Morse: Sexual Revolution Bringing Back Slavery

Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute is a very confused woman. First, she thinks that Christianity “put a stop to” slavery. Second, she thinks that the sexual revolution, and especially LGBT equality, are bringing slavery back. Because that’s a totally rational thing to say.

In a lecture to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship, Morse explained that while Christianity ended slavery, the sexual revolution is now bringing it back.

“All of these issues — divorce and remarriage, abortion and infanticide, slavery, the buying and selling of human beings — all of these things, the Christian religion put a stop to. But they’re all on their way back because of the sexual revolution,” she said. “The sexual revolution is bringing back all of these points.”

“We, in fact, are on the right side of history,” she said.

History called, it wants its reality back. The overwhelming weight of institutional Christianity was on the side of slavery, not just in this country but around the world (so was Islam) for centuries. And how on earth you think that has anything to do with any “sexual revolution” (by which I think she means “allowing people to do things with their own bodies that I don’t like”) is beyond me. This is wingnut-speak.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/155981861″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Oh, and of course she and her fellow bigots are just like those who fought against Hitler.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/155981864″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

"I "heard" there are some "fine" people, too !"

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"The local Lutheran church seems to have taken the message to heart. As I drove ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"but most of those cases are in prison and they are perpetrated by other men, ..."

Pastor: Accusations Against Moore Part of ..."
"I feel like insofar as a clock is ticking with the implied 'running out of ..."

Hannity Shows the Usual Right Wing ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    But they’re all on their way back because of the sexual revolution

    Gee, I thought the sexual revolution was in the sixties. Ya mean there was no divorce and remarriage before then?

  • sinned34

    To various strains of Christianity, we are all slaves already. But as a slave, you get to choose your master: Jesus or Satan. The whole analogy falls apart from there. At any rate, we atheists are all slaves to our flesh (even those of us in committed relationships, who really don’t live lives much different than Christians, other than we find other things to do on Sunday mornings and don’t consider one specific book the most important book ever written), and the only way to be free is to be a slave to Christ.

    I’m sure it all makes sense somehow.

  • anubisprime

    They are the epitome of the human version of cockroaches on DDT…they shiver and shake and foam and fulminate, they chatter and wiggle and jiggle…they vibrate and they jerk and they babble and eventually toxic sticky stinking crap oozes out their orifices as they enter the final stadium of their eradication.

    They are so desperate now they do not give a fuck what they say…it really does not matter if it is not cogent or even coherent, or indeed even make sense…the words do not really matter, the story is not important…what is remains the background wailing and gnashing of blunted and worn out teeth…and the lament unto jeebus loud, blurted, mish mash of promises threats and fondest wishes all rolled into a pastiche of imprecatory prayer…these jerks are at the end of an evolutionary branch that is plainly not fit for either purpose or indeed life and not adaptive in the slightest….the more they scream the more people laugh at them!

    And they are very afraid they know the end of their fatuous delusion is indeed nigh..and their sky daddy is nowhere to be found!…oh dear…how sad…never mind!

  • cptdoom

    Gee, I thought the sexual revolution was in the sixties. Ya mean there was no divorce and remarriage before then?

    Nope, no one ever got remarried while their former spouse was still alive. Oh, except for half of Hollywood (I believe Elizabeth Taylor was on marriage #4 or #5 when the sexual revolution hit), and certainly there wasn’t an English King who divorced any wives, was there?

  • Reginald Selkirk

    All of these issues — …, slavery, the buying and selling of human beings — all of these things, the Christian religion put a stop to.

    Right. It just took ~ 1800-1900 years to do it. That makes a lot more sense that giving the credit to something like the Enlghtenment.

  • dingojack

    “… . -..- ..- .- .-.. / .-. . …- — .-.. ..- – .. — -. / -… .-. .. -. –. .. -. –. / -… .- -.-. -.- / … .-.. .- …- . .-. -.–”

    Dingo

    ——–

    * yes I am a little Asperger’s

  • dingojack

    cptdoom – Charlemagne, that paragon of a Christian king, was married at least four times..

