doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Are these liberals you guys talking about?

Jack, what version are you quoting? The King James version I have is different.

The original King James version uses the archaic terms "bondmen" and "bondmaids" - the New King James, English Standard, New American Standard and other modernized versions of the bible all translate that as "slaves." Bondage is synonymous with slavery.

Interesting, mine only refers to them as servants, and that they may buy them.

Nancy just asked what I was laughing about. I said this board has put at least 20 years on my life. Many thanks all hands.

Yeah, when you can buy and sell human beings, and will them as property to your heirs, there are all sorts of ways to describe it. In my great great grandfather's will, he never used the term "slave." But he left "my negro man Billy" and "my negro woman Amy" to his wife, and "the first Child of my negro woman" to his daughter...along with his horses, cattle, sheep and hogs.

Tribe and Dershowitz . . . interestingly enough, I recall that one of this pair (maybe both) also supports torture under certain circumstances--like if the individual being tortured is in possession of information that can disrupt a terrorist plot.

FDR made the decision to "relocate" thousands of Japanese Americans, and he insisted on the death penalty for German "saboteurs"--who had never even attempted to commit sabotage. (And he got what he wanted in the latter case, via military tribunal.) Does that make him liberal, in comparison to the conservative President Bush???

Homosapiens have been around about 200,000 years. The Brits outlawed slavery in 1832 and Americans in 1865 (Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 only pertained to border states). Not much difference. Mauritania outlawed slavery in 1989 but it is still practiced there.

I seem to remember the same thing and I think it was about Dershowitz. I think he has very strong feelings about Israel and all that. We all tend to take care of our own issues. Funny, eh? Jake

King:

The definitions of Natural Law provide for few things.

My pursuit of happiness is a natural right until I collide with someone elses pursuit of happiness. As someone, I wish I knew who said :"My right to freely swing my fist ends at the tip of someone elses nose."

"Slavery" is not a natural right, at least not according to Hobbes and Beccaria and Locke.

I am not responsible for the ignorance you encountered in Georgia, no matter what banner it flew. In the Bible, reference to slavery and slaves necessarily mostly refers to Saxons and Angles and Ostrogoths and Visigoths and Medes and Greeks and Gauls and Jutes as these are the folks who lost wars with the Romans and were therefore enslaved. I call to mind Onesimus in the Epistle to Philemon - Onesimus is a Greek.

St. Pauls comments merely acknowledge the existence of slavery, and neither condemn it nor commend it. Please note he didnt have anything bad to say about the Roman Empire, either, even though his people were oppressed by it.

This is a digression, however.

The gents who wrote the US Constitution believed in Natural Rights, ( referred to as Inalienable Rights in the Declaration ) and the reason they wanted to give 'ol King George the heave ho, was because Georgius Rex and his parliamemnt was trampling on them. Like it or not, the whole of American Constituional jurisprudence is based on it - if there were no natural Rights, rebellion against the Crown was unlawful and immoral.

Regards

GKT

So, after "200,000 years of homo sapians" (according to Pete, I am no authority), we have had maybe 140 years (or maybe more like 40 to be more honest) of no slavery in a small part of the Western World. It still exists in a much larger part of our green earth. Our life since 1865 (or 1965) as an emancipated population is but a blip on the calendar of humanity. The separation of the classes by economics in our world today is to some a prediction of the return to slavery in even the most enlightened societies.