There is nothing wrong with Slavery

[rufian]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]ASo? The New Testament handle slavery same as the old. Abraham is not fake, Lot is not fake, Moses not fake, Paul is definitely not fake.

Back to Abraham, Lot and Moses. Dem a Christian?


To Sukana, ainke neh whi yu ke tkengi biout, whey yu seh?[/qb]

I think that you are having problems with your keyboard. I don't understand

[britisha]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

I think that you are having problems with your keyboard. I don't understand

Yu don't?? What is soo difficult to hannastan? No problem with the keyboard, unless mi type too fass.

N thought you would have gotten it...same way yu nain hannastan dat, same way mi naain hannastan yu, jusss immitittateng a likkle bit a yu style..dass all.

Hef, mi nuh hanswa oono, mi ggawn scour mi pot dem wid brillo, mi aguh cook fi outdoor festival tiddeh...oono kip tings "holy" til mi ketch baack een. Goodday y'all.

[Fledgist]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]Funny how all those whose voices are usually the loudest proclaiming the virtues of the Good Book are collectively silent....maybe they're all frantically scouring their Bibles...

Funny fi chrro, nutting a likkle brillo pad cyaan fix; or is it Comet? I say leave it to brillo, brillo, Misss chin, BRILLO!! [/qb]

Dem haffi use wiya brush.

[Fledgist]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by jedi:
[qb]

Originally posted by Dyoll:
[qb]

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]Slavery is/was wrong period!! Most of slavery mentioned as far as I remember occurred in the Old testament. Jesus, the Christ who came after, and is mentioned in the New Testament, came not only to fulfil many prophecies from the Old Testament, BUT also to clarify/purify the laws of old, hence slavery and anything wrong that would be condoned under old Testament law, would by his coming be abolished...that was one purpose of his coming.[/qb]

Christians consider the Old Testament as part of the sacred cannon, and certainly it was God, (according to the Bible) who gave the guidelines as to how slaves were treated and indeed how the institution of slavery was regulated. This raises the question: Is there an evolution in God's morality with respect to slavery in the era of the New Testament? If so, what does this say about one of those 'attributes' of God - immutability? The Psalmist said that with God, there is no variability. He is supposedly the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Most, if not all christians now see slavery as morally wrong despite its practice in 'biblical' times, and also, inspite of the fact that there is no expressed prohibition in the Bible against the practice. The question now is: do you consider God to be the source of morality?[/qb]

There was not expressed prohibition against divorce either in the Old Testament, these laws were given by Moses, for as Jesus said he Moses gave in to the demands of the stubbornness of these people. But now as I understand it slavery in those times in no way can be compared to what the black man suffered at the hands of his European masters. When I asked the question, why did our ancestors sell us into slavery to begin with, because remember the white man didnot know the terrain well so he paid in guns and goods to have our ppl. captured by our own ppl. and brought to be taken as slaves? The response I get is that slavery has been around since the beginning of time. Part of the booty taken when a country was conquered by its foes was to take the women and children mostly into slavery. Now according to what I understand this was a widespread practice everywhere, but they had no idea that the slaves taken for the new world would be treated the way they were treated.

Now back on topic - Does an immutable God change His mind after to make slavery an immoral practice? Lets go back to the beginning of time when the first man sinned. Was it His original plan that man would become the slave of other men? But as demonstrated time and time again by the disobedience of mankind, they followed their own understanding and did as they pleased. Now in the New Testament Jesus came to do away with that, by the release of bondage not to the body but of the mind taken captive to sin, which is where the real slavery begins. Sin (greed, lust, idolatry) is what lead man to want to own another mans soul, those things began in the heart of a man. Now we talk about slavery of the past but now we are all free thanks be to the Victory in Christ. The word says "But do you not know that that which you present your bodies to, to become slaves, that thing will be your master." I see a different type of slavery very prevalent today, and that is the slavery to this worlds passing goods, sin in other words. So while we are concerned about the past practice of human physical bondage to sin we seem to be overlooking the obvious, which is our present day bondage to sin of the most hienous kind. Paul writing to the Corinthians had this to say "Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it. And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, the Lord has now set you free from the awful power of sin. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ. God purchased you at a high price. Don't be enslaved by the world." (1 Cor. 7:21-23). "Whom Christ has set free shall be free indeed."

