In every Discussion Post you have TWO tasks to complete1-) Plea.docx

In every Discussion Post you have TWO tasks to complete:
1-) Please answer all of the questions in TWO paragraph no less
than 200 words.
2-) Please Pick TWO of the Student answers and comments
them in ONE paragraph EACH.
-PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHICH STUDENTS ANSWER YOU
HAVE COMMENTED!
Every discussion post has a specific reading assign to it;
you have to answer the question according to do readings. You
don’t really have to read ALL of the readings, just skim through
it until you have some idea to answer the question. You can
always look at the other people’s answers to get the answer.
There are no right or wrong answers; these are just discussion
posts. I posted 4 different student’s answer to make it easy to
choose for you.
1st Discussion Post = Feb 2, 4 Ancient Near East
Questions:
1. Why are the gods fighting in the Epic of Creation and the
Poem of Erra? To what extent does this provide a model for
human behavior in the texts that depict human violence - the
Epic of Gilgamesh and the Mesha Stele?
2. What does "peace" mean for the Poem of Erra and the Song
of Release? Think about how this compares with modern
notions of peace and non-violence.
1st Student Answer: Tatiana N Youpa
1. The gods are originally start fighting in the Epic of Creation
when Apsu, the freshwater god, and Tiamat, the ocean waters
god, become annoyed with how much noise the new gods are
making. Apsu decides to get rid of them or else he will never
get any rest. The young gods find out about Apsu’s plan to do
away with them and they call on the god Ea for help. Ea uses a

magic spell to put Apsu to sleep and then kills him. Not long
after, Ea and his wife Damkina have a son, Marduk. Marduk is a
powerful and mighty god. He is given control of the four winds
by Anu, the sky god. He creates dust storms and tornadoes and
hurricanes that disrupt Tiamat and prevent the other gods from
sleeping. They become annoyed with Marduk and persuade
Tiamat to take action against him. Tiamat decides to battle
Marduk. In preparation for battle, she has eleven monsters
created. The gods are scared and unsure of how to deal with the
threat that Tiamat presents. Marduk offers to confront Tiamat if
he is appointed to the king of the gods in return. The gods
agree, and Marduk destroys Tiamat.
In the Poem of Erra, Erra, the god of mayhem and famine, is
convinced to go to Babylon and cause chaos by the Sibitti. The
Sibitti are seven gods created by Anu, the king of the gods, to
bring death and terror wherever they go. Erra’s advisor, Ishum,
tries to convince to not proceed with violence but Erra thinks
humankind needs to be punished so that they will respect the
gods. He even goes as far as to convince Marduk to give him the
throne as the king of the universe for a short while. The
universe is then thrown in to chaos. Ishum keeps trying to
convince Erra to stop his actions, but he doesn’t listen. Even
after Marduk retakes his throne, Erra continues in his blind
rage. Finally, satisfied that his power is recognized, Erra stops
his violence. He praises Ishum for intervening before he caused
any more damage to the world.
The violence depicted in the Epic of Creation and the Poem of
Erra provide some examples for cases when violence may be
justified. In the Epic of Creation, violence was necessary to
prevent the death of many gods. In the Poem of Erra,
humanity’s lack of respect for the gods is what caused violence
to be inflicted upon them. In comparison, the violence in the
Epic of Gilgamesh and Mesha Stele is described as punishment
or a necessary evil. The Poem of Erra and Mesha Stele are
similar in that they both justify violence as necessary to get
people to respect higher powers. The Epic of Creation and the

Epic of Gilgamesh are similar in that violence was needed to
prevent further violence from occurring.
2. In the Poem of Erra and Song of Release, peace came only
after violence. Modern notions of peace and non-violence tend
to avoid any kind of violence altogether. Instead, violence is
usually avoided by promoting diplomatic relations between
opposing groups. In modern times, it is often believed that any
dispute can be solved peacefully and non-violently. In contrast,
in the Poem of Erra, peace is not achieved until much of the
world is destroyed at the hands of Erra’s wrath. In the Song of
Release, there is no peace until the city of Ebla is already
destroyed. It seems as though the Poem of Erra and the Song of
Release are promoting the idea that violence may be necessary
to achieve peace.
2nd Student Answer: Grace Yoon
1. In the Epic of Creation, the descendant gods of Apsu and
Tiamat are too boisterous and noisy, which troubles and causes
Apsu to decide to kill the younger gods, ultimately being the
cause for the gods to fight. Tiamat is, however, against Apsu’s
decision and warns the son, Ea. Ea put Apsu to sleep and kills
him, which angers Tiamat, causing her to bring war upon the
younger gods, with advisement from the god, Quingu. Marduk,
child of Ea, emerges saying that he will defeat Tiamat, if he is
named ruler, which the other gods agree upon. Marduk fights
and kills Tiamat. The god Marduk fights, in this Epic, to gain
power, become ruler, and receive praise.
In the Poem of Erra, the god Erra brings upon war because he
awakes one night restless and anxious to fight. He is supported
by the Seven, who speak of the honor, prestige, and
gratification the fighting will bring. When Marduk forsakes his
dwelling for repairs and Erra is in reign in Marduk’s place, and
no fighting occurs, Erra wants to bring war and kill mankind to
gain respect. Erra strikes disaster and war onto the humans,
until Ishum convinces Erra that he has done enough to gain
respsect and honor, which is the reason for Erra’s fighting in
the Poem of Erra.

The Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra provide models of
behavior toward gaining power, respect, honor and rule. This is
then modeled in the Epic of Gilgamesh, because Gilgamesh
steals things and kills people, for his own desires and needs. He
also wants to invade the dangerous and treacherous Humbaba’s
forbidden forest. These actions of Gilgamesh are all done and
perceived from feelings of pride and desires of honor. In the
Mesha Stele, Mesha fights and conquers people and cities for
power and rule and the desire to achieve that.
2. Peace in the Poem of Erra appears to mean when war is over
and the pugnacious desires of the god Erra are appeased. Peace
also occurs when Erra receives respect and honor. In the Song
of Release, peace appears to mean when honor is given to
parents/elders, one is honest, one fulfills his/her duties, and
debts and slaves are released. Compared to these notions of
peace, the modern notions can be seen as when everyone is
equally respected and when war or disputes in general do not
occur. The meanings of peace that are related to giving honor to
parents, being honest, and fulfilling one’s duties can, however,
still be relevant today.
3rd Student Answer: Arif Khalil
Sleep deprivation – an indisputable annoyance to mankind
serves as a force of violence for gods in these historic tales. At
the beginning of Epic of Creation, Apsu decides to kill his
offspring of younger gods since “[t]heir behavior is noisome to”
him during his sleeps (37). In Poem of Erra, “[t]he Anunna-
gods cannot fall asleep for the clamor of humankind” disturbs
them, so they instigate Erra into unleashing havoc and chaos
(83-84). The gods resort to solving their individual struggles
through a means of physical force and nonverbal power. What
may originally seem to be an attempt to find peace in sleep is
actually a blindfold for justifying personal objectives centered
on pride and glory, evidently seen when Erra enrages at
humanity “since they do not fear my name” (121). Erra desires
acknowledgement and reverence for his mighty power and only
ceases his destruction once Ishum clearly pinpoints all that he

has powerfully accomplished. In Epic of Creation, Marduk
parallels this desire for recognition and respect by courageously
becoming the war hero who brings peace and stability.
Nonetheless, the gods’ resort to violence as a method of
achieving goals is not mutually exclusive from the rest of the
world. Humans are ideally images of gods, and thus the violent
interactions among the deities directly serve as a model for
human behavior. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, King Gilgamesh of
Uruk prides in his establishment of huge temples and city
monuments, but such power and authority also blinds him into
believing he has the absolute freedom to mistreat his labor force
and rape women. Gilgamesh’s violent colors take true form
when he first encounters Enkidu, where a battle breaks out for
no other reason other than the desire for asserting dominance
and proving ultimate supremacy. Likewise, in the Mesha
Stele violence is the medium through which King Mesha of
Moab determines to assert his authority and superiority over
Israel. Retrieving the lands of Moab blindfolds Mesha to the
extent where he goes on a cruel massacre and kills its “whole
polulation, seven thousand male citizens and aliens, and female
citizens and aliens, and servants” (14-18). What originally
begins as a quest to "restoring glory" ends in utter bloodshed.
It is such a fascination to witness the measures man (or in these
cases gods as well) will take to achieve something they firmly
believe may be righteous or glorifying when it clearly comes
with the cost of numerous lives.
At a first glance at Poem of Erra, peace cannot seem to divorce
itself from the status quo of the gods. Pain and war seem to
only occur when one (or more) god becomes discontent with
something. As long as the gods were pleased, everything
seemed at peace. This ideology is very different from modern
ideas of peace because today we envision peace as nonviolence
between nations and people. We’ve created many labels
through nationalism, and as long as these countries which we’ve
labeled and chosen to identify with were not in war with one
another, there was then peace on earth. Our macro perspective

of peace also differs greatly with the teachings from the Song of
Release, where peace is illustrated as personal contentment and
gratification. The parables teach lessons of finding inner peace
by being appreciative of what one already has. Selfish
ingratitude can cause a man’s “heart” to become “sick within
him” (9-16). The Song of Release’s moral lessons reflect a
more spiritual aspect of finding peace, an ideology that is found
in many practicing religious faiths today. Although it may not
highlight a worldwide perspective on peace based off of
violence, it still represents the belief system of many spiritual
and introspective communities today in which true peace is
achieved from within one’s self.
When an individual sincerely finds inner peace within himself,
no amount of "sleep deprivation" or blindfolds can mislead him
to immoral violent behavior. Many times personal desires
dictate a man's actions into justifying violence while in fact he
is, for the most part, under an illusion of doing something
righteous.
4th Student Answer: Petra Szepesi
1.)
There is a specific source of grievance in both the Epic of
Creation and the Poem of Erra that begins a conflict between
the gods. In both stories the fighting primarily breaks out
because of the annoyance of the “older” gods who cannot rest
and sleep because of the noise of either the young gods or the
clamors of humankind. In the Epic of Creation, this conflict is
sparked by Apsu and Taimat’s (the main gods of the freshwater
and ocean water) frustration with the younger generation of
gods who are creating too much disturbance. So Apsu devises a
plan to get rid of the younger gods, however Ea (another
“young” god) learns of his plan and casts a sleeping spell on
Apsu, thus hinders him from carrying out his plan. Then all is
well, until Marduk the son of Ea is born and given control of
the four winds. Marduk creates great disturbance, which angers
the other gods who call on Tiamat to take revenge. The other
gods (not on Tiamat’s side) are scared of Tiamat’s power, but

