Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Dinesh D'Souza :: Townhall.com Columnist
How Christians Ended Slavery
by Dinesh D'Souza
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


Isn't it remarkable that atheists, who did virtually nothing to oppose slavery, condemn Christians, who are the ones who abolished it?

Consider atheist Sam Harris, who blames Christianity for supporting slavery. Harris is right that slavery existed among the Old Testament Jews, and Paul even instructs slaves to obey their masters. During the civil war both sides quoted the Bible. We know all this. (Yawn, yawn.)

But slavery pre-dated Christianity by centuries and even millennia. As we read from sociologist Orlando Patterson's work, all known cultures had slavery. For centuries, slavery needed no defenders because it had no critics. Atheists who champion ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome somehow seem to forget that those empires were based on large-scale enslavement.

Atheist Michael Shermer says Christians are "late comers" to the movement against slavery. Shermer advanced this argument in our Cal Tech debate in December. That debate is now online, and you can watch it at michaelshermer.com.

But if what Shermer says is true, who were the early opponents of slavery who got there before the Christians did? Actually, there weren't any. Shermer probably thinks the Christians only got around to opposing slavery in the modern era.

Wrong. Slavery was mostly eradicated from Western civilization--then called Christendom--between the fourth and the tenth century. The Greco-Roman institution of slavery gave way to serfdom. Now serfdom has its problems but at least the serf is not a "human tool" and cannot be bought and sold like property. So slavery was ended twice in Western civilization, first in the medieval era and then again in the modern era.

In the American South, Christianity proved to be the solace of the oppressed. As historian Eugene Genovese documents in Roll, Jordan, Roll, when black slaves sought to find dignity during the dark night of slavery, they didn't turn to Marcus Aurelius or David Hume; they turned to the Bible. When they sought hope and inspiration for liberation, they found it not in Voltaire or D'Holbach but in the Book of Exodus.

The anti-slavery movements led by Wilberforce in England and abolitionists in America were dominated by Christians. These believers reasoned that since we are all created equal in the eyes of God, no one has the right to rule another without consent. This is the moral basis not only of anti-slavery but also of democracy.

Jefferson was in some ways the least orthodox and the most skeptical of the founders. Yet when he condemned slavery he found himself using biblical language. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson warned that those who would enslave people should reflect that "the Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." Jefferson famously added, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep for ever."

But wasn't Jefferson also a man of science? Yes he was, and it was on the basis of the latest science of his day that Jefferson expressed his convictions about black inferiority. Citing the discoveries of modern science, Jefferson noted that "there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and of mind...as I see to be the case with races of other animals." Blacks, Jefferson continued, lack the powers of reason that are evident in whites and even in native Indians. While atheists today like to portray themselves as paragons of equal dignity, Jefferson's scientific and skeptical outlook contributed not to his anti-slavery sentiments but to his racism. Somehow Harris and Shermer neglect to point this out.

In the end the fact remains that the only movements that opposed slavery in principle were mobilized in the West, and they were overwhelmingly led and populated by Christians. Sadly the West had to use force to stop slavery in other cultures, such as the Muslim slave trade off the coast of Africa. In some quarters the campaign to eradicate slavery still goes on.

So who killed slavery? The Christians did, while everyone else generally stood by and watched.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dinesh D'Souza's is the author of What's So Great About Christianity and Enemy at Home.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Eddy
Reading up a ways, I noticed your contention that the New Testament has been through many revisions so that we can't know what it really said. You are aware that Biblical scholars disagree with you on that?

There's a field of expertise called textual criticism which essentially looks at the oldest manuscripts we have and studies the changes through many generations. The Bible has an embarrassment of riches with regard to source material, some of it within less than a century of the originals and the textual critics say there hasn't been a whole of of change and none of it affecting basic doctrines. There's not enough room here to elaborate on 150 years of scholarship, but Barnes and Nobel has Daniel Wallace's book "Reinventing Jesus" which I've found to be a good resource. Also, Daniel Wallace has a website with a huge amount of material showing the validity of the copies of the New Testament we currently have. Wallace is one of those scholars, but he's not just stating his opinion, but utilizing the work of many other scholars and providing footnotes to their sources. Rather than just stating opinions, it might be a good idea to actually educate yourself through the work of people who actually have done the scholarship.

carbonu5
Why don't you actually read Philemon before you spout your opinion?

Paul makes it very clear in the letter that he's coming for a visit and hopes to see Onesimus well and treated as a Christian brother. The choice of freeing Onesimus was Philemon's, not Paul's. Paul didn't own Onesimus and there are strong admonitions in the Hebrew law against stealing another's property. By sending Onesimus back, Paul was attempting to teach Philemon something fundamental about Christianity -- there is no difference between human beings in God's eyes. Of course, you'd have to actually read the New Testament to know that it teaches that. But you just keep right on with your opinion of what the Bible teaches. Don't let those of us who have actually read it dissuade you from your ignorance and bigotry.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.