Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?
Consider atheist Sam Harris, who blames Christianity for supporting slavery. Harris is right that slavery existed among the Old Testament Jews, and Paul even instructs slaves to obey their masters. During the civil war both sides quoted the Bible. We know all this. (Yawn, yawn.)
But slavery pre-dated Christianity by centuries and even millennia. As we read from sociologist Orlando Patterson's work, all known cultures had slavery. For centuries, slavery needed no defenders because it had no critics. Atheists who champion ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome somehow seem to forget that those empires were based on large-scale enslavement.
Atheist Michael Shermer says Christians are "late comers" to the movement against slavery. But if this is true, who were the early comers? There weren't any. Shermer probably thinks the Christians only got around to opposing slavery in the modern era.
Wrong. Slavery was mostly eradicated from Western civilization--then called Christendom--between the fourth and the tenth century. The Greco-Roman institution of slavery gave way to serfdom. Now serfdom has its problems but at least the serf is not a "human tool" and cannot be bought and sold like property. So slavery was ended twice in Western civilization, first in the medieval era and then again in the modern era.
In the American South, Christianity proved to be the solace of the oppressed. As historian Eugene Genovese documents in Roll, Jordan, Roll, when black slaves sought to find dignity during the dark night of slavery, they didn't turn to Marcus Aurelius or David Hume; they turned to the Bible. When they sought hope and inspiration for liberation, they found it not in Voltaire or D'Holbach but in the Book of Exodus.
The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.
Jefferson was in some ways the least orthodox and the most skeptical of the founders. Yet when he condemned slavery he found himself using biblical language. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson warned that those who would enslave people should reflect that "the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." Jefferson famously added, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."
But wasn't Jefferson also a man of science? Yes he was, and it was on the basis of the latest science of his day that Jefferson expressed his convictions about black inferiority. Citing the discoveries of modern science, Jefferson noted that "there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and of mind...as I see to be the case with races of other animals." Blacks, Jefferson continued, lack the powers of reason that are evident in whites and even in native Indians. While atheists today like to portray themselves as paragons of equal dignity, Jefferson's scientific and skeptical outlook contributed not to his anti-slavery sentiments but to his racism. Somehow Harris and Shermer neglect to point this out.
In the end the fact remains that the only movements that opposed slavery in principle were mobilized in the West, and they were overwhelmingly led and populated by Christians. Sadly the West had to use force to stop slavery in other cultures, such as the Muslim slave trade off the coast of Africa. In some quarters the campaign to eradicate slavery still goes on.
So who killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.
Dinesh's Blog Roll
Featured Bloggers
 | Ada Calhoun |
 | Ben Greenman |
 | Dinesh D'Souza |
 | Jeff Hoard |
 | Mo Rocca |
 | Young Turks |
RSS Feeds
Resources
Dinesh D'Souza
Reports
Bestselling author DINESH D’SOUZA’s latest book is What’s So Great About Christianity. read more
Who Killed Slavery?
Posted Jan 10th 2008 9:00PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, History, Controversy, Atheism
Filed under: Christianity, History, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
What's So Great About Christianity
Dinesh D'Souza's acclaimed New York Times bestseller, What's So Great About Christianity, is in stores. Order now!
Top Tags
Most Popular Stories
Most Commented On News Bloggers
- Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite? (658)
- The Real Source of Palin's Appeal (487)
- Look Who's Calling Sarah Palin "Inexperienced" (320)
- McCain-Palin: A Chicken in Every Pot and A Bun in Every Oven (123)
- Special Coverage of the Republican National Convention Starting Monday (110)
- Even Hockey Moms Say Sarah Palin a Crazy Choice (108)
- Bristol Palin's 'Redneck' Fiancé (102)
Recent Comments
- Botts on Roland Martin of CNN Goes Off on Sarah Palin
- Janie on Today's Top 3 Sarah Palin Scandals
- Jerry Brown on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- 2sexy4u on Look Who's Calling Sarah Palin "Inexperienced"
- Dedmanrisn on Roland Martin of CNN Goes Off on Sarah Palin
- Observant on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- William Hays on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
Top News Headlines
Ada Calhoun |
Ben Greenman |
Dinesh D'Souza |
Jeff Hoard |
Mo Rocca |
The Young Turks |
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 41)
46. I guess you forgot that the south was just as Christian as the north. In fact during the war they had a revival of sorts. Th bible can support anything one wishes to condone. Like war ...go to the old testament. Hate war ...go to the teachings of Christ. Like slavery ...go to the old testament for support. Hate slavery... go to the teachings of Christ. It's a please all book. One can't go wrong. It's so diverse and wide covering just about anything you do can either be condoned or condemned whichever you may choose at any particular time.
Rick at 10:12AM on Jan 11th 2008
47. MORE Lincoln quotes:
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
--From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
More:
"That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular."
[and from the same handbill]
"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion."
--From the July 31, 1846 Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity
----------ON SLAVERY
There is STILL slavery in the world today, too. Just TWO examples:
It could be individual addictions to something destructive - or (for instance) the worldwide selling of girls and young women into prostitution. The Salvation Army is one organization actively fighting that evil SLOW DEATH process.
_______
Where Christians have BENEFITED their fellow humans have been where they have stood AGAINST harmful practices in their culture.
Their record is - imperfect. Yet, there are Christians amongst those today who are fighting today's worldwide slavery movements.
Some Christians I know disagree with the war, and I say let the discussions go on as the US is better for us all having ethical discussions and inquiries...
Keeps our nation on its toes morally.
------------------
(If China for instance is the major world power of the future, let's hope they get an internal citizen-powered conscience to hold their leaders accountable.)
