Reason and Religion

(Investigator 221,  2025 March)

Kirk Straughen

The primary axiom of this essay is that no genuine merit can be intrinsic to unfounded beliefs, and that it is better to embrace truth rather than falsehood. Therefore, if aspects of religion are unlikely to be true, then these elements cannot be essential for the perpetuation of what is good in human nature and society.

Many people are reluctant to question their religious beliefs, perhaps because they are afraid of what they may find. Knowledge, however, is never born of fear. Fear can only stifle us; fear can only hinder our efforts to comprehend the human condition and our place in the cosmos. The fearless pursuit of the truth is the only way forward, and it is only through this understanding that true wisdom and progress for humanity can be assured.

Unfortunately, there is often a conflict between religion and reason as exemplified by science. This is partly due to the antiquity of theology: religious beliefs have been with us for so long that they have become ingrained in the human psyche. The sanctity of age makes us forget that many of the supernatural beliefs we take for granted were formulated in the childhood of civilisation, roughly some six thousand years ago. Needless to say, our knowledge has increased considerably since those ancient times.

According to The New York Times, millions of White evangelical adults in the United States don't intend to be vaccinated against COVID-19. This poses many challenges to battling the virus, including the prevention of herd immunity. According to religious studies scholars from the College of Liberal Arts, this group's justification for not getting vaccinated lies in both their religious and political beliefs…

"There's several different religious beliefs and doctrines associated with evangelicals, especially the belief in inerrancy of scripture, which is the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God," Campbell explained [religious studies professor Heidi Campbell]. "There's also a general kind of theological belief in the sovereignty of God, that He is the one who knows best. So if you get sick, it's because you don't have faith in God and that you're not living a holy life, so God isn't able to protect you."

In addition to spreading anti-vaccine ideology in America, this belief in the supreme authority of God has also affected vaccine efforts abroad. For example, a hospital in Uganda recently received 5,000 doses of a vaccine, but was only able to administer about 400 doses because of vaccine hesitancy among a heavily evangelical population.

"According to evangelical groups in other parts of the world, taking the vaccine is like saying 'I don't have faith and I'm not holy,' and it's challenging their faith in that way," Campbell said. And that's one reason why the vaccine debate is not about personal health, but about freedom, since it questions their religious identity and their right to practise it in a certain way." (1)

Faith is ineffective when it comes to protecting people from disease. This can be seen by the fact that many evangelical churches in Latin America were hit hard by COVID-19 due to flouting health guidelines designed to prevent the spread of the virus. Indeed, some church leaders even claimed that the virus kills those of little faith. (2)

Much of the harm that the various creeds have wrought is not so much the result of the creation of negative impulses by theology, but the sanctioning of such urges and erroneous beliefs by conferring on them an allegedly divine approval, thereby justifying what under any other circumstances would be seen by normal people as wanton cruelty and ignorance of the basest kind. For example:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Ephesians 6:5.

Slave owners and pro-slavery pastors used the above passage to justify the African slave trade up until the 19th century. Titus 2:9 was similarly popular, proclaiming, "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."

Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States during the American Civil War, said that slavery "was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."

The Bible was used to justify not just slavery in general but the inferiority of "dark-skinned peoples" in particular. Many theologians interpreted the cursed Canaanites from Abrahamic mythology as having dark skin. Their progenitor is Ham, the son of Noah, and people misread the Hebrew word for Ham to mean "black" or "dark." This particular Bible passage has been used throughout history to justify the oppression of whomever it was convenient to oppress.

Even today, the story of Ham is still quoted by those who believe in racial segregation. The pastor of Appleby Baptist Church in Nacogdoches, Texas wrote on his website in 2013 that "the proof of the presence of God among the Israelites was the absence of the black skinned folk of Canaan." He said that God is a separator rather than a mixer, and interracial marriages are the work of the devil.(3)

So, is dark skin a sign of inferiority, and are interracial marriages the work of the devil? Here is what modern science has to tell us about alleged racial inferiority and racial purity.

The primary pigment in human skin is melanin. It's used to protect us from the sun. It absorbs the sun's ultraviolet rays before they can destroy folate, one of the body's key vitamins. Many genes are involved in the biochemical pathways that result in melanin production. Natural variation within these genes is the root cause of the spectrum of skin tones that humans have.

So, the biggest genetic difference within the human race is between white people and black people, right? Wrong.

Two people from different tribes in Southern Africa will be more genetically different from each other than a Sri Lankan, a Māori and a Russian. We might categorise people as white, black or brown, but these visual variations don't accurately reflect the genetic differences — or rather similarities — between us…

We think of certain areas, lands or peoples as being isolated — either physically or culturally — and these boundaries as being insurmountable. But this is neither what history, nor genetics, tell us. In fact, no nation is static.

"People have moved around the world throughout history, and had sex whenever and wherever they could," says Dr Rutherford.

Sometimes these are big moves in short times. More often, people are largely static over a few generations — and that can feel like a geographical and cultural anchor.

"Nevertheless, every Nazi has Jewish ancestors," says Dr Rutherford, "Every white supremacist has Middle Eastern ancestors. Every racist has African, Indian, East Asian ancestors, as well as everyone else."

"Racial purity is pure fantasy. For humans, there are no pure bloods. Only mongrels enriched by the
blood of multitudes," he says. (4)

Scientific research has revealed that the genetic differences between groups are negligible. Regardless of race, we are all more alike than different.

In fact any two unrelated human beings on the planet are 99.9% identical in their DNA sequence. Only 0.1% varies, and here's the most important takeaway message from all this. It also happens to be the most replicated finding in the scientific literature on human variation.

Of this 0.1% that varies,  (95.7% to be exact) is found between individuals within the same race. Despite what our eyes perceive, there is more genetic diversity within a race than between races. (5)

It should be clear that vaccines are more effective than prayer, and that racism is refuted by science. But it is insufficient merely to expose the flaws of faulty beliefs. In addition, one must offer a more satisfactory world view that will benefit humanity, and in my opinion, this view is the philosophy of rationalism and science.

The basic premise of rationalism is that our minds can comprehend the true nature of the universe without recourse to supernatural revelation. This philosophy forms the core of the methodology of science, where theories about the world are based on observation and experiment, encompass all previously verified facts relating to the phenomena under investigation, and can be used to make testable predictions that are then examined by independent researchers to confirm their veracity.

It is important to remember that scientific theories are not statements of absolute truth about the nature of the universe because new evidence may require their modification. This fact is not a weakness. On the contrary, it is a strength, for it enables science to change in the face of new findings, and thereby arrive at a more accurate understanding of the Cosmos. However, because we are not omniscient beings, the goal of ultimate truth shall be forever beyond our grasp.

As can be seen, there is a profound difference between the rules of enquiry that govern science and the assumptions of religion. Religion is largely dogmatism based on faith rather than sound evidence; whereas in science scepticism is considered an invaluable aid in the quest for truth. All claims must be supported by sound evidence in order to be accepted. Moreover, unhindered investigation and independent examination is encouraged because only this can expose falsehood. Indeed, any belief system that does not incorporate self-correcting mechanisms is unlikely to advance human understanding, and runs the risk of being trapped in an intellectual dead-end.

"REASON AND RELIGION" in #221 NEEDS MORE  REASON

Anonymous

(Investigator 222, 2025 May)

Unfounded and misleading criticisms of the Bible lack merit. They hinder the wisdom and progress civilized society will need for its survival. It is better therefore to embrace truth.

Mr Straughen's error in Investigator #221 is that although he discussed religions "throughout the world" he cherry picked foolish ones to represent the lot. It is like judging science by focusing on the few academics who claim Earth is 6000 years old or falsify experimental results, and ignoring all scientists who make useful new discoveries. Seeking out the bad apples and ignoring the good is the same error racists make to support racism.

VACCINATIONS

Straughen refers to religious people who oppose vaccinations but he forgot that many non-religious people do too. Today's opposition to vaccinations was boosted by rogue academics who claimed vaccinations are a conspiracy between health agencies and vaccine manufacturers. These academics are the main authority for fringe Christians and others who reject vaccinations, not the Bible. Middap (2025) writes: "The elevation of vaccine sceptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr to US health secretary ... has emboldened hardcore anti-vaccination groups..." Are these "hardcore groups" all church members?