Now Dyoll in my estimation God has not changed one iota. He gave men freedom to choose and it would appear made allowances for their circumstances over time, as seen in the time of the early settlement of the Israelites. But God's concern has always been the heart of mankind. The heart is where sin begins. The heart is what becomes the real slave. Slavery to sin is what Christ came to do away with and there is where the evolution of man begins. Our God remains immutable and unchanged in His resolve to win His people back from bondage and slavery to sin.[/qb]

In other words, chattel slavery is fine as long as you're a Christian. This is exactly the position of Paul, and it is why I cannot understand why a descendant of slaves would ever want to be a Christian.

The fictional deity in which you believe seems to have no problem about people being owned by others, and all the abuses and crimes that flow from that. That is simply evil. Thanks for exposing the complete bankruptcy of your moral claims.

[jedi]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

(((Fledgist))) In other words , if you can come to that conclusion after reading what I wrote then I am not the only one by your standard of making judgements that has a complete bankruptcy of moral character.

Have you earnestly tried to do something about the chaos in the world today apart from criticizing it from the comfort of your private domain infront of your computer while living a cushy life? Let me ask you this you hypocrite. Since there is no God, what have you "God-to-self" done to save the world since you have all the answers; apart from being sinister and bitter?
What hope do you have to offer the person living today?

[Dyoll]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by britisha:
Dyoll, since you preambled this snippet with a piece from my post, I will take the liberty to attempt to offer a response. From reading your previous posts you seem to negate the existence of God, therefore, on that basis, which "God" are you speaking of? If it is the "God" as per christian definition, I'm afraid you lost me with that question? Why would any morality undergo an evolution? Explain for me, please.

I thought it was clear that I was referring to the Judeo-Christian God. The way right and wrong is viewed may change: what was once considered right (slavery) is now considered wrong.

What are we talking about here Dyoll? The law(s) of Moses or the "attributes" of God? While the practice of slavery was abominable, so were the other practices of adultery, fornication and much more as outlined in the Old Testament: one must and has to see all this in accordance with the customs and mores of the times then.

I'm not sure I follow you here, but I'll move on.

IMHO, all abominations that were practised then, were the result of sin, plain and simple. I agree with the psalmist, re "God being the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow." This is not an easy concept to fathom, especially if one does NOT believe in this deity.

This is very astute on your part to ask this, for if one answers "NO" (that God is not always the same), then you and yours would have ammunition to say that God is a changing "God;" one second this, and the next minute that!!...so what kind of God is that!!

Don't confuse what I said about Jesus, the Christ coming not only to die for our sins, but to abolish old laws as well as to fulfil. Here's and example, Mark 10:2...."and the Pharisees coming to him, asked him tempting Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?"

(4) But He answering said to them: What did Moses command you? Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away.

(5) To whom Jesus, answering said: Because of the hardness of your heart***, he wrote you that precept....unto verse

(9) What therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put assunder."

Is God changing here? Look at the context that all this is said, look at the concept behind Moses writing them such a law, as now explained by Jesus, the Christ. Does that mean that God didn't sacntify the institution of marriage? Look at the play on the word "lawful." These people were tough, accdng to the bible, and were into game playing, hardeining their hearts and trying to trick Jesus.

I didn't get a sense from this story that Jesus was forbidding divorce under all circumstances, but rather underscoring the sacredness of the institution of marriage.

You will again, have to define what you mean by morality. This is a very subjective term, ie what is moral and just to one, may not seem moral and just to another.....so where does God comes into this? Is morality contingent on the Bible, how would one explain this contingency to a Muslim? Got mi? The issue here, is not whether God is moral or not. If God is good, by definition, wouldn't I be contradicting myself to say that God is immoral? Come oon man, give me a little credit... Man has a conscience that should guide him to know what is right and what is wrong, and on this basis know how to act, Dyoll...unfortunately, this doesn't always seems to be the case..

To approach this discussion from the angle, whether God is moral or not, will take it off track, down another road, where most of these threads end up anyway.

With some hair-splitting, you have managed to artfully dodge my questions. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] You know I'm alluding to the belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God (Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddi, just so there's no confusion), and therefore it constitutes the rule of faith for the Christian, and which provides the basis of morality for them. Besides, christians reject the idea of 'moral relativism.'

