Megyn Kelly suggests Bible prohibits mixed-race marriages

[Guest]

Be sure to read the comments that are after the video before responding and going off on me. For the record, I do not agree with Mrs. Kelly.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBPOzbB_CYc&feature=player_embedded

WASHINGTON – Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly today suggested on her “America Live” program that the Bible prohibits blacks and whites from getting married.

In an interview with Robert Jeffress, one of the organizers of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, Kelly said:

“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge, because of the equal rights clause. What’s the difference with gay marriage?”

While Jeffress answered the question, he did not address the premise: The Bible nowhere suggests blacks and whites cannot get married. In fact, there are examples of blacks and whites marrying in the Bible – from Abraham to Solomon. It is believed that Keturah, Abraham’s wife, following the death of Sarah, was black because she gave birth to Jokshan who gave birth to Sheba, considered the mother of Ethiopia. Among Solomon’s 700 wives were some from far-off lands in Africa as well.

But, more to the point, there is nothing in the Bible to suggest marital unions between whites and blacks is sinful, pointed out Joseph Farah, editor and founder of WND.

“Neither can one make the case that the Bible calls for women to be second-class citizens,” said Farah. “The Bible elevated the status of women and protected their rights. In the pagan world, women were less than second-class citizens. In many cases they were no more than property.”

Farah also wrote a recent column about the Bible and slavery that shattered many myths about its approval of the institution – a charge made by Barack Obama in 2006.

“To say that Leviticus justified slavery as it is known today in many countries of the world, including some ruled by kings who Obama bows before, is an absurdity,” Farah wrote. “In fact, all of the passages of Leviticus dealing with slavery place rather strict limits on it. Slavery among the children of Israel meant something entirely different from what it means in the Islamic world today or what it meant in America in the 18th and 19th century. Life as a slave in ancient Israel was far better than life today in North Korea or many other Communist societies where citizens are slaves to the state. Leviticus recognized slaves as human beings with rights, not mere chattel. Slavery was designed to pay a debt. It was more akin to indentured servitude. Once the debt was paid, the person was free. This was not the case in Egypt or the rest of the world at the time of Moses.

“Many people became bond-slaves willingly because they were better off than as a ‘free’ person. In fact, abolitionists in England and America were guided by their fervent belief in the Bible – and the institution of slavery no longer exists in any nation that became Christianized.”

Megyn Kelly was unavailable to clarify her remarks. Credit