to cut taxes and spending. Instead, he’s raising both. How can you attack Bush for something and then turn around and praise Obama for the same thing?! And as for the governors. “Who turns down money?” Any honest person turns down dishonest money. To use your own analogy from later in the speech, Ms. Sykes, it’s like robbing a bank and then being incredulous when one of the clerks refuses to accept the money (personally). Any honest governor will accept only the amount of money that they paid for (i.e. if they pay 3% of national taxes, accept only 3% of the bailout money). And that’s hard to do, so a really honest (and cautious) governor just decides not to accept any of what is, in effect, money stolen from posterity. And no self-respecting governor should take political advice of any kind from Opra.

I know Governor Palin – she’s not here tonight. She pulled out at the last minute. Somebody should tell her ‘That’s not really how you practice abstinence.’ Shutup, you’re gonna be telling that one tomorrow. Shutup. And these things, the states – they need the money. They need the money. Especially the school system. I’m so happy that you’re doing something about education and you wanna pay our teachers more. Because our teachers are grossly underpaid. That’s right. Pay the teachers more money. Maybe then they’ll stop sleeping with the students. You’ll tell that one, too. I’m telling you.

So you’re making fun of a politician for not attending an event that she knows is going to be all about praising a man largely responsible for the mountain of public embarrassment and ridicule she’s suffered in the past year? And as for abstinence (since I get the feeling she’s making fun of that, too), it is, as I and many, many others have said time and time again, FOOLPROOF! You cannot get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) if you abstain. Her daughter’s pregnancy is her daughter’s failure to practice abstinence. It is arguably the governor’s failure as a parent. But it is not a failure of abstinence. So stop making fun of the practice. I’ve been practicing it for 19 years and guess what? I haven’t gotten anyone pregnant! Imagine that!

Yes, the states do need the money, but where do you think the money comes from? The states, of course! You’re just moving money around, you’re not actually giving any money to anyone, so stop acting like you are!

I don’t know the specifics of whatever Obama’s supposedly doing to help education, but let’s say he is giving the teachers more money. Ms. Sykes, that’s a great thing. Teachers are certainly underpaid. But you don’t increase spending in any area unless you raise taxes or cut spending in another area. And while raising taxes is a fiscally responsible thing to do, it’s economically stupid! The only sensible option for paying the teachers more is to take it from places that need less money, like Global Whining research or building some obscure pathways in parks (bet you didn’t know that was in the “stimulus”) or, God forbid!, cutting the pay of Congressman and women and the President. It’s not like they don’t have enough money from their own endevours, and it’s certainly not like they earn the money they are paid.

How can you support teachers in one breath and insult them in the next? You ought to be ashamed. We’ve had a few incidents of teachers sleeping with students, to be sure, but those teachers are in the vast minority! The other teachers don’t deserve to be ridiculed and insulted (certainly not in such a public manner) because of the actions of a relatively tiny group. And I can’t understand why you’d make fun of them in the first place for something like that. They’re on your side! Most teachers are strongly liberal! You’re just not making any sense!

Tax problems, man. Everybody’s complaining about taxes. Nobody wants to pay their taxes. Everybody’s complaining about ‘Don’t raise taxes!’ and wanna increase taxes. And, me, I don’t mind paying my fair share. I gladly pay my fair share. But a lot of people, they’re just have problems with it. And I see – you go dinners like this and fancy occasions and even fundraising events. You see people shelling out big money for charity dinners, like two thousand dollars a plate or something – I think it’s not the problem that people don’t like writing a check. I think they just like to dress up. So maybe next April 15, you have like a big tax ball. Give everybody some champaigne. Bring Rascal Flatts in; have it at the convention center. You see people getting all ready for – girls getting their nails done. ‘What are you doing, girl?’ ‘I’m going to pay my taxes!’

Do you want to know why everyone’s complaining about their taxes? Because it’s ridiculous! A good chunk of the reason for the Revolutionary War was taxation without representation. And despite MASSIVE public outcry, Congress OKs spending that will, as all deficit spending does, lead to higher taxes! My parents don’t have a lot of money to spare, and their taxes are “going up” as it is, with me becoming to old for the credit a couple years back and my brother and sister getting too old this year, and my other sister turning 17 next year. That means, over the course of three years, their taxes are increasing by $4000 per year, and your “Messiah” wants to tax them more!

And despite your ilk’s constant protests that Obama isn’t a socialist, you seem to like some very socialistic ideas. I mean, the concept of paying taxes being a “fun” thing! We pay our taxes when required by law, isn’t that enough?! And as for the whole charity thing, you can’t compare charities and paying taxes! Charities pay for medical research, education for the impoverished, food for the impoverished, and so on. Taxes pay for salaries of politicians, research into environmental hoaxes, subsidies to keep worthless companies afloat, and so on. True, some “charities” are about environmental research and such, but the people who contribute to those sorts of charities are probably people who don’t have a problem with Obama raising taxes, anyway.

And how would you pay for such a ball? Raising taxes even more, right? I doubt that would have the desired effect.

And the First Lady. Beautiful as always. Look very nice. And I – and how dare you people give her grief about baring her arms? The country is broke, all right? Sleeves cost money. And you have lovely arms. So, I’m glad you’re showing off your arms. That’s right. That’s why, also, you let some of these little floozies out here know. You can try some funny business if you want to, but you gonna get one of these babies around your neck! You have beautiful arms. Some of the previous First Ladies – they needed sleeves. Some of them needed ponchos. Good grief. I didn’t name any names!

I think Sykes unintentionally hit the nail on the head regarding Michelle’s character here. That concept of her strong arming her opponents isn’t too far from the truth. And those remarks about previous First Ladies were appalling. Maybe you didn’t name any names, but we can guess pretty accurately who you’re talking about. Republican First Ladies. It’s not enough that you ridicule and belittle their husband’s work and character. It’s not enough that liberal sympathizers sleep during the funeral of the most popular president of all time (excepting Washington). You have to attack the appearance of people who aren’t even holding office!

But, you do need to keep your arms to yourself, sometimes. Yeah. Went over to London, touching the Queen. You can’t do that! You over there, patting the Queen on the back like she just slid into home plate. ‘Way to go, Queen!’ And whose idea was it to give the Queen an iPod? What an aweful gift! Your – his idea? What’s she gonna do? Download ‘Lady Gaga’? What are you going to give the Pope? A BlueTooth? You should’ve given the Queen something, you know, like a momento of our country. Something that says ‘America,’ you know. Give her Texas. And I think they – to the First Lady, kudos to you for unveiling the bust of Sojourner Truth in the White House. That is – yes. And could you do me a favor and please make sure it’s nailed down well? Because when the next white guy comes in, they’re gonna move it to the kitchen. So…

Right on about touching the Queen and giving her an iPod. But I don’t think it’s the silly little mistake Sykes seems to be trying to make it out to be. That’s a serious breech of protocol and is indicative of a character that doesn’t care about our allies.

As for the Sojourner Truth thing, I couldn’t quite remember exactly what role she played in the whole slavery thing, so I looked her up on Wikipedia. She did a lot of good, but I’m not sure I’d want the bust of a women in my house who flashed a crowd publically. And how is that “white guy” comment anything less than racist? That’s no less racist than a white person saying the next black guy to come by is going to steal something!

But, Mr. President, you’ve had your fair share of critics. I – even Senator McCain. Senator McCain gave you grief about the new helicopters that you didn’t order. I think Mr. McCain was just a little bitter because he wanted to be in the new helicopters. But I’m gonna tell Mr. McCain, ‘I’m sure if you ask nicely, your wife will buy you a helicopter.’

I don’t know anything about this helicopter business, but are presidential candidates no longer allowed to criticize their (former) opponents, who make manifest a set of ideas partially or wholly opposite to their own?

Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy, Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So you’re saying ‘I hope America fails.’ You’re like ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes or jobs or our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason! He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama Bin Laden is saying. You might wanna look into this, sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the twentieth hijacker but he was so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. Too much? Oh. Rush Limbaugh. ‘I hope the country fails.’ I hope his kidneys fail! How about that? He needs a little waterboarding, that’s what he needs.