So, how do you consider the morality of God, considering that He sanctioned a practice (slavery) that you, like most christians today, find to be immoral? On what basis do you consider slavery to be morally wrong? Clearly, not on the basis of the Bible. This raises another question: Is the Bible adequate with respect to instruction in morality? Is God neccesarily good, or is it that God is considered to be good because, by definition, the supreme being, God, must neccesarily be good? This would be question-begging to say the least.

[Fledgist]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by jedi:
[qb](((Fledgist))) In other words , if you can come to that conclusion after reading what I wrote then I am not the only one by your standard of making judgements that has a complete bankruptcy of moral character.

Have you earnestly tried to do something about the chaos in the world today apart from criticizing it from the comfort of your private domain infront of your computer while living a cushy life? Let me ask you this you hypocrite. Since there is no God, what have you "God-to-self" done to save the world since you have all the answers; apart from being sinister and bitter?
What hope do you have to offer the person living today?[/qb]

I have never claimed to have all the answers. I read your post above and was completely disgusted.

You have no idea what I have done in my life, and I've no particular desire to tell someone like you about them. The only hope is within each person, and they have to find it.

BTW, try not to use words when you don't know their meaning.

[jedi]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by jedi:
[qb](((Fledgist))) In other words , if you can come to that conclusion after reading what I wrote then I am not the only one by your standard of making judgements that has a complete bankruptcy of moral character.

Have you earnestly tried to do something about the chaos in the world today apart from criticizing it from the comfort of your private domain infront of your computer while living a cushy life? Let me ask you this you hypocrite. Since there is no God, what have you "God-to-self" done to save the world since you have all the answers; apart from being sinister and bitter?
What hope do you have to offer the person living today?[/qb]

I have never claimed to have all the answers. I read your post above and was completely disgusted.

You have no idea what I have done in my life, and I've no particular desire to tell someone like you about them. The only hope is within each person, and they have to find it.

BTW, try not to use words when you don't know their meaning.[/qb]

In other words, you have done nothing!!!

Looks like we all have a problem with the English language don't we? Mr. Struthonian.

[Fledgist]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by jedi:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by jedi:
[qb](((Fledgist))) In other words , if you can come to that conclusion after reading what I wrote then I am not the only one by your standard of making judgements that has a complete bankruptcy of moral character.

Have you earnestly tried to do something about the chaos in the world today apart from criticizing it from the comfort of your private domain infront of your computer while living a cushy life? Let me ask you this you hypocrite. Since there is no God, what have you "God-to-self" done to save the world since you have all the answers; apart from being sinister and bitter?
What hope do you have to offer the person living today?[/qb]

I have never claimed to have all the answers. I read your post above and was completely disgusted.

You have no idea what I have done in my life, and I've no particular desire to tell someone like you about them. The only hope is within each person, and they have to find it.

BTW, try not to use words when you don't know their meaning.[/qb]

In other words, you have done nothing!!!

Looks like we all have a problem with the English language don't we? Mr. Struthonian.[/qb]

In other words, my life is none of your business. I do not care to reveal anything of it to you. That's all. You apparently have no ability to understand simple English.

And what, btw, does it mean to be struthonian? Don't use the word unless you know what it means.

[Dyoll]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by jedi:
... now as I understand it slavery in those times [Bible times] in no way can be compared to [chattel slavery].

The classic apologist defense.

Now back on topic - Does an immutable God change His mind after to make slavery an immoral practice? Lets go back to the beginning of time when the first man sinned. Was it His original plan that man would become the slave of other men? But as demonstrated time and time again by the disobedience of mankind, they followed their own understanding and did as they pleased. Now in the New Testament Jesus came to do away with that, by the release of bondage not to the body but of the mind taken captive to sin, which is where the real slavery begins. Sin (greed, lust, idolatry) is what lead man to want to own another mans soul, those things began in the heart of a man. Now we talk about slavery of the past but now we are all free thanks be to the Victory in Christ. The word says "But do you not know that that which you present your bodies to, to become slaves, that thing will be your master." I see a different type of slavery very prevalent today, and that is the slavery to this worlds passing goods, sin in other words. So while we are concerned about the past practice of human physical bondage to sin we seem to be overlooking the obvious, which is our present day bondage to sin of the most hienous kind. Paul writing to the Corinthians had this to say "Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it. And remember, if you were a slave when the Lord called you, the Lord has now set you free from the awful power of sin. And if you were free when the Lord called you, you are now a slave of Christ. God purchased you at a high price. Don't be enslaved by the world." (1 Cor. 7:21-23). "Whom Christ has set free shall be free indeed."

