Slavery and religion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of a series on Slavery |
|
| Period and context | |
|
History · Antiquity |
|
| Related | |
|
Gulag · Serfdom · Unfree labour · Debt bondage · Indentured servant · List of slaves · Legal status |
|
|
|
The issue of religion and slavery is an area of historical research into the relationship between the world's major religions and the practice of slavery.
Contents |
[edit] Slavery in the Bible
The historian Bernard Lewis notes that both the Old and the New Testaments recognize and accept the institution of slavery as allowable under certain circumstance (Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11). Yet, the Bible was used, before and during the American Civil War, by both slaveholders and abolitionists to justify their views. A significant theme in the Bible is deliverance from slavery, as in the Exodus story and in the sense of deliverance from sin. A familiar quotation from the Christian Bible appears in both Isaiah 61:1-2 and Luke 4:17-19:
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he [Jesus] had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."
[edit] The Curse of Ham
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
For centuries, the narrative of the “curse of Ham” has been continuously cited as the justification for black slavery. The story has repeatedly been interpreted as God’s condemnation of the black race as a result of their progenitor’s crime against family and honor. The basis for Ham as the origin of the black race depends on the assumption that many of the ancient Israelite authors made, primarily that all of humanity descended from Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) who were among the chosen few to have survived the Great Flood.[1] The passage (Genesis 9: 18-27) corresponds to the Jahwist’s narrative technique of cause and effect/ crime and punishment form:[2]
“And he (Noah) drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon their shoulders and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” (Genesis 9: 20-27)
Even some of the earliest interpretations of the biblical passage assert that Ham was distinct from his brothers in his dark complexion. Though the true reason for such an association cannot be definitively determined, some speculate that the earliest critics drew clues or assumptions from his name. The name “Ham” bears close resemblance to the Hebrew words for “black” and “hot”, the former used to imply the man’s skin color and the latter used as an indicator of the climate of the African continent where his descendants (the Canaanites) were doomed to labor.[3] It is for this reason that Ham is often, especially in early texts, referred to as the predecessor of those inhabiting the regions Ethiopia (known also as Cush in Hebrew) and Egypt.[4] Such a theory has been accepted as fact by many contemporary figures. For example, Thomas Peterson, a prominent scholar of the antebellum period, attests that “White southern Christians overwhelmingly thought that Ham was the aboriginal black man." Indeed, the belief was widely taught as fact in many Christian churches and schools until well into the 1970s. Many people began referring to the afflicted black race, namely those descended of slaves, as “the children of Ham."[5]
According to pro-slavery literature, Ham’s transgressions, particularly the shaming of his father by looking upon his nakedness, provoked “Noah’s curse”. Allegedly, Ham’s son Canaan and his descendants were thereafter doomed to serve their brothers’ lines for all of eternity. Indeed, when discussing the slaves of the pharaoh in Exodus, Origen specifically identifies them as descendants of Ham who were punished due to their ancestor’s skin color.[6] In 1823, amidst controversy concerning the justice and morality of slavery, South Carolinian Frederick Dalcho argued: “And perhaps we shall find that the negroes, the descendants of Ham, lost their freedom from the abominable wickedness of their progenitor (Ham).”[7]
In addition, many proslavery apologists from the period 1830-1865 preceding the Civil War began associating Ham’s crime with sins against nature, sexual morality and family. Josiah Priest (1843) cites Leviticus 18 as evidence for such claims:“the nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.”This particular passage, when viewed in juxtaposition with the Genesis passage, has been used by many as indicating that Ham went so far as to commit incest and rape with his mother, Noah’s wife.[8] In this manner, the subjugation of the black race has been justified not only by Ham’s sin of filial disrespect for his father (Noah) but also by association with the more sensational crimes of lust, incest, and rape.