That vaccines are safe is seen from the numbers. President Joe Biden, after taking office during the Covid epidemic, sought to make the US the world's "vaccine arsenal". 130 million doses were soon distributed from the US to 90 countries and a further 500 million doses purchased specifically for Africa. If we consider all illnesses the vaccinations worldwide every year number many billions.

In "The Origins of Medical Science" (#212) I quoted Jesus that his followers would do "greater works" than he did. Edward Jenner (1749-1823), "a Christian who treasured the Bible", investigated smallpox, one of the greatest killers of humans. Jenner demonstrated the efficacy of vaccination against smallpox and popularized it. Napoleon had his troops vaccinated, Spain sent a three-year expedition to its colonies to vaccinate people, and nation after nation adopted vaccination. 

Jenner's work was the foundation for subsequent discoveries in immunology. He has been called "the man who saved a billion lives". Vaccination eradicated smallpox worldwide in the 1970s. In Investigator #212 I gave many further examples to show that  modern medical science was largely founded by Christians.

SLAVERY

Straughen claims that slavery in the USA's southern states was "wanton cruelty and ignorance of the basest kind" and was supported by the Bible.

We discussed all that in Investigator 76-84. But, as Kevin Rogers noted, Straughen waits for the dust to settle and then repeats his errors.  So let me summarize what I showed previously.

Old Testament slavery in Israel was limited by the Law of Moses to six years with a further amnesty every 50th calendar year. Slavery was intended to pay off debts and the slaves treated the same as hired laborers. A slave escaping from harsh treatment could not be returned to his master. Old Testament slavery was so beneficial that some Israelite slaves wanted to remain slaves permanently and Moses' Law included a provision to do this.

Slavery was not based on "race" or skin color. Skin color was so irrelevant the Bible ignores it except for the "black" girl in the Song of Solomon (1:5-6) who may have meant her sun-tan, and Jeremiah asking "can the Ethiopian change his skin?" (13:23)

The King James Bible implies this difference by translating the Hebrew word as "servant". Where something is very different to something else, such as the difference between Old Testament servitude and American or Islamic slavery, it assists clear thinking to have different words. Imagine the confusion if we didn't have words for sugar, flour, salt, cocaine and sodium cyanide and called it all "white substance"!

This is the confusion that Straughen, as well as Bible translations that translate the Hebrew word as "slave", bring to the discussion. Most people have seen movies about American slavery, or heard about Islamic slavery, and assume all slavery is like in the movies and get indignant against the Bible.

If Straughen owed a neighbor money but makes a contract to pay off the debt by living on the neighbor's property and working for him for a set time period — that's similar to Old Testament servitude. It's nothing evil — debts ought to be repaid. All of Australia's laws would still protect Mr Straughen just as Moses' law, including the Ten Commandments, protected people, whether free or servants, in Israel. 

Straughen, back in 2001, argued "slavery with a less brutal face is still slavery, and therefore just as wrong..." However, anything can be done badly and dangerously or with precautions and safely. People occasionally die on work-sites or at work. Therefore laws are enacted to make work-sites safer. We don't argue "work or a worksite with a less brutal face is still work and just as wrong." 

Old Testament servitude differed to the cruelty other nations practiced. It was ethics 3500 years ahead of the times and demonstrated the truth of: "And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deuteronomy 4:8)

In New Testament times Christians encountered Roman slavery and the Scriptures instructed "obey your earthly masters...as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 6:6) and "whole heartedly" (Colossians 3:22). Better advice could not be given because runaway slaves who were caught were executed, often in horrid ways. However, slaves who gave outstanding service could earn their freedom, and Rome had many freed slaves.  The New Testament taught "become free if possible". (I Corinthians 7:21) The doctrine that all humans belong to God firstly by creation, and secondly because Christ's death "ransomed" or purchased them, opposed slavery by implication.

