Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple
Accepted.
1. I would like to constrain the discussion to specific examples. Obviously the intent of the thread had Perry and Palin in mind. But in my mind I am thinking of Ghandi, King, and Malcolm X. But I brought up Ayn Rand to include the Russian Pogrom and the German holocaust and by extension other genocides like the Armenian, Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc. In each case a "minority" was singled out since by definition they are smaller, weaker and easier to bully. I suppose I am talking of the "justice" from the oppressed point of view.
|
(my emphasis).
This is a good place to start. I'd like to tease out this point of view first before getting into specific examples, if that is okay. I find it helpful to identify the common features of the examples, so that our analysis can transfer when we look at other, modern, examples.
First, the fact that the one invoking the Bible is in an oppressed position - rather than in a power position - does make them a little more sympathetic. They are requesting "more liberty" rather than seeking to deny it to others.
For example, I do have more sympathy for a slave who quotes "Let my people go!" than the slave owner who quotes "slaves, obey your masters."
But here's the thing, simply because there are examples of people invoking the Bible in politics that I agree with, doesn't mean that its a good practice. Especially in cases where there are people being oppressed, one can make very strong moral arguments without hinting at what God's will may or may not be in that situation. The case is strong without using a method (invoking God or the Bible) that we'd balk at if others did the same.
Furthermore, the cases you bring up are the extreme cases. We may even need to consider them "special cases." In modern America, blacks are still the minority. Though it would be a lot less crystal clear that they are oppressed (some argue they are, others not).
The same kind of sympathy/agreement I have wil the slave quoting to Bible in order to obtain freedom doesn't carry over to the case where someone is quoting the Bible in order to get an affirmative action policy passed.
Which brings me to another point I have made: there is a difference between speaking out to "change hearts and minds" in general society versus trying to get a specific law passed as the presumed solution to a problem.
I gave the example before of the neo-nazis marching in predominately Jewish Skoakie Illinois. I TOTALLY would have beem there to protest their march. And I may have even quoted the Bible in support of my arguments. But that would be very different than trying to get hate-speech legislation passed. The former I would agree with, the latter no.
Thoughts?