A Refutation of The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Addendum II - Slavery, The Bible, and Christianity

In this second Addendum to my main review of The Truth Behind the New Atheism I will attempt to argue against Marshall's claims about the bible being a significant influence upon the slavery abolition movements. I will approach this topic by using a two pronged attack upon Marshall's argument. First, I will show that the bible didn't have as great an impact as Marshall claims. Second, I will attempt to show that there is really no such thing as "christian morality" to begin with, so how could christianity ever truly be responsible for the abolition movement? With this second segment of my argument I hope to refute the often used claim by christian apologists in general that it was "christian morality" that was responsible for the abolition movements. The section where Marshall begins his talk of this subject is on page 144 under the subheading titled "Jesus Frees Slaves", which I find to be very odd because neither the bible or jesus condemn slavery anywhere in the bible.

Before I get to my arguments, I don't want to let any readers think I'm trying to claim that christians didn't have a hand in the abolition movements at all; they did, and some very much so. Many of them also cited the bible in support for the abolition movement. Of course, many also cited the bible in favor of slavery. [1] My entire point is that it wasn't christianity itself that inspired many christians to fight for equality. But before I get to that argument about "christian morality" I want to tackle a statement Marshall's makes about "Christian Europe" and slavery:

"No great civilization arrived at the 'epiphany' [Sam] Harris thinks is so obvious [slavery being unacceptable] until the rise of Christian Europe." [2]

It is true that Europe did influence many places and used its power to stop other countries from transporting slaves, but this nation wasn't the first or the most influential regarding the institution of slavery. To quote the world famous abolitionist Frederick Douglas [3] in a speech he gave on January 2, 1893, summing up "the central event in the entire history of emancipation":

"We should not forget that the freedom you and I enjoy to-day; that the freedom that eight hundred thousand colored people enjoy in the British West Indies; the freedom that has come to the colored race the world over, is largely due to the brave stand taken by the black sons of Haiti ninety years ago. When they struck for freedom...they struck for the freedom of every black man in the world."

To quote Davis, also quoting Douglas:

"Douglas acknowledged that blacks owed much to the American and British abolitionists and to the antislavery societies in various countries of the world, 'but,' he said, 'we owe incomparably more to Haiti than to them all,' for Haiti was 'the original pioneer emancipator of the nineteenth century.' It had been been Haiti's mission to teach the world the dangers of slavery and the latent powers and capabilities of the black race. After the former slaves of Saint-Domingue had defeated fifty thousand of Napoleon's veteran troops and had established their own independent nation, the white world could never be the same. Until Haiti spoke, Douglas pointed out, 'no Christian nation had abolished Negro slavery....Until she spoke, the slave trade was sanctioned by all the Christian nations of the world, and our lands of liberty and light included...Until Haiti spoke, the church was silent, and the pulpit dumb.'" [4]

I think with Marshall's use of the word Christian Europe he's implying that because Europe had a large population of christians, that's why they ended slavery, but once again it seems that Marshall doesn't tell his readers all the facts.

As far as "Christian" Europe's ending of the slave trade and making slavery illegal, it doesn't seem to be caused by christianity but more varied influences. Of course, as David Davis points out, the subject of British abolitionism "has long been controversial [and] complex." However, it seems that one of the largest reasons for the large social turn around regarding slavery in Europe was because of the acceptance of "colonial labor reform", and the belief in "dignifying free labor", [5] which was partially inspired by the Enlightenment. [6] It also seems that ideas of natural rights may have influenced the christians since Europe didn't abolish slavery until after the Somerset decision in 1772 [7] and many christians were heavily influenced by ideals of natural rights much earlier than this point in history, but more on that later.

To tackle other arguments that may come my way (which aren't in Marshall's book, but to be as thorough‭ ‬as possible), I'll also add that the French and American Revolutions also had an impact upon the abolition movements. Both of those revolutions inspired both slaves and others to become abolitionists and to see the great contradiction and hypocrisy of the united states: The americans fought for their freedom from Britain, and yet a nation supposedly built upon freedom makes use of countless slaves. Many anti-slavery proponents took note of that glaring fact in an attempt to prove their case and the american revolution also inspired many African Americans to fight for their own freedom. [8]

The same with the French Revolution, though as Marshall points out, [9] not all individuals during the time of the Enlightenment condemned slavery; many condoned it. Though, he neglects to tell his readers that many did condemn the institution. Such Enlightenment writers who condemned slavery were Denis Diderot, Francis Hutcheson, Montesquieu, Condorcet, and Thomas Paine. [10] [11] [12]

On page 145 Marshall makes the bold claim that "the Bible did end slavery - twice."

He cites the time in the early seventh century when Queen Balthid (or spelled Balthild; possibly a typo by Marshall) freed "Christian slaves" and attempted to stop the slave trade. It seems, though, that she only freed christian slaves, something I wouldn't really consider a crowning achievement in the abolition movement if she didn't think everyone deserved freedom. Balthild was also a former slave, an experience that is much more likely to have influenced her to work to free slaves than her religious beliefs alone. [13]

For the second movement, on page 146, Marshall explains how Quakers led "a second and more radical abolition movement." Of course, what he doesn't tell you is that before Quakers were against slavery, they were for it. It's true that Quakers were some of the very first christians to work to abolish slavery as early as 1724, [14] however what isn't mentioned is that in 1688 both English and american Quakers were participating in the slave trade in the Atlantic Slave System (though there was a tiny group of four Quakers who protested against slavery by sending an anti-slavery petition, but it was "quietly buried" by the majority). [15]

The fact that the majority of Quakers began by participating in the slave trade just proves my entire point about the bible, which I already discussed at length in chapter 6 of my main review of Marshall's book: with the bible making contradictory statements about moral issues how do christians choose between one and the other? This fact alone makes it impossible for the bible to be a source of morality because it causes whoever is reading it to pick and choose the verses they think will support their already arrived at conclusion!

Even Marshall does this very thing on page 146! He says,

"The New Testament implicitly undermines slavery in many ways: by affirming the nobility of manual labor (Jesus was a carpenter!), teaching the essential equality of humankind, and talking eloquently and frequently about liberty."

I could just as easily claim that the passages citing inequality undermine the above passages! Once again, how does one choose?!

On page 146 Marshall points out a small error of Christopher Hitchens in his book god is Not Great: [16]

"Hitchens claims that 'this huge and terrible industry [slavery] was blessed by all churches and for a long time aroused absolutely no religious protest.' He's wrong. Many popes protested...Pope Urban VIII 'condemned slavery absolutely...'"

Marshall is correct that many religious personages condemned the institution, however, this once again proves my point. Because many religionists both condemned and even supported the institution the question remains, why?

Well, it should be obvious that it wasn't "the Bible" that freed slaves but the underlying morality of the people who felt slavery was wrong (and events in history as I spoke of earlier; the French and American Revolutions, the concept of "natural rights", which I'll get to shortly, etc.) and they simply used the bible (however awkwardly since it never condemns slavery) to justify their beliefs, which they arrived at independently of the bible.

On page 147 Marshall quotes John Wesley in 1774 describing Africans as "of quiet and good disposition," "well instructed in what is right..."

That's all well and good, however, many christians held conflicting views, and they both used the bible to support their position. Many christians felt that African Americans were "savage people" in need of christianization and must be civilized. [17]

A very often used passage in the bible that was used to justify slavery was Genesis 9:18-27, which is the story of "Noah's curse of slavery." [18]

"[T]he 'Curse of Ham' was repeatedly used as the most authoritative justification for 'Negro slavery' by nineteenth-century Southern Christians, by many Northern Christians, and even by a few Jews, such as the Stockholm-born Orthodox rabbi Morris Jacob Raphall of New York City, who, as a sign of his prestige, was the first Jew to open a session of the U.S. House of Representatives. Raphall's 1861 sermon and booklet The Bible View of Slavery was perhaps the most authoritative religious defense of black slavery ever written."