Marduk offers to battle Tiamat (and Qingu) on the condition
that he gets appointed king. The gods test Marduk’s power, and
then agree to his proposal; so Marduk goes against Tiamat, kills
her, and is victorious. On the other hand, in the Poem of Erra
the god, Erra, is irritated by humans who have caused too much
noise and clamor. Erra also admits that he is bored and he
doesn’t feel respected enough by mankind, thus has a desire to
retaliate and punish them. Erra cunningly advises Marduk to
leave his home, Babylon, and offers to reign until his absence.
Marduk agrees and Erra seizes the opportunity and calls on the
deadly “Seven” to aid him in the destruction of the earth.
Everything is in a chaotic and desolate state, until Erra finally
listens to Ishum his advisor who convinces him that he has done
enough damage already and has intimidated and gained the
respect of everyone. Erra is thankful for Ishum’s intervention
and confesses that he would have not stopped if Ishum hasn’t
spoken up again.
The Epic of Creation and the Poem of Erra portray themes of
anger, grievance, and hatred and their resulting forms of
violence. The same themes are reflected across the Epic of
Gilgamesh and the Mesha Stele but are manifested through the
lives of humans rather than through the actions of the gods.
Gilgamesh, who was two-thirds divine and one-third human,
was often seen to act out of selfishness and he lived for his own
pure enjoyment. He raped women, killed sons, and at times
devastated the people of Uruk solely for his own enjoyment.
Later in the story, Gilgamesh and Enkidu resolve to fight and
kill Humbaba against the warnings of the other gods. This is an
instance that illustrates humans’ thirst for violence and their
desire to prove their strength through the employment of
violence. Furthermore, in the Mesha Stele, Mesha’s enthusiasm
for violence is reflected through his actions. Mesha claims to
act in the name of a higher power, in obedience to Kamosh. He
uses this pretext of obedience and sacrifice to his god, to then
devastate other nations and oppress their people. In both texts

the characters use different mechanisms and motives to
perpetrate violence. These texts reflect the depravity of
mankind and their great power to do either good or evil.
2.)
In the Poem of Erra peace doesn’t seem to be achieved
until the very end of the work. There is an ongoing conflict
between the gods throughout the story, which seems to be
resolved only after Erra has destroyed half the planet and has
realized that he has done enough damage to humanity.
Ultimately this peace is attained after the evil forces (Apsu and
Tiamat) have been destroyed and Erra’s anger has been
quenched. Similarly in the Song of Release, peace is only
secured after the “discontent” (and evil) character is destroyed
or cursed by the gods. Both these works have a unique twist on
the definition of peace. They reveal that peace cannot exist
apart from violence, which is also reflected in modern notions
of peace and non-violence. We wouldn’t understand the
meaning of peace if there were no violence to compare that
peace with. Peace is a state that is unsullied by violence and
turmoil, but it is also a state that wouldn’t exist if there was no
turmoil or chaos to compare it to.

2nd Discussion Post=Feb 23, 25
Questions:
1. In these texts, how is the God of Israel depicted? The English
terms you will encounter in your Bible are Yahweh, Lord, or
God.
2. How are the "rules of war" in the texts you are reading?
Think about modern ethics of warfare. Why does one go to
war? How are civilians to be treated? What happens to the
spoils of war? What role does the Israelite God play in the
biblical rules of war?
1st Student Answer: Hira Tanvir
Yahweh is a complicated superior being, who is possessive and
he had expectations that he required people followed. His
expectations came in the form of instructions. For example, he
was intolerant of those who did not believe and those who were
started to worship other gods. He allowed for those people who
were worshipping other gods to be killed. He wanted to ensure
that everyone knew he was the only one in power. Those who
did not accept him as the only God he had no tolerance for

them.
Also, in these texts it is a belief that god will be present on your
side throughout war, if war commences. In order for war to start
peace must be offered to the opposing party and if it is declined
then war can begin. Also the fighting is done in the name of
religion. This is the different between the South Asian religion's
use of violence and violence in this context. Violence and war
in the South Asian religions is only okay if it is self-defense or
the last resort. In most scenarios in South Asian religions
fighting and violence are looked down upon.
2nd Student Answer: Allison Anne Huang
1. In these texts, the God of Israel is viewed as a savior because
he rescued the Israelites from Egypt. He is also seen as a
provider as he provides his people with territory and safety
when he kills the Egyptians in the sea. This God is also depicted
as a condoner of violence. For example in Deuteronomy 13 He
says that you should execute all those who suggest worshiping
other gods.
2. In Joshua, the people go to war because God commands him
to. He tells Joshua that no one will be able to defeat them as
long as He is with them. The civilians are treated differently
depending on the situation. If the civilians surrender, “all the
people in it shall serve you at forced labor” (286). If they make
war, they have to “put the males to the sword” and can “take as
their booty the women, the children, livestock” (286). If they
conquer people from places that God is giving to his people,
they have to kill everyone so that they don't teach them about
their gods and how to sin. God seems to always promise victory
and loyalty in warfare: “ you shall not be afraid of them for the
Lord your God is with you” (286).
3rd Student Answer: Alyssa Jean
The God of Israel is presented to be a very demanding and harsh
God. However, He is seen to be kind as he is very kind to
people who obey his demands and abide by what he says. He

ensures that He guides these people through tough times and
that he stays with them in spirit. On the other hand, people who
do not respect his laws and worship other gods do not get such
great treatment from Him. He makes sure that if people do not
at some point start obeying his laws, they are punished. For
Him, it is quite simple: If the Israelites follow his
commandments, they will flourish. If they sin, the reprucussion
might be as drastic as getting killed. However, He is shown to
be a merciful God, as he comes back to those who decide to
change their ways. I cannot go without saying that he is
depicted to be all-powerful. He can do any task, no matter
whether is seems possible or not. I think this is an important
factor to the faith that people have in him. Many followers
believe that if He can do all things, why wouldn’t they trust
him?
The rules of war in the texts are all from the God. He basically
says that the Israelites are supposed to offer peace to the non-
believers and if they accept and surrender, then they will be
their slaves. If they reject, a merciless war against them is
allowed. It doesn’t matter to Him if the victims that die are
soldiers or civilians. This is unlike warfare today because a war
is supposed to be used a more of a last resort or for self-
defense. Hurting people that aren’t soldiers is to be taken very
seriously and avoided as much as possible
4th Student Answer: Edward Low
1. In these texts, the God of Israel is depicted as authoritative
and domineering, but also generous and kind. Indeed, to earn
the loyalty of mankind, the God of Israel arguably employed the
‘carrot and the stick’ technique. He instills fear in his followers
through his actions, primarily the lack of mercy for his
followers’ adversaries. An example would be the destruction of
the Egyptians: “The waters returned and covered the chariots
and the chariot drivers; the entire army of the Pharaoh that had
followed them into the sea; not one of them remained” (108).
Another example would be where the God of Israel declares

“and when the Lord of God gives it to your hand, you shall put
all males to the sword” (286). On the opposite spectrum, the
Lord of God also shows compassion, such as where “Rahab the
prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, Joshua
spared” (319), upon instruction from the God of Israel.
2. In the texts, “the rules of war” seem fairly straightforward –
it is whatever the God of Israel dictates. The God of Israel
declares that his followers have a right to the Holy Land. His
word is the law, and thus, war is justified. This is perfectly
illustrated in Deuteronomy where it states “when the Lord your
God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and
occupy, and he clears away many nations before you… seven
nations mightier and more numerous than you… then you must
utterly destroy them” (269). Violence is necessary to obey the
God of Israel’s commands.
As Deuteronomy discusses, there are customs that must be
followed (some of which resonate even in modern ethics of
warfare). For example, “when you draw near to a town to fight
against it, offer it terms of peace” (286). This is very similar to
how warfare is conducted today. Additionally, the civilians are
not to be harmed, but the Israelites are allowed enjoy privileges
like to “take as your booty the women, the children, livestock,
and everything else in the town, as its spoil. You may enjoy the
spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you
(286). Interestingly, this concept of the conqueror enjoying the
spoils of war is still prevalent in modern ethics of war. The
Israelite God plays a very active role in the war, with many
specific instructions for the Israelites, such as “you must not
destroy its trees by wielding an ax to them (286).

