What is a "Rich Slave"?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

Every black person has experienced this at some point in their lives. You are treated as if you don't belong or someone questions why you are there...

I really wish we could all switch bodies/thoughts for a week or so.
I think there would be a lot more peace in the world.

What black folks may not realize is that almost everyone has this feeling of not belonging.

I'm sure white people experience it. Just trust me when I tell you it is on a whole different level when you are black. Again, we are not that far removed from overt discrimination and racism. My parents experienced it.

Look, I am a clean cut, polished, educated black man. Yet, there have been times I've been overtly questioned about my presence somewhere and the only reason I can surmise is due to my skin color. Looked at as if for some reason I can't afford something. I am not talking about situations where some guy with neck tattoos and his pants hanging around his ass can't figure out why he isn't be treated well at a country club.

a reply to: Edumakated

We've been questioned before, but we set ourselves up for it. We went shopping at a place with aggressive salespeople and we didn't want to get hassled that day, so dressed like scumbags. We got chased by asset protection for our troubles but didn't get hassled by salesfolk.

With blacks, I have to wonder how much of the racial component is born out of the crime stats no one wants to honestly address? In other words, if those numbers dropped, would that pernicious stereotype weaken and fade away given time? I agree with you, it's 100% not fair, especially to those blacks who do everything right.

But then again, I am starting to see some of the negative stereotypes of women spawned from third wave feminism beginning to spill over onto us ladies in some quarters too. We're beginning to risk some similar things. I see where it comes from, understand why ithappens, and don't know at all how to fix it except on a personal level to try to be aware of the impulse.

a reply to: Edumakated

What he is saying is that no matter how much money you have, you are still black.... meaning some people will still be racist to you.

There's a dirty little secret to that... it happens to everyone, not just black folk. I can't count the number of times something like that has happened to me. Why? Because of my accent.

That said, I do understand the recent extreme bias that existed exclusively toward the black population. I just point out that the goal is not complete acceptance everywhere. No one achieves that.

This is something that unfortunately is ingrained into black folks because we are still not that far removed from overt racism, regardless of our education, class status, and financial wealth. As Malcolm X quipped, "What do you call a black man with a Ph.D? A n*gger"

Hahaha, not to make fun of that statement, but I do tend to chuckle every time I hear something like that. It's really based in a cultural misunderstanding. That evil 'N'-word is really just a Southern slang for "negro," which is itself a word meaning "black" or "dark-skinned." That lazy Southern tongue, you know? It was thrown around regularly when I was growing up and to me and every other white person I knew, it simply meant "black person." Any racial insinuation was implied through context and could therefore be implied using whatever word one preferred.

I was shocked when I first learned, in my late 20s if I remember correctly, that the word itself was somehow supposed to be denigrating. I really had to work on not using it; it was an everyday part of the language. Now, of course, I have realized that the censoring of that word was in reality just propaganda used to stir people up against each other. In some ways, there is more hidden racism today than there was open racism among my generation then.

With that said, this subtle racism while hurtful, hardly is something holds anyone back.

Oh, I have no doubt about that, and that is exactly why I still try to avoid the word. I have no desire to offend anyone, certainly not over something as minor as skin color. I do believe that subtle racism would disappear if we spent less time on censoring what word people use and more time on helping people see our similarities are so much greater than our differences.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

That's really the key. When I ran my corporation, I interviewed a lot of people of both races. I didn't care about the skin color, but what I did care about was the attitude. One of the worst things that happened to black folk, IMO anyway, was the acceptance among them of "ebonics." I would not hire anyone who spoke in a manner I couldn't clearly understand, because I didn't want them to be unable to communicate with customers... it didn't matter if it was some black kid speaking ebonics or a Scottish guy speaking that Scottish style "English"... if one cannot communicate clearly, that's a problem.

