Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Wants You To Know That Christianity Ended Slavery (Video)

tucker-carlson-dumbI really wish President Obama hadn’t made his comments about the Crusades a few days ago at the National Prayer Breakfast, because I don’t believe the comparison is really valid. The discussion over radical Islam is referring to present day atrocities that are being carried out, not something that happened a thousand years ago. But I knew when I read his remarks that they were exactly what conservatives needed to amp up the “Obama hates Christians” nonsense they’ve been spewing since even before he was elected. And even though I understand the context of what he was trying to say (that almost all religions have committed horrible acts in the name of their God), it’s still one of those things he was probably best to have just never said.

And as expected, many conservatives are trying to make a huge deal out of the president’s comments.

Take Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who made several idiotic statements on Fox & Friends concerning President Obama’s remarks.

“What’s so striking though is his mention of the Crusades as a way to make the point, ‘Before you judge ISIS, keep in mind that that Christians did it too,’” Carlson said. “The Crusades is a fixation among jihadis. There’s not a press release from ISIS or from al Qaeda that doesn’t call us Crusaders.”

“And so for the president to use that specific word, aping the language of the jihadis is ominous and bizarre,” he continued.

He’s completely mischaracterizing what the president said. He didn’t say “before you judge ISIS…,” he simply used the Crusades as an example of how all religions can act out horrifically in the “name of religion.” And he didn’t use that “specific word” for any sort of ulterior motive – they were called the Crusades. 

Believe it or not, that wasn’t the dumbest thing Carlson said on Sunday.

“So we’re responsible for the Crusades a thousand years ago?” Carlson stated. “Who’s ‘us’ anyway? And by the way, who ended slavery and Jim Crow? Christians. The Rev. Martin Luther King. Christians.”

“Christianity is the reason we don’t have slavery in the world today,” he added.

Actually, Christianity was often used by the Confederacy to defend their right to own slaves. Slavery didn’t “end” in this country because of some religious awakening, and if Carlson truly believes that there’s no slavery in the world today then he’s ridiculously naive.

Religion was also used by many Southern states (you know, the ones that are “strongly Republican” today) to defend segregation and oppose interracial marriage. Just because Martin Luther King was a Christian doesn’t mean he wasn’t fighting against millions of Americans who were using that same religion to oppose his push for civil rights.

I guess we should also ignore that for centuries slavery was driven and exploited by Christian nations, or that this nation was founded and expanded by Christians who slaughtered Native Americans to near extinction, often forcing them to convert to Christianity against their will.

Even today millions of homosexual Americans are still having to fight for equal rights in the face of unconstitutional Christian ignorance.

So for Carlson to try to give credit to Christianity for ending slavery is just asinine. Especially when history shows us that religion was actually used to justify slavery, bigotry and intolerance. And if it wasn’t for our secular Constitution preventing some from forcing their beliefs onto others, millions of Christians would still be trying harder than they currently are now to use their religion to justify their prejudice and ignorance.

Watch Carlson’s absurd comments below via Fox News:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Cemetery Girl

    There were some deeply religious abolitionists, but there were also deeply religious people that opposed slavery. Christianity WAS used as a defense of slavery. Quoting the Bible in pro-slavery pamphlets was common. It was reasonable to use that though. If the Bible is infallible and it condones slavery then how can anyone try to interfere with the God given right to own other people? It is ok to accept that it happened. No need to deny it, pretend it didn’t. Acknowledge it and learn from it.

    • Cemetery Girl, you’re quite confused. Abolitionists, by definition, are the people who opposed slavery. They wanted to abolish slavery. That’s why they were called abolitionists. So, it is nonsense for you to write “There were some deeply religious abolitionists, but there were also deeply religious people that opposed slavery.” That’s like saying there were some cars, but there were also some automobiles.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Oops, meant to write supported slavery. There were people deeply religious that supported slavery. (Commenting while on cold medicine is iffy.) John Brown was very religious (although not a church member) and probably the best know abolitionist, but that doesn’t change that some that supported slavery were also religious and used quotes from the Bible to support their opinion.

      • Your logic is quite poor. The fact that people used quotes from the Bible to support slavery in no way. shape, or form implies that the Bible supports slavery. People abuse Scripture all the time.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Well, considering it discusses the value of slaves and treatment… The topic was Christianity didn’t end slavery though, which considering it was used as a justification for slavery it really can’t be said it ended slavery.