3rd Discussion Post-Mar 8, 10
Questions:
1. As you read through the Quran texts, think about how the
author divides up humanity. How does this division of people
factor into the expectations of violence
2. The Quran is often described as a violent text, mostly in the
context of modern discussion of terrorism in the name of Islam.
You are only reading selections of the text. But consider
whether this general statement has truth to it. How does the
Quran compare with the Hebrew Bible or New Testament?
1st Student Answer: Afraz A Khan
Almost all of the verses that discuss violence consist of Allah
describing the type of people upon whom violence should be

committed. In 2:190, Allah says “Fight in the cause of Allah
those who fight you.” This verse indicates that the violence
being prescribed is specifically against the people who are
actively seeking to inflict harm upon the “believers.” “Fighting
in the way of Allah” also involves supporting the correct group
of people. In 4:75, Allah questions the audience, asking them
why they are not fighting for Allah “and in support of the
helpless – men, women and children.” In this context, violence
becomes a multi-faceted commitment to opposing certain groups
of people while still supporting others as well.
The opponents of the violence inflicted by the “believers”
typically appear to be people who have rejected the Prophet and
Allah. In 4:76, Allah says “those who disbelieve fight in the
way of taghut (Satan).” Beyond the physical wrong that the
opponents of the “believers” may have committed, Allah is also
declaring that internally, their souls are seeking a different path
away from Him.
Violence is also forbidden is several cases, one major instance
being against children, especially out of fear of becoming
impoverished. In 17:31, Allah says “do not kill your children
for fear of poverty” and in 81:8, Allah says “and when the girl
[who was] buried alive is asked.” Both examples demonstrate
that in some cases, Allah chooses to be specific in ensuring
certain acts of violence are not committed.
As the introduction to the Qur’aanic verses said in our text
book, less than 2% of the texts relate to warfare. That being
said, it is interesting to see how both the Torah and the New
Testament have similar verses of violence warfare, but that
Islam appears to get the most attention for the violence depicted
in its religious scripture. The three Abrahamic faiths each
possess a religious text in which “God” commands the
“believers” to inflict some sort of damage to other forces, be
they opposing nations or people who “disbelieve.” With such a
commonality existing amongst all three traditions (and each of
them having specific contexts for when violence was
prescribed), it is unfortunate to see that people today tend to be

more tolerant and understanding of violence in the Bible than
they may be of violence in the Qur’an.
2nd Student Answer: Joshua Reichek
The author of the Qur'an divides up humanity in a way similar
to an "us vs. them" or "friend vs. foe" mentality. The "us" or
"friend" represents those who are loyal to Allah and the
teachings of the Qur'an; these people are treated kindly and are
praised. The "them" or "foe" refers to those who do not believe
in Allah and commit sins; these people are looked upon with
scorn. The way this factors into expectations of violence
depends on one's interpretation of the Qur'an. While many may
look at this division of humanity as a way of reinforcing their
commitment to Islam, the reactions to the "them" or "foe" side
can largely determine the level of violence engendered towards
the nonbeliever.
In my opinion, the Qur'an appears to be less violent than either
of the Testaments. Very little of the Qur'an (2%) actually refers
to violence or warfare, and these instances justify war in the
rarest of circumstances (Princeton Readings 35-36). Out of the
parts we read, it is quite shocking for me to see that so many
people believe that Islam is a violent religion, when in reality,
or emphasizes the contrary.
3rd Student Answer: Petra Szepesi
1.) Similarly to the Old and New Testament, the Quran divides
up humanity between believers and non-believers. However,
even more specifically, the Quran emphasizes a distinction
between those believers who do good and those who do evil.
According to the Quran, Allah is just and he will judge
everyone at the end times based on their faith. Those who
believe in Allah and obey his commandments will go to Heaven
while the rest of humanity will be sent to Hell.

2.) Parts of the Quran describe justifications for committing
violence against unbelievers. However, the Quran also reflects
on the merciful character of Allah who is willing to forgive
those who repent. Similarly to the Old and New Testament the
Quran also advocates for violence in a few places; however it’s
always important to decipher the context in which it’s written.
Even if the religion itself doesn’t promote violence people can
misinterpret the text to justify their own violent (and selfish)
actions. In my opinion, the character of Allah resembles the
God of the New Testament. They are both portrayed as a a holy
God, who is both just and merciful. In both texts it’s written
that at the end times God will only save those who were his
followers and the rest of humanity will be doomed to Hell.
However, one key difference between the two religions is that
in Islam, Allah also requires his people to do good works in
order to attain Heaven, while in Christianity it is through faith
and God’s grace that one is saved. Furthermore, in Islam a
person has to continually prove himself to God while in
Christianity Christ was the ultimate sacrifice that had to be laid
down before God.
4th Student Answer: Yonghwi Kim
1. The Quran divides people into two groups: believers of Allah
and non-believers. Allah tells his believers to fight for his cause
and thus justifies the use of violence on non-believers. At the
same time, however, Allah limits the use of violence to a certain
extent; by saying “fight in the cause of Allah those who fight
you,” he implies that violence should be the means of self-
defense rather than attack.
2. The Quran does provide some justifications for violence, but
I don’t think it’s a particularly violent text; the use of violence
is not only limited to self-defense when their belief in Allah is
under attack, but also prohibited in certain unethical situations
such as killing children. I actually thought that the Quran aligns

better with modern ethics and is less accepting of violence than
the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, in which (not just from
assigned readings but the text as a whole), for example, God
himself massacres the enemies of his believers rather than
“allowing” the believers to kill them and tests Abraham’s belief
in God by telling him to kill his son. Personally, I think the
perception that Quran is a violent text partly derives from its
believers who interpret and carry out its words in a wrong way
without considering its social context, and partly from the
Western media that emphasizes only those wrong interpretations
and violent side of the Islam religion.

4th Discussion PostMarch 29, 31
NO READING
Questions:
1. Search on news reports for instances of recent violence that
could potentially have a connection to religion (and religion).
How is the role of religion reported? Provide one or two
examples of what you found with the link to the news website.
2. As you read about Christian religious violence in the
textbook and the other readings, consider the role of
fundamentalism and millennialism as motivating factors.
1st Student Answer: Maximilian Lord Schmitt
1. Inspired by many of this week’s readings, I looked into the
November 27, 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood
shooting, a five-hour firefight left three people dead, and nine
injured. Robert Lewis Dear, charged for these crimes, is
currently undergoing mental evaluations, before any further
judicial proceedings are set to occur. Initially, it seems as if
many media sources that covered the attack neglect to draw any
parallel between Dear’s religion and his violent outburst, even
though his actions are almost certainly religiously motivated.
Instead, his intentions are characterized as “anti-abortion
sentiments,” a term that may fail to adequately represent Dear’s
beliefs. In fact, it may even be the case that Dear had an
affiliation with the Army of God, which, if true, would certainly
cast a religious slant to his actions, rather than having them
viewed as some sort of quasi-political actions.
2. It is very clear that religious fundamentalism plays a very
significant and consequential role in these instances of
violence; it is not mere traditionalism that allows these
individuals to depict themselves as “under attack” or warriors
fighting a cosmic war. Fundamentalist interpretations of
religious texts allow these individuals to “pick and choose,”
thereby forming a misguided perspective that justifies their

intentions. I was particularly struck by “I Shot an Abortionist”
by Paul Hill, which provided certain moments of clarity that
served as windows into Hill’s rationale. “I defended the
shooting on the basis of the Sixth Commandment (which not
only forbids murder, but also requires the means necessary to
prevent murder).” I find this passage truly captivating, and
representative of Hill’s ability to (mis)interpret. The Sixth
Commandment, as found in Exodus 20, is simply stated as “thou
shalt not murder.” Hill, however, has taken this phrasing to not
only condemn murder, but to also mean that murder should be
prevented by any means. This passage exemplifies Hill’s
propensity to interpret these biblical passages, thereby
exemplifying the propensity of fundamentalism to allow for
such interpretations as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-
parenthood-shooting.html
2nd Student Answer: Grace Yoon
The New York Times article, “Turkey Says Istanbul Suicide
Bomber was Member of Islamic State”, describes the events of a
Turkish member of the Islamic State militant group who was
responsible for a suicide bombing in Istanbul that killed three
Israelis and an Iranian. The article references the Islamist
militants as the cause of the bombing and other past acts of
violence that have happened in Turkey. President Tayyip
Erdogan has said that Turkey would not give in to the militants:
“We will never surrender to the agenda of terror. We will defeat
the terrorist organizations and the power behind them by
looking after the unity of our nation.” A more direct response to
religion is present in the article, when Ahmet Merkit, one of
many at a makeshift memorial at the bombing site, who said,
“Those who did this cannot call themselves Muslims. They have

no religion.”
In “A Time For Revolution” A Time to Kill, Bray appears to be
expressing fundamentalism in his justifications for killing and
violence on the abortion clinic and abortionists. He seems to
pick and choose the verses in the Bible that are violent to
justify his violence, and ultimately saying that Jesus/God was
violent so it is justifiable. Bray specifically appears to do this at
the bottom of page 59. He selects the verses from the Bible
from different books, while disregarding the context of those
verses. Another example is when Bray writes, “This Jesus—the
same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8)—is the ‘Man of
War’ of the Scriptures.” He picks this specific part of the verse
to explain that this Jesus of “yesterday”, “who wrought calamity
upon Israel” in the past, is the same today who wants violence
and war as well, with disregard of what the context of that verse
says and means.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/03/20/world/europe/20reu
ters-turkey-blast.html?_r=0
3rd Student Answer: Pooja A Upadhyay
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/asad-shah-
police-send-letter-7642414#2EW461gZ0ROiyrAA.97
As discussed in this article, a 40-year old Muslim
shopkeeper was “found with horrifying [fatal] injuries outside
his [shop]”, and police suspect the murderer to be a 32-year old
man in connection with the death. The report mentions that
police forces working on the case are treating his murder as
“religiously aggravated”, thus acknowledging the fact that the
crime was committed out of hate towards a religion. The role of
religion is directly indicated in the report, as police chief
Ruaraidh Nicolson issued a commentary to locals saying “any
sectarian conflict, hatred or extremism will be dealt with swiftly
and strongly” (Ferguson, 1). Another example of the role of
religion in the report is when Nicolson continues to say “having
engaged with many denominations within the Muslim
communities is that they all resolutely condemn any form of