Rush isn’t going to respond, eh? Well, I will. Fact: “Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails.” Fact: Rush was very clear and specific about what he meant by that. Falsehood: “So you’re saying ‘I hope America fails.’ You’re like ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes or jobs or our soldiers in Iraq.’” He said quite the opposite. He said he hopes America succeeds and that’s why he wants Obama to fail. And that whole next sentence is just foolishness. He doesn’t care about soldiers in Iraq? Then why does he have the “Adopt-a-Soldier” program on the home page of his website?! That’s more than I can say for Obama. The best he’s done is (I know he’s not directly responsible for this) be in office when the DHS releases a report warning about veterans!

And how is saying you want one man and his cronies to fail the same as saying you want roughly 300 million people to die?! Because that’s what Bin Laden wants. And bringing up the Oxycontin thing is low on so many counts. First, I notice you don’t mention Obama’s alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine uses and barely mention his tobacco use. Second, I admire Rush a lot for the Oxycontin thing because, unlike some people (*cough* Obama *cough*), he had the self-control and fortitude to deal with the addiction and recover from it. You might say “Well, Obama isn’t doing those other things, either.” Two problems with that. First, Obama is still a smoker, but so is Rush, so I won’t go into that. Second, Obama got into hard drugs and eventually quit. Rush, on the other hand, was taking pain medication, and got addicted to that. He wasn’t “doing drugs.” He was taking meds and got addicted to them. Would you ridicule Harry from Jump Street for getting addicted to his pain meds?

So Limbaugh’s not allowed to say he wants a person to fail, but you’re allowed to say you want a person to die? How hypocritical. And since Rush is such a great leader in America, and since you’re talking death, not failure, I’d say you’re a lot closer to sympathizing with Osama than Rush is. As a matter of fact, I bet Osama would be a lot happier if Rush died than if Obama did, though I’m sure he’d like Biden as president, too.

Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity said he was going to get waterboarded for charity, for armed forces. He hasn’t done it, yet. Talk about taking waterboarding. Please. Yeah, okay, you may get waterboarded by someone you know or trust, but let somebody from Pakistan waterboard or Keith Olbermann. Let Keith Olbermann waterboard. He can’t take a waterboarding. I can break Sean Hannity just by giving him a middle seat in coach. Oh, I need leg room!

I notice that you, Ms. Sykes, have never been waterboarded. So you’re hardly in a position to criticize. And I’m afraid I just don’t understand the whole needing leg room thing. How is that breaking someone?

Dick Cheney. Oh my – he’s a scary man. I would – scares me to death. I tell my kids; I say ‘Look. If two cars pull up, one has a stranger, and the other car has Dick Cheney, you get in the car with the stranger!’ Dick Cheney is trying to defend torture. Trying to defend torture! He goes, well, ‘They should release the memos to show the good information we got from our practices.’ You can’t defend torture! That’s like me robbing a bank and then going in front of the judge and saying ‘Yes, your honor. I robbed the bank, but look at all these bills I paid.’

Dick Cheney is a scary man in some ways. Good for him. We need a few more intimidating people, particularly in conservatism. Cheney is not trying to defend torture. Waterboarding is not torture. I’ve got a lot of arguments for this, but for now, I’ll just mention one I got from Crowder. We waterboard our own troops as a part of training! So are we torturing these troops?

And your analogy is totally off, Ms. Sykes. It’d be a little more like robbing the Mafia and using the money to cure cancer. Terrorists are not law-abiding folks and American lives are not bills to be paid.

And finally, so, they’re even giving you grief about the dog – about Bo. The animal rights people are on you ‘Why didn’t you get a rescued dog? Why didn’t he get a rescued dog?’ Look, the man has to rescue a country that’s been abused by its previous owner. Let him have a fresh start with the dog. Thank you all very much. Good night.

Not being an extreme liberal hippie, I don’t much care about Bo. But I don’t like this whole “previous owner” business. That draws a disturbing parallel. The president is not the owner of the country. (S)He’s its caretaker and protector. And Bush abused America less in his eight years than Obama has abused it in the first few months in office.

Well, that’s all I’ve got. I have a feeling this is all a lot of wasted “breath,” but so what?

Biblical Slavery – Why Doesn’t the Bible Forbid Slavery?

My church has something called “family groups,” groups of 3-4 families that meet 2-4 times a month, depending on the time of year. This summer, our campus ministry is visiting various family groups. Last night, the topic at family group was slavery. I had some thoughts during the discussion that I voiced because I thought them important and relatively inoffensive; however, I had much more I would have liked to say but do not think I would have communicated well in that setting. As you will see, a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say could have…unpleasant results.

