Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day: Leviticus 25:44-46.

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.

You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.

You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.

These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

"It sounds like a severe penalty, but the original proposal was that anyone kneeling would ..."

Standing by
"They don't normally delete comments, but the mods will disemvowel those that are more offensive. ..."

If it’s good enough for Andre ..."
"For that, you'd be a blog-hosting site, I'd think. Or a business-site host."

If it’s good enough for Andre ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Münchner Kindl

    So let’s see if I get this literal thing right:

    Literally, the ones allowed to have slaves from foreigners are the Israelites, therefore, Jews can make slaves of foreigners, like Anglo-Saxons.

    Why do I think that most fundies will read this as allowing WASPs to turn Mexicans and other brown people into slaves?

  • Baby_Raptor

    Try reminding one of them that Jesus wasn’t white. 


  • esmerelda_ogg

    I never noticed this before, but this is an awful lot like the relationship between the Spartans – that is, the official citizens of Sparta – and the helots, the enslaved peasant population of that citystate.  The Spartans were notoriously harsh to the helots, so much that even their contemporaries from rival cities noticed and commented on it.

  • Vermic

    These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

    Because that would be wrong.

  • D9000

    “Jews can make slaves of foreigners, like Anglo-Saxons.”
    I keep trying to tell this to my staff, and do they take any notice? No, they still want paying, the bastards.

  • EllieMurasaki
  • LL

    You know, reading all these “biblical families” posts has made kinda clear to me why so many Republican politicians today think they should be the ones making decisions about ladyparts, rather than the actual ladies: they think they (the males) own the ladyparts. Because here’s the bible, telling them that they are free to own people (and, we assume, all the body parts that go with them). So of course women don’t have the right to decide what goes in or out of their wombs. That’s a decision for the real owners (their fathers, husbands or slavemasters) to make. Of course. 

  • AnonaMiss

    Calling rules on slavery/inheritance an example of the Biblical view of family is a little elliptical imo.

    If we’re expanding from “Dude there’s a ton of terrible Biblical families” into “Dude there’s a ton of terrible Biblical ways of treating people, some of which members of multiple generations took part in,” you’re going to end up posting most of the Bible.

  • Lori

    Literally, the ones allowed to have slaves from foreigners are the
    Israelites, therefore, Jews can make slaves of foreigners, like

    They can get around this, no problem. See at the time Leviticus was written the Jews were God’s chosen people. Then Jesus came, so now Christians are God’s chosen people. So if this applied to the present day (which it does not because the only parts of Leviticus that still apply are the parts about how nasty gay people are) it would mean that Christians (white male ones, naturally) would be the ones entitled to own slaves.

    The bit about how Jesus wasn’t white would still freak them out though.

  • Was that exact rationale used to justify slavery in the 1700s and 1800s? :(

  • Fusina

     Indeed. I have had both maternal and paternal relatives doing genealogical research on the familial ancestors, and quite frankly, being of Jewish and Germanic/Frankish descent, I can’t say either side is anything to write home about. Sadly, most of all history is people being horrid to people when they can be.

    Curse that stupid monolith! ;-)

  • Lunch Meat

    And this is the literal interpretation, of course.

  • Random_Lurker

     More to the point is that the verse recommends taking slaves from foreigners’ families, thus destroying the family units of others.

  • Lori

    IIRC mainly the convenient belief that the slavery part of Leviticus still applied then even though none of the rest of it did. Leviticus, the gift to total douchebags that keeps on giving! Also, the standard misreading of Philemon.

  • As I understand it in the so called dark ages into the early medieval this was understood to mean that Christians could not keep other Christians as slaves but non-Christians were fair game (serfs weren’t counted as slaves). I can’t help wondering if this was done as an inducement for pagan slaves to convert.

  • Amaryllis

    The Chick-Fil-A Poem of the Day, by a woman who should be better remembered:

    Take sackcloth of the darkest dye,
      And shroud the pulpits round!
    Servants of Him that cannot lie,
       Sit mourning on the ground.

    Let holy horror blanch each cheek,
       Pale every brow with fears;
    And rocks and stones, if ye could speak,
       Ye well might melt to tears!

    Let sorrow breathe in every tone,
       In every strain ye raise;
    Insult not God’s majestic throne
       With th’ mockery of praise.

    A “reverend” man, whose light should be
       The guide of age and youth,
    Brings to the shrine of Slavery
       The sacrifice of truth!

    For the direst wrong by man imposed,
       Since Sodom’s fearful cry,
    The word of life has been unclos’d,
       To give your God the lie.

    Oh! When ye pray for heathen lands,
       And plead for their dark shores,
    Remember Slavery’s cruel hands
       Make heathens at your doors!

    “Biblical Defense of Slavery”, by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper.

  • Ben English

    So does this represent Moses superceding  his own commands in Leviticus to be kind to strangers, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt? Because clearly the Torah was composed entirely by him even though it includes his death and events after it.

  • Then Jesus came, so now Christians Americans are God’s chosen people


  •  If I recall right, didn’t the Spartans just flat out murder helots as some right of passage or other?  With the stipulation being ‘don’t get caught doing it’?

    It’s been awhile but I could swear I read that somewhere.

  •  I’m totally OK with that.  There’s a lot that needs to be aired out there tbh.

  • Lori

    I’ll give you “American Christians” or “Christian Americans”, but not just “Americans”. The only way that works is if we buy into their notion that non-Christians aren’t really Americans and I’m not going for that even as a joke.