    Dingo

  • thascius

    @4-actually there wasn’t. Henry VIII had 4 marriages annulled but never got divorced. As in Charlemagne’s case popes generally granted kings annulments on fairly spurious grounds throughout the middle ages. Which was why Henry was so shocked the pope wouldn’t grant him an annulment to a marriage that was forbidden by the Bible itself (not that that had bothered Henry for nearly 20 years). The fact that Catherine of Aragon’s nephew was holding the pope prisoner at the time probably had something to do with his refusal.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Vulva la Revolución!

  • lofgren

    In fairness the overwhelming weight of most powerful institutions is almost always on the side of history that gives more control to institutions, slavery being pretty much the epitome of that.

  • shouldbeworking

    Brave King David may or may not have had more than 1 wife at the same time, if he really existed.

  • steffp

    1 Kings 11:3

    “He (Solomon *) had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines.”

    Corrected for Viagra results, that beats Hefner’s Playboy Mansion…

    * the guy who had a rather small** JHV templetto built by Phenicians and 156,000 enslaved foreigners***

    ** 50 by 25 meters, 1 Kings 6, passim

    *** 2 Chronicles II, 17

  • Erp

    It probably doesn’t help her point that the Christian denomination whose members were most closely associated with abolition, the Quakers, also provided some of the earliest Christian supporters of gay rights (mid 1960s when some got noticed).

  • https://www.facebook.com/wes.aaron.5 Wes Aaron

    Nazi’s ideals can be traced back to the teachings of Martin Luther who was in no way a Pagan. Hitler refers to Martin Luther countless times as his reason for persecuting the Jews. Maybe they should read a history book before they burn it. Oh and I love how she finishes her second set of comments almost quoting Hitler’s own words that there can be no compromise. How ironic all of these Christian groups would condemn Islam but fail to acknowledge that the same laws are written in their bible. What is even more ironic is she is pushing for Islamic law.

  • lorn

    Well … I all depends on your selected definitions …

    if you define spiritual freedom, as both Christianity and Islam do, as blind, enthusiastic and unquestioning obedience to God; essentially redefining freedom as bondage and openly saying so you can kind of see some underlying consistency. By implication this sets up most human freedoms as spiritual slavery.

    The Biblical principle she references anticipates : “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” by a good bit.

  • Akira MacKenzie

    Ya mean there was no divorce and remarriage before then?

    Oh, there was divorce, but those who went through it were supposed to be shamed and disgraced for the rest of their lives…

    …which is to say that the women were shamed and disgraced for the rest of their lives because 1) they had been “spoiled” and 2) it was obviously her fault that the marriage didn’t last.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    In faireness the abolitionists who campaigned were often devout Christians eg. William Wilberforce :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

    So to give them their due credit some Christians motivated by one set of Christian ideas did play a significant role in ending slavery.

    @3. anubisprime :

    They are the epitome of the human version of cockroaches on DDT…they shiver and shake and foam and fulminate, they chatter and wiggle and jiggle…they vibrate and they jerk and they babble and eventually toxic sticky stinking crap oozes out their orifices as they enter the final stadium of their eradication.

    Is that sort of dehumanising language really okay here?

    I imagine if someone applied it to, say, Muslims, instead of Christians there’d very quickly be an outpouring of outrage including allegations “racist” and people saying that sort of thing was totally not cool.

    But it is seemingly okay to dehumanise and vermin-ify Christians who, however extreme and repellent their views are still human beings because, well, why exactly?

  • forestdragon

    Hey lorne, I think we need to update the Orwell slogans by adding “Hate Is Love.”

  • anubisprime

    StevoR @ 17

    Is that sort of dehumanising language really okay here?

