Glenn Beck's History 'Expert' Endorses Biblical Slavery

[Joanne98]

As Glenn Beck gushed when he introduced David Barton to Beck's national audience on April 29, 2010,
"I brought David Barton in from WallBuilders because I really, truly believe that David Barton is he's a guy who I really think has been put in a in his place, in his position for a reason and, you know, David, everybody has a time and I have a feeling your time is coming... my gut tells me you are one of the most important men in America for this message today.


Introduction

David Barton, who recently has been tapped as an alleged "expert" on American history featured on the Glenn Beck show, has built a career upon his claim that United States government was founded on Biblical precepts. This creates a major problem - if America was founded as a Christian nation, how can we account for slavery ? Barton's articles on slavery on his Wallbuilders web site stress that many of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the institution of slavery (which is true) but then he refers readers to a Wallbuilders article by Barton's close colleague Stephen McDowell, which explains that although Southern Slavery was wrong, it was wrong because it wasn't Biblical slavery as defined by Christian Reconstructionist theologian R.J. Rushdoony, whose basic approach was simple - what was permissible according to Biblical scripture is permissible now: including slavery.

McDowell's article cites R.J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law six times in its footnotes and that's notable given that the book was Rushdoony's master work on how to implement Biblical law in the American legal system. R.J. Rushdoony's scheme included establishing stoning and burning at the stake for adultery, homosexuality, and idolatry, and the legalization of Biblical slavery. Leaders in the Christian Reconstructionism movement Rushdoony founded have for several decades now been trying to make it so.

Stephen K. McDowell appeared along with R.J. Rushdoony and other major Christian Reconstructionist leaders in a 1999 video titled God's Law And Society. You can watch some of those interviews (not McDowell's) on the Christian Reconstructionist web site The Forerunner. Here's The Forerunner editor Jay Rogers' description of the R.J. Rushdoony interview, in which Rushdoony calls for a "second American revolution" :

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/7/12/94224/9568/Front_Page/Glenn_Beck_s_History_Expert_Endorses_Biblical_Slavery

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Slave owners in the Colonies used the Bible to justify their particular bent on slavery

for their plantations.

[Igel]

5. Yes, they did.

Then again, a lot of modern Protestants rely on the 10 Commandments to justify church services on the 1st day of the week.

Slavery as defined in the OT set up two classes of slaves and so it worked differently for each group; one wasn't good, but wasn't just horrible and was temporary while the other was not too different from what was traditional in the area. Israelite--take that to mean what's described in the OT, if it makes you feel better--slavery as actually practiced was usually just the latter, they merged the two classes of slaves in favor of the less privileged class; it was pretty bad, and tended to be what was traditional in the area minus one or two excesses. Muslim slavery worked a third way, but more closely resembled what was traditional in the area. American chattel slavery worked yet another way, horrible, but not quite as bad as Muslim slavery. Some of what's called "slavery" today works a fourth way, clearly distinct from the other three.

Slavery is bad because of the practices and attitudes that were involved, because of the referent, the practices involved, not because we suddenly started to dislike the way the word sounded.

It's hard to keep the referent in mind and see past the word itself.

This is hard. Words acquire connotations and seeing past the connotation to the denotation takes mental effort. They change meanings in the spoken language, but we don't alter the text so the referents of words in a text change retroactively. You may not even be familiar with the different referents. You may not appreciate the context. It may not be to your advantage to notice the differences, so you don't care in the least so long as you win your argument or feel good about yourself.

So Southern slavers looked to the OT for support. Abolitionists looked to the OT for support. Both relied crucially on the word, not on the referent. The abolitionists were closer to the truth because Southern slavery was far closer to what the OT condemned than what it licensed but still didn't pay attention to the differences, all hung up on form and not substance. I think OT-defined slavery is pretty serious; but, again, it's nowhere near chattel slavery. It's also impossible in today's system so the entire discussion is hypothetical--and utterly unrelated to American chattel slavery or wage slavery. We don't (and didn't) have a year of release in the 7th year, we didn't have traditional clan-based territories and land allocations to return to. It wasn't and isn't the case that land can't really be sold and debts can't ever last more than 6 years, and at times can't even last one year.

On the other hand, the system of temporary slavery the OT endorses did provide a great motivation for avoiding debts whenever possible. It's essentially OT bankruptcy law with no gaming of the system.

[Deep13]

2. "second American revolution"

They already tried that in 1861. Fortunately, it failed.

[ck4829]

3. How does one even endorse slavery?

Here's a little test, say "I support slavery" right now. If you don't feel creeped out or disgusted by the words that just came out of your mouth, then you need to get your head examined, it's just that simple.

K&R.

[Igel]

7. Depends what you mean by "slavery," doesn't it?

If you use the world to mean the little bubbles formed in good champagne, no prob. It would be a rather idiosyncratic definition, but it points out that words' meanings are conventional. Polysemy happens.

But if you mean chattel slavery in the American South, big prob.

I have too many referents for "slavery." None dominate. Take Cervantes. He was a slave. While I'm not sure I'd have supported slavery for him, the only real alternative once he was captured was death. Given that choice, slavery was probably the option I'd support.

Then there are idiot sites like http://www.twf.org/Library/Slavery.html, which overlooks reality in favor of theology and then assumes that theology dictated reality. Cervantes' slavery was not what that site would have you believe it was.

Still, some slaveries weren't all that horrible compared to American-style chattel slavery. Then again, others were worse.

For OT slavery specifically, q.v supra.

[Jim__]

4. The Christian Reconstruction Movement is the insane end ...

... of the insane religious right. If Beck can draw people into this movement, then he is indeed dangerous.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Postscript: I sent this article to my friend who immigrated from the US to Israel.

He loves Glenn Beck. More than admiration. Sent him the three-part Salon article. Didn't sway him a bit.

I just received his response to this article (assuming he even read it): Any friend of Glen (sic) Beck is a friend of mine.

You just can't get through to these disciples. Prospective Christian slavery had no impact on the deep-felt adoration of Beck.