---

<personal information censored> To the Leader of the Family Group,

I had a few thoughts about the discussion that I decided not to voice for fear that I might not be able to properly communicate them and would end up getting grossly misunderstood.  Please bear with me through this entire email before reaching conclusions about what I’m saying.

In the discussion, it seemed to me that everyone was in agreement that slavery is bad, and that the Bible just avoided saying so, possibly for the reasons mentioned. However, this idea, to me, does not seem entirely coherent with other things I’ve read in the Bible.

I’m just going to go ahead and say it, but bear with me while I clarify. Slavery, in and of itself, is neither “bad” nor a sin. Abuses of slavery are. For example, if someone works 80 hours a week and gets paid $100, and to top it off, let’s say their boss physically abuses them. That is both bad and sinful. However, employment is not. I think it is much the same with slavery. Killing slaves is/was sinful. Abusing them is, also. And, I do not know if you know this, but the slave trade is also sinful. It would seem to me that if the Bible explicitly states the slave trade as a sin, it would be better to just say that slavery is a sin if, indeed, it is. That would make it unnecessary to state that the slave trade is a sin.

1 Timothy 9-11:
⁹We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine ¹¹that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

But something I think is also important to state is the definition of slavery. When you or I or any other American thinks of slavery, we think of forced labor, physical abuse, the hot sun, murder, torn families, and so on. But that is not what slavery is. Those are the abuses of slavery. Slavery itself is merely, and I use that word loosely, one human making the decisions for another, and that “other” having no significant freedom. And freedom is not the glorious thing we make it out to be in this country. Don’t get me wrong, I love freedom, I love being free, and I am 99% glad we don’t have slavery in America today (ultimately, I think modern technology would make slavery in America pointless anyway). However, look at what happens with slavery. Look at all the homeless people who are homeless by choice, because they are unable to accept the responsibility that comes with their freedom. Look at the drug addicts who would certainly be better off were someone else to be in charge of their life decisions. There are a good many other examples as well.

In the Bible, I believe we have two main categories of slaves: Israel, and the rest of the world (mainly Roman). Each of these has to sub-categories; slaves who sold themselves, and prisoners of war. I think we can agree that when one person sells himself into slavery, there is nothing wrong with that as long as he is not tricked into doing so. I think we can also agree that if any alternative to slavery were available, the man selling his freedom would take it. Therefore, this man likely has no other choice if he wishes to live. So, if you take away slavery, what is this man to do? How will he earn enough to eat or be sheltered? In America, this really isn’t an issue, but in biblical times, I think it would have been.

Or how’s this for a scenario (and this would be applicable in modern America). Let’s say a man, who we’ll say for argument’s sake is not a disciple, has an addiction. Maybe it’s drugs. Maybe it’s something more sinister, like murder. Maybe it’s gluttony. Either way, let’s say he has an addiction that he wants to get rid of (he isn’t a disciple, but still wants to be “good” by his own standard, and that requires losing the habit). He tries and tries and tries again and fails every time (sounds like a lot of smokers I know). Then, he has an idea. He could sell himself into someone’s service (you could sell yourself for a specific length of time, at least in Israel; and there’s also the Year of Jubilee). Because his freedom is taken from him, he can’t do whatever it was (what master would want a valuable slave to overeat or do drugs?). This man’s quality of life has been greatly improved by slavery! And there are people like that today. If no one else, there are those who check themselves into rehab.

I also have a bit of a side comment about one of the younger guys’ question. He asked you if slaves back then got paid. You said they didn’t. In the literal sense, and for the purposes of that question, I suppose that’s right. However, think for a moment about the expression “time is money.” You could take that and turn it into many other expressions, like “time is food” or “time is shelter” because everything has a specific value and a specific amount of time attached to it. So, although slaves did not get paid, they were compensated, after a fashion. They received food, shelter, and security (of varying degrees, I’m sure).

Now, let’s take a look at those who were prisoners of war. In Israel, the people were, as everyone knows, supposed to kill everyone within a certain geographic area when they conquered Canaan. But they were permitted to take slaves from peoples outside this area, if the people of a city surrendered without a fight.