    In the context that it was not specifically aimed at xtians or Muslims in general but at a sub-set of idiots that preach this twisted and contorted mish mash of utter bollix from behind the façade of a faith that they obviously have no actual faith in…the tragedy being they warp lesser capable beings into believing every word they utter and regard it as a sacrosanct truth.

    Whole generations have been subjected to the lies and propaganda and the inevitable damage is extremely visible in society today…and the creatures that spew it up are not in any context worthy of the term..Human being.

    Even when corrected and informed, they still prefer their toxic version of reality.

    You might well regard it as dehumanizing but the damage these sunbeams do is out of all proportion to what ever worth they had as a human being….harsh maybe but entirely fair.

  • dingojack

    Stevo – Dehumanising? What, like calling someone ‘evil’ and assuming his son would be ‘evil’ too?

    Someone did that earlier… guess who.

    Dingo

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    @20:

    What? You mean Hitl–; oh, wait, I see what you did there!

  • skinnercitycyclist

    One point worth making is that, yeah, slavery as in “race-based chattel slavery” did not exist between about 1000 to 1500 AD, largely because the economic realities made another kind of forced labor and consequent dehumanization much more profitable: serfdom. Once the economic conditions were right, Europeans jumped right back into chattel slavery in the New World (overlapping into the old). Oh, and fully authorized by Xian authorities at the time.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @20. dingojack : Yes. That would be me. Do you really disagree with my assessment there?

    But truth is a defence. It would be true in that example. Also in this one.

    Just drawing attention to an inconsistency.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    PS. Al-Awlaki dehumanised himself – and his son – by choosing to think and become so inhumane.

  • matty1

    I’m not sure but I don’t think it is possible to change species by doing wrong.

    More seriously though comparing people (any people) to cockroaches being exterminated has pretty ugly echoes and is probably better avoided. Not that I’m saying Anubisprime was intentionally calling anyone inyenzi but just like we call people out for using insults based on race and gender, even when they don’t mean them that way so we should be sensitive to other implications of what we write.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    @ ^ matty1 : Yes. That. Agreed.

  • anubisprime

    matty1 @ 26

    What was being compared was their ‘behaviour’ not the actuality of being labelled cockroaches…that was not the intention.

    Their ‘behaviour’ is reminiscent of a creature subjected to a poisonous substance.

    The poisonous substance for these doyennes of the alternative ‘truth’ is a combination of twisted ideology, ego, dogma, cowardice and bigotry.

    That is all I was trying to impart.

    Besides it was not aimed at the majority just the ‘chosen few’ that believe their corrupted nonsense should be taken seriously by every audience they preach at.

    In what universe can that said to be harmless to other human beings?

    People buy that rhetoric lock stock and two smoking barrels worth…that is not free speech that is just lying outright to a vulnerable, none to bright audience, simply because they refuse to read either the history or the science, and even of they did they would ignore it because it does not gell with their version they cooked up…

    And that is another aspect…they all use each others little brain farts as verbatim data and repeat the meme as proof positive they are delivering a message of some vague warning, it is anti-social in the extreme.

    Because it is based on manipulation, lies, simplistic ideas and subjective fears.

    That is…if at all…the dehumanizing element.

    But I apologise if anyone here was and or is offended.

  • abusedbypenguins

    The Rodrico Borgia and his family had a great time in the vatican for a while.

  • dingojack

    Stevo – in a word – yes. Condemning someone to death without a trial is doubly barbaric, the extra-added layer of guilt by genetics makes this well beyond the pale. Talk about de-humanising! Sheesh!

    Dingo

    ——–

    Also, what’s the difference between detonating a strap on bomb at a wedding, and dropping a missile on a wedding from 35000ft (from a control room half a world away)?

    Which is more cowardly and inhumane? Which should be called ‘terrorism’ and why?

  • skinnercitycyclist

    @29 Careful, you may lose your talk show…

  • dingojack

    Shit…. I have a talk show?!? That’s news to me. Let me at the wads of cash I’m owed (surely you’ll be a perfect witness to this ‘fact’, no?)

    Dingo