Richard Joseph

Here's an article I wrote that was published as the feature article in Wide Angle (New York based progressive newspaper). The article is on Slavery in Sudan. Notice the jab at organized religion. In fact, slavery in Sudan is, to an extent, justified by religion... in this case: Islam. It's yet another example of how religion, itself, can result in inhumane acts, or how religion can be manipulated so as to implement political adgendas.


http://www.wideangleny.com/2003_03/html/main.htm


How does this all strike you? Is it not unbelievable that at this day and age, stuff like this is alive and well?

Toto

Hi Richard, welcome to the boards.

There are a lot of issues in this. The Sudan is split religiously between Muslims and the Christian-animists in the south. Christians in this country have made this something of an issue. Some have bought freedom for the slaves (a move that any economist could tell you is unwise, as it just encourages more slavery.)

Christians used to justify slavery from the Bible (where it is approved of, and where Paul tells slaves to obey their masters.) It's not clear to me if the Sudanese Muslims are using slavery as an economic institution or just as a political means of oppressing their enemies, or what the theological position of Islam is on the question.

Secular economists and moralists reject slavery as an inefficient economic institution, but the April 21-18, 2003 issue of the New Yorker (the Money Issue) had a horrific article at p.106 by John Bowe titled "Nobodies: Slavery in South Florida." It detailed how immigrants from rural Mexico and Central America are held in conditions that amount to slavery in our own country to harvest the fruits and vegetables that we are advised to eat for our health. This appears to be an economic phenomenon, with no religious overtones noted.

At one point, post-Christians believed in progress, that things would just keep getting better and better as we grew more enlightened. This seems like a quaint dream at this point in history.

Richard Joseph

In the case with Sudan, it's clear that the name of Islam is being used to justify destroying the enemies of those populating the north. Also, it is clear that the Islamists in the north are moving toward the goal of a united Islamic state. I am not favoring the Christians or the Animists in this situation in Sudan. (I mean, manifest destiny was a Christian ideal. How could one hold any sympathy after all the damage that caused.) In my opinion, fundamentalists, whomever they are, should not be cut any slack. Fundamentalism, whether it's Christian, Islamic, Zionist or whatever else is an impediment to reason. In the words of Chief Joseph: "We don't want churches, because it will teach us to quarrel about god." All this quarrelling that's going on right now is so deeply rooted in religious prejudices, dogma, and tradition. Be damned if we can achieve a system of separation of church and state in the middle east because it is instructed otherwise in the Koran. Or take for example Zionist fundamentalists in the occupied territories who won't just pack up and go back to Israel because they believe that god gave them that land.
Meanwhile the world is in a massive state of decay. Environmental degredation is at a critical state, yet there are no realistic solutions being posed. The global population, currently at 6 billion, is expected to increase to 9 billion, or a 50% increase in the next 50 years. More people will translate into increased environmental degredation. In short, we are facing a danger far worse than nuclear weapons in rogue states. The time is now to begin working on a unified world, so that the real issue, of namely: preserving the global environment for future generations, can be tended to. Fundamentalism is nothing less than a catalyst for 'us and them' attitudes. I have no sympathy for Fundamentalists regardless of who they are.