<p>Which are the illegitimate governmental issues…as determined by the legitimate (though un-appointed) guardians of such august matters as legitimate governmental issues? </p>
<p>I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that every civically minded individual (theist, atheist, nincompoop, genius) believes their concerns to be legitimate and thus they advocate for themselves, righteously–it might even be said, self-righteously. Should some advocates be silenced? Saved from themselves, as it were?</p>
<p>For instance, advocates of differing persuasions advocate:
-laws to restrict or prevent the death penalty.
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
<p>-legal determinations of when life begins and ends and thus proscriptions of murder and manslaughter therein applied.
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
<p>-parental rights and marriage rights
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
<p>-the freedom to practice religion (as suggested in the 1st amendment) without regulation by the state or conversely; the freedom not to practice a particular religion or religion in general (to the best of my knowledge, no one advocates for mandatory religious affiliation, or treating atheist parents as doctrinaire child abusers).
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
<p>-the right to bear arms or not.
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
<p>-the right to medical care
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
<p>-education?equal education?religious or secular education
…Legitimate or illegitimate?</p>
Clearly they would be abolitionists; unless of course you are aware of any evangelicals evangelizing for slavery. </p>
<p>Even more, as a rather large portion of evangelicals are the descendents of slaves I suspect they would come by their abolitionist’s values naturally. Wouldn’t you think?</p>
<p>If however, you are aware of any mainstream evangelicals who have come out in favor of slavery, I will stand corrected as you back up your assertion with evidence.</p>
<p>You (as usual) deflect the point from the one stated to the one you wish to use to support your position. I did not assert that modern day evangelicals supported the re-institution of slavery. I am asserting that, given there is no proscription against slavery in the Bible, in a debate between the Abolitionists and Jefferson Davis, evangelicals who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible would support the latter.</p>
<p>I suspect those actual slaves came upon their own abolitionist values even prior to their conversion to Christianity.</p>
<p>So, Jefferson Davis like Thomas Jefferson supported slavery. Both in their own way (that is, one sincerely and one hypocritically): one was a Christian and one was not a Christian. One took the bible literally and one did not.</p>
<p>Apparently, neither Davis’ Bible nor Jefferson’s Constitution prohibited slavery. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson believed in a literal interpretation of the Constitution in much the same way that Jefferson Davis did of the Bible.</p>
<p>Does it then follow that those who believed in a literal interpretation of the constitution supported slavery; as it does to you that 200 years later a Christian evangelical must support—ex post facto—slavery because you, in your exegesis, have not found a prohibition of it in your Bible?</p>
<p>I have never met a soul that has supported slavery, atheist or theist. Not by hook or crook. </p>
<p>What’s worse, as I understand in this world slavery is numerically more significant than it was in the 19th century–that is, in our secular age. There is apparently money involved. Moreover, those supporting modern day slavery are, significantly, not Christians. Those opposing it are.</p>
<p>There are even very well publicized evangelical relief funds being used to fight slavery around the world today; some even by fundamentalist Christians. They are ruining your stereotype and perhaps you feel they should desist.</p>
<p>FS…coldn’t you say that, (having read anything about the conditions in modern Chinese factories), WalMart and WalMart shareholders are major supporters of modern slavery?</p>
<p>I would argue that many Americans support slavery in one form or another–as long as it provides the material goods they think they need. I would also argue that as a student at an Ivy League school you have met slave owners–though you may not have realized it. You have certainly met any number of wealthy descendents of slave owners–whether or not you realized it.</p>
<p>As for Christians and the slave trade…Christians appear to be full participants in the s<em>e</em>x slave trade in Asia.</p>
<p>That is quite a stretch (nice to hear from you in real time).</p>
<p>By this definition abolitionists that wore cotton shirts were in fact not abolitionists but rather knowing supporters of slavery…even including John Brown (not to be confused with an august university that goes by the same, now infamous, name). That is to say, the term begins to loose all meaning and serves no descriptive or prescriptive purpose. </p>