We all have to make some attempt to conform to standards. If I am interviewing for an engineering job, I am expected to show up in a suit and tie, even though I am more of a tattered jeans person. On my time, I won't go near a suit; on someone else's time, they get to determine (within the limits I set) what I wear.

There's nothing racist about requiring some conformity. It's just how things are for everyone.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Edumakated

Look, I am a clean cut, polished, educated black man. Yet, there have been times I've been overtly questioned about my presence somewhere and the only reason I can surmise is due to my skin color. Looked at as if for some reason I can't afford something. I am not talking about situations where some guy with neck tattoos and his pants hanging around his ass can't figure out why he isn't be treated well at a country club.

Well, based on that and your obvious command of English, trust me when I say that here in deepest, darkest Alabama you would not experience that much at all. I know that sounds contrary to what some would have you believe, but it's true. There will be those who don't want to accept you, just as there are some who don't want to accept me; that's just life. But overall? Some of the most respected people here are black.

Not discounting, again, the understandable revulsion to what to others may seem to be a minor thing.

TheRedneck

This is why nobody pays any attention to left wing nonsense and talking points. They are imploding without much help, thankfully, as we only need to let them keeping talking with their loudest outside voices to show real Americans how dumb, backwards and objectively wrong-headed they really are.

Hope their entire 2020 premise isn't on "the economy is great but you still shouldn't vote for Trump"

I guess they must truly be deluded into thinking people enjoy pissing away their hard earned money.

And what "civil rights and civil liberties" was he referring to? Notice he didn't name even one (because he can't).

Name one Constitutionally enumerated right this President has infringed upon? They won't because they can't, not without using words like "I think, I feel, In my opinion, Could be, maybe, seems like, if, if only, I wish"

Sorry Dems, we don't form opinions based on emotions - just one more example of their inherent weaknesses and generally gooey soft demeanor.

I agree with most of what you say, but I have one minor disagreement.

Work CAN be slavery. Just because you can quit a job does not mean it cannot also be slavery. You can always quit, even as a literal slave. Death or suicide is always an option. What determines a slave is what the choice of not doing something results in.

This is why there is things like welfare as #ty as the welfare system is. Because without it the choice is work or die, which is no different than a slave quitting by choosing to take their own life.

Just because you can quit does not gaurentee another job, and even if you can get one, it does not gaurentee one before you die.

It's this dichotomy that is the big debate against working conditions and compensation and comparisons to slavery.

If a job only offers basic survival, and you need a job to live, how is it different from slavery? Is the ability to beg to serve different masters really that great a benefit.

As for rich slaves, depends on how you define being rich and slavery. Slavery is about not having a choice and being owned. So if one has no choice in life on when they are allowed to relax and when they have to work, but live a life of luxury, and when allowed to relax have all the best entertainments and eat all the best food and have the best medical care, but in exchange have no choice but to serve their master when called. Which could be as little as one hour a day. Nothing may be owned by the slave, but they certainly have what one might call a rich life.

So which is better?

The well cared for slave, or the free man who works himself to death freely shifting from one struggle to another?

This is the big dilemma. A free man can have a life worse than a slave if the system is against him, just as much as a slave can have a better life than a free man if the system is for him.

One could argue we're all slaves, as there is always needs we need filled, and always things we're dependant on others for. The question is, how much and how many masters we serve or are beholden to for survival.

The only way to truly be free is to be dead. Even alone in the wilderness as a survivalist you're still a slave to your basic needs.

So yes, work is a form of, when broken all the way down, slavery, so yes, one can be a rich slave.

So as we're all slaves to some degree the real question is not about slavery, but about the balance of compensation to time/action/control.

Slavery as a concept is used to hide the real question. At least you're not a slave is a bull# statement, existence is slavery, it's a concept with no meaning. All a slave is, as we know it, is a balance of the affore mentioned things that has been determined by society as overwhelmingly unbalanced.

So when people compare things to slavery what they are really saying is that the balance between what is required and what is given is skewed to far...

