The slaveholders of America manipulated the religion of Christianity to justify and shield their frightening conduct. In the Appendix of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass provides the reader with a clear differentiation between the Christianity of Christ and the Christianity of the slaveholders. By juxtaposing the following forms of faith, Douglass displays a tone of condemnation and disgust towards the hypocritical deeds of a slaveholder, ultimately proving that the two types of Christianity are essentially opposites.
Douglass begins by clarifying his stance on the religion of Christianity, for he himself is a man of religion as is seen from a multitude of biblical analogies throughout his narrative. From there, …show more content…
Soon after, Douglass shifts his dialogue from a mode of defence to an act denunciation as he develops a tone of disgust. He views the “hypocritical Christianity of this land” as the “grossest of all libels” while he experiences “unutterable loathing” to indicate the abhorrent lifestyle of the slaveholders. Douglass catalyzes his act of condemnation when he creatively places the diction of the true Christianity alongside the diction of the “partial” faith of the slaveholders to first compare and then contrast the two. More specifically, Douglass places religious representatives near slaveholding savages to illustrate the detestable difference between them and dispense his own attitude of distaste onto his readers. To create this effect, he places “ministers” next to “men-stealers”, “missionaries” with “women-whippers”, and “church members” with “cradle plunderers.” Douglass uses logic to denunciate the religion of the slaveholders. He condemns the whip of the slaveholder and he condemns the holder of the whip. He condemns the Church of his masters and he condemns the ministers of that church. The same emotions displayed by Douglass are then embraced by the reader as the reader begins to relate with Douglass; the relationship among the words turns into a
Douglass begins by clarifying his stance on the religion of Christianity, for he himself is a man of religion as is seen from a multitude of biblical analogies throughout his narrative. From there, …show more content…
Soon after, Douglass shifts his dialogue from a mode of defence to an act denunciation as he develops a tone of disgust. He views the “hypocritical Christianity of this land” as the “grossest of all libels” while he experiences “unutterable loathing” to indicate the abhorrent lifestyle of the slaveholders. Douglass catalyzes his act of condemnation when he creatively places the diction of the true Christianity alongside the diction of the “partial” faith of the slaveholders to first compare and then contrast the two. More specifically, Douglass places religious representatives near slaveholding savages to illustrate the detestable difference between them and dispense his own attitude of distaste onto his readers. To create this effect, he places “ministers” next to “men-stealers”, “missionaries” with “women-whippers”, and “church members” with “cradle plunderers.” Douglass uses logic to denunciate the religion of the slaveholders. He condemns the whip of the slaveholder and he condemns the holder of the whip. He condemns the Church of his masters and he condemns the ministers of that church. The same emotions displayed by Douglass are then embraced by the reader as the reader begins to relate with Douglass; the relationship among the words turns into a