In a world of taint and dismiss rhetoric, this requires a rebalancing of considerations.
The matter recently came up in a discussion at UD on abuse of power under colour of law that forces us to violate first duties of reason. Accordingly, let us first note on that context, in a summary I have now packaged as a "standard" short note:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident.
Duties,
- to truth,
- to right reason,
- to prudence,
- to sound conscience,
- to neighbour, so also
- to fairness and
- justice etc.
Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.These principles provide a built-in law of our morally governed nature bulwark against nihilistic, positivist approaches that set out to impose various dubious agendas under false colour of law and rights.
Let's note an infographic I did a few years back that gives needed balancing context. I prepared and first posted it several years back, when the odious stunt of snipping and sniping on verses out of overall context regarding slavery first came to my notice:
As a first reply to the rhetorical stunt, I noted to a commenter who tried to pile up Bible verses that mention slavery without reference to the whole counsel of scripture . . . the exact fallacy of those who grabbed proof texts to try to justify what they were doing 200 years ago . . . by pointing to the yardstick gospel ethics case of divorce and the implicit force of a fortiori logic: this is as that or if that is so, how much more then:
Of course, the stunt continued. I eventually decided to respond in greater detail to a pile-on that made reference to slave allotments in C18 - 19, which I first answered:you are amateurish at best in addressing the Scriptures; you would be well advised to be restrained in your conclusions. I simply note that there is in fact a common pattern in the scriptures of recognising and regulating a widespread pre-existing social practice as the alternative given hardness of hearts is a worse evil, especially under relevant circumstances. We must never over generalise from a gospel ethics and revivals softened situation that buttresses constitutional democracies to what was there in the long haul of history and is liable to return if Red Guards rioting and their backers have their way. A classic example is in the Mt 19 exchange on divorce where Jesus corrects questioners that the proper purpose of marriage had been perverted so that there was need to refer to the original foundation of marriage. So, no, Divorce was not a command but the Mosaic law undertook a regulation and amelioration given hard hearts dull to the proper intent. In that context, Malachi 2:16 is striking: I hate divorce says the Lord. We must never conflate recognition, regulation and discussion of a social fact for establishment or endorsement. Where, further, it is precisely the heart softening work of the Spirit who indwells and the genuine enlightenment of the gospel that allows for material improvement. Divorce is still with us, legal under law and a widespread plague. A sign of a civilisation with hard heart problems. Slavery in various forms is still there, for similar reasons, though it is illegal and has been the target of the first civil rights movement. A movement energised by gospel awakenings and for which the manumission letter of Onesimus, Paul to Philemon, has been not only a model but a source of its very motto. Namely, am I not a man and a brother, and parallel, am I not a woman and a sister. Further to this, it is clear that the invention of printing, ferment of the Reformation, circulation of the Bible in the vernacular that helped energise democratising and cultural stabilising forces that made significant progress on social and legal as well as governmental reforms possible and sustainable. In that context, it is the persistent accuse accuse, refuse to listen hostility we are seeing that is diagnostic of the sad, benighted, hard hearted, evil-addicted state of much of our civilisation today. Some rethinking is in order.
you try to double down on a gross error on exegesis by trying to taint and thus to hope to “disqualify.” That C18 – 19 slaves had allotments and could earn some money at weekend markets has precisely nothing to do with that there is in the Bible recognition of a fact of life and amelioration c 1440 BC that will hold back the worst of what is there given hardness of our hearts; and that heart-softening, democratisation and economic advance will take many generations of transformational change to outlaw much less eliminate. Which latter is not accomplished today. Apparently, there may be 20 – 40+ million enslaved people today. The linked refusal to reckon with the implications of the organic connection between evangelical awakening and the rise of abolition is also telling.I then elaborated. I believe my longer response that directly followed is worth headlining here, given much broader issues in our civilisation:
Before I further comment on your attempted toxic side tracking, I must refocus, as the issue of freedom is very much on the table as the OP indicates right from its headline. Compelling someone to violate conscience and other first duties of reason under penalty of state power acting under colour of law is a demand for improper subjugation. Indeed, enslavement of the soul, with body to follow as states tumble into the vortex of tyranny.Our civilisation is at a dangerous pass, and we need to think very carefully indeed on the forces we are letting loose and the buttresses of liberty we are undermining. END
In short, your toxic distraction fails as it is an enablement of real enslavement through trying to taint a proved buttress of liberation and freedom through turnabout accusation pivoting on amateurish exegesis and highly selective, biased examples that are designed to polarise and cloud responsible balanced thought.