Davis adds by quoting Alexander Crummell in 1862 that "the opinion that the sufferings and the slavery of the Negro race are the consequence of the curse of Noah [is a] general, almost universal, opinion in the Christian world." [19]

As I noted in my main review in chapter 6, reverand Thomas (Thornton?) Stringfellow who wrote in his 1856 book, A Scriptural View of Slavery, how "...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction..."

To give another example of the conflicting views christians had towards African Americans, many of christians' first impressions of African Americans came from the iconography of western Europe.

"From the twelfth to the mid-fourteenth century European churches became stocked with the images of unmistakable black Africans as torturers, tempters, and executioners, often in scenes of the Passion of the Christ. The image of black death squads serving the devil, or of the devil himself portrayed as an animalistic black man (usually without any African features). [20] This view of black men being connected with evil was also represented in other ways. In the bible "good" is represented as light, while "bad" is represented with the color black. In the "New Testament's revelation that Jesus is 'the light of the world' and that 'God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.'" Artists reminded people that "while white 'is the symbol of Divinity or God,' black 'is the symbol of darkness and darkness expresses all evils..." [21] Even many churches were divided over the issue. [22]

Of course, on the other hand, there were many favorable paintings of black, or dark-skinned, individuals as well. "[W]e encounter the curious popularity of an armored black knight with distinctive and realistic African features - the heroic leader Saint Maurice.While the legendary Saint Maurice was supposedly from Thebes, by the mid-thirteenth century he had become a black man in armor, a black African leader of the Teutonic Knights[.] The remarkable sculptures and paintings of Saint Maurice that appear in churches and cathedrals in Germany and Switzerland represented one of the supposed Christian leaders of the Holy Roman Empire's crusade against the pagan Slavs to the east." [23]

In yet another poor attempt at an argument from authority [24] from David Marshall, he says,

"Harris tells us that Christian theologians who argued against slavery 'lost' the argument. How so? Does Harris presume to know how the Bible should be interpreted better than Thomas Aquinas, at least four popes, John Wesley, Samuel Johnson, John Newton, Charles Finney, and Edmund Burke? Wesley, founder of Methodism, passionately opposed slavery from early on. His letter to William Wilberforce...

Unless the divine power has raised you up to be as Athanasius contra mundum, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villany which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.

Wesley quotes the Bible five times here. How theologically illiterate he must have been not to realize that the Bible supports slavery! [...] Wilberforce's 'delusion' that God had raised him to make slavery 'vanish away' changed the course of history. Christian abolitionists won the argument, and liberated much of humanity."

Despite Marshall's own "naivite", as I've already shown, christians were most likely influenced by the various revolutions that took place and were not influenced by the bible since without some outside source of morality allowing a person to choose between contradicting passages, the bible is a hopeless guide for morality. After all, how can Marshall claim these individuals can interpret the bible better than countless other christians who used the bible to justify slavery (and here is Marshall's illogical over-reliance on an argument from authority again!)? The fact is that the bible never once condemns the practice (even jesus!) and just because there are some passages that speak of liberty and freeing slaves (Exodus was inspirational for many slaves [25]) doesn't mean that was the view of many during that period. During the time the bible was written, and long after, slavery was simply seen as natural, as even many christians thought.

