Slave States and Religion

Here are the fifteen slave states and two territories in which slavery was legally practiced prior to the American Civil War. To each I've added an ostensibly unrelated ranking from a relatively recent Pew Forum poll:

Mississippi (1)
Alabama (2)
Arkansas (3)
Louisiana (4)
Tennessee (5)
South Carolina (6)
Oklahoma (7)
North Carolina (8)
Georgia (9)
Kentucky (10)
Texas (11)
Utah (12)
Virginia (15,18)
Missouri (17)
Florida (20)
Maryland (21)
Delaware (24)

Before I tell you what the ranking means, I'd like to point out a few obvious things. Firstly, all of these former slave states are clustered in the top half of the states, which is statistically vanishingly unlikely on chance alone. Moreover, every single one of the top twelve (12) states in the Pew poll are formerly states or territories in which slaveholding was legally practiced.

Now, here I the kicker: The Pew Forum poll had nothing to do with slavery or race or even civil rights. It was merely a measure of religious faith, and not even some particular religious faith historically tied to denominational support for the institution of Negro slavery, but really just ANY faith at all.

Now, here is the poll page itself:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=504&loc=interstitialskip

I know as well as the next stats geek that correlation is not (necessarily) causation, but these massive overlaps cry out for some common factor. What is it about faith which facilitates slavery, or vice-versa, or what might be the hidden variable here? Is it that religious faith allows people to override their own sense of morality, which might well balk at seeing a fellow human in bondage? Is it that some Christian sacred texts expressly condone slavery? Or is it something else entirely?

A brief meditation on human rights

Francis Abbot to Elizabeth Stanton, on women's rights and faith:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8hwWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA63

In my previous post I wrote about the suppression of political freedoms and all the various forms of free expression represented at the Peace Festival which will inevitably ensue if the organizers of that event get their way and bring about the premature withdrawal of NATO forces. In this post, I'd like to quickly point out that Islamists are not the only ones with a long history of subordinating civil liberty to religious piety.

F.E. Abbot wrote an excellent letter to some years ago, on the subject of the interaction between human rights and religion. Towards the end, he summarizes his thesis thusly, "You may search the Bible from Genesis to Revelations, and not find one clear, strong, bold affirmation of human rights as such." I encourage everyone to read all of Abbot's letter and seriously consider whether he is far off the mark.

I would argue that Abbot is spot-on and moreover that his argument may be readily extended to other groups in other times, such as the LGBT communities even now struggling for recognition and equality all across America. Until they are willing to boldly criticize the numerous and various faiths which have historically justified intolerance, fear, and loathing of them, they cannot hope to be truly free. So long as they are willing to pay even the smallest bit of deference to religious faith as a means to understand morality and establish law, they will inevitably be held captive to the blind bigotry of our ignorant forebears.

Indeed, it seems clear that Abbot's argument may be made even forcefully in our own time and place than as originally written. Women of faith could argue, contra Abbot, that the Christian Bible has a reserved a place for them (however humble) as devout believers and even missionaries, so long as they never went too far and attempted to wield authority over a man. This option is unavailable to the LGBT community without deliberately misconstruing significantly passages (such as Romans 1) or else pretending that those particular bits of holy writ are somehow inapplicable to the modern Christian life. I've always had a soft spot for those who value right morality over intellectual consistency in such cases, but it should be obvious that outright skepticism is the preferable path.

Are civil rights worth fighting for?

The answer from those organizing and supporting the 2009 Peace Festival must be, unequivocally, in the negative.  As they continue working to overthrow the alleged American occupation of Afghanistan (an act which would clearly favor the resurgent Taliban) one must ask whether they’ve really thought things out very far.

 

It should be obvious to the various feminist and reproductive rights groups present at the festival that their agenda will be the very first to go when Afghanistan gives up on democracy in favor of theocracy.  Women will once again be objects of submission in every possible sense, including especially the giving over of all sexual and reproductive rights to their husbands.