Of course, to address this, I again need to make reference to the government challenge captured in my alternative political spectrum. [I insert:]
In effect, there is a repeller pole, anarchy and/or state of nature that is so chaotic and dangerous in praxis that it pushes to imposed order. Where of course, want of effective policing means pirates will freely kidnap into slavery. (Note, such attracts a death penalty in the OT and is deemed incompatible with salvation in the NT.)
This snap-back to order and safety tends to the vortex of tyranny under autocrats or oligarchies, that for most of history could only be tempered by creating a lawful state that based on a corpus of just and ameliorative laws offered some redress.
That was the situation until only several centuries ago, and it is why the Common Law system and Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis as well as the Mosaic code were such key advances.
What made the difference?
As already noted, the invention of printing, wide circulation of the Bible (which contains the Mosaic code and a considerable body of ethics with Divine Sanction) , the ferment of the Protestant Reformation, increasing literacy and advances in standard of living allowing creation of an increasingly aware public. By 1650 – 1700, this opened up the possibility of democratising reform, leading to the first modern Constitutional Republic of significantly democratic character. One buttressed by the social-cultural factors and forces of Evangelical awakening.
Such, stabilised democracy and made it sustainable.
Unsurprisingly, this is precisely the cultural buttress that today’s Red Guards and their backers seek to break down. The slide into enslaving tyranny is predictable, should the long march of culture form marxism through our civilisation’s institutions succeed.
Which, is telling about the dirty power game that is already in play all around us.
A game that, frankly, your rhetoric enables.
Which is why it needs to be exposed and corrected.
Bear all of this in mind, as we snap back for the moment to 61 – 62 AD as the Apostle Paul — an appeals prisoner under threat of capital punishment literally chained to guards — prepares to send an escaped slave and now repentant thief back to his master. In doing so, he pens the manumission letter that shattered the foundations of slavery and oppression:
Philemon
Greeting
1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved fellow worker 2 and Apphia our sister [–> “Am I not a woman and a sister” — 2nd motto, Antislavery Society] and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Philemon’s Love and Faith4 I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, 6 and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.[a] 7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you.Paul’s Plea for Onesimus8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus,[b] whose father I became in my imprisonment. [–> brotherhood and fundamental equality established “en Christo”] 11 (Formerly he was useless to you [–> pun on his name, Useful, allusive to theft], but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord.15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a bondservant[c] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother [–> am I not a man and a brother, Antislavery Society motto] —especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. [–> recognition of considerable capital loss, compensation . . . destabilising the economy would defeat the point] 20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ.21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you.Final Greetings23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.So, why didn’t this instantly effect abolition of slavery everywhere, waving a magic wand?
The answer is patent, save to the utterly irresponsible, see the discussion on the rise of freedom. The only system of government that can sustainably maintain general freedom including abolition is a constitutional democracy stabilised through a sound culture. Which will invariably be rooted in ethical theism and the influence of the sort of gospel ethics just laid out in Philemon.
So, as we see those who hold it in contempt and are busily undermining it, we can conclude that they are serving the cause of subjugation under a fresh tyranny, one that will create a new ideological enslavement.
So, let us take due warning and rescue our civilisation before it is too late.
For, you see, ideological enslavement and subjugation are far more widespread and a far more clear and present danger than the 20 – 40+ millions reckoned as in slavery today. Hundreds of millions still languish in chains and in the so-called free world powerful ideological forces of subjugation are at work.
But unsurprisingly, it is what, historically, is foundational to sustainable liberty that is under concerted attack.
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design . . .”