Jesus, in his many utterances, never prohibited slavery (ie, physical slavery). It seems the practice was deeply woven into the fabric of Jewish society at the time of Christ and even beyond. Even Paul didn't seem to consider the practice particulary abhorent. Isn't it funny how Paul should pontificate about 'spiritual slavery' while not condemning that institution that denied men/women their dignity? I take your point, however, about mental slavery. I see so much of that today.

Now Dyoll in my estimation God has not changed one iota. He gave men freedom to choose and it would appear made allowances for their circumstances over time, as seen in the time of the early settlement of the Israelites. But God's concern has always been the heart of mankind. The heart is where sin begins. The heart is what becomes the real slave. Slavery to sin is what Christ came to do away with and there is where the evolution of man begins. Our God remains immutable and unchanged in His resolve to win His people back from bondage and slavery to sin.

Well, you're right. God has not changed. Throughout the Bible (which you undoubtedly accept as His divine revelation), He did not forbid the practice of slavery. Murder, stealing, adultery, homosexuality (certainly male-male relations), sabbath-breaking, coveteousess, were all clearly forbidden, but oh no, not slavery. So, as I posed the question to Britisha, where have you gotten the idea from that slavery is morally wrong? I'm suggesting that it is from extra-biblical sources.

[britisha]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

Originally posted by Dyoll:
So, how do you consider the morality of God, considering that He sanctioned a practice (slavery) that you, like most christians today, find to be immoral?

How do you know that God is not a She versus a He? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Dyoll in all seriousness, you have asked some very important questions, questions that have baffled many theological philosphers throughout the ages, but who nevertheless have come up with some rational form of explanation(s).

I am going to venture to say, that I agree with jedi in terms of chattel slavery versus slavery as practiced then in the Old Testament version. Unfortunately, Dyoll, we are quoting from a book that has been written by, translated by, man. As is commonly known, many books of the Bible have been lost, and many have not appeared in some versions..compare Douay and say King James versions. So we have to work with what we have.

Re God condoning slavery, this was a practice also done, among a particular group of people, please do not ask me what other races/ethnicity existed then. These people were his "chosen people" according to the Scriptures.....::jack mandoorahhhhh!!!::: The bible abounds with tales of disobedience to God by these, his chosen ones....let us not get into a discussion about who were chosen and who were not...These people were also driven into the bondage of slavery under the Pharaohs in Egypt. God sent Moses to redeem them. The question now becomes, why would a people who engaged in the practice of slavery, now find the tables turned and they become slaves? What was God trying to prove to THEM?

Based on Judeeo-Christian belief, there is punishment for transgressions. Could this be a way of God punishing them for their sins, and even giving them a taste of their own medicine so that they would not render this sort of treatment to others, as well as accepting that He is a compassionate God, who would redeem them from physical bondage as well as the bondage of sin?


On what basis do you consider slavery to be morally wrong? Clearly, not on the basis of the Bible. This raises another question: Is the Bible adequate with respect to instruction in morality? Is God neccesarily good, or is it that God is considered to be good because, by definition, the supreme being, God, must neccesarily be good? This would be question-begging to say the least.

I am not going to answer this part about whether God is good or not. You have seen the discussions on this board already with regards to this I will say this, if something is of a certain nature by definition why would one wish to question if this so or not merely based on the definition? Got mi? Is water fire, or is fire water...is darkness light etc etc? What are their definitions?

IMHO, morality is morality, it is an entity unto itself, in the same way as the concept of God is an entity unto itself. Are you equating God with morality or morality with God? The same question could apply to God and the Bible, Is God and the bible synonymous? Is God and the Torah synonymous?

There are many areas in the bible that opposed slavery, even if it is not said in so many words. Remember what Jesus said, Love thy neighbor as thyself. If one follows this rule, why would he condone slavery, unless he hates himself? Read Deutoronomy23:15..."if a slave runs away from his master and comes to you for protection, do NOT send him back. He may live in any of your town that he chooses, do not treat him harshly." These were supposedly intelligent ppl whe was talking to, couldn't they deduce from this that the Lord their God was saying that something is wrong with slavery?