Deuteronomy 20:10-18:

¹⁰ When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. ¹¹ If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. ¹² If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. ¹³ When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. ¹⁴ As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. ¹⁵ This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

¹⁶ However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. ¹⁷ Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. ¹⁸ Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

I can think of three reasons for this. First, labor was needed in Israel. Second, perhaps the Lord wanted to spare as much bloodshed as possible without endangering his relationship with Israel. Thirdly, I’m not aware of a specifically prescribed path then, as there is now, for “achieving” salvation. We know that people from that time will be in paradise (we probably don’t go to Heaven, per se, but that’s another discussion), since we have examples. Elijah, for one. Also, Jesus states that John the Baptist will be wherever we go, and he died before the death, burial, and resurrection. But, my best guess for that time period is that you would have to follow all the laws of the Lord. Now, about those slaves from surrendered cities. Would they ever have been able to be saved this way living where they were? In all liklihood, no. But if they’re taken as slaves by the Israelites, their chances increase dramatically.

Now let’s compare this to the Roman slaves or let’s say, hypothetically, that we had slavery in America today. If a Roman or American disciple took a non-disciple as a slave, is not that slave forced to see, every day, a disciple living out his life for Jesus? What better way can you think of for getting someone to want to become a disciple?

Also, I would think life would be much simpler as a slave. Not easier, but simpler. You would do your work, do as your told, and be done. You would not have to worry about finances or decide what direction to go with your life. Personally, I can think of several temptations in my life that would evaporate were I a slave. Now, I never will be because Galatians 5:3 (“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”) could be meant in the literal sense. And that makes sense to me. First, a disciple should not make himself the slave of a non-disciple. Imagine the circumstances when the non-disciple wants you to do something sinful. Second, I would think a disciple owning another disciple would be awkward, to say the least. There’s also the favouritism you mentioned, and Philemon 1:12-21.

¹²I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. ¹³I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. ¹⁴But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced. ¹⁵Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— ¹⁶no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

¹⁷So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. ¹⁸If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. ¹⁹I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. ²⁰I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. ²¹Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

So, essentially, what I am trying to say is that the reason the Bible does not say slavery is sinful is because it is not. It’s a tricky subject, to be sure. And any abuse of slavery is most definitely sinful, but the actual act itself is not.

Your Infant Brother in Christ,

<personal information censored> Guffy Conservative

P.S. I’m pretty tired right now, so if there’s some sentence fragments that don’t totally make sense, sorry.

P.S.S. One last point. There is quite a bit of evidence that slavery is not the abomination we in America are conditioned to think it is. Certainly that is the case with Israel’s slavery: Deuteronomy 15:12-18

¹² If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. ¹³ And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. ¹⁴ Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. ¹⁵ Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

¹⁶ But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, ¹⁷ then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.

¹⁸ Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do.

It seems to me that the verses 16-17 would be entirely unnecessary if slavery was a bad thing.

Good Liberals

You know, Crowder did a short video a while back where he searched and searched for a “good” liberal and couldn’t find one. By “liberal,” I mean a liberal politician, not a liberal voter. There are plenty of “good” liberal voters who are just misinformed or apathetic or haven’t thought things through all the way. There are also some who are just plain dumb, which is not necessarily “bad” (in the evil sense), just unfortunate. Anyway, neither could I. The closest I can come up with is Abraham Lincoln, who might be considered “liberal” in the sense that he increased the size and power of the federal government. But, in his defense, increasing the government was a by-product, not his true intention. His intention was to keep the Union intact. While I may not agree with that wholeheartedly, I do think that his heart was in the right place. Anyone got anything better?

The Gettysburg Address / Civil War Revisited

Since I just posted the Gettysburg Address up under the Historical Documents page, I fiigured I oughtta say something about it. So here goes.

The first paragraph is A-OK by me.  I don’t know that all of the Founding Fathers were fully dedicated to all men being equal, but that’s irrelevent to this.