<p>Perhaps my mistake was not to limit my comment to the modern day Evangelicals who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Can their belief be amended?</p>
<p>(Keep in mind that the original context of the comment was in reply to the implication that there was something innately Christian about the Abolitionist movement).</p>
<p>of course, it is done all the time. Why do you think there are so many different evangelical churches? Often, many that follow the same tradition in the same town. First Baptist; Second Methodist; First Evangelical; etc</p>
<p>They rise and fall like winded leaves through time; each as individual and distinct as the next.</p>
<p>Yes, China is an atheist state. However, check the next items you purchase. The Chinese factories are producing goods for you and yours–at the behest of the major retailers in the US, ie Wal Mart. My guess is that among the many wealthy students you have met, you have met the children of slave owners. I imagine that every studetn attending a private US university has met the children of slave-owners. </p>
<p>I was merely responding to your statement that you had never met a soul who was pro-slavery. I disagree with that statement. I believe you most probably have met pro-slavery ‘souls’.</p>
<p>My mother makes all my clothes…so there; if not that, I can assure you that I have never bought any of my clothes at WalMart (though for no holier-than-thou reasons): Simply, over my dead body, as they say.</p>
<p>
Do you suggest that we inherit the “sins” of our fathers?
If so, perhaps I will agree with you; if not, not.</p>
<p>And, is using the term “sin”–per this conversation–sensitive to the values of all involved in it? Don’t want to step on any toes.</p>
<p>'According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there is an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, and concludes that “the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.” '</p>
<p>A bit off topic but you seem to imply that all of the garment (and perhaps all other) workers in China are slaves and that the evil Wal-Mart and its patrons are supporting this slavery. What evidence do you have that these workers are slaves - i.e. they’re being forced to work in those factories against their will? What ‘standard’ do you hold working conditions in other countries to? Is it the USA? Are we all slaves in the USA because we don’t get the huge vacation time Europeans get and are somehow being ‘forced’ to work? Could it be that China is simply in its infancy (actually a bit beyond by now) in the world market? If you boycott Wal-Mart and stop the import of the clothing and therefore that Chinese worker can no longer work in that factory have you improved their life or could it be that their life was hurt because they have no income now? Actually, China has already moved beyond the bottom end of the industry (as Japan did and Taiwan did) and is moving up to higher-level industries and their economy is changing dramatically as a result along with individual’s fortunes.</p>
<p>I don’t think the conditions/parameters of factory employment in China equates at all to slavery in the sense most people think of it (shackled Africans for example).</p>
<p>ucsd… absolutely, there has to be some sort of misunderstanding. Sam Walton and the Walton family have been known as conservative, value-oriented Christians. They would never foster anything approaching slavery in China.</p>
<p>China’s moved so far beyond just the basic garment industry that it’d be very difficult to avoid purchasing products made there including products made by ‘American’ or ‘Japanese’ companies - many of which have factories in China or are using parts made from factories in China. What about products made in India, Bangladesh, Mexico, etc.? I’m not defending any of these countries - I just don’t see the equation to slavery and I think people need to evaluate the situation in the context of that particular country rather than equating it to the USA before they end up hurting the very people they believe they’re helping through boycotts.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with the topic of religion so I’ll bow out and return the thread.</p>
<p>FS- please stop making derogatory comments to/about other posters- you seem to be taking the prochristian sides to issues and yet are the nastiest one on this forum. It certainly does not promote your views; you are making a great case for your opposition.</p>
<p>re Catholics, I was raised one, outgrew it - Catholics don’t evangelize at all in comparison to many other Christian groups (and, yes, Catholics are Christians, it’s amazing what some churches preach…). I sometimes think they have the snobbery of being the first and oldest, I grew up thinking all the others were lesser churches- there is something about being able to pick and choose what to consider is the correct set of beliefs, leading to my current position-already stated.</p>