I've seen many web pages where many, including so-called christians who still believe i n the institution of slavery, hence another reason for most of the problem in the world today. In Africa, slavery is still practiced today, although these slave masters ought to have heard of the fate of the Africans who were sold as slaves. So yes, Dyoll, there are still many with hardened, wicked hearts, within and without the church, within and without the race who still hold dearly to this abominable idea...this could illustrate what I am saying that what seems immoral to one, may seem morally correct to another. [No splitting of hairs here] Finally, are there books of the bible missing? If so would they hold information that would outrightly condemn slavery? What is the exacttranslation of the bible, who knows? We have to take what is GOOD from it and apply it to our lives.

Here is a snippet from the Atlantic to illustrate the conundrum regarding the opinions some may have of the origin of morality and whether it is based on religion or not.[ QUOTE ]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every thoughtful person has an opinion on which premise is correct. But the split is not, as popularly supposed, between religious believers and secularists. It is between transcendentalists, who think that moral guidelines exist outside the human mind, and empiricists, who think them contrivances of the mind. In simplest terms, the options are as follows: I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists.

Theologians and philosophers have almost always focused on transcendentalism as the means to validate ethics. They seek the grail of natural law, which comprises freestanding principles of moral conduct immune to doubt and compromise. Christian theologians, following Saint Thomas Aquinas's reasoning in Summa Theologiae, by and large consider natural law to be an expression of God's will. In this view, human beings have an obligation to discover the law by diligent reasoning and to weave it into the routine of their daily lives. Secular philosophers of a transcendental bent may seem to be radically different from theologians, but they are actually quite similar, at least in moral reasoning. They tend to view natural law as a set of principles so powerful, whatever their origin, as to be self-evident to any rational person. In short, transcendental views are fundamentally the same whether God is invoked or not.

For example, when Thomas Jefferson, following John Locke, derived the doctrine of natural rights from natural law, he was more concerned with the power of transcendental statements than with their origin, divine or secular. In the Declaration of Independence he blended secular and religious presumptions in one transcendentalist sentence, thus deftly covering all bets: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That assertion became the cardinal premise of America's civil religion, the righteous sword wielded by Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., and it endures as the central ethic binding together the diverse peoples of the United States.

So compelling are such fruits of natural-law theory, especially when the Deity is also invoked, that they may seem to place the transcendentalist assumption beyond question. But to its noble successes must be added appalling failures. It has been perverted many times in the past -- used, for example, to argue passionately for colonial conquest, slavery, and genocide. Nor was any great war ever fought without each side thinking its cause transcendentally sacred in some manner or other.

So perhaps we need to take empiricism more seriously. In the empiricist view, ethics is conduct favored consistently enough throughout a society to be expressed as a code of principles. It reaches its precise form in each culture according to historical circumstance. The codes, whether adjudged good or evil by outsiders, play an important role in determining which cultures flourish and which decline.

The crux of the empiricist view is its emphasis on objective knowledge. Because the success of an ethical code depends on how wisely it interprets moral sentiments, those who frame one should know how the brain works, and how the mind develops. The success of ethics also depends on how accurately a society can predict the consequences of particular actions as opposed to others, especially in cases of moral ambiguity.

The empiricist argument holds that if we explore the biological roots of moral behavior, and explain their material origins and biases, we should be able to fashion a wise and enduring ethical consensus. The current expansion of scientific inquiry into the deeper processes of human thought makes this venture feasible.

The choice between transcendentalism and empiricism will be the coming century's version of the struggle for men's souls. Moral reasoning will either remain centered in idioms of theology and philosophy, where it is now, or shift toward science-based material analysis. Where it settles will depend on which world view is proved correct, or at least which is more widely perceived to be correct....continued on the webpage.

[britisha]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

I know that I will step on a lot of corns here, but hey!! The truth always hurts. While I concur with what many have said in terms of the European and American colonizers used trickery and christianity to obtain slaves and perpetrate slavery, many have shunned the reality that blacks are still being enslaved by blacks. Now whose fault is this? The white man's, the Bible?

I remember when jinnall took a lot of flack on this board, when he brought up the topic of modern day slavery, and why is it not being addressed and efforts made to eradicate it. I remember him mentioning Al Sharpton going to Africa and yet he pretended that he didn't hear of this modern day scourge.