 

PFLAG and other LGBT rights groups were also present in force at the event, openly signing petitions which would have the ultimate effect of allowing the reinstatement of a regime in which the ruling clerics have mandated burying homosexuals alive for the crime of sodomy.  These clerics are alive and well, and looking forward to a time when the NATO forces no longer stand between them and the reimposition of Sharia.

 

Members of the Bahá'í, Buddhist, Urantian and Unitarian faiths (among others) were also on hand, along with various freethinkers, any of whom would be unmercifully and unflinchingly killed (along with any converts they might make) on account of furthering apostasy from the one true faith mandated under Taliban rule.

 

Various to the environmentalist groups were also on hand, and it should be enough to point out that the Taliban went so far as to ban the use of any recycled materials on religious grounds, because they might well have little sacred bits embedded therein. 

 

Finally, as to the various dancers, artists, and musicians, do not think for a moment that your heretical and sinful arts will be allowed under the new (old) regime.  The Talibs famously banned nearly every artistic expression that you can name as contrary to piety.

 

This is an open challenge to everyone who worked at the Peace Festival.    Ask yourself the following fairly simple question: Will my political or religious causes be furthered or even tolerated under a resurgent Taliban regime?  If the answer is no, you should ask yourself why you have been asked to support a precipitous withdrawal of the international forces now standing between that nation and an utter collapse back into totalitarian theocracy.  Think about it.  Perhaps civil rights are worth fighting for, and not merely in the metaphorical sense.  Sometimes a sternly worded letter just isn’t enough.

 

The BM grunts out steaming pile of journalism

Sally Kern drafts a proclamation which looks official, uses the tone and style of official legislative resolutions, and then hostesses a massive public ceremony in the heart of the legislative building, at which she invited fellow lawmakers to sign on to her theocratic agenda. Sally did everything possible to create the impression of official imprimatur, without actually going through the process to sponsor an official resolution, as she very well could have done.

Leave it to the Baptist Messenger to top Kern's (relatively subtle) attempts at melding church and state via public relations sleight-of-hand, by photoshopping official state seals and signatures onto the bottom of the document. One wonders whether the phrase "bearing false witness" ought to have any bearing on the journalistic ethics of a denominational organ.

Ah, well. I ought to have known not to expect better from the theocratic camp which inspired such efforts as Liars for Jesus, a book which I heartily recommend.

'A National Moral Crisis' of Faith and Fisc

In her proclamation for a renewal of Christian virtues, State Rep Sally Kern states that “we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis,” and with her I must wholeheartedly agree.  Many of nation’s financial stewards have surely violated Biblical proscriptions against, for example, “usury and unjust gain” in order to work an increase of substance for themselves at the expense of honesty and fair dealing.  No doubt all manner of solid Biblical principles may be invoked against those whom we ought to hold most accountable for our present financial crisis.  The great sins of sloth, pride, and avarice may no doubt be rightly cited and properly condemned in many quarters, from the profligacy of individual debtors to the ludicrous practices of those trading in securitized debts.

 

These are not, however, the sins upon which Kern chooses to focus her protestation.  Immediately after noting the threat of a “national moral crisis” she goes on to enumerate a number of particular moral issues which she considers of great concern, including “abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse,” as well as “forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built” and disregard of “biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior.”

 

I have struggled mightily with the logic implicit in these passages.  It would seem to me on a prima facie reading that Kern intends for the reader to conclude that our economic woes are the direct consequence of our collective national failure to “to live above reproach in the sight of God” and that this failure may be illustrated and exemplified by the various sins which she has enumerated.  It seems terribly odd, though, that she fails to list the particular sins which actually lead to our current financial crisis.  If you look carefully at her list of sins, there is only one common theme running throughout, that is, the means of reproduction, to include both childbearing and childrearing.  Every sin listed either prevents or hinders the acts of childbearing, or else creates circumstances under which Kern would rather not see children raised. 

