Involuntary Servitude

[None]

The wiki definition found here

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any US jurisdiction whether at the hands of the US government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." According to lectlaw.com^[1], involuntary servitude is defined as servitude to a person, which excludes the US government and its political subdivisions.

The Libertarian Party of the United States and other libertarians consider military conscription to be involuntary servitude in the sense of the Thirteenth Amendment.[1] Some libertarians consider compulsory schooling and income taxation forms of involuntary servitude.

Some have also argued that, should Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, a constitutional right to abortion could still be sustained on the basis that denying it would subject women to involuntary servitude contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment.^[2] However, no U.S. court has yet accepted such an argument.^[3] Differing views have been expressed as to whether the argument is so unpersuasive as to be "frivolous".^[4] One major difficulty with the argument relates to the claim that pregnancy and child-bearing are within the scope of the term "servitude".^[5]

Which are women to obey? Peter's clarification that we're to obey our government rules or his and Paul's rules on submitting our services and freedoms over to our husbands.

For example, if a nonbelieving couple were to get married and promise each other vows to love, honor and cherish each other, till death do them part, and later they get saved and join a church who informs the woman she is now bound to the laws of the Bible which say she is to obey her husband and serve him, in order to be doing the will of God. But her husband has only to love, honor and cherish her, not obey or submit himself to her, the final decisions of the household are to be his also, because he's the man. She is now forced to humble herself and submit to him and her husband is told he is now in charge, over his wife. Are we to disobey the laws of the land, even if the man could end up in trouble in a court room for abuse by controlling or domination and enforcing involuntary servitude by making her feel ashamed, guilty and unworthy of the kingdom of Heaven if she doesn't do as he says?

Spiritual abuse also carries over into physical society when ancient holy texts are used to restrict or oppress a specific race, sex or group from participating in various aspects of society.

1 Peter 2:13-14

13)Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king,

as the supreme authority,

14)or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

[John was an Apostle]

Which are women to obey? Peter's clarification that we're to obey our government rules or his and Paul's rules on submitting our services and freedoms over to our husbands.

Peter nor Paul were not telling us to blindly follow the government. After all, several of Paul's letters were indeed labeled as Subversion. In fact, Christianity was a subversive sect in the first century because it told people to Worship God and not Emperor Nero. 11 of the Apostles were martyred for their faith, most of the time it was in subversion to the leaders who asked them to recant.

As Peter and Paul would both say if they were here today, God's law supersedes man's law. You obey Man's law when it doesn't conflict with God's law.

[None]

T.A.J., do you believe God Himself made it a Universal Law, as He did the Ten Commandments, for women to obey their husbands, or was it the accepted way of that era that influenced Paul and Peter to view women as a little lower than man? To be in submission to men or it is a sin of God's Universal Law?

[Trusting Jesus]

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Ephesians 5:22-26

This is not enslavement. This is order. Notice that the wife is to submit to her own husband, but the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Remember, Christ gave His life for the church. A wife is to submit to her husband, but the husband is to submit to Christ.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

It's a 2 way street. The Greek word "eunoia" is translated "benevolence". It means good will, kindness. Husbands and wives are to be kind to each other.

<>< ><>

Nathele

[John was an Apostle]

T.A.J., do you believe God Himself made it a Universal Law, as He did the Ten Commandments, for women to obey their husbands, or was it the accepted way of that era that influenced Paul and Peter to view women as a little lower than man? To be in submission to men or it is a sin of God's Universal Law?

Well I have formed an opinion on that question, although I'm not 100% certain in my conclusion. My personal opinion is that it is God's universal law for the Husband to be the head of the wife, simply because God is the head of us (and we are his spiritual bride) and Christ is said to be the head of the church. I believe wives should submit to the husbands and that the husbands should be the head of the households because it is their intended roles. Unfortunately, People often confuse submission with superiority.

And also once again, I'd like to interject that obeying God's law would supercede woman's submissive role to the husband. For example, if the husband wants to do a "Bonnie and Clyde" robbery of a bank, I think it's time to obey God's law first and not go through with it.

Edited October 14, 2007 by The Apostle John

[Openly Curious]

The wiki definition found here

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion. While laboring to benefit another occurs in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any US jurisdiction whether at the hands of the US government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." According to lectlaw.com^[1], involuntary servitude is defined as servitude to a person, which excludes the US government and its political subdivisions.

The Libertarian Party of the United States and other libertarians consider military conscription to be involuntary servitude in the sense of the Thirteenth Amendment.[1] Some libertarians consider compulsory schooling and income taxation forms of involuntary servitude.

Some have also argued that, should Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, a constitutional right to abortion could still be sustained on the basis that denying it would subject women to involuntary servitude contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment.^[2] However, no U.S. court has yet accepted such an argument.^[3] Differing views have been expressed as to whether the argument is so unpersuasive as to be "frivolous".^[4] One major difficulty with the argument relates to the claim that pregnancy and child-bearing are within the scope of the term "servitude".^[5]

Which are women to obey? Peter's clarification that we're to obey our government rules or his and Paul's rules on submitting our services and freedoms over to our husbands.