[edit] Judaism
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
The Hebrew Bible sets rules that allow slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:7-11), while at the same time forbidding one to return a runaway slave (Deuteronomy 25:15-16). A Jew was obligated to free a Jewish slave after six years of servitude (Exodus 21:2-6). Non-Jewish slaves could be slaves for life, though it is unclear how common this was or if it was voluntary. If a master beat his male or female slave so severely that the slave is killed immediately, the master is himself to be killed. If the master had beat the slave but the slave lives one or two days, the master can go unpunished but must release his slave under general circumstances. (Exodus 21:21). A Jew was obligated to ransom or redeem a Jewish slave from a non-Jewish owner.
[edit] Christianity
Several New Testament writers admonish slaves to obey their masters (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5-8; Titus 2:9-10; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1), and in another place it tells slaves "to care not" for their slavery, but seek freedom if lawfully possible (1 Corinthians 7:21-23, KJV). The prophets and apostles urged kindness to slaves, with just and equal pay and brotherly acceptance being commanded (Colossians 4:1; Philemon 1:10-16). Protestant churches have differently interpreted these passages to be either anti- or pro-slavery with some regarding these passages to consist of the Bible reporting existing social customs and laws.
In regards to the Catholic Church, the early Church tolerated slavery. In The City of God, Book XIX, chapter 15, St. Augustine affirmed that "for it is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin." [9] Slavery was integrated into the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, upon the Decretum Gratiani. This became official Church law since Pope Gregory IX who reigned as Pope from 1227 to 1241. In 1455, Pope Nicholas V authorized the King of Portugal with the papal bull Romanus Pontifex to enslave all the Saracen and pagan people his armies could capture. The position of the Church became more firmly anti-slavery in later years. In 1435 Pope Eugene IV promulgated the papal bull Sicut Dudum condemned the slavery of black natives in Canary Islands by Spanish. In 1462 Pope Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus). In 1537, Pope Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians and other people with the papal bull Sublimus Dei, while Pope Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Pope Benedict XIV in 1741. Pope Pius VII in 1815 demanded that the Congress of Vienna suppress the slave trade, and Pope Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839. In the Bull of Canonization of the St. Peter Claver, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Pope Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed an encyclical to the Brazilian bishops, In Plurimism [10] (On the Abolition of Slavery), exhorting them to banish the remnants of slavery from their country. Jesus in Luke said he had come to end slavery (see also "Slavery in the Bible" above):
- "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the slaves, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."Luk 4:18
[edit] Islam
- See also: Muhammad's slaves
In certain circumstances, Islam allows for slavery. Such slaves may in some cases be able to purchase or acquire their freedom in various ways. The prophet Muhammad owned several slaves himself. One of them bore him a son, who died as an infant.[11] The slavery endorsed by the Qur'an limited the source of slaves to the children of two slave parents and non-Muslims captured in war. The Qur'an provides for emancipation of a slave as a means (or in one case, a requirement of) demonstrating remorse for the commission of certain sins. Proclamations of emancipation and repudiations of participation in slave trafficking did not occur in Muslim lands until after the Christian-European Colonial era - as late as 1962 in Saudi Arabia, 1970 in Oman and Yemen, and 1981 in Mauritania. Islamic slavery in the fashion multigenerational hereditary slavery (in Mauritania) is still evident today. In Chad, child enslavement with the aspect of forced conversion to Islam has been documented.[citation needed]
[edit] Hinduism
Template:Maha Nirvana Tantra (Trantra of the Great Liberation), translated by Arthur Avalon, Publisher: Blackmask Online, http://www.blackmask.com Maha Nirvana Tantra - Verse 140: (Lord Shiva says):
O Devi of the Kulas! the human body is the receptacle of piety, wealth, desires, and final liberation. It should therefore never be the subject of purchase; and such a purchase is by reason of My commands invalid (140).
Hinduism EXPLICITLY prohibits sale, purchase, or subjugation of human beings (male or female). There is a sharp distinction made between slave and servant. A servant is one who entered into the service on his/her own free will (even though most servants in king's courts served for a life time, at times as a result of their parents giving away servants when they were children, such acts are not condoned by Hinduism. The central message of Hinduism is liberation (moksha or being totally free from bondage of all types)). Yet, bonded laborers are considered as servants and bonded labor prevails in corners of India, possibly due to influences brought by invaders. Bonded labor is out-lawed in India.) Tantra texts also prohibit mis-treating the family members of a servant (especially, a male servant's wife as sexual object).