hatred, extremism and violence” (Ferguson, 1).
In Anti-Abortionist Extremists, a common theme
of fundamentalism is present. The term fundamentalism is
defined as a “form of religion that upholds belief in the strict,
literal interpretation of the scripture” (dictionary.com). The
anti-abortionists mentioned in the article justify their acts of
violence in the name of God. For example, the manual that the
Army of God follows consists of a declaration in the
introduction that states “beginning officially with the passage of
the Freedom of Choice Act—we the remnant of God-fearing
men and women of the United States of Amerika (sic.), do
officially declare war on the entire child killing industry…you
mocked God and continue the Holocaust. No longer! Our Most
Dread Sovereign Lord God requires that whatsoever sheds
man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Not out of hatred
of you, but out of love for the persons you exterminate, we
are forced to take arms against you” (National Abortion
Federation, 3). So, here we see a blatant use of “God’s will” as
an excuse to kill abortion doctors and clinic workers as a means
of following strictly God’s rule that whoever kills man deserves
to be killed by man.
The concept of millennialism only further serves to
encourage extremists to take on the burden of creating peace (in
their view) on Earth. By whatever means necessary.
4th Student Answer: Jhanina A Arias
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/03/22/world/asia/22reuter
s-bangladesh-attacks.html
In Bangladesh, there have been several close attacks on
minority groups that have escalated from large attacks on whole
groups, to small encounter attacks, targeting individuals of
different religions. On one occasion, a recent Christian convert
was stabbed to death. These recent attacks are only a small
example of the larger amounts of acts of religion based
violence, but the authorities are unable to tell who perpetuated

such attacks, even though their focus is on the Islamic State,
who have claimed responsibilities for “attacks on members of
minority Muslim sects and other religious groups.” Considering
the fact that the attack was extremely personal, attacking a
newly converted Christian and other individuals of different
religions, one can claim that the attacks were focused on
injuring other religions and attacking them for following their
religion.
Interpretation of a religious text is what revolves around the
idea of justifiable violence. For weeks now, we have read
primary religious texts that discuss religious based violence,
and examples of when violence has been used throughout
different religions. Now, in this week’s Christianity reading, we
encounter real life violence that have occurred, specifically
targeting a certain group of people, not for their religious
beliefs, but instead for contradicting the perpetrators religious
beliefs. Interestingly enough, we now see an extreme
interpretation of the Lord’s word in the New Testament.
Recounting his thought process during the murders of
abortionist, Paul Hill emphasizes his interpretation of the Bible,
concerning murder. He states “ I defended the shooting on the
basis of the Sixth Commandment (which not only forbids
murder, but also requires the means necessary to prevent
murder.” In Hill’s mindset, he interprets the Sixth
Commandment, which says “ thou shall not commit murder,” as
a literal interpretation, showing an example of fundamentalism
in Christianity, but, we must realize, that Hill also takes the
interpretation one step further, with adding “but also requires
the means necessary to prevent murder.” Hill’s interpretation of
the sixth commandment, takes a literal approach, but also
combines his interpretation of the text as a justification for his
actions. Fundamentalism only gets you so far, every individual
who reads a text will always interpret it in a way that will
ultimately support and defend their individual belief, whether
they are aware of this or not, we will never know.

5th Discussion PostApr 5, 7
NO READING
Questions:
As you read through the descriptions of terrorism in the name of
Islam, consider a few intersecting issues that often come up in
public discourse:
Is there something about Islam that makes these examples of
religiously motivated violence different than the examples we
have seen regarding Christianity or Judaism. How can we
explain the difference in scale of violence perpetuated in the
name of Islam? Is there something different in the way that
some Muslims turn violent? Does the evidence that we have
examined this semester support or refute the common perception
that Islam is a violent religion?
1st Student Answer: Grace Yoon
The religiously motivated violence of all three religions, Islam,
Christianity, and Judaism, seem to have a method of specifying
parts of their sacred texts to justify violent actions. Some
differences I see is that, in Islam, the religiously violent
people/groups have certain methods of violence such as the
suicide bombing or, what Dr. Rantisi preferred, ishtishhadi,
meaning “self-chosen martyrdom”. The difference in the scale
of violence is shown through Faraj’s writing in “The Neglected
Duty”, in which he mentions both the “near enemy” and the “far
enemy”. The violence can then spread farther and wider if the
enemy is so large. The evidence through the texts we have read
show similarity to the ways people of Christianity and Judaism
have turned to violence, because they all appear to focus on
sections and areas of the texts and interpret them in certain
ways as to justify violence or have violence promoted by their
gods. An example is when Faraj claims that the concept of Jihad
should be interpreted “literally, not allegorically”. The
evidence/texts we have read also explain that most Muslims
believe that Islam preaches peace and regard Faraj’s view as

“deviant from true Islam”, ultimately refuting the common
perception that Islam is a violent religion.
2nd Student Answer: Salman Hashim
I believe that there is not much of a difference between
examples of violence we have seen in Islam and those we have
seen in Christianity or Judaism. In both cases, violence is
usually carried out due to the belief that one is following the
word of god or fulfilling their religious duty by either
protecting their religion, or helping to spread their faith. The
difference in scale of violence perpetuated in Islam can be
attributed to a variety of reasons, ranging from political reasons
to misinterpretation of various Islamic texts. Many extremists
often turn to violence to stand up against what they believe is
oppression from the government or any authoritative figure.
Additionally, misinterpreting portions of the Quran that address
violence are also often the cause of violence in the name of the
religion. The evidence that we have examined leads us to
believe that Islam is not as violent of a religion as commonly
depicted in the media and the world around us. Evidence in
Islamic texts show a that violence is denounced, and that
violence is rarely ever even mentioned in Quran.
3rd Student Answer: Zihao Mi
Religiously motivated violence in Islam have similar roots to
violence in Christianity and Judaism in the idea that secular
government and liberalism have not only gained influence, but
is perceived as an attack on their respective religions. Yet,
where violence from Islam slightly differs is the idea that
violence can also be perceived as a way to send a message,
rather than to initiate change. In Christianity, fundamentalists
such as Paul Hill believed that by assassinating the abortionists,
hundreds of unborn babies will be saved. In many attacks
masterminded by radical Muslims, the attacks are not targeted
towards a singular person or group, but rather society as a
whole, often in retaliation for an act committed by the
government; as the United States government has constantly

been involved and interfered in Middle Eastern politics, the
message is sent to the government and its millions of citizens.
Thus, the damage from the attacks by radical Muslims has the
potential to be of a greater magnitude, as Bin Laden states that
the general American population directly funds warplanes and
bombs and is not considered innocent (“To the Americans”
166). Yet, differences are minimal in the way some Muslims
become violent as opposed to how some Christians and Jews
turn violent, as they all selectively choose and interpret texts to
support their beliefs. Through their own interpretations, many
times outside the context of the passage, they believe that the
violence committed is in defense of their religion and thus is
justified.
The evidence examined thus far this semester seems to
indicate that violence within religions stems from the numerous,
customized interpretations of the text as opposed to the
religions themselves. For Bin Laden, the concept of Jihad is the
physical struggle against the oppressors and the idea of
retaliation against enemies of faith, whereas for other
individuals Jihad is an internal struggle against oneself. This
course has indicated that it is the various degrees of
interpretation of selected texts that results in violence in every
religion, but the religions themselves are not inherently violent.
Thus, it is often due to the ignorance of this basic fact, along
with ignorance of the mechanics of the religion itself, that Islam
may be perceived as a violent religion in recent times; Islam is
no more and no less violent than the other religions.
4th Student Answer: Xiying Huangfu
I do not think that Islam-motivated violence is any different
from other religiously motivated violence. Islamic extremists,
like Bin Laden, in my point of view are fundamentalists who
interpret the Quran selectively and literally. They have
interpreted the Quran’s “defensive violence” broadly. They
think they should actively use violence against any enemies of
Islam. The greatness in scale of Islamic violence can be
interpreted this way: Muslims feel strongly against the secular

world. Other religion followers like Christians and Jews do not
have such strong oppositions against secular way of living.
Besides, Muslims and Jews also have been disputing over the
land of Israel for a long period of time. Muslims feel like their
holy land is taken away and occupied by the Jews with the help
of Americans. The evidence we have examined this semester
does not support the evidence that Quran is a violent religion. It
can only demonstrate that the extremists are fundamentalists
who interpret the Quran in a violent way.