Ok this turned into a weird windy train of thoughts that kinda got away from me... oh well... gotta run to pee as I'm slaved to my bladder. Enjoy my rambling nonsense, will leave as is...

a reply to: Edumakated

Look, I am a clean cut, polished, educated black man.

What I see here is "I'm a fellow American"

Again, we are not that far removed from overt discrimination and racism. My parents experienced it.

There are stains throughout our history. At times, many groups of great Americans were arbitrarily subject to discrimination, violence and treated as second class citizens. Almost every ethnic group in history has experienced this, from Black Americans to Polish Americans, Italian Americans, Irish Americans and many more over the years. Black Americans, specifically, were treated disgracefully during the Southern Democrat's Jim Crowe era and decades both before and after the civil war.

I posit, however, that Democrats are the true problem here. When Republican President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne division to escort brave Black American students to school, it was Democrat George Wallace who tried and failed to stand in their way. When Democrats ripped this country apart in the first civil war, it was Republican President Lincoln who called their bluff, rallied the troops and plunged the nation into war in part so All Americans could enjoy the blessings of liberty our forefathers fought and bled to secure for us

I've been overtly questioned about my presence somewhere and the only reason I can surmise is due to my skin color. Looked at as if for some reason I can't afford something.

As a well-to-do old fat white guy, I get similar looks when I take my family out to a nice dinner or walk through the occasional jewlery store for a gift for the wife. Of course that doesn't negate what you experienced there, may I guess you're in a snooty liberal coastal/far North area? They seem to treat most folks like second class lesser citizens compared to their arrogant/supreme "intellect" and reasoning powers (roll eyes) on a regular basis. Here, however? You'll be judged solely on your actions and who you are as a person

Am I saying there aren't garbage dump racists in this country? Of course there are. But nobody takes those morons seriously. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Republicans including our President judge people on their actions and not their words, who they are or their wedge identity related issues. Just ask the ~30% of Black Americans who according to latest polls will likely be voting for Trump.

a reply to: Puppylove

If a job only offers basic survival, and you need a job to live, how is it different from slavery? Is the ability to beg to serve different masters really that great a benefit.

What stops you from living off the land and catching/hunting/trapping your own food? Food, water, fire, shelter, security = neccesities. Everything else? Luxury that costs money.

Want money? You have to work for it, sell a good or service. No one forces anybody to participate. You're free to drop off the face of the Earth and live off the land should you choose to do so, plenty of places you can go for that including some places that are stateless.

You aren't a slave if you CHOOSE to participate in society. Participation is optional

This is the big dilemma. A free man can have a life worse than a slave if the system is against him, just as much as a slave can have a better life than a free man if the system is for him.

Agreed, the "system" (especially Congress) is the problem. Congress isn't intelligent or well-intentioned enough for that kind of power. Our Constitution spells things out clearly, and we have no use for any more than ~10 laws. The concept of a "Night Watchmen State" is the only valid example of government

a reply to: Puppylove

I'm sorry; I cannot equate work for survival with slavery. While I understand your argument about death being an option to slavery (which has been taken by some), it is only an option if the death is guaranteed. If I quit a job and then cannot get another one, I still have options to survive. If a slave attempts death and fails, he/she is still a slave.

But why I disagree is that your definition of work as slavery is inconsistent with every part of American history, and probably all of world history as well. In the US, we enacted legislation against slavery; if work is slavery, that is legislation against work and sentences everyone to indigence. If work is slavery, and the civil rights were against the remnant attitudes toward slaves, then there is no need for specialized legislation in favor of an oppressed group; all work in some fashion and all are equal.

But we also know that all men were not treated equally throughout our history. Institutionalized slavery did exist. The majority of slaves in the years leading up to the War of Northern Aggression were black. The period after that war saw a need for equal rights legislation, as the public perception was literally that black people were sub-human and did not deserve to be treated like white folk. These things happened. It was a shameful time in our history, but it did happen.