For example, the American Quakers did not become overwhelmingly active in the anti-slavery protests until after the American Revolution. To quote David Brion Davis:

"...[T]he American Revolution not only stimulated the antislavery zeal of the American Quakers but encouraged them to exert pressure on the British and American Governments for the abolition of the slave trade." [26]

Davis also says:

"The Quaker commitment to bear collective testimony against slavery came surprisingly late and coincided with the publication of secular antislavery arguments from jurists, philosophers, moralists, and men of letters. [emphasis mine] Quakers did not play a conspicuous part in creating this international body of antislavery literature, although Anthony Benezet helped to anthologize and disseminate it. Indeed, it was the emergence of an enlightened climate of opinion, defining liberty as a natural and fundamental right, that brought outside sanction to Quaker reformers like Benezet and John Woolman." [emphasis mine] [27]

However, it was the Quakers who "lead the way in exploiting the theme of inconsistency" speaking of the Americans fighting for their freedoms during the American Revolution, while depriving the Negros of theirs, as I explained earlier. [28]

Of course, while the Enlightenment likely had a large influence on abolitionists, Enlightenment ideals of humans' natural rights were already being expressed long before the actual Enlightenment took place. In 1679 John Locke explained his principle that a man "cannot enslave himself" in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, which influenced many individuals. [29] Theories of 'innate natural rights' were being proposed long before christians as a whole came upon the scene to speak out against slavery. Maybe these examples of "natural rights" is one thing that inspired those few Quakers in 1688 to petition against slavery?

According to political scientist Michael P. Zuckert it was the americans' natural rights philosophy that made the idea of slavery more repugnant with the passing of time:

"As the Americans more and more thought in terms of natural rights, the institution of slavery seemed to more and more of them to be intolerable and unjust, even if under English colonial law and practice the institution remained acceptable." [30]

This seems even more plausible, that many christians were influenced by natural rights philosophy, when one realizes that even the clergy were heavily influenced by Locke "well before 1763 - and their constant preaching of him made his political ideas thoroughly familiar to the American public, regardless of whether the latter had read Locke or not." [31]

Over time, it becomes quite apparent that christians' views on politics, reason, and morality were shaped by Locke since there are many examples where christians and clergy reiterate much of the same views as Locke did, and prior to that time, their views were vastly different. For example, prior to Locke, the theology of christians embraced the belief that one was to distrust reason, [32] and that religious liberty was frowned upon, [33] and their basis of government was religious, based not upon "the people," but based upon the christian god. [34] All these changed over time, and the speeches and writings of the later christians clearly depict this change. [35]

Perhaps one of the earliest condemnations against slavery took place in 1576 with Jean Bodin's Six Books of the Commonwealth, which referred to the "base humiliations" and "cruelties" of slavery. While Bodin spoke of god's law supposedly forbidding slavery, not one religious doctrine is cited, but instead he emphasized basic principals instead of citing religious doctrines. [36] And as I've shown above, where would Bodin have gathered such a message from his bible, or religious doctrines? They are nowhere to be found, therefore, they must have come from some other source. Perhaps Bodin's own innate moral sense told him this cruel practice was wrong, though incorrectly identified the source of this belief to his religious beliefs, or god? Regardless of all this speculation, not one religious verse or principle is cited, and instead the driving force of evolutionary human altruism is cited: empathy. Bodin and likely these‭ ‬minorities of theists obviously felt sympathy for the slaves,‭ ‬and because of his empathy for his fellow man felt slavery was wrong.

Update: 11-20-11: Through subsequent research I've found that Bodin actually did sanction slavery. Hector Avalos expertly points out in his 2011 book, Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship, that Bodin didn't reject slavery in all its forms. He rejected “perpetual” slavery, not “temporary” slavery. Therefore, Bodin can hardly be considered an opponent of slavery in general. Other than this, largely Avalos' excellent research confirms most of my arguments and my over all argument: It was humanist/Enlightenment ideas, along with economic change, that was largely responsible for the abolition of slavery.

Despite what Marshall says,‭ ‬the bible didn't seem to be cited very often in antislavery protests.‭ ‬To quote David Davis:

"Biblical interpretation had seldom been an important issue in the British controversies over the slave trade. [...] [T]he abolitionists, with few exceptions like Granville Sharp, made little use of Scriptural argument. Wilberforce, for example, specifically cautioned against introducing such discussion in the House of Commons." [37]

It also seems that Marshall is wrong about Thomas Aquinas using the bible to oppose slavery:

"...Aristotle shaped Thomas Aquinas's view of the slave as the physical instrument of his owner, who had full claim to everything the slave possessed or produced, including children. Noting that Saint Gregory and others had ruled, like the Justinian Code, that slavery was contrary to nature, Aquinas emphasized that the institution was contrary only to the first intention of nature, but not to the second intention, which was adjusted to man's limited capacities in a sinful world. Aquinas still thought of slavery as occasioned by sin, but he made it seem more natural and tolerable by identifying it with the rational structure of being, which required each individual to accept, along with old age and death, the necessity of subordination to higher authority. While Aquinas avoided Aristotle's views on natural inferiority, some of his followers, such as Ptolemy of Lucca and the famous and prestigious philosopher Egidius Colonna, appeared to accept the Aristotelian belief that some men were slaves by their very nature." [38]

It seems that Aquinas didn't feel that slavery was "natural", unlike several others, however he did feel that slavery should be tolerated and was simply the nature of things because of sin and the "fall of man." [39]

As can be seen, I find it disingenuous for Marshall to claim that the bible was responsible for ending slavery and realizing man's equality. As I've shown, it seems that christians as a force against slavery arrived late on the scene and simply "cherry-picked" the bible verses that supported their preconceived beliefs about slavery and equality. This occurred after the change in societies' views had already began to shift towards equality. Of course, to be fair, was the bible used to help end slavery? Yes,‭ ‬but that's not saying much since it was only a very minor component and other influences came first‭ (‬and were more influential‭)‬,‭ ‬and only then did a change in the interpretation of scripture take place.‭ ‬Again,‭ ‬I don't deny that many christians helped greatly in the struggle for emancipation,‭ ‬but the truth isn't as one-sided as this christian apologist makes it appear.‭ ‬There were larger influences upon the world than christianity,‭ ‬and the bible is not an effective guide for morality.‭



References:

1. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World, by David Brion Davis, Oxford University Press, 2006; 186-187

2. The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity, by David Marshall, Harvest House Publishers, 2007; 145

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass; accessed 6-26-09

4. Inhuman Bondage, by David Brion Davis; 157-158

5. Ibid.; 249

6. Ibid.; 56

7. The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution 1770-1823, by David Brion Davis, Oxford University Press, 1999; 23

8. Ibid.; 144-146

9. The Truth Behind the New Atheism, by David Marshall; 144

10. The Portable Enlightenment Reader, edited by Isaac Kramnick, Penguin Books, 1995; 640

11. Ibid.; 645

12. Inhuman Bondage, by David Brion Davis; 75

13. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=HTML&rgn=DIV1&byte=21503226; accessed 7-1-09

14. The Complete Idiot's Guide to American History, by Alan Axelrod, Ph.D., Alpha Books, 2006; 139

15. Inhuman Bondage, by David Brion Davis; 126

16. god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens, Twelve, 2007; 176

17. Inhuman Bondage, by David Brion Davis; 106

18. Ibid.; 64

19. Ibid.; 66

20. Ibid.; 59

21. Ibid.; 57

22. Ibid.; 264

23. Ibid.; 59

24. The Truth Behind the New Atheism, by David Marshall; 146-147

25. Inhuman Bondage, by David Brion Davis; 36

26. The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution 1770-1823, by David Brion Davis; 218

27. Ibid.; 213-214

28. Ibid.; 286

29. Greatest Emancipations: How the West Abolished Slavery, by Jim Powell, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008; 25-26

30. The Natural Rights Republic: Studies in the Foundation of the American Political Tradition, by Michael P. Zuckert, University of Notre Dame Press, 1996; 116

31. Ibid.; 151

32. Ibid.; 157-158

33. Ibid.; 171

34. Ibid.; 132-134

35. Ibid.; 172-175

36. Greatest Emancipations, by Jim Powell; 24

37. The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution 1770-1823, by David Brion Davis; 525

38. Inhuman Bondage, by David Brion Davis; 55

39. Ibid.; 127