DNA - a great design at 10:13AM on Jan 11th 2008
48. linda,
let me guess you think all chrsistians are and were KKK and only christians approved of and owned slaves. and only atheist rid america of slavery and atheist hold the moral high ground. ok i'm on board!!
brian at 10:13AM on Jan 11th 2008
49. "9. I'm done! I enjoy everyone's comments but Dinesh's articles have crossed the line from amusing to juvenile.
Ryan Anderson at 7:16AM on Jan 11th 2008"
I'm with Ryan on this one. What with brian (little b) swallowing every load that Dinesh spews, and others being so ignorant that they cause spontaneous human combustion in intelligent people...this is just getting stoopider.
Coming here after DD posts asinine stuff like this one just makes me feel like I went and hung around with a pimp for the day and saw the nasty sides of humanity and needed a long bath when I got home, but still felt the residual scum no matter how hard I tried to get rid of it.
Yecch.
brandon at 10:17AM on Jan 11th 2008
50. test
brandon at 10:17AM on Jan 11th 2008
51. test
brandon at 10:17AM on Jan 11th 2008
52. dna,
sure in china where they run them over with tanks. thats where a great movement will happen with human rights. yes china where god is outlawed-come to think of it would not the atheist fit in real nice there? yes china does not ackowledge god. a little inhumane behavior whats the big deal should please you atheist. can't blame the crap on christians there or can you- maybe it is our fault!!
brian at 10:17AM on Jan 11th 2008
53. Christianity abolished the heinous practice it for centuries defended. Hooray, you are awesome, Christianity!
Mokele-Mbembe at 10:23AM on Jan 11th 2008
54. Look, Dinesh, you're a mess. Where's the logic between "only christians not atheists" opposed slavery and were solely responsible for delivering America (and the Western world) from this evil? The very people that institutionalized and blithely tolerated and enforced slavery were, I agree, cristians of all stripes and denominations. Slaves opened the church doors for those same christians on Sunday but despite their belief in christianity they would never allow a person of color to share their christianity. Christianity for blacks did not offer hope or solace as you claim. The christian majority utilized christianity to further control the slaves.Peoples of all religions who were white and living in the South during this time period were staunch believers in their collective unspoken but inalienable right to rule. It was taken for granted that they were by natural selection the superior race so help them god! A history refresher: the reason for the civil war was not the abolition of slavery but to test the power of a unified system of federal government over states rights.Lincoln and the majority of peoples in the union were equally racist in spite of their uninstitionalized but unified prejudices.
Emancipation was added as an extra "stick it to em" kick-in-the-pants for starting this war in the first place.Lincon was determined to show the secesstionists who would be theNumero Uno boss by breaking the back of slavery, a way of life for southern white folk. He himself believed blacks to be inferior. If abolitionists were christians why would they go against their brothers to help slaves escape? Could it be perhaps that some were NONchristians?! Maybe agnostics? Surely a few were atheists. Christians are not the only moral force in the world! According to your peculiar christian POV,your missives border on the amoral. Wait until you find god is an A-THEIST.
boredwell at 10:23AM on Jan 11th 2008
55. Here's more from the same website:
As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history.
In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"
...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...
Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery.
Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South.
Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.
In the end, the North won on the question of slavery.
Although the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in an effort to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995.
The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.
---------------------------------------
How about that Southern Baptist Convention? Any surprise there?
Linda at 10:25AM on Jan 11th 2008
56. Here's more from the same website:
As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history.
In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"
...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...
Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery.
Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South.
Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.
In the end, the North won on the question of slavery.
Although the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in an effort to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995.
The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.
---------------------------------------
How about that Southern Baptist Convention? Any surprise there?
Linda at 10:26AM on Jan 11th 2008
57. Here's more from the same website:
As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history.
In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"
...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...
Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery.
Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South.
Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.
In the end, the North won on the question of slavery.
Although the ***Southern Baptist Convention*** was formed in an effort to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995.
The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.
Linda at 10:27AM on Jan 11th 2008
58. Here's more from the same website:
As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history.
In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"
...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...
Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery.
Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South.
Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.
In the end, the North won on the question of slavery.
Although the ***Southern Baptist Convention*** was formed in an effort to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995.
The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.
Linda at 10:28AM on Jan 11th 2008
59. Sorry about multiple posts. Must be software problem at AOL. or something.
Linda at 10:29AM on Jan 11th 2008
60. Douche Denish,
You are a stupid stupid man! Atheists weren't around much in the 1800's. Atheists didn't enslave men to begin with; the Christians did and justified it with their gory bible!
Slavery occurred when men developed lands, established kingdoms and developed the laws of RELIGION. The first kings wrote down in the earliest of religious beliefs that " A KING IS GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH, MAN IS A SLAVE TO HIS KING"
If it wasn't for RELIGIONS who choose sets of ethnic groups as the "chosen" elite there wouldn't have been ethnocentrism that causes the racism that has been around since the beginning of organized religion!
The Christians fought Christians to abolish slavery while the less than 1% atheists denied their belief in no god in order to survive and not be killed by zealot Christians!
Slaves had more rights under Greek and Roman governments thanks to the secular writers of their times. Then come the Christians and they destroyed the little rights they had.
The early church fathers not once opposed slavery and it was Constantine who created the worst slavery laws during the political construction of Christianity.
It is not a coincidence that the freedom of the slaves across the world occurred at the same time that the Christian church was losing its stranglehold on the world in large thanks to Humanitarian reforms and the Age of Rationalism that had swept over Europe in the 1800's.
So get a fucking clue and realize if it wasn't for Christians we would have never had to fight for the abolishment of slavery!
goddess1prevail at 10:32AM on Jan 11th 2008