Since both black and white folk have to work, and since the black folk were unjustly targeted for discrimination, it follows that a need to work to survive is not slavery. Slavery is more than a requirement to get something that one needs. Truly, there is little that one needs which cannot be gotten for free. Air is free. Water is plentiful in most places. Even food is available from the land... one can glean crops, hunt (hunting requires only a sharpened stick at its most basic), or simply eat wild berries and plants. That is sufficient to survive.

It is not sufficient to enjoy the benefits of society. For that, one needs a home, heat, and a job to pay for these things. So your definition of having to work or die is predicated on the personal requirement that life exist above a certain level of comfort. Level of comfort to a slave is irrelevant.

I could go on, but it's time to leave for Thanksgiving dinner. While I am eating at the venue I chose, the food that I chose, as much as I choose, I will remember to give thanks for the fact that I can choose these things... I am not a slave.

Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US, and a good day to those everywhere else.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns

Still a slave to one's own physical needs and there are few places anymore you're even lehally allowed to live like that even if one desired to choose such.

Again you can always choose to die. There's ALWAYS a choice. If all it takes to be a slave is to not have a choice than the only slaves that have ever existed are people in commas.

Life is slavery. Again the real question people are choosing to ignore and hide behind the nonsense slavery concept is what is and is not an acceptable balance of compensation (including needs and removal of suffering) to time/action/control/suffering.

People can gain different amounts of compensation and have different demands of time, actions, or suffering in exchange for that compensation. That's reality.

No one is free. There's simply varying levels of freedom. You stop being free when born and start needing things, and start being free again when you die and no longer need anything.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Legal and philosophical definitions are very different things. Enjoy your thanksgiving.

My issue with the term of slavery is it can be used to excuse conditions worse than many real slaves by the legal definition ever experience by making slavery into a false example that nothing can be worse than.

Slavery is used as the ultimate example of the worst life, when there are many other things that can be worse depending on various factors. One can always compare the worst off slave or the worst off free worker as well as the most well off of both.

You mention that if the slave tries to kill himself and fails he's still a slave, but he's a living slave. If a free man tries and fails, he's a dead free man.

Some would rather die free, while others would rather live, even as a slave. Seeing how many lived as slaves, as bad as it was, it seems most choose life.

I'm not promoting slavery as good. It's clearly not. I've no desire to have a slave and find the practice disgusting. It's that very disgust which drives me to make this point.

Being free means nothing if it is not followed up with a life worth living, and is upon this which we should base society and not simply on the act of being free. We are supposed to have advanced beyond basic animals with the invention of society, it is time we held ourselves to a higher standard where we are no longer expected to live simply to satisfy our most basic needs.

Not being slaves by the legal definition is not enough. We are better than that, we can and should have higher standards than that, we need to stop allowing people to hide behind slavery to excuse societies failings and demand better.

People didn't oppose slavery because it had the name of slavery, people opposed slavery because it was an attrocious way to treat other human beings. This is why the whole, it's not slavery thing is a problem. People are too caught up on it not being the legal definition of slavery to realize what people are actually saying, which is, this is no way to treat other human beings.

That's the actual discussion being avoided and written off and avoided every time someone quibbles over someone comparing working and living conditions to slavery.

a reply to: Puppylove

My issue with the term of slavery is it can be used to excuse conditions worse than many real slaves by the legal definition ever experience by making slavery into a false example that nothing can be worse than.

I don't think I have ever made that point. I have stated that slavery is a horrific practice, and I have stated that some slaves were well-treated but still denied basic human rights, while others were treated miserably. But never have I said that slavery is some sort of ultimate worst life imaginable. I honestly doubt it is.

But that was never my point. Is it not enough that it is a disgusting (your word) practice? Is that not enough for us to remember the horrors that occurred under it so it never happens again? No one should own another human.

