Mynym: Not according to the body language of MLK, it wasn’t.
Recall that he was attacked for including ‘godless communists’ in his civil rights movement by very godly segregationists? As for Lincoln, this Bible talk was just that: talk.
How do you make the distinction in your mind between what you call Bible thumping and the manipulation of biblical language for political profits?
Mynym: Your mythologies of progress have more to do with a dialectical process of science vs. religion in your own mind than what actually happened historically as far as the ruling classes of the past and the eugenics movement.
Stop wasting time with your incoherence, we’re not discussing science, we’re discussing social progress – which has been stymied by Bible-thumpers like yourself.
How are you defining social progress? And wouldn't it be fine to use "Bible thumping" to create it, even on your own account?
Mynym: But here is what they actually wrote:
Perhaps you should read the Bible, you’d realize that the Hebrews continued to keep slaves after the Egypt thing.
But our own economic systems keeps slaves within to this day.
In fact, fathers were permitted to sell their daughters into slavery, including sexual slavery to their rapists.
That seemed to have more to do with the economics of their day than a hatred for their daughters in general. On the other hand, why do Obama Inc. supporters like Snoop Dog and Jay-Z seem to be interested in profiting from pimping young women? Are they permitted to sell their daughters because they are poor, wandering the wilderness and can't afford to care for them?
So the story is not meant as being anti-slavery, and the Bible in fact endorses slavery, which advocates of slavery understood very well.
So I suppose that the pyramid $cheme of our current economic system that creates false profits out of slavery is biblical in your view, then. Do you think that's because it has Jewish roots?
Advocates of slavery could cite chapter and verse.
As I already pointed out based on historical evidence in reality, they actually tended to cite the economics of their day more than the full patterns or pictures within the Bible and portrayed themselves as being full of love and care for their slaves.
Remember the meme: "We've sacrificed more for their welfare than those who would set them free." Another, which is similar: "We're helping these women maintain their abortion rites. And who would sacrifice to care for them as much as we do?"
Mynym: Wanting to have political power over your neighbor and framing it as being just full of care for them is not the equivalent of loving them.
I’m talking about social issues.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the golden rule and how much you care about others?