Straughen quotes President Jefferson Davis that Almighty God established slavery. Slavery in the Confederate States was the source of white peoples' wealth and comfortable lives. Due to this "conflict of interest" their pro-slavery comments were no more objective or impartial than Adolf Hitler's views about Russians. Adherence to the Bible could have cured Confederate hypocrisy and prevented the Civil War which killed 600,000 people:

"But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil, and in their eagerness some have wandered away from the faith..."  (I Timothy 6:9-10)

America had hundreds of abolitionist groups, many of them Christian, who published pamphlets (and some books) showing that Southern slavery was anti-Christian.

One abolitionist was Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) a Quaker, Unitarian and later partly agnostic. She collected anti-slavery petitions as a teenager and became pivotal in abolitionism and the women's rights movement. In 1863 Anthony with associate Elizabeth Stanton (1815-1902) campaigned for an amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery. They collected 400,000 signatures which helped in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment which ended slavery in the U.S.  A postage stamp with Anthony's image was issued in 1936.

In Roman times Christians purchased, when possible, the freedom of  Christian slaves. Today "slave redemption" still occurs but the bad guys now are not the Romans but Islam in Africa and the Caste system in  India.

Focus magazine (September 2001) reported that Baroness Caroline Cox for Christian Solidarity Worldwide paid $US24,000 to free 353 slaves, mainly women and children, in Sudan. Slavery in Sudan had been eliminated by the British but returned in 1989 when the National Islamic Front took power and mobilized Islamic tribesmen to kidnap Christians for slavery and forced conversion as part of Jihad and the Islamizing of Southern Sudan. Slaves are also exported to Libya, Chad, Mauritania and Persian Gulf lands. Eads (1996) wrote: "Captives are treated brutally. They are branded, beaten and sexually abused. Slaves who try to escape are beaten, mutilated or murdered." 

Bita (2002) reported: "The International Labor Organisation estimates that 8.4 million children work as slave labourers, prostitutes or soldiers worldwide. Of these 1.2 million children are kidnapped, sold or smuggled each year." The Global Slavery Index estimated 35.8 million slaves worldwide in 2015, about 40% of them due to India's caste system. This exceeds all the slaves taken from Africa to the Americas during 300 years!

ANOTHER SLAVERY

There is another slavery that the Bible speaks of from which Jesus came to rescue the world — enslavement to all sorts of evil behavior: "Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin." (John 8:34; Romans 6:17-18)

Straughen shows himself a slave to sin when he misrepresents the Bible, the book with the world's most enlightened ethics, and thereby helps to embolden the violence and evil enveloping the world.

RACISM

Under his subheading "Racism" Straughen rightly points out that "Racial purity is pure fantasy" and "Scientific research has revealed that the genetic differences between groups are negligible." 

Straughen may have obtained his first knowledge on the wrongness of racism from the Bible and not the scientific sources which he now quotes. The biological unity of the human race is implied in Scripture by the teachings that Eve would be the "mother of all" and "God made from one man all nations." 

Remember also that the science which refutes racism is genetics which had a Christian beginning with the experiments of Gregor Mendel, a monk in a monastery, in the 19th century!

Straughen's generalization "Religion is largely dogmatism based on faith rather than on sound evidence" mingles the good with the bad under one label, and stigmatizes the former.

REFERENCES

Reply to Anonymous On Reason and Religion

Kirk Straughen

(Investigator 223, 2025 July)

I thank Anonymous for his comments in #222 on my article "Reason and Religion," published in #221.

Anonymous suggests that I cherry-picked my examples to discredit religion. The purpose of my article was to demonstrate the problems that religion can cause, so naturally, I chose examples that highlight this fact. I make the distinction between religion and those who believe in it. Most religious people are rational, but irrational beliefs can interfere with their reason. In my opinion, religion, although it may reference science and philosophy to support theological dogmas, is at its core primarily irrational, positing as it does a supernatural dimension to reality for which there is no sound evidence.

With regard to Anonymous’ comments on vaccine hesitancy, there are many reasons why people refuse to be vaccinated. My focus, however, was to examine the religious reasons for anti-vaccination ideology. The claims by Anonymous that Christianity has something to do with the discovery of vaccination are purely circumstantial. Those scientists who were involved in the research and development of vaccines used science, not religion. That they were Christians, at least nominally, was due to the historical accident of being born in a particular culture at a particular point in time.