The first sentenc of the second paragraph is where I run into a bit of a problem.  Lincoln says that we were “engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” I get what he’s trying to say, but let’s be honest about war.  In a civil war, you really aren’t testing much of anything except for military strength. When one nation (or faction) defeats another in modern (and by that I mean the last 2000 years) warfare, it means nothing except that they are stronger overall.  Think about it.  Tons of Northerners killing not-quite-so-many-tons of Southerners doesn’t prove that Democracy is great.  It doesn’t prove that a country like the one the Founding Fathers established can or can’t endure long.  Let’s say the opposite had happened.  Let’s say the South won.  Would the United States of America endure? I don’t see why not.  You’d still have united states, just not as many of them.  And they’d be more united than before because a) slavery wouldn’t be a dividing issue (there were a few slave states, but they’d be so outnumbered in the new North that it wouldn’t really matter) and b) they’d have another nation to contend with – the Confederacy.  Anyway, back to the second paragraph.  The rest of what Lincoln says is all well and good.  Although I may not agree with the invasion of the South, those dead men did fight and die for something they believed in no less than those in the South did and did indeed deserve some recognition, some dedication, as much as anyone.

I don’t have much to say about the second paragraph except that, starting with “It is for us, the living” Lincoln seems to be trying to use the deaths of these men to further the cause of the North. Since, unlike Obama, I do think that Lincoln was an actual true believer in what he did (though I might not agree with all of it), I don’t begrudge him this. It disgusts me when someone uses the dead as a tool for power, but I don’t think that’s what Lincoln was doing here. But if Obama tried something similar with our troops in the Middle East, I’d have a big problem with it.

And that’s it. Some of the ending goes back to what I said about the second paragraph, but other than that, the Address is cool by me.  And I totally agree with the first couple of sentences in that last paragraph.

Founding Documents Update – Gettysburg Address

I’ve added the Gettysburg Address to the Founding Documents page. Since this isn’t really a “founding” document, I’ve renamed the page to Historical Documents. Although, the Address isn’t really a document… ah, well, I won’t worry about that.

Those darned pro-war, anti-environment, anti-equality Republicans!

So I found the following on Super Flair and followed the “paper trail” back to a cafepress.com product.

So I sent a message to the person who posted it on Super Flair. By “we” I really mean conservatives more than Republicans. But since this is purely an issue-based statement, she’s attacking conservatives more than Republicans anyway.

We are not “pro-war.” We are “anti-terrorists.”

We are not “anti-environment.” We are “anti-people-lying-about-a-crisis-that-doesn’t-exist.”

We are NOT “anti-equality.” Republicans freed the slaves and passed the Civil Rights Legislation act of 1964. MLK was a Republican.

We ARE “pro-life” because we oppose the murder of fifteen million humans, which is more than the sum of the Iraq casualties, deaths from pollution, deaths from the Civil War, and deaths from such acts as lynching COMBINED.

And, yes, I realize the typo. It should be Civil Rights Act or Civil Rights legislation, not Civil Rights Legislation act.

Slavery & The Civil War

You know how we’re taught in school that the evil Confederacy seceded from the Union and the Christ-like Lincoln swooped in with the northern army and saved the day, freeing the slaves in the process?  Well, let’s take a look at that.

In school, they make sure to teach you that the Civil War was not about slavery.  I don’t know why they don’t try to use that the way they use everything else, but that’s how it is.  They’re right.  It was not about slavery.  Emancipation was a by-product; a tool used by the North to help win the war.  The war was about the federal government exercising powers it had no business exercising (and some that it did have business exercising) and the South saying “Enough of this!  We’re out!”  Now here’s something they won’t teach you in school.  It was legal.  The South seceding from the Union (at least those states that were original ratifiers of the Constitution) was completely legal.  These states agreed to ratify the Constitution on a number of conditions.  One of them was that, if they didn’t like the country this created, they could leave.  Which is exactly what they did in the late 1800s.  But Lincoln was all “No, we can’t have this.” and started the Civil War.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to demonize Lincoln.  He was one of the best Presidents we’ve ever had.  I think freeing the slaves was great and I like most of the other things he did; and I understand the reasoning behind trying to keep the South in the Union, but I think he was wrong to enter into the Civil War.

The biggest argument for invading the South was that the Union had to be united; otherwise, foreigners might attack us or democracy might fail.  In making this argument, people often give the impression that, had the South seceded successfully, the United States would’ve fallen apart and died.  Near as I can tell, that’s not true.  We simply would’ve been two countries (not sure how Texas fits into all this).  Now, there would’ve been border disputes and such, but ultimately, we’d just be a little more like other continents and you’d need a passport to cross the Potomac.  Actually, if Maryland had been allowed to secede, like it wanted to, you wouldn’t.