Being free means nothing if it is not followed up with a life worth living, and is upon this which we should base society and not simply on the act of being free. We are supposed to have advanced beyond basic animals with the invention of society, it is time we held ourselves to a higher standard where we are no longer expected to live simply to satisfy our most basic needs.

That makes no sense. In order to somehow advance beyond living to supply basic needs, we would have to advance beyond having those basic needs. That's simply not going to happen any time soon. Nature forbids it, and nature is not at our beck and call. We are at its beck and call. We will continue to need food, water, and oxygen, and as such we will continue to have to strive to supply those.

Society is not a cure-all for nature. It never was and never will be. It is a mechanism by which we make our lots in life easier, and to that end society has succeeded. We can now walk into a grocery store and buy foods from around the globe so we don't suffer as much from nutritional lack. I am sitting in a heated home; I no long have to huddle around a fire to stay warm. My clothes are comfortable and fit well. I have shoes which protect my feet from hard objects in my path. All of these things are possible only because we have developed a society that makes their creation not just easier, but possible.

But we still are subject to vagrancies... disease, pestilence, and death still stalk us. Perhaps one day we will discover the secrets to immortality and overcome the vagrancies of life, but beware... I suspect that when that day comes we will discover it is as much of a curse as it is a blessing.

People didn't oppose slavery because it had the name of slavery, people opposed slavery because it was an attrocious way to treat other human beings. This is why the whole, it's not slavery thing is a problem. People are too caught up on it not being the legal definition of slavery to realize what people are actually saying, which is, this is no way to treat other human beings.

You're right in that there are more issues than slavery to tackle... I don't think anyone disputes that. But it is impossible to advance society by continually refusing to address one issue because there are others to address. If we ignore the issue of slavery to concentrate on something else, we run the risk of advancing one step only to fall back two.

We will never advance like that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

When you sign for a mortgage, you become a slave. When you sign for a car loan, you become a slave. When you sign for a credit card, you become a slave. When you sign for insurance, you become a slave. When you sign any contract at all that has ever been devised.... you become a slave.

The moment you're born, you're a slave. Wonder why? See taxation.

Slavery has not in the least bit been abolished.

It's only the terms and conditions of servitude that has changed.

@ What is a rich slave?

The rich man is a slave to a material reality and spiritually poor, following the Biblical information below...

a reply to: TheRedneck

The poor man was free and rich spiritually.

Luke 16:19-31 King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

It was the poor man that was freed from Death-Hades by JESUS CHRIST why the rich slave was located where his spiritual energy attracted to.

John 11 King James Version (KJV)

Jesus Raises Lazarus From the Dead
11:38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

46 But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.

48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

The perception of slave and non slave may vary, based on physical and metaphysical belief factors and faith.

Some may believe this life they perceive is all there is and so they conduct themselves accordingly somewhat or like the rich man did who probably thought his life was all that was relevant and not his afterlife...
He eventually learned in HADES he had some type of senses or perception after death. And so experiencing discomforts there.
That is why I feel he was a slave to a material reality due to being apparently spiritually poor...

a reply to: EternalSolace

When you sign for a mortgage, you become a slave.

If one signs a mortgage and is rich, one may pay off the mortgage and escape slavery. Therefore, not a slave. Slaves cannot choose to become free.

The moment you're born, you're a slave. Wonder why? See taxation.

Then why were civil rights enacted? If all are slaves, why were black folk chosen as the sole recipients of remedies for slavery? Are you saying that black slavery did not exist in early America?

Why would the original Constitution specify that slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person? That seems superfluous. If all are slaves, then why not just count all as 3/5 of a person?

If all are slaves, none are slaves. If all are slaves, who is left to own another?

Your position negates everything that is terrible about slavery.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

The parable you quote does not refer to slavery, but rather to worship of material goods. One may not escape slavery and choose to become a free man, but one may choose to follow Jesus Christ and escape the trap of material goods.

