myself writes:
The problem though is that if you use this line of reasoning you could apply the term "slave" to just about any type of labor industry. You are slave to your work so to speak. You have to work for a boss who may treat you like shit and if you may have to work for long enduring hours with very little incentives and pay. You could quit a civilian job at anytime but so too will you face repercussions there as well i.e. loss of wages, no or a negative recommendation, an angry wife, starving kids, loss of house, etc. Are they actual literal slaves as modern society defines slavery? No!
Bertot writes:
Ofcourse and that is my point DA, slavery has many meanings and cannot be restricted to a certain definition. The only problem with the above examples you provide, while very true, is you missed the point and avoided the first question I asked. I asked, are people (draftees) taken against thier will, yes or no?
Actually technically no, consciences objection has existed since the Revolutionary War. So, even draftees have a way out as opposed to slaves. I have never seen a slave classified 1-W. So your argument even there falls flat. Current legal protection for consciences objectors allows them to avoid the draft as shown here in the Selective Service System: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."
No matter how you spin this Bertot, the slaves of the Hebrews are not the same as military service men either enlisted or drafted. The Hebrew slave system was not much different than those of any other slave systems of antiquity and was almost identical to the slave systems of other Semitic civilizations. In fact, many of Greek and Roman slaves were able to buy their freedom however, I have never seen a provision for this in Hebrew law (except for the Hebrew indentured servants). According to the Torah, foreign slaves owned by the Hebrews could be beaten into submission and were treated as property not much different than cattle i.e. chattel slaves. Here is the definition for chattel slaves: "Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor." Is this not true of the foreign slaves held by the Hebrews? Were they not chattel slaves? Are American military draftees chattel slaves?
When this action happens, whether you call them prisoners or indentured servents acting against thier will they are slaves of a sort and by definition.
No, there is a categorical and motive difference between prisoners, indentured servants and slaves. You are merging all these different types of people into one definition. Again according to your logic we could apply the term slave to just about any occupation or human condition that exists. According to you I am a slave because I serve in the military (some days I really don't want to go to work but I know I have to for various reasons), a prisoner is a slave even though he is a criminal or a hostage of another country (a prisoner of war can become essentially [and usually temporarily] a slave as in the case of work camps but not all prisoners of war are), etc.
So according to your logic anyone who does something against their will is a slave. Your not married are you? I do things against my will all the time either because my wife wants me to do something, my child wants something, work demands things of me, etc. You get my drift? You really think I want to be away from my family 6-7 months at a time? That is against my will. How about people in careers that travel a lot or have to move to another state to have a decent job, many times "against their will".
The fact that anyone that leaves the military has consequenses has nothing to do with the fact that draftees (slaves), or what ever you wish to describe them, are taken against thier will an FORCED to serve in places and situations that are against thier beliefs, not to mention the fact that they do not wish to be there in the first place.
Consciences objectors. Look it up. Draftees are not slaves. Draftees receive a paycheck and rights that slaves do not. Draftees are not bought and sold as property. Draftees are not born into slavery. Draftees families are not sold off to other slave masters or passed down from generation to generation. Slaves owned by the Hebrews were owned for life and their offspring also owned were passed down from generation to generation. Slaves also could be beaten into submission. Members of the military are protected under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Draftees could gain rank and make more money get more privileges. Slaves serve at the whim of their masters and are not guaranteed any rights or privileges. Draftees could leave the service after the war/conflict ended.
Draftees ≠ Slaves
The purpose of the US military draft is solely for extreme cases of national emergencies to defend our country (to protect and secure the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of our country). As a citizen of this country we have certain inalienable rights, however we also have certain duties and responsibilities required of us as well. You may call this an unwritten "citizenship contract" so to speak. One of these duties is that in times of national emergency we as citizens are willing to protect this country from foreign threats either by enlisting/commissioning or by being draft. If you don't like this rule you can leave and go to a country without this mandate of being able to be drafting (compulsory enrollment) its citizens into service i.e. Canada, etc. or you can file for consciences objector status. A draftee can also file for exemption, postponement, or deferment. Can a slave do that?
BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the all of the reasons in which the USA has instituted the draft, case in point Vietnam, however I do understand the impetus behind it. Notice that we have not instituted the military (or I should say Army) draft for over 35 years, since the end of the Vietnam War, because of its severe implications and ramifications on the rights of servicemen and of their families (as well as the weakening of the military by non-volunteers). Personally, I (and the majority of American's) don't think that the draft should be implemented except in dire emergencies to protect the country i.e. WWII. That is a case when the safety and security of millions of American citizens trumps the rights and freedoms normally granted to an individual person. During WWII and other wars in which citizens were drafted into the Army, those who consciously objected were given the option to serve their country in a civil service role rather than serving on the front lines in the Army.
Slavery takes none of this into account and slaves never had the options draftees may be granted much less any other rights, pay, recognition, judicial protection, etc that they were given.
I noticed you did not provide another word to describe the situation of those taken against their will as in the case of draftees. Now this may be what the government calls them, but what do you think the people that are in that situation against their will call it?
I am a member of the Veterans for Foreign Wars and know many servicemen who were draftees. Not one seriously calls the draft slavery. Many are proud of there service even if they were drafted and many served long after they were told they could leave the military.
So by your logic is the drafting of American citizens for a national emergency i.e. a WWII type situation, immoral?
Your initial contention or question was, Is slavery wrong or right, it mentioned nothing about a certain type, time or place of that condition. My example of the draftee demonstrates beyond any doubt that the term slavery is broad in character and meaning.
Ok, is the slavery system used by the Hebrews as shown below, right or wrong?
Exodus 21:7-11 writes:
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Exodus 21:20-21 writes:
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Leviticus 25:44-46 writes:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
Two questions:
1. Why is slavery in Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaan, etc morally objectionable and the Hebrew slavery system not?
2. Why did God not abolish the slave system all together and why did the early Christians condone slavery and never speak out against it?
Ofcourse not. You entered into that CONTRACT OF YOU OWN FREE WILL and are therefore obligated to honor that contract as you would the purchase of an automobile. Draftees did not agree to anything or enter into any contract of thier own free will, but are forced into those situations as is a slave of any time, place or country. Notice you even used the word "contract".
Actually draftees process of entering the service is similar to that of an enlistee. The only difference is the process in which they are compulsorily enlisted into the military (actually doctors, etc can also be drafted into a commission as well during a draft). Past drafts i.e. Vietnam War used a lottery type system and then sent draft notices to Selective Service registered individuals. He goes through a battery of examinations both physical and psychological and then if he passes and does not apply for exemption, postponement, or deferment he is enlisted or commissioned into the military (Army) for a period of two years of service (much less than the volunteer enlistees standard obligatory service of 4 years).
What about stop-loss during a war? The military holding people in the military involuntarily "against their will" after the terms of their enlistment contract expire? Is that slavery too?
Besides that to help you know that I was in the military, what do we usually call 77-134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? What term describes those articles. Ill give you a hint it starts with a "P"
Punitive Articles.
Though I still don't see how you can rationally call service in the military slavery? If you understood what slavery was like either 200 or 2000 years ago you would not equate these as being the same.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
