The Bible and Affirmative Action

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Does anybody know Biblical supports AGAINST AA?  I appologize if this is the wrong board, but I need some stuff for a report, and since I go to a Christian school, we have to include Biblical References.
Thanks

[Alcon]

Wouldn't the point of the assignment be to research this for yourself?

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, you might consider noting that the notion of Affirmative Action first came around in the 1960's.

I doubt the bible, written so long ago, would have an opinion to offer.

[Colin]

Well, you might consider noting that the notion of Affirmative Action first came around in the 1960's.

I doubt the bible, written so long ago, would have an opinion to offer.

Yeah. I don't think a book whose testaments were written in 1000 BC and about 150 AD, respectively, would have anything to say about a modern phenomenon like Affirmative Action anyway.

EDIT: What type of Christian school? Catholic? Why do people try to believe that every policy has to have some sort of biblical reasoning? Just because, for instance, it says that Israelites should not marry those from outside tribes doesn't mean that people in modern times should marry only within their races. That's just one example that I can think of but it does show that when you can extrapolate a political belief out of the bible it is usually very much outdated by the moral zeitgeists of the day.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Wouldn't the point of the assignment be to research this for yourself?

the point of it is to find a commentary who might talk about something applied to this, and since I figured that somebody might know of a religious essay or book on this, I figured I look here, since I haven't found anything, except some really crappy articles.

and Cynic, not specifically "AA is wrong"--Genesis 2:34, but a principle applied to AA

[Gabu]

Well, the KKK has been known to use the Bible to support the lynching of black folk for being black, so maybe you can use the same verses to oppose affirmative action.

[bullmoose88]

Gets out the bullsh**t shovel...

How about the line "He who is first will be last, and he who is last will be first."

Total BS in terms of relation to your assignment...but it might work

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, the KKK has been known to use the Bible to support the lynching of black folk for being black, so maybe you can use the same verses to oppose affirmative action.

Right--just b/c I oppose AA doesn't mean I'm racist.  In fact, teh KKK is probably the most hated group by me other than the Nazis.  In fact, reading just 2 hate crimes in my book made me SO angry at freakin' white racists.

[Dr. Cynic]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

[Gabu]

Well, the KKK has been known to use the Bible to support the lynching of black folk for being black, so maybe you can use the same verses to oppose affirmative action.

Right--just b/c I oppose AA doesn't mean I'm racist.  In fact, teh KKK is probably the most hated group by me other than the Nazis.  In fact, reading just 2 hate crimes in my book made me SO angry at freakin' white racists.

Uh, I wasn't saying that you support the KKK.  I was saying that the KKK has abused the Bible to support hatred for black folk, so I was making a dumb joke that you could use the same verses to support keeping the black man down, thereby opposing affirmative action.

Evidently my joke failed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.  And polygamy wasn't OK, it just happened.  Solomon had many wives and God was disappointed.  Just b/c there's an example in the Bible, doesn't mean it's Biblically OK--difference b/t prescriptive and descriptive principles.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, the KKK has been known to use the Bible to support the lynching of black folk for being black, so maybe you can use the same verses to oppose affirmative action.

Right--just b/c I oppose AA doesn't mean I'm racist.  In fact, teh KKK is probably the most hated group by me other than the Nazis.  In fact, reading just 2 hate crimes in my book made me SO angry at freakin' white racists.

Uh, I wasn't saying that you support the KKK.  I was saying that the KKK has abused the Bible to support hatred for black folk, so I was making a dumb joke that you could use the same verses to support keeping the black man down, thereby opposing affirmative action.

Evidently my joke failed.

No, you're fine, but people in the past have accused me of being racist due to my sayings that black people are where they are b/c of what they've done.

[KEmperor]

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Oh boy, wrong answer.  I'll just let the others bash you, but suffice it to say that was NOT the right answer.

As to your original question, there's enough crap in the Christian bible that has been interpreted to support any number of governmental positions over the years that I'm sure there's something in there you can BS into a rationale for your position.

[Colin]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

so then, somebody who has a servant is wrong--butlers and maids (they just housed and fed them instead of $$).

[KEmperor]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

so then, somebody who has a servant is wrong--butlers and maids (they just housed and fed them instead of $$).

Oh, I really don't want to get into this debate....(sigh)

You don't whip your butler or maid out in the fields if he disobeys an order.  For that matter, an employee can QUIT a job if they don't like it.