Basically, what I’m saying is that what Lincoln did when he invaded the South was illegal.  The Confederacy was legitimate and should’ve been allowed to remain autonomous.

Now, I don’t know if I’ve yet said it on this blog, but abortion is the number-one issue for me.  I agree with the conservative stance on pretty much every issue anyway, but if conservatives (all else being equal) were suddenly pro-choice and liberals were pro-life, I’d be voting for liberal candidates.  I’d do so reluctantly, knowing that their economic policy was horrible and that Global Warming is a hoax and all, but I’d do it because millions of babies’ lives are more important to me than how expensive my gas is or whether I’ll be able to afford a house when I’m older.

But back in the Civil War era, abortion wasn’t an issue.  I’m sure some ladies had some weird methods of becoming “un-pregnant” but, by and large, it was nonexistent.  So, my number one issue back then would have been slavery.  Now, unlike abortion, slavery doesn’t kill millions of people (at least not directly), so I might not have been quite so infuriated at its existence, but that would have been my vote-deciding issue.  Until the Civil War.  Knowing what was coming, I’d probably have voted with the South because, as bad as slavery was, the death and destruction of the Civil War was even worse.  And let’s face it, slavery would eventually have dissappeared anyway.  Why do you think it was nearly gone in the North?  It’s not because Northerners were (for the most part) morally superior or great humanitarians.  It’s because slavery wasn’t necessary, because technology made it so.  Eventually, technology would’ve replaced slavery in the South.

Something like 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War.  To put that in perspective, there were about 32 million Americans (slaves and free) in the country back then.  There’s about ten times that now.  So, if the Civil War had occurred today, the death equivalent would have been 6.2 million Americans.  Also, roughly 645,000 slaves were brough to the US from Africa before slavery was outlawed.  Let’s say there was some sort of race-specific plague that wiped them out.  The death toll of every African American slave ever brought to the US would have been barely more than the death toll of the Civil War.  That’s why invasion of the South would’ve been my vote-deciding issue.

So the basic idea is this:  Prior to the Civil War, I would have voted for anyone trying to abolish (legally) slavery.  Just before the Civil War and during the Civil War, I would have voted for anyone trying to end the Civil War or prevent it’s start.  After the Civil War, it would be split between addressing racism and getting back rights (voting and such) for the seccessionists.  Nowadays, abortion is the deciding factor for me.

And let me describe exactly how I would’ve been anti-slavery.  I would have had nothing to do with the Underground Railroad, because that would be breaking the law.  As a Christian, I do what my Bible tells me.  It tells me to obey the law unless that causes me to sin.  And while slavery is looked down upon; it is not necessarily sinful.  Now, that’s debatable because US slavery and early A.D. slavery in Israel are different.  Back then, slaves were either prisoners of war (and I doubt there were many of those, since Israel wasn’t exactly kicking butt at the time) or they sold themselves into slavery.  So, I am unsure what the right course of action back then would be.  What my “code” would probably be is I would not help the Underground Railroad law-breaking types, but I certainly wouldn’t be turning them in if I found them, either.  I would not help a slave escape to the North, but I wouldn’t help the law send him back, either (even if that meant going to prison due to that stupid deputy-making law thingy).  I would concentrate my efforts on getting slavery outlawed (which, itself, would have been perfectly legal, as the Constitution explicitly allows this 20 or so years after ratification).  And I certainly would have been eye-to-eye with the Lincoln-like anti-expansion of slavery folks.

Oh, and let me clarify that “slavery is not necessarily sinful” comment a bit more.  While slavery is not necessarily sinful, the slave trade is; that is, the buying and selling of humans.  And I might have been willing to break the law to fight against that.

Oh, and one last simple comment about the Civil War.  Northerners, face the facts, the South kicked the North’s butt.  Big time.  Larger population and greater resources (and possibly the E.P.) were the only reasons the North won the war.  Southerners were better fighters, were the home team, were practically all volunteers (though the North certainly had their share of those), were fighting for their own freedom (just look at what happened to them after the Civil War), had the Constitution on their side, and ultimately lost roughly 100,000 fewer people than the North.  The moral of the story is: Don’t mess with rednecks!