In short, you are trying to equate idolatry with slavery. That is the very thing I am speaking against, as by doing so you deny the horrors that existed in early America and literally condone slavery by making it more palatable for others.

TheRedneck

No, sorry you are misunderstanding...

Slave-a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

In what conscious human mind today does their ACTUALLY EXIST a legal way to OWN another human against their own will, who is forced to obey?

If you try to justify it as well it was the law...then YOU'RE truly ignoring how much a slave you actually may be. And Spiritually you are setting yourselves up to be of the weakest in the afterlife. Making you easy prey...to be enslaved. In HADES.

To clarify my perception...

A slave to me is someone without control of their life or Existence. They are controlled and or influenced by a negative component usually.
They belong to a master of some kind.

In today's world the master of the material world is money and those who think they control it.

Not all rich are, for some do try to help out mankind (those are the camel able to walk through the eye of the needle) but many don't.

"The eye of a needle" is scripture quoting Jesus recorded in the synoptic gospels: I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

It the $$ HAS enslaved both the financially poor subjected to the negative influences and wars made from those who control it. And it has enslaved those who think they are in control of it.
They are heard calling themselves gods even 😂 probably attracting the real ones for doing so...

It is a mental, physical and spiritual enslavement, that is usually ignored by those under it's most control.
They tend to deny the financial chains even exist. They can also easily dismiss the relevance of the afterlife because of doubt and fear.
They themselves feel they have found or made HEAVEN on poor EA*RTH...How great is it really to feel you are king over poor?🤔

This is true enslavement because as they deny the afterlife and attempt to make HEAVEN on EA*RTH some stumble badly spiritually AS THEY SELL THEIR SOULS unknowingly/willingly to a MASTER that will govern their physical life and afterlife.

a reply to: TheRedneck

A true king ofcourse in my strange perception will upgrade and update those around he to standards where there is no clear line present between he and the kingdom he guards protects.

The rich slaves who call themselves gods and see the poor (who are Spiritually rich) as slaves to this temporary location IGNORING the potential of the true GOD(s) being near them because they doubt a afterlife, scripture and need for faith will build a tremendous wall to show the line of division between rich and poor to help make themselves feel they are too not slaves aswell.

In short we all slaves until we build a better world and or Existence for the physical and nonphysical-metaphysical, free of slavery.

Be well

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

A slave to me...

We're not talking about what is a slave "to you." Slavery already has a definition.

There still exist places in the world where a person may own another without legal troubles. Just because we live in a first-world country does not mean everyone does. When one tries to redefine a word, one loses the original meaning of that word and all historical reference.

God does not speak out in the Bible against slavery; if anything He accepts it. There are many references to actual slavery, because at that time actual slavery was common. It has been common since man began; only in the last century and a half has slavery been denounced by those in charge. God did, however, instruct His people on how to deal with their slaves and treat them well, emphasizing that it is not the slavery nor the financial position of a man that matters to God. It is the man's heart. Do not make the mistake of trying to equate the heart of a man with the resources controlled by that man.

Money is not the problem... the self-pride and ignorance of those in need around one is the problem. Money is not the root of all evil; that is a mis-quote... the love of money is the root of all evil, and one need not possess something to love it. The world is full of people who love someone who they cannot marry, and inevitably that leads to social problems.

Money is a tool... that's all it is. It can be used for good or evil. Churches use money to provide for the poor... how can a church use that which is evil to produce good? Evil can never produce good.

Back to the subject, it is not about wealth, but about slavery. The reference to wealth is an indication that the speaker had no idea what a slave even was. There lies my concern, for if someday in the near future no one knows what slavery is, or if the meaning has been redefined to mean something else, actual slavery can again exist. There will be no public outcry because no one will understand what they should be speaking out against, and laws will not be applicable because what we know today as actual slavery will no longer be the meaning.

TheRedneck