please, i would like to know, and try to be more clear then some giant logical leap, because i think that some religious texts includeing the bible support slavery, maybe slavery is not racist but it seems weird.

I'm not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I understand sin is pretty much only a part of the three major religions in the world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (listed in order of appearance). And I think when you understand the general statements of these religions, you begin to understand why slavery and racism aren't considered sins.

All three have their roots in Abraham with the primitive, vengeful YHWH fellow. And from these roots we have "favored peoples" -- right from the get-go we see this whole supremist mentality being perpetrated. And as time passes throughout the holy tales of each religion, it just keeps on keepin' on.

In the Old Testament the Hebrews pretty much continue to engage in warfare and work about trying to establish themselves as a kingdom or political force in the region. Dominating others and maintaining the supremist postition is pretty easy. Things got a little more complicated with the New Testament and Jesus, but the last few bits in the life of Jesus make sure to hold onto the elitist mindset.

Although we see in the NT Jesus promoting equal rights or fair treatment with, say, stories like the Good Samaratin, he pretty much undoes it all before getting hammered. That whole bit about "the only way to the Father is through me" immediately restored the whole concept of supremacy. Only now it isn't necessarily about where you live or what culture you're from. Now it's about whether or not you accept Jesus the Christ (it wasn't his last name, folks) as your lord and savior.

Just to address the issue of racism and slavery in America, the African-Americans were pretty much seen to have two left feet to white colonialists. Not only did they live in the "wrong" place, but clearly they hadn't accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Since they couldn't talk or behave like the "civilized Christians" who were promised the Kingdom of Heaven for their rightousness, they were uncivilized humans whose only purpose could possibly be to serve those above them -- the arrogant white colonialists.

Ah, but I'm beginning to rant. The point is, the very foundation of the sinning religions is that of an elitist position. The concept of supremacy abounds throughout, thus leaving racism and slavery entirely justifiable to those wishing to justify it through religion. They interpret the Holy books to say whatever they wish to say... which isn't hard, when you think about it. They wouldn't be holy if they didn't have so many holes...

I've never seen slavery put forth in a positive context in the Bible. There is not much reference to the Hebrews having slaves, as far as I can remember (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). There is a lot of reference to wives and children being viewed as personal property, though.

A lot of the rationalization for the subjugation of Africans was based on the story of Cain and Abel. Cain was outcast, and told that he and his descendants would always be outcast. Although there's obviously no evidence to indicate that Cain's descendants were dark skinned, usually it was assumed to legitimize slavery with christianity.

I don't agree with Abs that slaves didn't want to adopt Christian views, so they were oppressed. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the Catholic church burned and tortured dissidents, but I've never heard of them taking in slaves. Often, pagan rituals were absorbed into the Catholic ideology, in order for the religion to be accepted by a society. For example, the concept of purgatory is of pagan origin.

Slavery in the OLD Testament

Background: Slavery in the Bible

Slavery in the NEW Testament


I wasn't saying the slaves didn't want to perhaps adopt, Christianity, but rather they were viewed as lower, uncivilized people because they hadn't been exposed to the Christian faith. You have to remember that when colonialists swept into Africa most of the people there were pagans and virtually none of them had ever heard of Christianity.

In some cases, I imagine it helped the abolition of slavery here that slaves did begin to adopt Christianity. Once the slaves could read, pray and relate more to the colonial setting they found themselves in it became more difficult not to view them as equal people.

I've heard the thing about Cain and Abel before, and perhaps it is true. Anyone who did use it must not have read too much into their bible to examine their justification, though. Almost as soon as Cain is outcast, and ordered to be a vagabond for the rest of his life, he's seen building a city and living there until his death -- certainly not the life of a vagabond.

I've not come across the Cain/Abel thing before, but I've come across the "sons of Ham" rationalization for racism and slavery way too often. It's very big among the more fundamentalist types among whom I grew up in central Pennsylvania (where black people are still sometimes referred to as "Hamites").

After the flood subsided, Noah and Sons evidently planted vineyards and set to work fermenting their harvest. Noah, the one righteous man that God could find on earth, passed out naked in a drunken stupor and his youngest son, Ham, walked in on him. Ham told his brothers, Shem and Japeth, and they walked into the room backwards and covered the old man's nakedness. Because of this, when Noah woke up (presumably with a killer hangover), he blessed his elder sons and cursed one of Ham's four sons, Canaan, and declared that he should be Shem and Japeth's servant. Why the curse was on Canaan and not Ham himself - and why only Canaan and not Cush, Mizraim, and Phut (Ham's other sons) - clearly had something to do with the amount or quality of wine the righteous Noah had consumed.

Aaanyway, many modern white supremacists use this as a justification for their racism. Purportedly, the sons of Ham went on to populate the continent of Africa (the study of the complex genealogy of the descendants of Noah and their geographic distribution could consume several small volumes), while those of Shem and Japeth became the semites and caucasians. Therefore, our brilliant bigoted brethren argue, the people of Africa were cursed by God (well, the drunken Noah actually) and deemed to be the servants of everyone else.

The only problem is that the curse was only on Canaan, not on all "the sons of Ham". According to that complex genealogy, Canaan's descendants populated Phoenicia and Palestine. It was the progeny of Ham's other three sons who populated Ethiopia (Cush), Egypt (Mizraim), and Libya (Phut). So, even if one did accept The Curse of the Drunken Patriarch as some sort of rationale for enslaving the "inferior" sons of Canaan, it would still have nothing to do with the darker-skinned people of the African continent (though you can bet that the "cursed Canaanites" weigh heavily on Ariel Sharon's fascistic mind).

Besides, slavery in most of the Bible has nothing to do with any kind of racial inferiority or superiority. It has to do with military might. Defeated people are enslaved, regardless of their coloring, ethnicity, or national origin.