Christian School defends slavery booklet

[G_j]

I think this was posted before, but here are some quotes from the book.
---

School defends slavery booklet
Critic says text is 'window dressing'

By T. KEUNG HUI, Staff Writer


(http://newsobserver.com/news/story/1913619p-8258411c.html)

__________________________________

'SOUTHERN SLAVERY, AS IT WAS'
Here are some excerpts from the booklet:

* "To say the least, it is strange that the thing the Bible condemns
(slave-trading) brings very little opprobrium upon the North, yet that which
the Bible allows (slave-ownership) has brought down all manner of
condemnation upon the South." (page 22)

* "As we have already mentioned, the 'peculiar institution' of slavery was
not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific
descriptions given to us in modern histories." (page 22)

* "Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship
with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal
character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and
confidence." (page 24)

* "There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such
mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world." (page 24)

* "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food,
clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)

* "But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established
bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with
their white masters and friends." (page 27)

* "Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than
the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence." (page 30)

[Turn CO Blue]

1. Cough, hack...spewing.

How sickening! :puke:

[mr blur]

2. Obscene

* "Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship
with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal
character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and
confidence."

Wonder how much affection and confidence you would feel hanging from a tree surrounded by hooded morons?

[madrchsod]

3. racist scum

christian school? no, a racist school for training future neo nazi`s. don`t worry ,they will burn in their own version of hell

[Sir Craig]

4. This just makes me want to puke...

Total revisionists. I wonder how long it takes before they put out a booklet saing how good the Jews had it with their German guardians in Auschwitz...

I bet they receive federal aid as well.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. Those also exist

I think your question should have been: how long before those books show up in their classrooms? These people are sick. It is one thing to point out another view, but one should be intellectually honest about its contents!

[Sir Craig]

16. I'm guessing that these assh*les found it necessary...

...to put out the booklet, softening up slavery's image, if for no other reason the Bible is so damn ambiguous about the whole issue. ("Slave trading" is bad but "slave ownership" is good? What kind of bullshit is that?)

And being a "Christian" school, the Bible by default is perfect, despite all reasoned arguments pointing out its flaws. Ergo, softened slavery stance.

By the way, I meant "before they start using the happy Holocaust booklet in the class."

[Behind the Aegis]

20. It was my bad....

After I reread your post, I realized what you were saying. Ooops! :) It is amazing the evil that can be committed AND tolerated in the name of religion!

[ixion]

5. more neocon revisionist history

*sigh* :puke: :eyes: :grr:

[The Zanti Regent]

7. This is what Gary North and his Dominionists want to reinstate.

Gary North has made it clear that the 13th amendment must be repealed and slavery must be reinstated in order to become a Christ-Centered Godly nation.


Hey, Gary, take your nonsense and stick it up your holy ass!

[Joy Anne]

8. I'd like to accommodate him, but

I really don't want Gary North as my slave.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. Who Would Jesus Lynch?

[Solly Mack]

10. That booklet is so full of shit I could use it in my garden

except it would be like salting the earth

Nothing worth growing could grow in such an environment.

[NYC]

11. This should make everyone want to be a slave:

"Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food,
clothes, and good medical care."

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

[opihimoimoi]

21. If slavery was that good, why don't we see WHITES as slaves with

some brown guy as owners?

[Ms. Clio]

31. Such a complete and total lie

Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

It truly sickens me that anyone could teach such lies to children and call it history.

[NYC]

47. I totally agree with you.

There ought to be a law against teaching outright lies. It sounds like an advertising brochure for slavery.

[Ms. Clio]

48. That anyone could believe such mierda is just stunning

If anything, it is impossible to truly convey all the horrors of slavery to modern Americans who have absolutely no concept of the type of physical deprivation, the living conditions, the constant brutality experienced by the slaves. Or of the emotional and psychological toil. Just about the closest one can come to hearing about it in the former slaves' own words can be found in the Ex-Slave Narratives compiled by the Federal Writer's Project during the 1930s. I defy anyone to read several dozen of these narratives (there are thousands) and then assert that slaves had plenty of food, medical care, leisure, etc.

[NYC]

49. I read some of the slave narratives.

I suspect the people who wrote this atrocious nonsense also read them. They can't be that ignorant. Seems to me they are deliberately trying to cover up what it was.