I remember as a child growing up in Kingston where some families used o send their children to town in the same way as these "restavecs" and they were never sent to school, but forced to work in the household of the relaive or person to whom they were sent. Forced to work as child labourers, cooking, washing, selling, carrying heavy loads from the market, getting a severe beating at the drop of a hat. If the child murmurs, he's whipped more to the extent that some of them run whey guh back a kuntri......isn't that slavery also?

Imagine, as this article stated, children working for families who live on the street, families who don't have it for themselves, yet exploiting others, children here for their own "gggains" stutttter andadvantage. While American slavery ws instituted and perpetrated on the grounds of racism, what rounds are thre to substantiate the modern slavery that we all hear about, including this in our neighboring country of Haiti?

Sukuna, what religion are the Haitians using to keep these children in slavery? They as you sooo clearly and emphatically stated practice indigenous religions more than any other of the former slaves, so now, maybe you and yours would like to explain what is really going on..
source.....http://www.HaitianStreetKids.com

RESTAVECS: CHILD SLAVES

FACES OF SLAVERY
Haitis' Forgotten Children

Thousands of children are living in slavery in Haiti - taken from their families in the rural villages or given up by desperately poor parents for the promise of a better life in cities like Port-au-Prince, Jacmel or Les Cayes.

The promise is rarely kept.

Instead, the children, some as young as 3 years old, are whipped and abused,
forced to fetch water, mop floors, wash dishes, care for babies not much younger than they are.
They are forbidden to eat at the table and are made to sleep on concrete or dirt floors.
They rarely get any schooling.

A United Nations study in 1998 estimated there are 300,000 such children
- known as restavecs, a Creole word meaning "stay with".

The restavec phenomena, like slavery, is a system that stresses ownership of the person versus
the use of cheap or underpaid labor. The reason that so many of these children can be mistreated
and often times beaten to death without any intervention from authorities or other adults is found in the reality that they are seen more as property than child laborers.

For infractions that the owners consider particularly intolerable, the child can be taken to the police station, and for a small fee, a "professional" beating of a more brutal and heartless nature can be administered regardless of the childs' age or error. It is not uncommon for the child not to return from these punishment sessions. The ones who do, usually require several days to recover.
[img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
The threat of a "police beating" is further verification for the child of his hopelessness and status as expendable property that should "know its' place" and do as it's told.

They know there is nowhere to run.

Neither the Penal Code nor the Rural Code make any provisions for penalties for the abuse of children in domestic service. The life of a restavec is one that is comprised of continual day-to-day menial chores where they must serve everyone around them, and refer to them as monsieur or madame (sir or mam), even to those younger than themselves. They are strictly forbidden to speak unless spoken to. They are not allowed to display any emotions without fear of reprisal, or even voice any opinions about their daily needs. They are rarely provided with a chance for an education, an if so, they are relegated to second rate schools where they may or may not graduate based on the whim of the families who own them.

A restavec is easily discernible within the streets of Haiti with their torn rags and tattered clothes hanging from their strained and feeble limbs, often times begging for food and money. Unlike a "bonne" (maid) or a "gerant" (grounds keeper), restavecs do not get paid for their services, and are forced to perform chores
that others would not dream of doing.

However, the most gruesome reality for most of them is that they are too often killed or raped and abandoned to the streets once families no longer wish to keep them. That such children even exist came to widespread attention with the 1998 publication of the autobiography of Haitian born
Jean-Robert Cadet, a Haitian-American man
who himself was a restavek.

He returned to Haiti and heard the stories of other restavecs.

They are children like these:

"Rene' was severely beaten with a "rigoise"( a whip made of cowhide). Every strike lifted the skin and formed a blister on the frail nine year old... He was made to kneel on a bed of hot rocks while holding two mango-sized stones in each hand high above his head. His puffy face was twisted to one side and his ragged shirt was glued to his broken body." (Rene died as a result of the beating.) [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]


Modelene Doristan, a quiet girl about 8 years old, who was brought to Foyer Maurice Sixto,
a shelter in western Port-au-Prince, by police.
"They beat me all the time at the woman's house", she says. Modelene is whispering, pausing to pick at a wound above her knee as she talks about her owner.

Naki MacPherson, a small boy with dark scars on his forehead and chest, who looks about 7, but doesn't know his age. His owner beats him with a rock when he doesn't work hard or fast enough. He is safe this day, playing a game of marbles at Foyer L'Escale, a shelter in northern Port-au-prince for restavecs who have run away.