The Caste system in India has often been compared to slavery or slave-like practices. In ancient and medieval times, lower caste Hindus (dubbed "Untouchables" or, more recently Dalits) have had reduced social statuses similar to slaves. Lower Caste Hindus' lives incorporated rigid segregation and bonded labor practices. Justification for such acts was often provided through the use of careful selection of scripture from the vast plethora of Hindu religious literature. However, mainstream Hinduism never condoned or accepted outright slavery.
The purported slavery-like status of the lower Castes, while distinct from others as in ownership - nonetheless permitted freedom for them. Hindus and scholars debate whether the caste system is an integral part of Hinduism sanctioned by the scriptures or an outdated social custom.[12][13] The most ancient scriptures place little importance on caste and indicate social mobility (Rig Veda 9.112.3), while later scriptures such as the non sacred Manusmriti state that the four varnas are created by God, implying immutability. Manusmriti, (dated between 200 BCE and 100 CE), contains laws that codified the caste system, reducing the flexibility of social mobility and excluding the untouchables from society, yet this system was originally non-heritable (Manu Smriti X:65). It is uncertain when the caste system become heritable and akin to slavery.
British colonialists, in the 19th century, exploited these divisions by mistranslating scriptures in Hinduism (such as the Manusmriti) and attaching undue weight to its importance over other more normative religious scripture in the religion in order to foster sectarian divisions among Hindus as part of the Divide and rule strategy employed by the crown. Nonetheless, a large number of Hindu reform movements in the 19th century metamorphosed the landscape of Hindu thought. Hindu reformers aggressively campaigned against any slavery of the lower castes and rendered the idea abhorrent to most mainstream Hindus.
In contemporary times, allegations of apartheid are often drawn against Hindus by partisan political activists. These charge are debunked by academics and scholars, given India's commitment to affirmative action. Substantial improvements have taken place in the rights of Dalits (former "Untouchables") enshrined in the Constitution of India (primarily written by a Dalit, Ambedkar), which is the principal object of article 17 in the Constitution as implemented by the Protection of Civil rights Act, 1955 [14] and the fact that India has had a Dalit, K.R. Narayanan, for a president, as well as the disappearance of the practice in urban public life[15].Thus, mainstream sociologists such as Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, while being critical of Casteism, conclude that modern India does not practice any "apartheid" since there is no state sanctioned discrimination.[16]They write that Casteism in India is presently "not apartheid. In fact, untouchables, as well as tribal people and members of the lowest castes in India benefit from broad affirmative action programs and are enjoying greater political power."[16]
[edit] References
- ^ Felder, C. H. (2002). Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narratives. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, page 8.
- ^ Felder, C. H. (2002). Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narratives. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, page 10
- ^ Goldenberg, D. M. (2003). The Curse of Ham. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, page 141.
- ^ Johnson, S. A. (2004). The Myth of Ham in Nineteenth Century American Christrianity. Ney York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, page 28.
- ^ Goldenberg, D. M. (2003). The Curse of Ham. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, page 142.
- ^ Goldenberg, D. M. (2003). The Curse of Ham. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, page 141.
- ^ Haynes, S. R. (2002). Noah's Curse. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, page 71.
- ^ Haynes, S. R. (2002). Noah's Curse. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, page 69.
- ^ CHURCH FATHERS: City of God, Book XIX (St. Augustine)
- ^ CATHOLIC LIBRARY: In Plurimis (1888)
- ^ Montgomery Watt, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961, page 226.
- ^ Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 188-97 (Princeton 2004) ISBN 0-691-08953-1
- ^ Caste System View of Scholars
- ^ The Constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi, Universal Law Publishing Co, ISBN 8175345004
- ^ Mendelsohn, Oliver & Vicziany, Maria, "The Untouchables, Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India", Cambridge University Press, 1998
- ^ a b Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, Racism: A Global Reader P21, M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0765610604.