6th Discussion Post-APR 12-14
DON’T WRITE ANSWER FOR THIS QUESTION ONLY TWO
STUDENT COMMENTS
Questions:
1st Student Answer: Muksha Luxmi Jingree
It is disturbing on how people justify their acts through
religion. Hinduism and Sikhism are both non-violent religions
but we can find such atrocious acts being carried in the name of
religion. The whole conflict between the Hindus and the Sikhs
can be summarized in the Sikhs feeling oppressed by the rise of
the Hindu Culture and their desire for Punjab state. It is
surprising to see how the militant Sikh movement resolves to
violent actions when their spiritual master Guru Nanak
advocated for non-violence. The militants Sikh movement do
acknowledge that fact that “for a Sikh, it is a great sin to keep
weapons and kill anyone” but “it is an even greater sin to have
weapons and not seek justice.” These people feel that they are
being oppressed by the secular Hindu movement. However,
these justifications do not hold to the greater beliefs of non-
violence which is mainly underlined in the spiritual texts and I
feel that the war is more politically involved rather than
religiously.
2nd Student Answer: Nasrat Nezia
Although these religions are so heavily steeped in traditions of
non-violence, they have strong beliefs that if their rights and
religion is being threatened, then it is justifiable to use violence
to make a point. Unlike some of the Abrahamic religions that
we have studied, the violence in these religions seem primarily
focused on trying to make changes within the government. For

example, Simranjit Singh Mann states that the purpose of the
Sikh movement was to protect the Sikh community from the
repression of the Indian government. The perpetuators of the
violence also believe that their violence will protect the Sikh
community from secular influence. Furthermore, there is a
teaching in Hinduism that states that violence can be used to
maintain social order. Something that is noteworthy is that
while in some of the other religions we studied, violence was
justified as being used in the name of God, there is less of such
claims in these religions. I think the disconnect between the
non-violent teachings of these religions and the practice of
violence comes from people trying to change social order, and
using religion as a means to justify their actions.
3rd Student Answer: Grace Yoon
Although both religions are deeply founded in non-violence,
some movements of these religions have taken certain concepts
to justify actions of violence. In the Sikhist movement, the
Sikhist militants appear to have had this sense of protecting
their movement from secular influences and from Hindu cultural
domination, as Simranjit Singh Mann explains. Harjap Singh
also provided justifications for the young men in battle, which
appeared to be referencing the mythic stories of gods and
warriors, great epics, and texts like the Bhagavad Gita. The
disconnect of this non-violent religion seems to come from this
description of how the Sikh’s founder was “portrayed in
literature as a gentle soul, one of India’s great medieval saints”,
but his successors became engaged in military confrontation
with invading Mughal forces. Ultimately, violence is sanctioned
in Sikhim but typically as a defensive act, yet the readings
explain that the militants seemed unconcerned with moral
authority and, according to Sikh traditions, “a council of five
leaders is sufficient to give the community guidance.”
In the Aum Shinrikyo movement, Shoku Asahara had attacked
large numbers of people as a demonstration of “the veracity of

the leader’s prophecies about an imminent apocalyptic war.”
Asahara took concepts and ideas of certain religions, including
Buddhism, in which armed defense was broadened and the rules
that explain, “armed defense has been justified on the grounds
that such violence has been in the nature of response, not
intent.” Asahara and believers additionally used the law of
karma and moral retribution, in the Buddhist religion, as
justifications for violence as well
4th Student Answer: Scott Richard Malley
As with many of the religions we have seen, the disconnect
between teachings of non-violence and justifications for acts of
violence we see this week in Buddhism and Sikhism stems from
fundamentally societal factors. In the attacks committed by Sikh
nationalists in India's Punjab region, much of the justifications
for violence came from what was perceived as necessary in the
current political climate. Bhindranwale is quoted as stating, "for
a Sikh it is a great sin to keep weapons and kill anyone. It is an
even greater sin to have weapons and not seek justice." This
reflects what we saw in other religions when it came to
speaking about a 'time for war.' The basic ideas are justified by
claiming that violence is sometimes necessary, and here as
before it is also framed as something that will prevent even
worse injustices.
In the case of the Japanese religious organization Aum
Shinrikyo, Juergensmeyer points out that many of their ideas
also came with a dissatisfaction about the current state of
Japanese society. In addition, the violence spoken about by the
religion was presented strongly as part of a larger cosmic war,
of which the believers were protected. The doctrine, although
borrowing primarily from Buddhism and Hinduism, echoes of
the Book of Revelation when it talks about Armageddon and the
separation of believers from non-believers.
7th Discussion Post-Apr 19, 21
Questions:
As you read through this diverse set of texts for Tuesday,

consider the role that religion has played in maintaining a male
dominated society and in some cases in justifying violence
against women - and in some cases striving for equality and
non-violence. Think of all the societies in which violence
against women is common; what other factors exist other than
religion?
1st Student Answer: Joshua Gilon Burshtein
Violence against women is not a new problem in society; it has
been evident throughout history. Certain religions have a
stronger sense of performing violence against women, and
analyzing the source behind these actions may be used to put an
end to it. Within these readings, it is clear that Islam is the
most severe religion when it comes to past and present violence
toward women. This stems from direct lines within the Qur’an
that state that women are subordinate to men. The main aspect
about this is that it is heavily implemented in Muslim societies.
Within Christian and Jewish texts, there are also lines that talk
about violence against women, but in present day Christianity
and Judaism denounce these actions. Islam explicitly states that
men are rewarded, and are ordered to, rape and attack women
who are not of the Muslim faith. Within the past few years,
although the media has not reported it clearly, there has been an
extraordinary amount of violence against women in Muslim
countries, far more than in any other societies, providing
evidence that religion has a large influence on these actions.
The male dominated society stems from a history of
societies where armies have been the protective forces. When
someone protects another, they are looked at as being stronger
and more powerful. In religious societies, men and women have
separate roles. The men are generally seen as the head of the
household, and women as the ones who mainly take care of the
children. This has perpetuated a male dominated society in
non-religious societies as well.
2nd Student Answer: Rifath Kazi
Religion plays a pivotal role in condoning the act of submission

for the female species. The cultural spheres also enable men to
overcome women in order to create a patriarchal society. The
way men perceive this rule of thumb in accordance with religion
is however affected by their morals. In Islam, the extremists
groups kidnapped young girls and women but the jurists clarify
that these female slaves are susceptible to heinous actions if it
is in accordance with God’s will. Subordination is permitted if
all the guidelines are followed and not violated as seen in fatwa;
the gist of the fatwa imply women are objectified as sex slaves
if treated well and they have no control because they’re
glorified as a burden financially.
Genesis 34 tells a story of how two brothers avenge their
sister’s disgrace because they didn’t like how she was treated as
a “whore”. The other sons of Jacob joined in and plundered the
city because their sister had been “defiled”. In this scenario,
men are using violence to counteract other men who put their
sister down, but in the end the men have full control of society.
Whether it’s violence for women or equality against women, the
outcome predicts that males are the predominant species and the
way they harness religion, has a big impact on the outcome of
certain scenarios regarding violence.
3rd Student Answer: Afraz A Khan
How a person defines what they stand for in regards to their
religion is often defined not solely by what they believe
individually but also by what external circumstances they
experience. In the PBS News Hour reading, David Jacobson
writes how groups like ISIS “see the West under the force of
globalization as being a very corrupting force.” Although there
are political and economic implications for the expansion of
Western influence, a “believer” could utilize it as a means to
strengthen his authority within the construct of religion, thus
utilizing violence to justify their anger against others.
Politics can often overlap with religion when it comes to
establishing laws as well. In the “No Justice in Justifications”
reading, Indonesian Criminal Code does not consider marital
rape a crime. Through the usage of fatwas, “a woman’s sexual

refusal” is viewed as a sin. I believe such an interpretation of
Islamic principles regarding women is heartless and it
demonstrates how a society’s ruling elite’s desire to maintain a
patriarchal society then utilizes “fatrwas” and other religious-
based means in order to establish authority that goes beyond
religion.
Ultimately, violence against women can be boiled down to
individuals pursuing certain frames of thinking to establish their
authority and impose their beliefs upon others. In “Violence
Against Women and the Role of Religion”, the writer discusses
how a “history of mistrust” has developed between a religious
leaders and secular advocates on matters like a secular shelter.
Although the religious leader may see it as “breaking up
families”, the secular advocate may view the leader as “sexist.”
Thus, we have to acknowledge that part of how violence
becomes apparent through the lens of religion is just based off
of people having personal ideas that conflict with others and
prevent a level of influence across the board.
4th Student Answer: Pooja A Upadhyay
The prominence of a male-dominated society has a close
relationship with religion. In particular, in “Violence Against
Women and the Role of Religion”, Enger confirms “male
dominance over women: “Wives be subject to your husbands as
you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just
as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the
Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives
ought to be, in everything, to their husbands” (Ephesians 5.22-
24)” (2). In this Christian text, there is little room for a counter-
argument that suggests incorrect interpretation—it is pretty
clear what is being imposed. Here, a hierarchy/ladder of power
is being made of Christ being on top, men below Christ and
women at the bottom. In another case, a concept of Judaism
known as “Shalom bayit” (2) serves to pressure abused women

to return to their abuser in order to “maintain peace in the
home”. Here male dominance is further imposed due to the
submission that women must deal with. Regardless of their
reason for leaving a home, a woman must go back to her home
to keep order. In another instance, Islamic text mentions that
“men are the protectors and maintainers of women because
Allah gave more to the one than the other” which serves to
again impose a hierarchy that places men above women (2).
Later the text says “concerning women whose rebellious
disloyalty you fear, admonish them, then refuse to share their
beds, then hit them” (pp. 54-55) (3). This text establishes male
dominance yet again because it gives men the upper-hand in
terms of control and power. It can be said that this text even
justifies violence against women because the men are granted
permission to “hit [the women]” if they are disobedient.
However there have been scholars that object to the translation
of the text and call attention to the fact that “it is incorrect to
translate the word ‘hit’ at all based on the Prophet’s abhorrence
of hitting” (3). The entire reading of “ISIL Committee of
research and Fatwahs” serves to maintain a male-dominated
society that utilizes women as currency or property for the sole
purpose of the desires of men. Out of the entire fatwah, which
establishes a set of rules to how to manage their properties
(women), there was one line devoted to justifying their acts as
those of compassion—“show compassion towards her, be kind
to her, do not humiliate her…” (1).
As Manal Omar alludes to in How Islamic State uses
systematic sexual violence against women, the strategic
targeting of women is a way of “forcing communities into
submission to religious conversion” (3). But at the same time,
she mentions that religion is just a justification for all the
crimes they commit towards women through sexual violence. As
Shaina Grieff mentions, violence against women is committed
due to other factors like cultural suppression, shaming the
woman because of pregnancy, or even in the form of honor
killings, which involve “the murder often of a woman on the

grounds of preserving or regaining family or communal honor”
(13). She even mentions ‘FGM’ (female genital mutilation) as a
“traditional and cultural practice” (15). So there are external
factors that also implicate violence towards women.
8th Discussion Post-

