Sunday, September 20, 2009

Scripture, Reppert, and racism

At September 19, 2009 4:01 PM , steve said...

Victor Reppert said...

"I am using examples related to racism because I think it's something most of us would agree is morally wrong, and our conviction on this is going to be pretty tough to shake."

The empirical problem with that statement, Victor, is that the constituency for Dangerous Idea is hardly a representative sampling of world opinion throughout history.

At just about all times and places, various ethnicities and nationalities have practiced racism. And they felt justified in so doing.

So rather than ask yourself what we'd do if we thought the Bible endorsed racism, a better question to ask yourself is how you'd condemn racism without the Bible.

At September 19, 2009 6:10 PM , steve said...

Victor Reppert said...

"How would you argue against racism using the Bible?"

Victor Reppert said...

How would you argue against racism w/o using the Bible (on purely intuitive grounds)?

At September 19, 2009 6:11 PM , steve said...

Victor Reppert said...

"How would you argue against racism using the Bible?"

You could start with the unity and continuity of the human race in Adam.

At September 19, 2009 6:25 PM , Victor Reppert said...

The wrongness of racism doesn't follow from that. We could all be unified in Adam, but one race might have been hit with a divine curse. I take it Cain's children and Seth's are all descendants of Adam, but Cain's were punished in a way that Seth's were not.

At September 19, 2009 6:51 PM , steve said...

Victor Reppert said...

"The wrongness of racism doesn't follow from that. We could all be unified in Adam, but one race might have been hit with a divine curse. I take it Cain's children and Seth's are all descendants of Adam, but Cain's were punished in a way that Seth's were not."

i) Even if, ad arguendo, we accept that interpretation, the distinction between an accursed brother and a brother who is not accursed is hardly a racial distinction. They have the same parents. Their posterity belong to the same tribe or clan. So how would that justify *racial* discrimination?

So you're equivocating.

ii) Likewise, assuming, for the sake of argument, that a brother and his posterity are accursed, how would that justify a policy of discrimination unless the terms of the curse prescribed some form of discrimination?

Suppose, for example, they are cursed to suffer a genetic defect, like color-blindness. How would that justify a general policy of discrimination?

At best, that would only justify discrimination in those cases where color vision is a relevant consideration.

iii) Finally, either you (Victor Reppert) think the Bible is racist or not. If you think a racist interpretation is incorrect, then why am I under some obligation to disprove an interpretation which both of us agree is incorrect?

That's just a ploy.

1 comment:

  1. “If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:13-15

    ReplyDelete