For example, if a nonbelieving couple were to get married and promise each other vows to love, honor and cherish each other, till death do them part, and later they get saved and join a church who informs the woman she is now bound to the laws of the Bible which say she is to obey her husband and serve him, in order to be doing the will of God. But her husband has only to love, honor and cherish her, not obey or submit himself to her, the final decisions of the household are to be his also, because he's the man. She is now forced to humble herself and submit to him and her husband is told he is now in charge, over his wife. Are we to disobey the laws of the land, even if the man could end up in trouble in a court room for abuse by controlling or domination and enforcing involuntary servitude by making her feel ashamed, guilty and unworthy of the kingdom of Heaven if she doesn't do as he says?

Spiritual abuse also carries over into physical society when ancient holy texts are used to restrict or oppress a specific race, sex or group from participating in various aspects of society.

1 Peter 2:13-14

13)Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king,

as the supreme authority,

14)or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

None

Whenever we are faced with a situation where the laws of the land conflict with the bible we are to submit to scriptures because God's authority is higher than man's. We have seen examples of this in scripture more than once. For instance we have the example of Daniel in the OT who disobeyed the kings demand and continued to pray to God anyway. In the NT we have a example of the apostles being forbidden to preach in Jesus name and they refused to obey that decree and went out and preached the word in Jesus name.

As far as the constitution is concerned we are also guaranteed freedom of religion so if one is practicing their religious belief the government has no legal right to infringe upon it.

It is interesting how you are always trying to find ways of disobeying the bible.

OC

[None]

God does not contradict Himself.

God knew the past, He knows the present and He knows the future.

Why would God leave a seemingly important commandment like "wives, obey your husbands" out of the Ten Commandments He wrote on stone if it were to represent the future church's relationship with Jesus and is to be considered a Universal Law of God? He spoke of Jesus in the Garden after the fall, He knew about the church/Jesus marriage then, why would He go past the days of Moses and wait until Paul or Peter's letters to make a new law "wives obey your husband"? Why not add it to the commandments in stone?

The concept Paul laid out, the reasons he felt this rule should be applied from now on, should have been decided from the foundations of the first laws Moses brought down from the mountain. When God made Eve in the garden, why did God not tell her she was to obey Adam because she is his lesser and he is more important, deserving higher status in the marriage?

And how can the pyramid go God>husband>wife, and this represents the church, if the woman is not married? Who will fill in the middle void? That IS the reason, right? Because it represents the church and Jesus? Or maybe because woman sinned and influenced Adam to sin, maybe that's why she is now to be punished. Always to be considered lower than man. A Law. Because of the Garden sins? Paul said this and he also said the representation of the church reasons for women being less than man in the home(in submission to man who is in submission to God). So, which IS it? And why didn't Jesus mention this new law? He is the reason Paul and Peter started changing rules and laws around which caused such an uproar(example:to circumcise or not to circumcise and the freedom of the food laws).

Food laws are freed up but women get a new "obey" law. Makes no sense.

Then on top of that, Peter says we're to obey the laws of the land. There should be no greys in God's Universal Laws, it is either black or white. "love your neighbor as yourself", your neighbor is the person closest to you, your spouse. If the wife is to be in submission to the husband, the husband is to be in submission to the wife as well, this makes sense to God's Universal Laws PLUS the new emphesis Jesus placed on loving one another as ourselves. That makes sense to the Love of God. Not, women are to forever be in obedience to men because of either a church/Jesus representation or Eve's Garden mistake.

God's Universal Laws never contradict each other. Ever.

[Guest Biblicist]

Keep searching, None, but you will not find the answer anywhere but in God's Word.

[Grungekid]

I don't think that it is fair to call a wife submitting to her husband involuntary servitude, and I hope that men would be willing to submit to their wife to some degree (i.e. not cheating on her). Once we move beyond the realms of pure slavery, that phrase seems to get a bit sketchy. You could call anyone doing something that might be against their will involuntary servitude, when it is from the inhumane act of slavery. Love naturally involves going to pains for your partner, and I think marriage would further establish that. Marriage is, however, a choice and not a demand, and therefore one should be aware of the altrications it brings up in a relationship before going through with it. Even if they do not, it is still a decision of theirs and they are not forced into it, so it's not like they are becoming enthralled or put in prison; its not in the same context as involuntary servitude, I would think.

[None]

Marriage is, however, a choice and not a demand, and therefore one should be aware of the altrications it brings up in a relationship before going through with it.

And there we have a key important factor. Nowadays, the vows taken in marriage do not include "wives, obey your husband" and an unsaved couple marries under the vows of the state.

Are they then to take new vows after they're saved, to make sure to follow the "obey" rule and not have the husband endangered in court one day, should they divorce? Divorce rates, as stated in another thread, are far higher in churches than in secular marriages and have been for a while now.

Wonder what went wrong?