[Dr. Cynic]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

Colin beat me to it... It doesn't matter how they were treated... People, no matter who they are, are not cattle. They are not animals. Any person who owned slaves was wrong in my view to have done so... No matter who they were... As for Polygamy... It still happened... Soloman was a holy man, and still went to heaven dispite his fifty billion wives... In fact, many holy men other than Soloman were polygamists... Did that make them any less holy?... David was an adulterer... He sent his commander off to the front lines and had a fling with his wife... To me, the bible is actually the first instance of Soap Opera writing. Now, I'm not saying God endorsed what they did... Point is they still did it. Just like the Pointy Heads in the KKK used the bible for their own needs... A polygamist might do the same, and so might an adulterer. I rest my case.

[Colin]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

so then, somebody who has a servant is wrong--butlers and maids (they just housed and fed them instead of $$).

Well if you are an employee you can always quit, you have rights as a free person to try and negotiate for a higher wage or better conditions, you aren't beaten if you disobey orders. If you believe that a slave is the same as an employee you are deluded. A slave is one who is forced to work against his will for an employer. An employee is one who chooses to work for an employee for an agreed upon wage. I cannot believe you are defending slavery. I'm sure some of the black slaves were treated well, and were "more like servants", does that mean that the horrors of slavery weren't still apparent? I would have thought that by 2006 we would have gotten it through our collective heads that slavery is wrong, immoral, and completely against human rights and dignity, no matter what time period or whether it is featured in a holy book.

[Dr. Cynic]

You'd figure that, wouldn't you... I think Inks is having trouble with the concept of ownership, and the occasional whipping in the woodshed as opposed to being a butler, who is paid with wages, time off, and is usually privy to benefits.

[Ebowed]

Against discriminating in favor of the rich; could also be interpreted in favor of socioeconomic affirmative action for the poor so pick-and-choose which parts to quote to make your case.

James 2 (NIV)

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!


This isn't going to really help, since in this section the Bible actually encourages ethnic-based discrimination, but you might find it interesting anyway.

Deuteronomy 23

3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

7 Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.

[Ebowed]

And polygamy wasn't OK, it just happened.  Solomon had many wives and God was disappointed.  Just b/c there's an example in the Bible, doesn't mean it's Biblically OK--difference b/t prescriptive and descriptive principles.

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money." -- Exodus 21:7-11

"If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him." -- Deuteronomy 21:15-17

BTW, God wasn't disappointed with Solomon having numerous wives, just that they were worshiping other gods.  Look up 1 Kings 11.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

so then, somebody who has a servant is wrong--butlers and maids (they just housed and fed them instead of $$).

Oh, I really don't want to get into this debate....(sigh)

You don't whip your butler or maid out in the fields if he disobeys an order.  For that matter, an employee can QUIT a job if they don't like it.

where in the bible was a servant whipped?

[Ebowed]

where in the bible was a servant whipped?

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." -- Exodus 21:20-21

[Dr. Cynic]

Do you really think the practice of keeping slaves in line was any different than the Egyptian methods, or the methods of the White Plantation owners in the South...

It all went the same way... You were disobidient, you were punished. It's common sense.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, I know... I was trying to be cute... The point I was making was that the bible is open to interpretation... Much like Gabu mentioned, Southern whites used the bible to justify segregation. In the movie "Mississippi Burning", Frances McDormand tells Gene Hackman the very same thing...

I was also pointing out the antiquated ideals of the bible... Slavery is treated as ok, as is polygomy... Now, I have no issues with you or anyone else's religion... But the points I have made should be taken... It's ok to be religious, but alot of it is out of date idealisim. Progress is and always will be made, no matter what the bible endorses.

Inks, no one has called you a rascist... I believe Affirmative Action hasn't been done right... Just because you're opposed to it doesn't mean you're rascist.

Now hold on.  Slavery was  a LOT different--they weren't mistreated--they were more like servants.

Does it matter? It's still slavery. I admire Thomas Jefferson a good deal but I still think the fact that he owned slaves was morally repulsive even though he treated them well. It doesn't matter if they weren't mistreated or were "more like servants" it's still the fact that they OWNED PEOPLE.

Colin beat me to it... It doesn't matter how they were treated... People, no matter who they are, are not cattle. They are not animals. Any person who owned slaves was wrong in my view to have done so... No matter who they were... As for Polygamy... It still happened... Soloman was a holy man, and still went to heaven dispite his fifty billion wives... In fact, many holy men other than Soloman were polygamists... Did that make them any less holy?... David was an adulterer... He sent his commander off to the front lines and had a fling with his wife... To me, the bible is actually the first instance of Soap Opera writing. Now, I'm not saying God endorsed what they did... Point is they still did it. Just like the Pointy Heads in the KKK used the bible for their own needs... A polygamist might do the same, and so might an adulterer. I rest my case.

Ebowed said plygamy was OKed by the Bible.

I'm going to bed, so hold off on the rest until tomorrow.