Questions:
The readings for this week include selections from individuals
arguing for or against slavery in the name of the Bible and
religion. Identify at least two specific examples of how this
strategy is employed by the various authors.
1st Student Answer: Cayley L Boyd
The bible presents conflicting views on the legitimacy slavery
and how enslaved individuals should act in response to slavery.
In both Ephesians 6:5-8 and Peter 2:18-25, the Bible asserts that
individuals should obey and defer to their earthly masters. They
should endure their lives as slaves and try to face life with
positivity, knowing that doing what is right will receive God’s
approval and that God does not treat slaves and free people
differently. Yet Corinthians 7:21-24 explicitly states for humans
to “not become slaves of human masters.” While the message is
still clear that God does not discriminate based on one’s status
of freedom, there is a clear distinction between being a servant
to another human and being a servant to God. Slavery is a clear
representation of the forces of good vs. evil, while a human
master has determined that they have a greater right to a free
life than their slave.
In the “Appeal to Christian Women of the South,” Grimke
asserts that the Bible both supports and condemns slavery in the
same passage from Genesis. While acknowledging that God
placed humans above “irrational beings”(3), it does not support
that man can have “this dominion over his fellow man”(3).
However, Grimke makes the point that the bible is sometimes
unclear in differentiating what actually takes place and what
should take place (4). Yet at the same time, the sacrifices by
Jesus and others made for enduring suffering have been the
salvation to others. These events of occurrence, although not
explicitly condoned in the bible, demonstrate how handling the
reality of human tendencies and responding in accordance to
religious values is paramount.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in the piece “Nonviolence and
Racial Justice,” asserts that non-violence is the most effective

means to ending slavery, as “the attack is directed against
forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in
those forces”(120). Similar to the Bible’s affirmation of the
importance of loving all people, King likewise argues that love
is the only way to end hate. The fight to end racism and create
peace is not based on the destruction of hate, but instead on the
creation of love through “the presence of some positive force—
justice, good will, and brotherhood”(119). He also emphasizes
how while “evil may so shape events”(121), ultimately the
“truth and justice”(121) from Christian tradition will triumph.
Christianity’s central importance in the South is all the more
reason why non-violence and using the peaceful interpretations
of the Bible can shed light on the issue of racism and allow for
the common values of Christianity (justice, good will, and
brotherhood) to shine through in the treatment of all races in
society.
2nd Student Answer: Scott Richard Malley
I think the main difference between the use of Christian
doctrine to either justify slavery, or to promote racial equality,
is in the way that the authors contextualize the religious texts,
and in the scope of what they choose to consider.
For example, in "The Christian Doctrine of Slavery," the author
argues for the morality of owning slaves by noting that there are
no explicit declarations that slave holding is immoral or wrong,
stating. "Slave-holding does not appear in any Catalogue Of
Sins or Disciplinable Offences given us in THE NEW
Testament." This argument fundamentally relies on the
assumption that the cultural context in which the bible was
written does not merit an evaluation from external perspectives.
In other words, the specific view of slavery in parts the Bible is
not superseded by the overall teachings that promote equality
amongst peoples.
On the other hand, those who argue against slavery, or for racial
justice, choose to view the Bible as a holistic text, and attempt

to invoke the overall meaning of the Bible rather than selecting
certain details that contradict that message. For example, Martin
Luther King states in one of his arguments for non-violence,
"This belief that God is on the side of truth and justice comes
down to us from the long tradition of our Christian faith." This
argument is inherently trying to view Christian values in
totality, rather than attempting to isolate specific instances or
passages in the Bible.
3rd Student Answer: Tatiana N Youpa
In Mata Amritanandamayi's remarks at the Ceremony for the
Signing of the Joint Declaration of Religious Leaders Against
Slavery, she says that life is a blessing and thus should be spent
performing good deeds. She describes slavery as "a misuse of
God's gift." She also mentions the importance of following
Dharma, and that human trafficking goes against this. To
counteract this, religious leaders should guide the perpetrators
as well as the victims to the path of righteousness. She
emphasizes the importance of establishing a "foundation" to
help people become "self-sufficient" so they do not need to
depend on slavery.
In Pope Francis' address as the same ceremony, says that all
humans are free because every human "is the image of God, and
God is "love and freedom." He therefore concludes that human
trafficking is a rime because it strips people of their freedom
and dignity.
4th Student Answer: Grace Yoon
In “The Life and Sufferings of John Joseph”, the author writes
and shows, before the actual text, in “To the Reader”, examples
the Biblical text referring to the kind and loving characteristics
and motives of God and the same motives that he tells believers
to manifest. The author refers to texts, such as “Makes the
meanest soul an object of his care, attends to what his heart
would say, and hears the Negro’s pray’r”, and explains that
slave-holders are not people who resemble God and his actions
if they advocate for violence upon people by forcing them into

slavery. The author uses texts as these to reveal the wideness of
God’s love and the love God commands of believers, that he
suggests overcomes all.
In George Armstrong’s “The Christian Doctrine of Slavery”, he
begins his argument by saying, “slave-holding is not a sin in the
sight of God, and is not to be accounted an ‘offence’ by his
Church.” Armstrong then goes on to specify his points of
argument/evidence. He appears to focus more on what the Bible
does not say, compared to what it does say. Armstrong explains
that the Bible does not specify slave-holding or slavery as one
of its sins, and, also, that slavery had been occurring during the
time when Christ was present. With this such evidence, he
makes his argument that the slave-holding is allowed in the
Bible.
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 1 of
39http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source
=utc/xml…/abolitn/abesaega.xml&style=utc/xsl/utc.xsl&clear-
stylesheet-cache=yes
Appeal to Christian Women of the South
Angelina Emily Grimke
New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1836
APPEAL
TO THE

CHRISTIAN WOMEN OF THE SOUTH,
BY A. E. GRIMKÉ.
"Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not
within thyself that
thou shalt escape in the king's house more than all the Jews. For
if thou
altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there
enlargement and
deliverance arise to the Jews from another place: but thou and
thy father's
house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art
come to the
kingdom for such a time as this. And Esther bade them return
Mordecai this
answer: and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according
to law, and if
I perish, I perish."
Esther IV. 13-16.
RESPECTED FRIENDS,
It is because I feel a deep and tender interest in your present
and eternal
welfare that I am willing thus publicly to address you. Some of
you have
loved me as a relative, and some have felt bound to me in
Christian
sympathy, and Gospel fellowship; and even when compelled by
a strong
sense of duty, to break those outward bonds of union which
bound us together
as members of the same community, and members of the same

religious
denomination, you were generous enough to give me credit, for
sincerity as a
Christian, though you believed I had been most strangely
deceived. I thanked
you then for your kindness, and I ask you now, for the sake of
former
confidence and former friendship, to read the following pages in
the spirit of
calm investigation and fervent prayer. It is because you have
known me, that I
write thus unto you.
But there are other Christian women scattered over the
Southern States, a
very large number of whom have never seen me, and never
heard my name,
and who feel no interest whatever in me. 'But I feel an interest
in you, as
branches of the same vine from whose root I daily draw the
principle of
spiritual vitality—Yes! Sisters in Christ I feel an interest in
you, and often has
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 2 of
=utc/xml…abolitn/abesaega.xml&style=utc/xsl/utc.xsl&clear-
the secret prayer arisen on your behalf, Lord "open thou their
eyes that they
may see wondrous things out of thy Law"—It is then, because I

do feel and do
pray for you, that I thus address you upon a subject about which
of all others,
perhaps you would rather not hear any thing; but, "would to
God ye could
bear with me a little in my folly, and indeed bear with me, for I
am jealous
over you with godly jealousy." Be not afraid then to read my
appeal; it is not
written in the heat of passion or prejudice, but in that solemn
calmness which
is the result of conviction and duty. It is true, I am going to tell
you
unwelcome truths, but I mean to speak those truths in love, and
remember
2
Solomon says, "faithful are the wounds of a friend." I do not
believe the time
has yet come when Christian women "will not endure sound
doctrine," even
on the subject of Slavery, if it is spoken to them in tenderness
and love,
therefore I now address you.
To all of you then, known or unknown, relatives or strangers,
(for you are all
one in Christ,) I would speak. I have felt for you at this time,
when
unwelcome light is pouring in upon the world on the subject of
slavery; light
which even Christians would exclude, if they could, from our
country, or at
any rate from the southern portion of it, saying, as its rays
strike the rock