 

How then can one logically link unbiblical reproductive practices to the national financial crisis?  There are only three basic possibilities:

 

A)      These particular national sins directly brought about our economic woes, or

B)       These particular national sins indirectly brought about our economic woes, or

C)       These particular national sins are causally unrelated to our economic woes

Given that Kern’s accusation of various national sins follows immediately after her allegation of a “national moral crisis,” we must assume that these moral issues are subsumed into that broad category, and therefore at least form part of the national crisis which led to our economic woes.  Thus, option (C) may be excluded, since Kern claims that the economic downturn is the result of our national moral crisis taken as a whole.  It would be absurd special pleading to claim that Kern really meant “our economic woes are consequences [of a particular subset] of our national moral crisis” and then went on to enumerate a list of sins from another subset altogether.

 

As to option (A), this is the alternative that ACLU seems to take in their press release on the subject, where they claim that the “proclamation blames the economic downturn we are currently experiencing on abortion, pornography, divorce, and same sex marriage, among other things.”  I think this is a reasonable and straightforward reading of the proclamation, but perhaps not the correct one. 

 

I would argue that option (B) is the best reading, inasmuch as it allows for the following interpretation:

 

1.       “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.”

2.       The U.S. was blessed, at least until it forsook “its rich Christian heritage.”

3.       Now, we are no longer blessed, because of our various sins, including those noted in the proclamation.

4.       Therefore, the solution a “national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.”

 

Thus, the economic downturn was not caused (in Kern’s view) directly by the economic consequences of sexual sins but rather by the metaphysical mediations of an ‘Invisible Hand’ more powerful and intentional than that spoken of by Adam Smith.

Oklahoma Proclamation for Religious Liberty

WHEREAS, Sally Kern and theocrats of her ilk have proclaimed that morality requires an abandonment of basic religious and civil liberties in favor universal acceptance of a particular ancient mythology; and

WHEREAS, they have abandoned historical scholarship, repeatedly taking the names of the Founding Fathers in vain and attributing to them many words which they had never spoken nor put to parchment; and

WHEREAS, Patrick Henry never claimed that “This great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians.”

WHEREAS, John Adams signed into law a treaty, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate, stating plainly that the “government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” (1797)

WHEREAS, John Adams repeatedly criticized fundamental Christian doctrines, such as when he referred to the alleged mystery of the Trinity and Atonement as “a convenient cover for absurdity.” (1756)

WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson also repeatedly criticized Christian doctrines, but wrote approvingly of his own efforts to establish religious freedom as broadly as possible, claiming that the Virginia Bill for religious freedom meant to encompass “within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” (1821)

WHEREAS, James Madison never wrote approvingly of the “Ten Commandments of God” as a guide to public policy, but was rather an indefatigable proponent of the separation of church and state and rightly noted that the effect of ecclesiastical establishments are these, “In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.” (1785)

WHEREAS, it is in fact impossible to find in the remarkably voluminous collected works of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, a single line unequivocally affirming Jesus to be the incarnation of a deity or the Christ to whom they personally looked for salvation.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all those who sign on to Sally Kern’s proclamation of Christian Nationalism, revising history to suit their theocratic agenda, are perpetuating a blatant fraud and a lie, libelously imputing to the Founders words which never they wrote nor spoke in a shameless affront to the very liberties they defended.

BE IT RESOLVED that the signatories are traitors to liberty, inasmuch as they solemnly declare that all Oklahomans must look to only one religion and one holy text, in violation of both the Federal and State Constitutional guarantees of complete religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

BE IT RESOLVED that those among them solemnly sworn to defend these Constitutions are oath-breakers, who ought never henceforth be trusted with elective office.

BE IT RESOLVED that whatever gods may exist will call these signatories to repentance for their repeated acts of bearing false witness against the Founding Fathers and their oath-breaking attacks upon our religious liberty. May they be given an awakening of righteousness as they repent of this great sin.