A 13 year old restavec girl whose owners burned her severely when they covered her with hair spray and lit it. "They lit the spray on the child to find out if the spray was really flammable", said Haitian journalist Godfroy Boursiquot. The girl, who had lived at Foyer L'Escale for three years, also told Boursiquot she was sexually abused by the 18 year old and 20 year old men who owned her. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

These restavecs are, surprisingly, not slaves of Haiti's rich, but of those too poor to hire domestic help. "Some of them live in an owner's place that is worse than the place they were living in the countryside", said caretaker Clermei de Rameau, better known as the maternal figure "Mamy George,"at Foyer Maurice Sixto. "Some of them have slashes on their backs", Ms. Rameau said. "Some of them get food at home; some of them don't". "Once one of those kids was sleeping in a warehouse and a rat chewed the bottom of his feet," said Ms. Rameau.

Social workers at Foyer L'Escale don't discover until well after the restavecs come to stay that many have been raped. Some refuse to tell their stories. One of the girls told Cadet last April how her owner had "given her the pepper", or rubbed a hot pepper in her crotch after finding someone raping her.

There are even a few restavecs who work for families that live in the street, said Boursiquot, the Haitian journalist. Most owners are reluctant to send restaveks to public school not only because they have to pay for books and uniforms but, more importantly, they lose those hours the child could be working.

Most restavecs, alone and defenseless, live in constant fear of abandonment and punishment. Because it is a longstanding custom, an accepted slavery, usually no one intervenes.

PLEASE HELP US TO INTERVENE


Jacmel, Haiti
Site of Trinity House, home for abandoned and abused children.

Though routinely ignored and seldom enforced, the Haitian National Labor Code makes it illegal only to use children under 12 as restavecs. It obligates owners to pay for a medical exam for restavecs every six months, but they usually cannot or will not afford medical care for them. Sick restavecs are most often abandoned to the streets. In order to have a child that is not your own to live in your house, a form must be filled out with Bien Etre Social, which would mandate fullfillment of certain "requirements" in order to legally keep the child as restavec. According to the Social Affairs Minister in an interview in May, to date no form has ever been filled out.

The restavek system has existed nearly since the time Haiti was founded by freed African slaves in 1804 and has been virtually ignored by the worldwide aid community, the U.S. and Haitians themselves. Until these children are given a voice that can be heard, and a refuge they can run to for the love and protection they deserve, they will continue to be denied their humanity, dignity and childhoods. They will continue to suffer the horror and pain of their existence as soulless property.

Please Help Us To Be That Voice And Refuge
This Is Cielo ...

All He Needed Was A Chance ...
And A Way Out ...
To Be A Child Again.

He's With Us Now.
He's One Of The Lucky Ones.

Help The Others To Be Found.
Help To Give Them A Way Out
And A Bright Future.

Meanwhile, restavecs like Modelene, whose pink dress open to reveal a dark scar on her back where she was whipped, grow up invisible in a society that refuses to see them, and the descendants of freed slaves perpetuate a system of brutal captivity.

I, too sing Haiti.
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dareSay to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then. Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed –
I, too, am Haiti.
- Langston Hughes -

[britisha]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

..above is picture of home for abandoned street children in Jacmel, Haiti.

[NYer]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

We seem to have wandered off a bit from the original topic of the Bible passages on slavery and whether or not the Bible condoned the practice....do we all agree then that the Bible does condone slavery but for various reasons OUTSIDE THE BIBLE we have come to see it as an immoral practice?

Unfortunately, Dyoll, we are quoting from a book that has been written by, translated by, man. As is commonly known, many books of the Bible have been lost, and many have not appeared in some versions..compare Douay and say King James versions. So we have to work with what we have.

As you know, this is my position. The Bible isn't a perfect moral guide. This slavery discussion seems to make that very clear.

[Dyoll]

Re: There is nothing wrong with Slavery

From Britisha:

Based on Judeeo-Christian belief, there is punishment for transgressions. Could this be a way of God punishing them for their sins, and even giving them a taste of their own medicine so that they would not render this sort of treatment to others...?

I hope so! But look at what they're now doing to the Palestinians. Maybe God's wrath will be visited this time upon the state of Israel, you think? (oh no, I've gone off track)