bound coasts of New England and scatter their warmth and
radiance over her
hills and valleys and from thence travel onward over the
Palisades of the
Hudson, and down the soft flowing waters of the Delaware and
gild the
waves of the Potomac, "hitherto shalt thou come and no
further;" I know that
even professors of His name who has been emphatically called
the "Light of
the world" would, if they could, build a wall of adamant around
the Southern
States whose top might reach unto heaven, in order to shut out
the light which
is bounding from mountain to mountain and from the hills to the
plains and
valleys beneath, through the vast extent of our Northern States.
But believe
me, when, I tell you, their attempts will be as utterly fruitless as
were the
efforts of the builders of Babel; and why? Because moral, like
natural light, is
so extremely subtle in its nature as to overleap all human
barriers, and laugh
at the puny efforts of man to control it. All the excuses and
palliations of this
system must inevitably be swept away, just as other "refuges of
lies" have
been, by the irresistible torrent of a rectified public opinion.
"The supporters
of the slave system," says Jonathan Dymond in his admirable
work on the
Principles of Morality, "will hereafter be regarded with the
same public
feeling, as he who was an advocate for the slave trade now is."
It will be, and

that very soon, clearly perceived and fully acknowledged edged
by all the
virtuous and the candid, that in principle it is as sinful to hold a
human being
in bondage who has been born in Carolina, as one who has been
born in
Africa. All that sophistry of argument which has been employed
to prove,
that although it is sinful to send to Africa to procure men and
women as
slaves, who, have never been in slavery, that still, it is not
sinful to keep those
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 3 of
in bondage who have come down by inheritance, will be utterly
over thrown.
We must come back to the good old doctrine of our fore fathers
who declared
to the world, "this self evident truth that all men are created
equal, and that
they have certain inalienable rights among which are, life,
liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness." It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a
man can be
legally born a slave under our free Republican Government,
than under the
petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no right
to enslave an

African, surely we can have none to enslave an American; if a
self evident
truth that all men every where and of every color are born
equal, and have an
inalienable right to liberty, then it is equally true that no man
can be born a
slave, and no man can ever rightfully
3
be reduced to involuntary bondage and held as a slave, however
fair may be
the claim of his master or mistress through wills and title-deeds.
But after all, it may be said, our fathers were certainly
mistaken, for the
Bible sanctions Slavery, and that is the highest authority. Now
the Bible is my
ultimate appeal in all matters of faith and practice, and it is to
this test I am
anxious to bring the subject at issue between us. Let us then
begin with Adam
and examine the charter of privileges which was given to him.
"Have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth." In the eighth Psalm we
have a still
fuller description of this charter which through Adam was given
to all
mankind. "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of
thy hands;
thou hast put all things under his feet. All sheep and oxen, yea,
and the beasts
of the field, the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, and
whatsoever passeth

through the paths of the seas. And after the flood when this
charter of human
rights was renewed, we find no additional power vested in man.
"And the
fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of
the earth, and
every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth,
and upon all
the fishes of the sea, into your hand are they delivered." In this
charter,
although the different kinds of irrational beings are so
particularly
enumerated, and supreme dominion over all of them is granted,
yet man is
never vested with this dominion over his fellow man; he was
never told that
any of the human species were put under his feet; it was only all
things, and
man, who was created in the image of his Maker, never can
properly be
termed a thing, though the laws of Slave States do call him "a
chattel
personal;" Man then, I assert never was put under the feet of
man, by that first
charter of human rights which was given by God, to the Fathers
of the
Antediluvian and Postdiluvian worlds, therefore this doctrine of
equality is
based on the Bible. But it may be argued, that in the very
chapter of Genesis
from which I have last quoted, will be found the curse
pronounced upon
Canaan, by which his posterity was consigned to servitude
under his brothers
Shem and Japheth. I know this prophecy was uttered, and was
most fearfully

4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 4 of
and wonderfully fulfilled, through the immediate descendants of
Canaan, i.e.
the Canaanites, and I do not know but it has been through all
the children of
Ham, but I do know that prophecy does not tell us what ought to
be, but what
actually does take place, ages after it has been delivered, and
that if we justify
America for enslaving the children of Africa, we must also
justify Egypt for
reducing the children of Israel to bondage, for the latter was
foretold as
explicitly as the former. I am well aware that prophecy has
often been urged
as an excuse for Slavery, but be not deceived, the fulfilment of
prophecy will
not cover one sin in the awful day of account. Hear what our
Saviour says on
this subject; "it must needs be that offences come, but woe unto
that man
through whom they come"—Witness some fulfilment of this
declaration in the
tremendous destruction of Jerusalem, occasioned by that most
nefarious
4

of all crimes the crucifixion of the Son of God. Did the fact of
that event
having been foretold, exculpate the Jews from sin in
perpetrating it ; No—for
hear what the Apostle Peter says to them on this subject, "Him
being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God
ye have
taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Other
striking instances
might be adduced, but these will suffice.
But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and
therefore, slavery is
right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was like
American
slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of these
primitive fathers
of the church and be undeceived. Look at Abraham, though so
great a man,
going to the herd himself and fetching a calf from thence and
serving it up
with his own hands, for the entertainment of his guests. Look at
Sarah, that
princess as her name signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If
the servants
they had were like Southern slaves, would they have performed
such
comparatively menial offices for themselves? Hear too the
plaintive
lamentation of Abraham when he feared he should have no son
to bear his
name down to posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no seed,
&c, one born in
my house is mine heir." From this it appears that one of his

servants was to
inherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave
it to your
own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the
footing upon
which Abraham was with his servants, that he trusted them with
arms. Are
slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands of
their slaves?
He was as a father among his servants; what are planters and
masters
generally among theirs? When the institution of circumcision
was
established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is eight
days old shall
be circumcised among you, every man-child in your
generations; he that is
born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which
is not of thy
seed." And to render this command with regard to his servants
still more
impressive it is repeated in the very next verse; and herein we
may perceive
the great care which was taken by God to guard the rights of
servants even
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 5 of
under this "dark dispensation." What too was the testimony

given to the
faithfulness of this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he
will command
his children and his "household after him, and they shall keep
the way of the
Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my dear friends many of
you believe
that circumcision has been superseded by baptism in the
Church; Are you
careful to have all that are born in your house or bought with
money of any
stranger, baptized? Are you as faithful as Abraham to command
your
household to keep the way of the Lord ? I leave it to your own
consciences to
decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like American Slavery ?
But I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded
Slavery under
the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and
prayerfully. I
admit that a species of servitude was permitted to the Jews, but
in studying
the subject I have been struck with wonder and admiration at
perceiving how
carefully the servant
5
was guarded from violence, injustice and wrong. I will first
inform you how
these servants became servants, for I think this a very important
part of our
subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and the Bible, I find
there were six
different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself,
i.e. his
services, for six years, in which case he received the purchase
money himself.
Lev. xxv, 39.
2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his
daughters, in which
circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife
or daughter-
in-law of the man who bought her, and the father received the
price. In other
words, Jewish women were sold as white women were in the
first settlement
of Virginia—as wives, not as slaves. Ex. xxi, 7.
3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as
servants. 2
Kings iv, 1
4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were
sold for the
benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.
5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.
6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be
redeemed by
one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he
who redeemed
him, was not to take advantage of the favor thus conferred, and
rule over him
with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.
Before going into an examination of the laws by which these

servants were
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 6 of
protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have
become slaves in
any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did
they sell
themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into
their own
hands? No! Did they become insolvent, and by their own
imprudence subject
themselves to be sold as slaves? No! Did they steal the property
of another,
and were they sold to make restitution for their crimes? No !
Did their present
masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some heathen
tyrant to
whom they have sold themselves in the dark hour of adversity?
No! Were they
born in slavery? No! No! not according to Jewish Law, for the
servants who
were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who
had sold
themselves for six years : Ex. xxi, 4. Were the female slaves of
the South sold
by their fathers? How shall I answer this question? Thousands
and tens of
thousands never were, their fathers never have received the poor

compensation of silver or gold for the tears and toils, the
suffering, and
anguish, and hopeless bondage of their daughters. They labor
day by day, and
year by year, side by side, in the same field, if haply their
daughters are
permitted to remain on the same plantation with them, instead
of being as
they often are, separated from their parents and sold into distant
states, never
again to meet on earth. But do the fathers of the South ever sell
their
daughters? My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the
awful
affirmative, Yes ! The fathers of this Christian land often sell
their daughters,
not as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and daughters-in-law
of the man
who buys them, but to be the abject slaves of
6
petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends?
I leave it to
your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern slaves
then have not
become slaves in any of the six different ways in which
Hebrews became
servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters cannot
according, to
Jewish law substantiate their claim to the men, women, or
children they now
hold in bondage.
But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be
reduced to

servitude; it was this, he might be stolen and afterwards sold as
a slave, as
was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful
crime of
manstealing, God enacted this severe law. "He that stealeth a
man and selleth
him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to
death."* As I have
tried American Slavery by legal Hebrew servitude, and found,
(to your
surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law cannot justify the
slaveholder's claim, let
us now try it by illegal Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern
slaves then been
stolen? If they did not not sell themselves into bondage; if they
were not sold
as insolvent debtors or as thieves; if they were not redeemed
from a heathen
master to whom they had sold themselves; if they were not born
in servitude
according to Hebrew law; and if the females were riot sold by
their fathers as
wives and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then
what shall we
javascript:poptastic('/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=utc/xm
l/pretexts/abolitn/abesaega.xml&style=utc/xsl/utc.xsl&note.id=n
1&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes')
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 7 of
=utc/xml…/abolitn/abesaega.xml&style=utc/xsl/utc.xsl&clear-