With regard to slavery, Anonymous and I have had extensive discussions on this topic, so I’ll be as brief as I can. As with the above, my focus was on how the Bible was used to promote servitude; so naturally, I used examples to illustrate this. The fact that the various churches were involved in slavery cannot be denied, and even those active in the abolitionist movement are not as unsullied as some might like to think:

For instance, the Quakers have been described as the 'good guys', yet their links to slavery included the infamous David and Alexander of Barclays Bank fame, Francis Baring of Barings Bank and the Quaker merchant Robert King who was Olaudah Equiano's last owner. Even at the height of their anti-slavery activity, many Quaker meeting houses refused to accept Africans into their congregations.

This was also the situation with the other denominations. The Church of England had links to slavery through United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (USPG) missionary organizations, which had plantations in Barbados. The bishop of Exeter personally owned slaves.

Anglicans involved in slavery often poured their ill-gotten gains into church coffers. And in cities with strong links to the slave trade, such as Bristol, the church bells were peeled when Wilberforce's anti-slave trade bills were defeated in parliament. (1)

As far as the protection of slaves is concerned, I draw my readers’ attention to the following:

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property. (2)

As we can see, if a slave owner beats his slave, the only time he will be punished is if the slave dies immediately. The problem is this: injuries can be inflicted that, although not immediately fatal, result in the death of the individual after more than several days have passed. One such example would be wounds inflicted by the beating becoming infected, leading to sepsis as a result. So, you can beat your slave because he or she is your property, and you can get away with it so long as the beating does not prove immediately fatal.

With regard to racism, Anonymous suggests that I may have obtained my first knowledge of the wrongness of racism from the Bible. For his information, I obtained my knowledge of the wrongness of racism from experiencing it firsthand.

"REASON AND RELIGION"
AGAIN NEEDS MORE REASON

(Investigator 224, 2025 September)

VACCINATIONS and SCIENCE

After never conceding the centrality of the Bible and Christianity in the origin of modern education, hospitals, science, health care, technology, and food production Mr Straughen admitted: "Christianity has something to do with the discovery of vaccination". (#223)

This grudging acknowledgment he immediately weakened by adding: "It's purely circumstantial... Those scientists who were involved in the research and development of vaccines used science, not religion." 

The term "religion" includes idolatry, falsely prophesying cults  and child sacrificing cults — all condemned in the Bible. Such groups certainly didn't start modern science!

Bible-believing researchers learned both science and Christianity, and even prayed for the insight to produce positive change in society. If it's "circumstantial" the circumstance that continued through about seven centuries is Christ and the Bible. They expected science to reveal more about God than the Bible alone (Romans 1:20) and that Christians would do greater works than Jesus. (John 14:12 )

SLAVERY

Straughen (in #223) named some Quakers and ministers who owned slaves. Sometimes being owned was the safest option for slaves given all the circumstances. Other times  "Christian" slave owners  represented neither the Bible nor Christianity but their own purses and pockets — "The love of money leads to all sorts of evil…" (I Timothy 6:10) Every society, country, culture, religion and political party has malcontents who betray its ethics. The New Testament actually predicted that imposters would infiltrate Christianity and because of them Christianity would be slandered.

Imagine attending a lecture about life in Australia and hearing only about stabbing attacks, arsons, deaths in fires, rape, homosexual pedophiles, violent robberies, children starved, elder bashing, drug abuse, and so on. The litany of criminality may be factual, but is cherry-picked to misrepresent Democracy .

Straughen similarly seeks out Bible verses that report misconduct, and ignores verses  that command peace, love, and kindness. At times he also ignores context and even misreads the actual words.

CRITICISM

"When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the
owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the
slave is the slave owner's property [or is his money]." (Exodus 21:20-21)

In Investigator's slavery debate #76-#84 Straughen argued: "Is it acceptable to beat another human being within an inch of their life, and go unpunished because the slave owner profits from their bondage? … Once again the Bible sanctions the use of violence against helpless individuals." (Investigator # 69 p.42) And in #223, "if a slave owner beats his slave, the only time he will be punished is if the slave dies immediately."

BACKGROUND / CONTEXT

I pointed out 25 years ago in #76-#84, and again in #222, that Old Testament "slavery" among Israelites was regulated  to make it similar to a work contract. The King James Bible reflects this by using the terms "servant", "serve", "bondman" and "bond woman", and not "slave".  Straughen prefers the word "slave"  but then pretends all slavery is the same. He refuses to see that "slavery", like other work, can be happy or harsh, benign or deadly.

Old Testament slavery differed to the cruelty other nations practiced. It was ethics 3500 years ahead of the times and consistent with: "And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deuteronomy 4:8) Israel's law code was so advanced that many people still follow its Ten Commandments and other commands that are still appropriate.

The command to "love your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:18, 34; Deuteronomy 10:18-19) included all of one's contacts, and slaves  were not exceptions. Also the law limited slavery of an Israelite to six years with a further amnesty every 50th year, and assumed that an Israelite slave could be prosperous and buy his own freedom. (Leviticus 25:47-49) The law even allowed for slaves to request continued slavery if they liked the lifestyle! In the event of harsh treatment a slave was permitted to escape and the community commanded to help him:

You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you; he shall dwell
with you, in your midst, in the place which he shall choose within one of your towns, where it pleases
him best; you shall not oppress him. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16)

The Bible never sanctions "violence against helpless individuals". I've shown this in many articles about poverty, orphans and widows, physical disability, Christian charities,  tolerance, the "golden rule", etc. The obvious inference from all this is that Straughen's mentors got Exodus 21 wrong but he is so emotionally attached to them and their errors that insight still eludes him even after 25 years.

EXODUS 21:20-21

Note that the word in Exodus 21 is "strike" and not "beat". Ancient Israel had beating as a punishment for some offences but this was done by the proper authorities, after investigation, and not left to individuals to do to each other. And if a slave did have a nasty master who mistreated him, he had the “escape” clause already mentioned.

•    "Anyone who strikes a person mortally shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
•    "When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist..."  (21:18)
•    "When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod..." (21:20)

An injured slave was compensated with release from slavery (vs. 26-27) and received assets to make a new start. (Deuteronomy 15:12-18) This would be a serious financial blow to the slave-owner, therefore strong incentive not to injure any slave.

The law regarding "striking", either deliberately or accidentally, is more detailed in Numbers 35:16-34 and there also does not mean "beat". Recall that Straughen's criticism is based on changing "strike" to "beat"!

The Englishman's Hebrew Concordance shows that the Hebrew word "naqam" (or "nahkam") in 21:20-21, rendered punishment, is usually translated "avenge" or "vengeance" not "punishment". Among Israelites after the Exodus, a near relative of a person who was accidentally or deliberately killed had the right to take "vengeance" on the killer. This is elaborated in Numbers 35:16-34 and is what's meant by "he [the dead slave] shall surely be avenged." (Exodus 21:20) If a slave, who was struck in a fight or accidentally, survived a day or two the right of the avenger to avenge his death expired.  The loss of the slave should then be considered a sufficient loss to the slave-owner, no further penalty permitted. This ruling avoided the double penalty of losing his "money" i.e. the value of the slave's work as well as being hunted by the avenger. The ruling also prevented tit-for-tat feuds with the avenger in turn suffering vengeance by a relative of the slave owner.

The arrangement whereby a relative avenges a murder or an accidental killing is not ideal from today's perspective. However, today we have police, detectives, courts and prisons, all unavailable after the Exodus.  

Old Testament slavery was not a "barbaric institution". "Barbaric" describes what the crowd Straughen has joined, the Atheists, have done with their Gulags, show trials, orchestrated famines, mass shootings, exile of whole populations, and forced starvation — up to 200 million victims. This truly is "violence against helpless individuals!"

Straughen, for half his life, mistakenly frets over slavery-law ratified 3500 years ago, wrongly thinking it victimized the helpless, but seemingly cares little for 200 million recent and real victims!

A footnote on Exodus 21 in the Life Application Bible is a fair summary: "But Hebrew slaves were treated as humans, not property, and were allowed to work their way to freedom. The Bible acknowledges the existence of slavery but never encourages it."  (1996, Tyndale House Publishers)

Reference:

https://ed5015.tripod.com/

https://investigatormagazine.net