      • You’re quite confused. The “slaves” of whom you speak are not slaves as we speak of slaves, as found, for instance, in the antebellum South. The slaves spoken of in the Bible are indentured servants, who could be freed from their indentured servanthood once they had paid off their debt. This form of “slavery” has nothing to do with the manstealing of which we speak when speaking of slavery in the antebellum South. You’re making a basic, foolish logical error of equivocation. Your argument is also quite illogical. Your premise does not imply your conclusion. You are really not too bright, are you?

      • Smash_the_State

        Oops, wrong again.

        “However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your PROPERTY, passing them on to your children as a PERMANENT inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.”

      • No, Smash_the_State, you are the one who is wrong. The Old Testament clearly states that there is to be one law for the stranger as well as the citizen. So, the law concerning release from indentured servanthood applies to all servants, even those brought into servanthood by war. This clause concerning property must be understood in the light of the laws concerning release from servanthood. They cannot supercede those laws. So, you have constructed a straw man. Furthermore, this in no way negates my point that slavery in the Old Testament was not manstealing, which is exactly what slavery in the antebellum South. Manstealing is explicit put under the sanction of capital punishment in Old Testament Israel. So, you’re full of crap up to the crown of your head.

      • Smash_the_State

        So what you’re saying is, the bible is once again contradicting itself?

        You say one law concerns the release of indentured servants, this passage clearly says they are property and they can be passed down as other property can.

        The bible is also ok with keeping a slave past the 7th year if the master holds his wife and children as hostage to get him to stay.

        If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

        Here’s some more sick shit condoned by your loving god.

        When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

        You have a daughter for sell?

      • You are pathetically stupid. Nothing which I have written suggests in any way, shape, or form that the Bible contradicts itself. Your implicit claim to a contradiction is all in your ignorant brain. If you don’t believe me, then try to deduce a contradiction. Don’t just assert that there is a conttradiction. Deduce that there is a contradiction. Since there is no contradiction, all of your efforts will be futile. All you will be able to do is mindlessly assert that there is a contradiction.

        You are quite dense. There is one law for the stranger and the citizen. So, the law about release of slaves applies to all slaves, even those who became slaves through war. This is an irrefutable conclusion of the Bible’s teaching about there being one law for the stranger and the citizen. Hence, anything which you assert follows from your passages about slaves that contradicts this fact is patently false. That is an irrefutable logical conclusion.

        You write: “You have a daughter for sell?”. You are truly an idiot. You’re a fraudulent blowhard, just blowing hot air. You’re not the intellectual you parade yourself around to be. Rather, you’re an ignorant bigot.

      • Smash_the_State

        Oh bull, more apologist bullshit. Same old lines all the time. “It was just misinterpreted” or “it was taken out of context.”

        The shit is pretty straightforward here.

        “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.”

      • You’ve got nothing, Smash_the_State. That is why you never substantiate your assertion. You just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you make such assertions, you are clearly not intelligent enough to know that making such assertions is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and excluded from any intelligent conversation. Why is that? Because, if we include such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations. You’re a fraudulent blowhard, just blowing hot air. As I said, you’re full of crap up to the crown of your head. Your second quote is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. The slaves spoken of here are either indentured servants or they are slaves of non-Christians. The former is consistent with what I said earlier. The latter are not approved by Scripture. Telling a man not to kill a tyrant does not approve of tyrants. You’re full of crap up to the crown of your head. You’re making a string of straw men, which is a moronic activity.

      • Smash_the_State

        Slaves are fucking slaves. Don’t try spinning it. Your god was psycho piece of shit. You’re replies are full of nothing but ad homiens and spins.

        The quote specifically says christian slaves and christian masters. Quite trying to spin the shit. And also, learn to get to the damn point and stop the fucking rambling.

      • You’re quite uneducated. You obviously don’t know what is the ad hominem fallacy. As my son would say, the ad hominem fallacy is not saying that your opponent is a jerk. Rather, the ad hominem fallacy is saying that your opponent is a jerk and, therefore, his argument is false. The former is merely an observation or a false statement. If substantiated, then there is absolutely nothing illogical about making the former statement. The latter statement is a logical fallacy. More precisely, it is a nonsequitur; its premise does not imply its conclusion. So, in any case, I have nowhere, in this thread, committed the ad hominem fallacy. I have also made no spins. All of my arguments are proofs, as any competent logician will confirm. Once again, you’re full of crap up to the crown of your head. You are obviously addicted to the superstition of word magic, to the idea that you can substantiate an assertion by merely asserting it. I have already dispensed with your point about christian slaves and christian masters. You are so pathetically stupid that you missed my refutation. Slaves of Christians are governed by God’s law. This law includes that laws about freeing indentured servants. So, the slaves of which you speak are covered by my previous statements about indentured servanthood in Old Testament Israel. I already made this point, but I’m repeating it here since you are so pathetically dense. I have done no rambling. Everything that I have written has been specifically designed to make the points which I have made. All of these points are relevant to my main point. So, once again, you are full of crap up to the crown of your head.