say of them? what can we say of them? but that according to
Hebrew Law
they have been stolen.
But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were
absolute
slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other
servants who were
procured in two different ways.
1. Captives taken in war were reduced to bondage instead of
being killed but
we are not told that their children were enslaved Deut. xx, 14.
2. Bondmen and bond maids might be bought from the heathen
round about
them; these were left by fathers to their children after them, but
it does not
appear that the children of these servants ever were reduced to
servitude. Lev.
xxv, 44.
I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of
Hebrew
masters over their heathen slaves. Were the southern slaves
taken captive in
war? No! Were they bought from the heathen? No! for surely,
no one will
now vindicate the slave-trade so far as to assert that slaves were
bought from
the heathen who were obtained by that system of piracy. The
only excuse for
holding southern slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we
have seen
that they were not born in servitude as Jewish servants were,

and that the
children of heathen slaves were not legally subjected to bondage
even under
the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the South been
obtained ?
I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which
were enacted in
order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish
you to
understand that both are protected by Him, of whom it is
7
said "his mercies are over all his works." I will first speak of
those which
secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed
thus:
1. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy
God.
2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and
in the seventh
year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2.*
3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he
were married,
then his wife shall go out with him.
4. If his master have given him a wife and she have borne him
sons and
daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and
he shall go out
by himself.

5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife,
and my
javascript:poptastic('/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=utc/xm
l/pretexts/abolitn/abesaega.xml&style=utc/xsl/utc.xsl&note.id=n
2&clear-stylesheet-cache=yes')
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 8 of
children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring. him
unto the
Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-
post, and his
master shall bore his car through with an awl, and he shall serve
him forever.
Ex. xxi, 5-6.
6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid,
that it perish,
he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out
his man
servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth he shall let him go
free for his
tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.
7. On the Sabbath rest was secured to servants by the fourth
commandment.
Ex. xx, 10.
8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three

times in every
year in celebrating. the Passover, the feast of Pentecost, and the
feast of
Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear
before the Lord at
Jerusalem with a gift ; here the bond and the free stood on
common ground.
Deut. xvi.
9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die
under his
hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he
continue a day or
two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20,
21.
From these laws we learn that Hebrew men servants were
bound to serve
their masters only six years, unless their attachment to their
employers, their
wives and children, should induce them to wish to remain in
servitude, in
which case, in order to prevent the possibility of deception on
the part of the
master, the servant was first taken before the magistrate, where
he openly
declared his intention of continuing in his master's service,
(probably a public
register was kept of such) he was then conducted to the door of
the house, (in
warm. climates doors are thrown open,) and there his ear was
publicly bored
and by submitting to this operation he testified his willingness
to serve him
forever, i.e. during his life, for Jewish Rabbins who must have
understood

Jewish slavery, (as it is called,) "affirm that servants were set
free at the death
of their masters and did not descend to their heirs:" or that he
was to serve
him until the year of Jubilee,
8
when all servants were set at liberty. To protect servants from
violence, it was
ordained that if a master struck out the tooth or destroyed the
eye of a servant,
that servant immediately became free, for such an act of
violence evidently
showed be was unfit to possess the power of a master, and
therefore that
power was taken from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the
Sabbath and
partook of the privileges and festivities of the three great
Jewish Feasts; and if
a servant died under the infliction of chastisement, his master
was surely to be
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 9 of
punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the Jewish
law, of course
he was punished with death. I know that great stress has been
laid upon the

following verse: "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two,
he shall not
be punished, for he is his money."
Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly
seized upon this
little passage of scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna
Charta, by
which they were licensed by God himself to commit the greatest
outrages
upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But, my
friends, was it
designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would protect by law
the eye and
the tooth of a Hebrew servant, can we for a moment believe that
he would
abandon, that same servant to the brutal rage of a master who
would destroy
even life itself. Do we not rather see in this, the only law which
protected
masters, and was it not right that in case of the death of a
servant, one or two
days after chastisement was inflicted, to which other
circumstances might
have contributed, that the master should be protected when, in
all probability,
he never intended to produce so fatal a result? But the phrase
"he is his
money" has been adduced to show that Hebrew servants were
regarded as
mere things, "chattels personal;" if so, why were so many laws
made to
secure their rights as men, and to ensure their rising into
equality and
freedom? If they were mere things, why were they regarded as
responsible

beings, and one law made for them as well as for their masters?
But I pass on
now to the consideration of how the female Jewish servants
were protected by
law.
1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to
himself, then shall
he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall
have no power,
seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her
after the
manner of daughters.
3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her
duty of
marriage, shall he not diminish.
4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free
without money.
On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father
could not sell his
daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at
the age of
puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence.
Besides when a
master bought an Israelitish girl, it was always with the
presumption that he
would take her to wife. Hence Moses adds, 'if she please not her
master, and
he does not think fit
9

4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 10 of
=utc/xm…abolitn/abesaega.xml&style=utc/xsl/utc.xsl&clear-
to marry her, he shall set her at liberty,' or according to the
Hebrew, 'he shall
let her be redeemed.' 'To sell her to another nation he shall have
no power,
seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;' as to the engagement
implied, at
least of taking her to wife. 'If he have betrothed her unto his
son, he shall deal
with her after the manner of daughters, i.e. he shall take care
that his son uses
her as his wife, that he does not despise, or maltreat her. If he
make his son
marry another wife, he shall give her her dowry, her clothes and
compensation for her virginity; if he does none of these three,
she shall go out
free without money." Thus were the rights of female servants
carefully
secured by law under the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would
ask, are the
rights of female slaves at the South thus secured? Are they sold
only as wives
and daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they
allowed to go
out free? No! They have all not only been illegally obtained as
servants
according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally held in

bondage. Masters
at the South and West have all forfeited their claims, (if they
ever had any,) to
their female slaves.
We come now to examine the case of those servants who were
"of the
heathen round about;" Were they left entirely unprotected by
law? Horne in
speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor,
but shalt fear
thy God," remarks, "this law Lev. xxv, 43, it is true speaks
expressly of slaves
who were of Hebrew descent; but as alien born slaves were
ingrafted into the
Hebrew Church by circumcision, there is no doubt but that it
applied to all
slaves;" if so, then we may reasonably suppose that the other
protective laws
extended to them also; and that the only difference between
Hebrew and
Heathen servants lay in this, that the former served but six years
unless they
chose to remain longer, and were always freed at the death of
their masters ;
whereas the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that
might include a
period of forty-nine years,—and were left from father to son.
There are however two other laws which I have not yet
noticed. The one
effectually prevented all involuntary servitude, and the other
completely
abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were equally
operative
upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.

1. "Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant that is
escaped from
his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you,
in that place
which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him
best: thou shall
not oppress him." Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.
2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty
throughout all
the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee
unto you." Lev.
xxv, 10.
Here, then, we see that by this first law, the door of Freedom
was opened
wide to every servant who had any cause whatever for
complaint; if he was
unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him, and
no man had a
right to deliver him back to him again, and not only so, but the
absconded
4/30/16, 10:46 PM
Page 11 of
servant was to choose where lie should live,
10

and no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just
as our
Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them
to remain with
us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell
in that place
where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it so at
the South? Is
the poor runaway slave protected by law from the violence of
that master
whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from his
plantation or his
house? No! no! Even the free states of the North are compelled
to deliver
unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master into
them. By
human law, under the Christian Dispensation, in the nineteenth
century we
are commanded to do, what God more than three thousand years
ago, under
the Mosaic Dispensation, positively commanded the Jews not to
do. In the
wide domain even of our free states, there is not one city of
refuge for the
poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand
and say, I am a
free man—I am protected in my rights as a man, by the strong
arm of the law;
no! not one. How long the North will thus shake hands with the
South in sin,
I know not. How long she will stand by like the persecutor Saul,
consenting
unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the raiment of them that
slew him. I
know not; but one thing I do know, the guilt of the North is

increasing in a
tremendous ratio as light is pouring in upon her on the subject
and the sin of
slavery. As the sun of righteousness climbs higher and higher in
the moral
heavens, she will stand still more and more abashed as the
query is thundered
down into her ear, "Who hath required this at thy hand?" It will
be found no
excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that
persons bound
to service escaping from their masters should be delivered up;
no more
excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the
for bidden
fruit. He was condemned and punished because he hearkened to
the voice of
his wife, rather than to the command of his Maker; and we will
assuredly be
condemned and punished for obeying Man rather than God, if
we do not
speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Yea,
are we not
receiving chastisement even now ?
But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is
disclosed. If
the first effectually prevented all involuntary servitude, the last
absolutely
forbade even voluntary servitude being perpetual. On the great
day of
atonement every fiftieth year the Jubilee trumpet was sounded
throughout the
land of Judea, and Liberty was proclaimed to all the inhabitants
thereof. I will
not say that the servants' chains fell off and their manacles were

In every Discussion Post you have TWO tasks to complete1-) Plea.docx

In every Discussion Post you have TWO tasks to complete1-) Plea.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from jaggernaoma

More from jaggernaoma (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

In every Discussion Post you have TWO tasks to complete1-) Plea.docx