  • esmerelda_ogg

     I don’t recall that offhand, but I have a copy of Herodotus around someplace – I’ll locate it tomorrow (it’s almost midnight here) and see what he says. If anyone back in the day would pass along a dramatic story like that, it would have to be be Herodotus!

  •  Sadly I don’t think you have to.  Remember the couple jackasses Fred posted about what… last week?  Two weeks ago?  The ones who want to deport all American Muslims?  I’m sure they’d be keen to get rid of us atheists too.

    And there’s that whole Dominionist “America is a Christian Nation” bullshit; which I think is in a way flat out stating “If you aren’t Christian you aren’t American”.

  • EllieMurasaki

    And there’s that whole Dominionist “America is a Christian Nation” bullshit; which I think is in a way flat out stating “If you aren’t Christian you aren’t American”.

    ‘In a way’ nothing. It’s only a little more blatant than ‘one nation under God, love it or leave it’.

  • esmerelda_ogg

     Oh, why bother with Herodotus when we have Wikipedia? According to the Great Wiki, you’re right. Every fall the Spartan leaders would officially declare war on the helots for a while. (This mattered to the ancient Greeks because killing people you weren’t at war with caused dangerous spiritual pollution – being “at war” with the helots make it safe to kill them.)

    According to some sources, young men who had done unusually well in their military training then fanned out across the countryside, armed only with a knife, to kill all the helots they could, until the end of the yearly war.

    Like most small and harsh upper classes, the Spartans were always afraid of the helots; citizens were careful not to remove their armor in public where they could be attacked by helots, and locked themselves in their houses every night.

  •  This is what I’m talking about:  – Though since the source is wikipedia I’m not at all saying this is definitively historically true >.> Merely that that’s what I’d read.  (It took me a minute to remember where )

  •  Oh, you beat me to the punch nm~

  •  True >.> there’s me couching facts in wibbly language again.  *sigh* I gotta work on that.

  • Lori

    Oh, I know that there are people who believe it. That’s why I won’t play along with it, even as a joke. It’s an evil idea and just not funny. There are very, very few things about which I will not joke, but 3+ decades of having Republicans* and Christianists** question my love of my home and whether or not I’m a “real” American has killed my ability to find that ish funny.

    *Most of whom would have been Tories if they were alive in the 1770s

    **Most of whom have a ridiculously un-American view of America

  • Perfectly reasonable response ( ._.)b

    I don’t find it funny either;  more maddening really >.< but when it comes down to it a lot of the times I end up taking the view "I have to laugh or I'm going to cry"; and I'm all out of crying. (x.x)

  • Thus we have this forthcoming comic book, a response to 300 and its dubiously white-washed approach to Spartan culture:

    I’m looking forward to it.

  •  That should be interesting!

    I enjoyed 300 for what it was – a well choreographed bloody action movie – and I was willing to accept the historical innaccuracy simply because well, it didn’t seem to me at the time like anything to be taken seriously.  It was what it was, a good evening at the theatre…

    And then I saw people starting to take it WAY the frak to seriously.

    I mean crap it’s like trying to derive some deep meaning from the movie “True Lies”.  (x.x)

    So yes having something on the opposite hand would be nice.

  • Münchner Kindl


    I mean crap it’s like trying to derive some deep meaning from the movie “True Lies”.  (x.x)

    There isn’t? What about “If you lie to your spouse, who should be your soulmate, about an important part of who you are = your profession, it will bite you in the ass”?
    “No matter how important your job seems to be, don’t take your wife and family as granted, but show them interest and take them seriously”?
    “It’s useful to know many skills even as housewife because you never know when they might come in handy, so be prepared”?

    And it was funny!

  • I’ll grant, it was pretty damn funny >_>  And I’m not saying there’s no value or anything!  But thankfully I haven’t seen anyone using “True Lies” as a basis for an argument about American foreign policy.

    I HAVE seen people do that with 300, which is mindbogglingly stupid even if you take the film completely seriously (x_X) But then I don’t understand half my country sometimes.

  • esmerelda_ogg

     That sounds (like it has a good chance to be) GREAT! I do like stories that turn the usual version of the world upside down and give it a good shake. Besides, it’s always healthy to have your worldview jolted.

  • Münchner Kindl

     Well, but before True Lies, which was advertised as comedy, not action movie, Arnold starred in “Terminator” … where you solve problems with robots not by reprogramming them (deal with problem people by rehabilitation) but by blowing stuff up (death penalty). (Which is stupid on a tech level, but we all know that Cameron had an image in his mind of the skeleton walking out flames and constructed the movie around it…)

    And because he starred in a lot of action movies where the only solution to any problems was “Shoot it” and “bigger guns”, Arnold started believing that crap and ran for California as Republican, and has implemented harsher, drastic, simple-minded solutions instead of looking at the real problems and solutions that work instead of sounding cool.

  • I agree with 99% of that post >.> But I’m going to quibble with the bit about his acting career necessarily being why he governed as he did.

    I’d suspect that if there’s a connection at all, it’s more likely that the same personality traits that lead to him being drawn to formulating an ‘ultra-macho’ persona are probably what lead both to his action stardom and really brainless decisions as a governor.

    Basically I’m saying it’s more the macho-culture that spawned both things, rather than the movies spawning the behavior.  Which isn’t to say he didn’t use some really poorly thought out action-movie style one-liners as governor… I seem to recall him doing that (x_X)

    That said, I think we can both agree he was not a good governor for that state.

    But hey, at least it’s not like my state (Illinois) – our last two governors have gone to prison (>_<) It's rather embarrassing just how corrupt my state is (;_;)