      • Smash_the_State

        Well that’s what your son says? Call the press! Ad homiensl is a logical fallacy in which one attacks another’s character rather than the argument itself. Ypu don’t have to attack me and tell me I’m wrong. Just the personal attacks work.

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. First of all, there is no such thing as “Ad homiensl” or even Ad homiens. Secondly, I never said that my son said anything even remotely resembling what you say. Thirdly, your logic is atrocious. There is no logical fallacy involved in attacking someone’s character rather than the argument itself. To assert that there is is the same thing as saying that it is a logical fallacy to go to the bathroom during a logical argument. You really are quite stupid.

      • Smash_the_State

        Better get some English lessons from your son. “That you don’t know this principle demonstrates how poor is your education.”

      • No, it is you who need to get an English lesson. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the sentence of mine which you quote. That you think that there is demonstrates what an abysmal hold you have upon English. You are a complete and utter fraud, trying to pass yourself off as a person of some intelligence, when, in reality, you have the intellectual development of an Apalachian redneck.

      • Smash_the_State

        “…how poor is your english.” Lmao.

      • You’re quite unintelligent. “How poor is your english.” is not even a sentence. And English is a proper noun, so you capitalize it. If you are going to try and make someone look like their English is very poor, then make sure that you don’t demonstrate how poor is your English. You are hopelessly childish. You’ve got absolutely nothing to refute me. Hence, you descend to the pit of childish mocking. You are a truly despicable person.

      • Smash_the_State

        Oh please. You started the childish nonsense.

        The bibpe clearly is ok with all kinds of slavery. Sex slaves, indentured slaves and just regular old slaves. You’re just too blind from your faith to see it. Quit making excuses and putting your apologist spin on it.

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

        When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

        Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I already dispensed with this fallacious line of argumentation.

        You are hopelessly addicted to the superstition of word magic, to the idea that you can substantiate an assertion by merely asserting it. There is no childish nonsense in what I have written in this thread. As any competent logician will readily confirm, my arguments here have been eminently logical. Your assertion to the contrary is just that an assertion, an empty assertion.

        None of the passages which you quote are at all relevant to your fallacious assertions. The fact that you think that they are demonstrates how pathetically stupid you are.

      • You’ve got absolutely nothing. That is why you never substantiate any of your assertions.

      • Smash_the_State

        I quoted exactly from the bible. You want me to get a statement from the guy who wrote it? You never even refuted it outside of calling me names and trying to put spin on it.

      • Your quote from the Bible does not substantiate your assertions. The fact that you think that it does demonstrates how unintelligent you are. You’re full of crap. I refuted everything you wrote by eminently logical arguments, as any competent logician will confirm. You’re a pathological liar. Your characterization of my refutation of you is patently false. If you don’t believe that I proved that you are wrong, then just try to refute my arguments, without making groundless accusations about what I did. Given how stupid you are, you haven’t got a snowballs chance in hell of doing this. More to the point, since my arguments are proofs, it’s impossible to refute them.

      • As I said, you’ve got absolutely nothing. That is why you never substantiate your assertions. Since your assertions are bald and unsubstantiated, they are empty assertions, having absolutely no significance whatsoever. Hence, you have not yet begun to contribute to this conversation.

      • My God cannot possibly be a psycho. Being a psycho is an aberration of one’s brain. God does not have a brain. God is a spirit. He does not have a body. Moreover, he does not have a brain. Hence, he cannot be a psycho.

      • Smash_the_State

        Plus, he doesn’t exist. So yea, hard to be a psycho when ypu don’t exist.

      • You’ve got absolutely nothing. That is why you never substantiate your assertions. You just mindlessly assert your assertions without making even a feeble attempt at substantiating them.

      • You’re confused. Slaves are not fucking slaves. Fucking slaves are slaves. But slaves are not necessarily fucking slaves. For instance, male slaves which are castrated are not fucking slaves.

  • Smash_the_State

    Clifton of course has to be an apologist for his brand of religion. “It happened centuries ago guys, it’s totally cool now.”