I found the chapter on the history of race in the U.S. enlightening for some interesting reasons. Several passages illustrate how quickly we defend the status quo or how the powerful defend the systems that benefit them as right, just and moral. Biblical arguments have been used to defend slavery, often with fairly good textual basis (esp. some of what Paul had to say). It disturbed me how similar some of the scriptural arguments were to arguments I hear today from the bible. For example, the argument against pacifism that runs "John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to find another job but simply told them to not abuse their power or extort money, so militarism is biblically justified." Therefore we can ignore Jesus' words "I tell you, do not resist them..."
Similarly, Emerson and Smith quote a Christian publication c. 1900 arguing that Jim Crow laws are really in the best interest of African-Americans, and so black outcry against the laws is laughable. This sounds strikingly similar to arguments against affirmative action, or arguments for abolishing the well-fare system: the powerful justifying a change that is in the interest of the powerful by portraying the objection of the oppressed as laughable and irrational while maintaining that you are really acting out of altruistic motives.
Reading the history of race in America may equip us to challenge this line of reasoning when we face it in our contemporary context. I do not yet know if there are generalizations that can be drawn from this; e.g. what constitutes a bad scriptural argument vs. a good one, or should we just throw out arguments based on the bible all together?
No comments:
Post a Comment