A Letter to Barak Obama; in Defense of Moses
You have often cast aspersions on Moses and the Bible for the existence of slavery, but I would like to remind you that it was Moses who first recognized the rights of slaves; and it was the Judeo-Christian culture where slavery was first outlawed…Not by the atheists of the “enlightenment” or the Muslims, though they have been the darlings of the academic left since the 1980’s.
“True democracy makes no enquiry about the color of the skin, or the place of nativity. Where ever it sees a man, it recognizes a being endowed by his creator with original and inalienable rights.”
Salmon Chase, originally a competitor for presidential nomination against Lincoln, later a member of his staff.
This doesn’t sound like an atheistic sentiment, Mr. President.
The first anti-slavery tract written in America was written in 1700 by Samuel Sewall, a Puritan preacher, titled; “The selling of Joseph”. It wasn’t expressing an atheist sentiment.
Many Americans believed that the Constitution could be made to support slavery, but this did not slow down the abolitionists in America;
“…but there is a higher law than the constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain…the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe. We are his stewards.” William Seward, future member of Lincoln’s cabinet, making a speech to the senate and using arguments that Lincoln demurred from using.
Lincoln was not in favor of the complete abolition of the slaves and would have been content with just confining slavery in the south. Lincoln was satisfied with the 1850 compromise, which wasn’t a compromise so much as total capitulation to the South’s demands. However, Lincoln ended up placing men around him who had much stronger anti-slavery convictions than himself based on their religious beliefs, and this helped to push the rather self-seeking Lincoln along on the anti-slavery issue.
Again, Mr. President, not an argument built on either the Koran or atheist sentiments of the overrated “enlightenment” period.
England, America and Denmark all outlawed the Atlantic slave trade by 1810; that is, no more slaves could be brought over the seas after that time from Africa or anywhere else to these countries. In America, the Northwest ordinance of 1787 was taken by most to have outlawed slavery from entry into any new territory beyond the southern slave states. And of course, by the late nineteenth century all slavery was outlawed in the Christian nations.
And while it doesn’t make it into history textbooks anymore, many popes publicly condemned slavery in the New World and even issued papal bulls threatening ex-communication for those who made or kept slaves, as far back as 1431 during the settling of the Canary Islands.
How about those Muslim countries? Saudi Arabia outlawed the slave trade in 1962…that’s right Mr. President, 1962. The Mauritians outlawed slavery in 1981. Pretty advanced, huh? The end of Muslim slaving in any great numbers was a direct result of the Christian Abolition movement; no abolitionist movement ever arose in Islam.
The British navy began to embargo Muslim slave ships and both French and British troops began to intercept numerous slave caravans, freeing the captives and executing the slave dealers. If you go to Cnn.com you’ll find articles which discuss the fact that in Yemen and other North African Islamic countries, the African slave trade persists, only in lesser numbers. The anti-slave laws are not generally enforced.
The Islamic slave trade preceded the European by centuries and continued after it had been abolished in Europe and America for at least another century. The fact that millions of black Africans were sent to the Muslim countries, belies the fact that none of these countries have sizeable black populations, like the Americas. This was largely due to the fact that many males were castrated and babies conceived which carried any amount of black blood were subjected to abortion or infanticide.
A horrendous and savage practice, right, Mr. President?
I noticed that during the recent raids on the Nuba people in North Africa by Islamic raiders for slaves, you and your administration remained silent. Of course I could understand how a supporter of abortion would feel a little squeamish about interfering with slave traders. As a lawyer you must be aware how similar the Supreme Court arguments are that support slave keeping and abortion.
How about those enlightened atheists? Voltaire supported the slave trade and thought Africans were an inferior people. As did Charlie Darwin. He said he thought they were about as advanced as small children or women. Edwin Burke called the abolitionists fanatics, and said the cause of humanity would be better served by retaining the slave trade. Most of the purveyors of the enlightenment argued that the glory of both Greece and Rome was largely due to their slave keeping. According to them slavery was essential to the growth of the arts, philosophy and advancement in general, therefore it was justified. Marx and Engels both felt the same way, and sent millions to the mines as slaves but didn’t use the word slave, they called them dissidents. There were a few atheist or agnostics who protested slavery, but they were few in number and never amounted to any viable resistance. There weren’t a lot of atheist abolition groups. None, really.
But I notice you don’t like to mention Marx or Mao or Islam in a negative light, and rarely condemn the murders of the thousands of millions who were wiped off the face of the earth by the socialist movements. Yet you have no problem casting mud at Moses. Probably a little safer, huh?
You’re out of college now, Mr. President, maybe it’s time to put all that politically correct baggage away and start thinking for yourself. You could even try a little original research; you know, read the actual documents and journals, not just textbook representations.
Of course, there will be a price to pay for doing that…you may have to change your rhetoric, and you will probably lose the youth vote.
But Moses would be proud of you. And I think you owe him one.