[eallen]

12. What's interesting: Wilkins felt compelled to write a slavery apology...

There are plenty of contemporaneous apologia for slavery, many penned by the clergy of the day, and based on religious precepts. I remember reading some when I was a student, and I doubt anyone would raise their eyebrow much that a US school required its students to dip a bit into this historical material. But for some reason, the authors of this booklet felt compelled to bring this arguments up to date, and the school to teach this as a contemporary issue, rather than a historical one!

[eallen]

13. Note, also, the Southern Baptist Convention was born to defend slavery...

The Southern Baptist Convention was organized in 1845, in a split from the Triennial Convention, because the Southern Baptists believed that slavery was ordained by the Bible, with passages clearly sanctioning it in both the Old and New Testaments. As today, the Southern Baptists then could not abide convening with Christians who held to more liberal interpretations of scripture.

:wow:

[mrdmk]

14. Abolition was a very small part of the Civil War

The real argument was over states rights and was very complex, another words, lots of wedge issues.

It was really used at the end of the war by both the North and the South to get African Americans into the army to fight. Another words to use African Americans as cannon fodder because the armies were running out of poor white folks in this bloody mess.

If one wants the real in-depth story, go take six years of history at an accredited college.


edit: spelling

[eallen]

19. Slavery was the core cause of southern secession...

Claiming that the war was over states rights begs the question of what was at issue that caused states rights to be asserted and contested. There is no secret what that underlying issue was, where compromise previously had been reached to maintain an equal number of slave and free states, so as to maintain balance in the Senate, that the Dred Scot decision inflamed, and that Lincoln's victory sparked to actual secession. Slavery was the issue that caused all of this. Without it, a state's right to secede would have remained a purely theoretical question in the 19th century.

[mrdmk]

24. With all due respect, the North was not even trying to end

slavery in the South by any stretch of the imagination. Many in the North actually prospered because of the slavery. Slavery was a wedged issue, not the main issue. The main issue is that it was perceived by the South that the North was attempting to tell it what to do and how to do it.


<snip>
The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on its basic causes. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.
<end snip>

http://www.us-civilwar.com/cause.htm



<snip>
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.
At the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life.
<end snip>

http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html


<snip>
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
<end snip>

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#SouthCarolina


<snip>
Southerners had promised secession if Lincoln won, but after the election only Douglas seemed aware of the immediate and real danger. Republicans, including Lincoln, discounted the threat to the Union as just overblown rhetoric. All of that changed when scarcely a month after Lincoln’s election, South Carolina seceded from the Union. South Carolina was followed within two months by the secession of the entire Lower South. Fearful of their own simmering problems with slaves, free blacks, and the landless poor whites who outnumbered them, a group of political and community leaders sought and won the allegiance of the yeoman class. They convinced these small farmers that the incoming Lincoln administration, through the resources of the federal government, would destroy the existing power structures throughout the South, abolish slavery, and raise both landless poor whites and blacks to positions of economic and social equality.
A widely acclaimed pamphlet written by Howell Cobb was well known in the South. Cobb emphasized the Republican party’s attitude towards slavery, which he regarded as the linchpin of southern social order. The planter-professional elite controlled the means of communication in the South and were able to secure majorities in secession conventions. By February 1861, all of the Lower South had seceded from the Union. By the end of the month, the Provisional Confederacy had been formed in Montgomery, Alabama. Jefferson Davis was elected President. South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were out of the Union. Now, it remained to be seen whether the border states would follow.
<end snip>

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/civil_war_1856_1862/110187


<snip>
In addition, it had to be noted that most Southerners weren't fighting to keep the institution of slavery. As a matter of fact, a great majority of Southern soldiers did not even own slaves. They were fighting for their land and rights to live as they chose. They, as were Northerners, were fighting for what they thought was right. Shelby Foote in Ken Burns' The Civil War explained it well when he said a Northern soldier asked a Southerner why he was fighting the War. The Southerner replied, "because you're down here," meaning you are invading our land and I have to defend myself. That is why many Southerners joined the cause.
<end snip>

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/381/8839



<snip>
THE political history of the Confederate States of America somewhat distinctly begins in 1850 with "the Settlement" of sectional agitation by the Compromise measures of that year, enacted by the Congress of the United States, approved by the President, confirmed by decisions of the Supreme court, endorsed in resolutions, political platforms and general elections by the people. The "Settlement" thus solemnly ordained by and among the States composing the Union, became equal in moral and political force, to any part of the Constitution of the United States. Its general object was to carry out the preamble to the Constitution, viz.: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Its avowed special object was to settle forever all the disturbing, sectional agitations concerning slave labor, so as to leave that question where the Constitution had placed it, subject to the operation of humanity, moral law, economic law, natural law and the laws of the States. Its patriotic purpose was to eliminate sectionalism from the politics of the whole country.

<end snip>

http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilhistory.htm



<snip>
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
<end snip>
<snip>
Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."
<end snip>

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html



<snip>
A large number of white slaves escaped to the Northern states hoping to pass into free white society, and slave catchers went North looking for them. This posed a direct threat to white people living in the North because under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, runaway slaves could be reclaimed without due process, which in effect allowed for free whites to be mistakenly seized. Furthermore, as Chapter 6 goes on to prove, such Southern political power opened up the potential for slavery being nationalized, and as such the very real possibility existed that enslavement could be extended to the lower class of white laborers as well. Lincoln himself made reference to slavery "regardless of color" during a speech he gave in Chicago on December 10, 1856. Lincoln also spoke of white slavery in other speeches, all of which Tenzer has fully documented. PLATE 9 is his book shows an 1856 Republican party handbill which clearly states in capital letters, "SLAVERY IS RIGHT, NATURAL, AND NECESSARY, AND DOES NOT DEPEND UPON DIFFERENCE OF COMPLEXION. THE LAWS OF THE SLAVE STATES JUSTIFY THE HOLDING OF WHITE MEN IN BONDAGE." Illustrations which depict actual white slaves and other historical documents having to do with white slavery provide enough proof to convince even the most skeptical reader that white people were slaves in the American South and that white slavery was indeed a cause of the Civil War. It is very important to point out that white slavery was merely a by-product of black slavery since there were certainly a great many more black slaves than white. It was the idea — not the reality — of white slavery and the threat to freedom it posed which concerned the North.
<end snip>

http://scholarspublishing.com/


This is a list were the links come form
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/links/links9.htm#Causes

[Ms. Clio]

30. The only "Southern rights" that were spoken of before the war

"were always tied to the right to enslave, to enjoy their property undisturbed, and to take it where they pleased."

"That law and that judicial system the South most praised in the 1850s both mocked states' rights to aid slavery. Roger Taney for the Supreme Court said that blacks could not be citizens, despite what many states wished to do and had long done. And the South's best-loved law, that against fugitive slaves, was the one that asserted federal authority over traditional state powers and perogatives most completely. State courts, state law, state officials, and the will of the state's citizens were to be sacrificed to federal power to regaina few head of runaway chattel, whose dark skin overrode any state's right to determine its own citizenship."

David Grimsted, American Mobbing, 1821-1861: Toward Civil War, 264-65.

[eallen]

39. With all due respect, that's disingenuous.

Your subject heading is true. Most northeners were not radical abolitionists, and would not have gone to war solely to end slavery. Lincoln didn't respond to Fort Sumter to end slavery, but to put down rebellion and preserve the union.

But to leap from there to the claim that slavery was anything other than the main issue is simply wrong to fact. While the north was not yet ready to end slavery, the south very clearly could see the writing on the wall. The slave trade had been banned. Slavery had been eliminated in the Caribbean, Mexico, and lands south. The Republicans were committed to not extending slavery beyond the existing slave states. The slave states' equality in the Senate was at an end. The free states were -- despite Dred Scot -- becoming ever less willing to participate in the enforcement of slavery. The south's reliance on slavery had moved from a peculiar institution to a beleaguered one.

As Ms. Clio points out, slavery was the issue that motivated discussion of states rights. The south came to see secession as the only hope for the continuance of a slave economy. Their plans did not stop with the existing slave states. In the early days of the Confederacy, when there was little fear of the union, Jefferson Davis and the other leading confederates planned to reintroduce slavery throughout the gulf and Caribbean basin. There was no other substantive issue so important to them.

[mrdmk]

45. Slavery was becoming an economic hardship for the South

The only thing the South had going for it with slavery was that it had a self producing population growth, meaning that at the current rate the South would have more slaves than it needed thus needed a market to sell these people. The new markets (I really dislike using this term) would be the new slave states if admitted and other countries that killed off their slaves faster than they could reproduce themselves. The North was willing to let the South have their slaves with certain restrictions and that was a problem to the South.

I am not being disingenuous here, what I was attempting to point out is that people have been for a long time using certain means such as the Bible as to justify owning other people. This booklet, from what I ascertain and correct me if I am wrong has been written recently, but from what I read and what I can remember these are the same old arguments that have been used since the publication of the Bible. People have doing this for a long time and have not quit.

The real question here should be when an institution calls itself a place of learning for Kindergarten to the 12th grade, does there need to be certain standards for the education? Next, if there are standards who sets them, the government? Another question if there are no standards for private schools other than market forces, does there need to be standards for public education, if so why? Or can we let the private receive public funds even though vouchers and then subject them to the same standards as public schools (I kind of like that idea, no provable standards, no vouchers i.e. public funds) and lets see what kind of time the private school has on their hands to use these junk materials.

The real clue here is this material to have public funds be used for public uses and private endeavors subject to market forces.


edit: missing words :headbang:

[Ms. Clio]

22. States' rights had very little to do with the war until afterwards

Read the primary source documents from the period such as newspapers--read the declarations of secession--they were all about slavery, and the fear that Lincoln's election would result in abolition. The "states' rights" myth was invented later.

I will soon teach American history on the university level, so I would like to know what "accredited college" taught you such a skewed view of it.

[mrdmk]

25. This is a repeat from above

<snip>
In addition, it had to be noted that most Southerners weren't fighting to keep the institution of slavery. As a matter of fact, a great majority of Southern soldiers did not even own slaves. They were fighting for their land and rights to live as they chose. They, as were Northerners, were fighting for what they thought was right. Shelby Foote in Ken Burns' The Civil War explained it well when he said a Northern soldier asked a Southerner why he was fighting the War. The Southerner replied, "because you're down here," meaning you are invading our land and I have to defend myself. That is why many Southerners joined the cause.
<end snip>

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/381/8839

[Ms. Clio]

27. Gosh, I thought you were going to direct me to a valid historical site

Not some no-nothing babbling about Prime Time Live.

Shelby Foote has said he would fight on the side of the South, if he lived back then. I'll take his opinions with a huge grain of salt.

And one quotation from a Southern soldier sheds very little light on the big issues that motivated the Civil War.

Ask an American soldier why he is fighting in Iraq--will he say oil, PNAC, global domination? Or will he earnestly declaim that he is trying to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq?

You didn't answer my question-what college/university taught you that the war was about "states rights?"

[mrdmk]

33. Los Angeles City College

And what was taught was that slavery was an issue of the United States Civil War. The end of slavery was not i.e. Abolition it was a small part of the issue being (lack of a better word) disputed. There were many arguments over slavery starting with economic, who would be in power, who should be a slave, who should own a slave, the bible, how people should feel about one another and so forth. These are also important aspects of the U.S. Civil War.

There is another aspect to the U.S. Civil War and that is the difference between a Union and Confederacy Government. That is difference between a strong Centralized Government and a Decentralized Government (i.e. States). This was also major problem that had discussed till people were blue in the face since 1776 without any resolve. This dispute was not just between the North and the South.

What I am trying to say was the nation was deeply polarized at the time and came to a civil war.

[Ms. Clio]

34. See my response above

The South had no problem with a strong centralized government as long is it enforced their rights to own human beings as chattel and their rights to retrieve that property should that property try to escape its grasp. The Confederate Constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution--it did nothing to "decentralize" power.

No responsible historian ever claims that abolition was the cause of the war--that is really a straw man. You are much more correct when you say that slavery was at the heart of many other economic, political, and social issues.

[mrdmk]

36. The South did not have a strong centralized government

This was much to their downfall, the South as a group had trouble agreeing on certain topics in time to stop the Northern armies. One needs to remember that the North, for the most part was losing the war from the beginning to two-thirds of the end.

But this thread was about a book promoting slavery for the most part (I should mention from what I have read is distasteful) and using the Bible substantiate their beliefs. I thought to interject that the U.S. Civil War was not fought to end slavery, that came at the end of the war with much debate from both sides. So having people believe this in this day of age is not surprising, but giving it to ninth graders to read from beginning to end does raise a lot of questions!

[Ms. Clio]

40. The Civil War was not fought to end slavery--it was fought to preserve it

That is the key point.

Your first paragraph is sort of contradictory, isn't it? If the North had such a strong centralized government (which it didn't, no more so than the South) then why would the South be so successful throughout most of the war?

[mrdmk]

41. The South had better Generals

starting with General Robert E. Lee.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/relee/relee.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leebio.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/grant/peopleevents/p_lee.html


The South did not resupply their army the way the North was able to. The North had better industry and agriculture. The North also stayed in control of the Navy and this Navy did one thing correctly and that was to capture and remain in control of New Orleans, thus cutting off water transportation from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico.

We are now off topic!

[InvisibleBallots]

26. the founders of the Confederacy said as much

The idea that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery is pro-Confederate revisionism - and it's been going on since shortly after they lost.

Obviously, "slavery" was an institution that touched many aspects of US life at the time, political, economic, religious, etc. The idea that the Civil War was about "more than just slavery" is the wrong way to put it I'd say, it's more like "most of the issues fought over in the Civil War were directly related to the existence of slavery"

[Ms. Clio]

29. That's a very good way to put it

For Northerners, by the time of the war, slavery was not just about black people in bondage--they began to perceive that Southerners were attempting to destroy their own civil rights and liberties, because Southern mobs whipped, tarred and feathered, or hanged anyone who dared to voice opposition not just to slavery, but to any aspect of the South's feudalistic economic and social system.

[Malva Zebrina]

37. Exact;ly

without slavery, the economic condition of the south was caput.

The argument over "states rights" is a straw man. And so is the argument that the soldiers did not think they were fighting for slavery but for the right to land.

They, those who were the leaders in the south, used the states rights argument, so they could continue using slaves, who were a necessary part of the economy. That was their "states rights"--to continue slavery as the state saw fit.

It is indeed an attempt at revisionism.

Now we are hearing how wonderful they were being treated. That is another straw man. The fact is that slavery is wrong no matter how well treated, although I think this is merely another attempt to excuse itself from the guilt of buying and selling humanb beings, separating families from each other,never to see each other again and ahost of other abuses.
No matter what the bible says, or what interpretation is put onto it re slavery. It is simply wrong.

[The Magistrate]

50. That Is Quite True, Mr. Ballots

Gen. Bedford Forrest, who may be taken as authoritative in the matter, once stalked out of a speech by some obfuscating Southern politician, growling, "If we ain't fightin' fer slavery, I'd damn sure like to know what we're fightin' for!"

"We busted the fort about niner clock an the nigers skedaddled. My men is a killin em in the woods."

[leftchick]

15. why do I live in NC?

why?

[leftofthedial]

17. wow! Sounds great!

where do I sign up to be a slave?

[Karenina]

18. Hey Mr DJ! Cue up

"Prussian Blue!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2865086

[jellybelly]

23. standards?...

Is it legal to teach that garbage? Aren't there standards for every school? For example, no school can teach its students what a wonderful leader Hitler was.

[InvisibleBallots]

28. of course it's legal to teach this garbage

The first amendment is to protect unpopular speech, like this. And yes I believe a completely private school can teach its students "what a wonderful leader Hitler was". Ah, the benefits and liabilities of free speech.

[jellybelly]

35. I know...

So then I'm torn, I'm all for free speech but not for propaganda. If schools taught students all homosexuals were going to hell, wouldn't there be a protest?

[InvisibleBallots]

43. well you are seeing the beginning of the protest now

North Carolina has a significant group that's very much against this sort of thing - it gets in the papers, there will be articles written, letters to the editor, other Christian ministers denouncing it, and some feeble attempts at defending it. Then it will mostly be forgotten, and the kids who graduate from this school will likely have hard a hard time finding any honest work.

It really does suck for the kids, but the actual impact of this is rather small. The vast majority of Christian schools in NC don't teach this sort of nonsense.

[alfredo]

32. Here is Wilson's website

http://www.dixienet.org/

Note that there is a lot of bush bashing in their articles.
http://www.dixienet.org/NewsItems.html

[despairing optimist]

38. Ah, slavery. Why didn't they just relax and enjoy it?

Who wrote this pamphlet? Alan Dershowitz?

EDIT: punctuation corrected.

[NorthernSpy]

42. once upon a time, this crap was standard

For most of its existence, the practice of slavery really was a sacred cow that most whites assumed consistent with the "best interests" of the slave.

It's jarring to hear that now, but there was a time when questioning the supposed benevolent intent and function of slavery never failed to provoke hysteria from the defenders of the reigning conventional wisdom of the day.

[Carl Brennan]

44. Hey, if the Bible doesn't prohibit it its OK

Give unto the slaveholders what is the slaveholders, or something like that.

Maybe back in their neo-con peabrains they know they are slaves to the dogma of Christian fundamentalism and this is just an attempt to generalizing their putrified ideology to the non-pod people.

[Piperay]

46. They deny the reality of what something really was

so that that they can defend what didn't exist (benevolent slavery)...typical freeper logic. :wtf: