Noll writes, “Stowe also intimated the cynical conclusion, which would become more common among secularists after the Civil War, that the Bible was easily manipulated to prove anything with regard to a problem like slavery that readers might desire.” (42)
We saw in the revolution that quotes from the bible were on
both sides of the debate , but that at least according to Kidd, one side had
the winning religious argument. 90 years later, and Biblical arguments failed to sway one side in a debate that was more evenly divided. Is it
too cynical to suggest that the Bible never held that much sway over people’s
convictions, and that the popularity of the sentiment for other reasons gave
those biblical arguments credence? The biblical arguments against monarchy won,
but was that only because more people were already against monarchy? If so,
what kind of power does the bible really have in these debates?
No comments:
Post a Comment