Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Pat Robertson

2007-06-25T21:25:40Z

Academichick: /* Quote vs. Quotation */

This edit,
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)

==Disproportionate?==

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal smear job ==

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou

I rather enjoy: [http://www.cbn.com/special/supremecourt/prayerpledge.asp Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.] --[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

==Robertson is a nutjob==
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.

==Fact Removal==

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Quote vs. Quotation ==

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}

We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Clear, concise, and skilled prose can exist at a higher academic level. And if we want students to ever reach a higher academic level, perhaps we should demonstrate that higher level of writing rather than assuming that unskilled, simple, childish writing is the norm. (See Strunk and White's ''The Elements of Style'' for some pointers). --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-06-25T21:20:37Z

Academichick: /* "Old Testament Era" */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::So G-d figured since Man was going to do it anyway, might as well set out rules for it, but not necessarily condone it? So G-d's approach to slavery is basically the same as the liberal approach to pre-marital sex?

::Wonderful people, I thought this was supposed to be a conservative christian encyclopedia, where G-d's word is heeded and given the utmost respect. Apparently I was wrong. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

== "[[Old Testament Era]]" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:It's a peculiarly Christian concept of history. Everything after Jesus was born is the New Testament Era; history stretching back from then to around the time Moses received the Law (and/or the Ten Commandments) is the Old Testament Era. Some theologians or historians might extend that back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it gets 'murky' back their.

:Anyway, it's obviously not a secular concept. Try [http://www.the-highway.com/law1_Wenham.html this reference]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Christianity's dealing with the Old Testament uses (since we're not Jewish). My point was that "Old Testament Era" is unnecessarily broad and doesn't really define itself clearly; the provided link certainly did nothing to answer my question. There's also the issue that the time line between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New is not unbroken. Other historical events occur, thus making the term "Old Testament Era" vague and useless in this context. I think it should be more definite or perhaps more reliant on concrete dates, etc. Of course, there's also the issue that there is obviously slavery in both the "Old Testament Era", "The New Testament Era", and the "Post-Testaments Era". --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-06-22T15:02:05Z

Academichick: /* "Old Testament Era" */

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Old Testament Era" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-06-22T15:01:42Z

Academichick: "Old Testament Era"

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Old Testament Era" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it.

Slavery

2007-06-22T14:54:33Z

Academichick:

'''Slavery''' reduces a person to the status of [[chattel]] who can be owned by another person. The value of a slave was typically about the same as that of a [[race horse]], although Biblical injunctions existed granting certain rights and prohibitions, such as the right of the slave to go free after a certain amount of time or the prohibition against the master of putting a slave's eye out (citation needed). The master controls and commands the slave, either through property-like ownership of the slave or by right to command him.

Slavery is best known to Americans as a peculiar institution of the Southern states before the US Civil War, although it is found in some  [[civilization]]s. Even today, black Africans are enslaved in the [[Sudan]].

Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5, “slaves, obey your masters” in arguments for the Christian endorsement of slavery. Another Bible verse states that thieves should be sold into slavery.<ref>Exodus 22:3 "He should make a full restitution; and if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.</ref> In the Old Testament era, slaves could be kept for six years. <ref>Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."</ref> (See [[#"Slavery"_in_the_Bible|"Slavery" in the Bible]], below.)

The slavery system diminished a person to the point where they would be regarded as a thing or an object to be owned. Christian [[abolitionists]] disagreed with this valuation, and advanced an interpretation of the Bible which presented human value in terms of God's parental love for all people as His children (see [[human rights]]).

== Ancient History ==
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Painting of a slave market in early medieval Eastern Europe.]]
Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves. The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners of wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves; however, later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]] into the twentieth century.

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Between 1530 and 1780, Europeans including Britons and even some Americans were frequently taken captive and enslaved by privateers from the [[Barbary States]]. Estimates of so-called "white slavery" vary from as little as 50,000 to in the millions <ref>http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</ref>. Generally Europeans enslaved by the [[corsairs]] were usually poorer sea merchants and city dwellers whose families were unable to pay the ransom necessary to free them. Often the [[Pasha]] would purchase the female captives into his harem. Many were forced to "go turk" or convert to "mohammadism" in order to stay with their children who were raised as Muslims. Occasionally slaves would convert in order to escape harsher labors such as tending the oars in the corsairs <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_print.html</ref>.

==End of European and American Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as [[William Wilberforce]] and [[John Wesley]] began speaking out against the evils of the system. Wilberforce was supported in his efforts by [[John Newton]], a slave trader who became a Christian and then opposed the slave trade. The slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

The British ban on the slave trade enforced by the British navy did undermine the slave trade globally. This led to the the United States banning the slave trade in the early 1800s. However, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the U.S. government passed the [[13th Amendment]], and in [[South America]] when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

=="Slavery" in the Bible ==
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe's painting ''The Slave Market'']]
"Slavery" is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible. The Hebrew word ''ebed'' is translated as "slave" or "servant", but the concept is not the same as the modern understanding of "slave". It included "persons in subordinate positions"<ref name="ctt">[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html Does God condone slavery in the Bible?] (Christian ThinkTank)</ref> Therefore "all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called '''slaves''' of their '''kings'''".<ref name="ctt" />

Additionally, the Bible teaches that all property belongs to God, with mankind responsible for looking after it for God.

Some biblical passages mentioning slavery are:

* "A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt. A daughter sold into slavery is not released at the end of six years as is an ordinary male slave." -- Exodus 21:7-11

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "A slave owner is to be punished if he strikes his slave and the slave dies shortly thereafter. If the slave lives a day or to and then dies, the slave owner is not to be punished. A slave is the same as money to his owner." -- Exodus 21:20-21

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corinthians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. Though physical violence to slaves is permitted, murder is not.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/78.php Islam and Slavery:The Concealed Truth], Excerpts from a Lecture by Srdja Trifkovic, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, November 14, 2003.

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Pat Robertson

2007-06-22T14:27:17Z

Academichick: Quote vs. Quotation

This edit,
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)

==Disproportionate?==

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal smear job ==

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou
==Robertson is a nutjob==
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.

==Fact Removal==

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Quote vs. Quotation ==

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders.