National Geographic's Slavery article

[T'ai Chi]

There wasn't one mention of religion in the slavery article.

I guess people who cry religion = slavery are perhaps deluded somewhat?

 

[LeFevre]

perhaps

 

[The Mad Linguist]

The point isn't that the two are intrinsically linked. The point is that the fact that religion didn't see that slavery was wrong doesn't do much for religion's claims of moral authority.

Whether that argument stands up is a separate question, and has been addressed on more than one thread, but whether it does or not can't be decided based on whether an article on slavery blames religion for it or not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The point isn't that the two are intrinsically linked. The point is that the fact that religion didn't see that slavery was wrong doesn't do much for religion's claims of moral authority.

Whether that argument stands up is a separate question, and has been addressed on more than one thread, but whether it does or not can't be decided based on whether an article on slavery blames religion for it or not.

You'd think that if religion is slavery or causes slavery, etc., that an exploration of very large high and low tech. slave markets would have at least some religion in the mix?

But the article kept mentioning economic issues, not religion as the cause. In fact, it didn't even mention religion AT ALL, except for a Baptist minister actually helping to stomp slavery out by setting up something like a halfway house.

 

[jj]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

 

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

That's a great link, but we are talking about modern religion, not religion in the 19th century and even further back.

The National Geographic article is current information.

 

[Yahzi]

That's a great link, but we are talking about modern religion, not religion in the 19th century and even further back.

The National Geographic article is current information.

But... when people here talk about slavery and religion, they are talking about 19th century slavery and religion. They make the point that 19th century religion didn't do anything to help the 19th century slaves.

So, how, exactly, does the article on 20th century slavery have anything at all to do with a discussion of 19th century slavery and 19th century religion?

You seem deeply confused by something, but I can't tell what it is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But... when people here talk about slavery and religion, they are talking about 19th century slavery and religion. They make the point that 19th century religion didn't do anything to help the 19th century slaves.

So, how, exactly, does the article on 20th century slavery have anything at all to do with a discussion of 19th century slavery and 19th century religion?

You seem deeply confused by something, but I can't tell what it is.

So people talk about slavery and religion, but they are talking about the issues in the past? That isn't exactly a deterrent for present issues. You might as well argue to avoid science because a lot of scientists, in the past, were alchemists.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

You'd think that if religion is slavery or causes slavery, etc., that an exploration of very large high and low tech. slave markets would have at least some religion in the mix?

-sigh- Now read what I actually SAID.

The claim is not "religion is slavery". The claim is not "religion caused slavery". The claim is "in the 19th Century religion did not work strongly for the abolition of slavery, which cast doubts on the claim of religion to be a moral authority".

It's like if someone sits in a corner and does nothing while someone else murders babies... is that person a baby-murderer? No. Is that person causing the murder of babies? No. Is that person's moral authority undermined by their inaction? Yes!

 

[Yahzi]

So people talk about slavery and religion, but they are talking about the issues in the past? That isn't exactly a deterrent for present issues. You might as well argue to avoid science because a lot of scientists, in the past, were alchemists.

What you fail to understand is that modern Christians assert that the tenents of Christianity do not change. If modern scientists were defending the conclusions and practices of alchemists, then there would be valid reasons to argue. It is the assertion of the Christian that God's word is revealed in the Bible, that it has been revealed for 2,000 years, and that it does not change, that allows us to point to 19th century Christianity as a valid topic for discussions of 20th century Christianity.

The fact that God's revealed, unchanging word did not oppose slavery in the 19th century is relevant to the person who asserts that God's revealed, unchanging word opposes slavery in the 20th century.

Edit: you know, if you actually read the link, you might understand this.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The claim is "in the 19th Century religion did not work strongly for the abolition of slavery, which cast doubts on the claim of religion to be a moral authority".
/B]

I love how people who disagree with you ALWAYS reply with something like "if you had actually read..." blah blah.

Anyway, MANY people back there were pro-slavery, religious and non-religious. Some were anti-slavery, religious and non-religious.

Founding fathers of country owned slaves. To slant your agenda towards religion is dishonest. To talk about religion and slavery instead of slavery in the bigger picture, is one big huge ugly agenda.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

Yes, plenty of people were both pro-slavery and con-slavery, religious and non-religious. Yes, I know that at the time society at large looked favourably on slavery (until it all changed and they didn't any more, so they abolished it). None of that affects the basic argument.

Let me run that argument by you one more time:

Christianity claims to have a superior moral code, based on the notion that God gave it to them.

Slavery is immoral.

However, despite the actions of some individuals within Christianity, Christianity as a whole did not oppose it. The Bible was actually used to support the practice.

Nowadays, however, Christianity comes out strongly against slavery.

As you point out, this is understandable if Christianity's code is just a human moral code like any other. But THEY CLAIM it is an unchanging divine moral code. Their religion's changing attitude towards slavery is evidence against that claim.

If Christianity's claims about the origin of their moral code is true, we should expect it to display a higher moral standard than contemporary society. Here is a clear example of a case where it did not.

Now what exactly is it that you don't get about that?

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Christianity claims to have a superior moral code"

Please show us where "Christianity" says *exactly* that, as YOU claim.

"Slavery is immoral."

I don't agree with slavery, but, morals are relative, at least judging by history.

"However, despite the actions of some individuals within Christianity, Christianity as a whole did not oppose it. The Bible was actually used to support the practice."

Um, apparently many groups as a whole did not oppose it, because slavery is still around, in religious and non-religious communities. Again, you are obviously singling out religion.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Again, you are obviously singling out religion.

No, he's responding to your post

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, and triple no, he's singling out religion.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

Thanks Filippo. T'ai Chi, I'm not going to answer your questions, because what you are failing to notice is that this is not my argument. It's an argument I've seen made frequently, which I broadly agree with, but I'm not the one putting forward a claim.

I reiterated the argument for YOUR benefit to try and explain that you were heading off on an irrelevant tangent.

The reason you are heading off on an irrelevant tangent is that you are not addressing the same question as the people you are trying to refute. I have tried to point this out but am getting slapped down for my trouble. So once again:

The question that the original argument addresses is "Does Christianity possess a divinely-imparted moral code?"

The question that you are addressing seems to be "What causes slavery?"

Now, if that was the question in hand, your point about singling out religion would be valid (as there were indeed many other, more important factors). But it isn't so it isn't.

No one is claiming that religion is the sole (or even the main) cause of slavery.

Hopefully, this combined with my previous posts will illumine you as to why the article that you cite, on the causes of slavery in the modern age, has no relevance whatsoever to an argument which merely uses 19th century slavery as an example in an argument which is about the quality of the Christian moral code, not about slavery per se.

 

[Yahzi]

Please show us where "Christianity" says *exactly* that, as YOU claim.

You are asking us to show you where Christianity claims to have a superior moral code?!? The whole bit about how Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven just didn't faze you a bit, eh?

I'm sorry, but you have just demonstrated your complete and total ignorance of the entire subject. All of your other arguments are easily refuted, but I an not going to bother, because there is no point. You complain about us "singling out religion," but you don't even know what it is.

You are truly too stupid to talk to. It is not mere ignorance, but wilful stupidity: you are not merely unaware of the facts, but are invested in re-interperting all facts and words until you are always right. Welcome to /ignore.

 

[Pahansiri]

There wasn't one mention of religion in the slavery article.

I guess people who cry religion = slavery are perhaps deluded somewhat?

Greetings T'ai Ch.

I hope you are well and happy.

Words stated but not applied into daily actions are just words and empty. The Buddha called this a flower without any fragrance.

8. As a flower that is lovely and beautiful but is scentless, even so fruitless is the well-spoken word of one who does not practice it. 51.

9. As a flower that is lovely, beautiful, and scent-laden, even so fruitful is the well-spoken word of one who practices it. 52.

Your tag lines/ quotes at the end of your post say and say well

The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.

Violence has a habit of returning.

I mean no disrespect and it is just what I believe but your words and actions do not reflect in this case what is said and the meaning of your quotes.

You are clearly bothered if not angry because someone may believe something you do not, they may say or believe religion and slavery are one in the same or have gone hand in hand etc.

This clearly bothers you and you have in this case have not offered the soft to over come the hard, you have not offered the gentle overcome the rigid.

Knowing that no one can make you mad, happy or sad etc you have chosen in this case to become angry due to others beliefs. This is a cause of great suffering as history has shown. No one can make you angry without your permission.


Hatred is not diminished by hatred at any time. Hatred is diminished by love this is the eternal Law.....( Buddha)

Just what I believe.

 

[T'ai Chi]

heh

"You are asking us to show you where Christianity claims to have a superior moral code?!? The whole bit about how Jesus is the one and only way to Heaven just didn't faze you a bit, eh?"

That is *your* interpretation of if. In fact, "Christianity" does not say specifically what you are claiming it does.

Since you put me on ignore, I expect you to reply very soon.

 

[Pahansiri]

We look so hard for a black and white to support or position in everything but the fact is there are few if any black and whites

To say “religion = slavery” is illogical.

To say no religion turned a blind eye to it and or did not encourage it is also illogical.

To say “religion” this or that is also illogical. Many religions, mostly God based did of course condone and encourage or at least turn a blind eye to it, but not all.


T'ai Chi my friend to say that Judeo-Christianity on a whole today does not condone and encourage slavery would be greatly correct.

To say it did not in the past or that the teachings or the NT and OT did not teach and so condone it would be dishonest.

The OT of course condones many passages doing this as does the NT. Mohammed also owned and condoned beating slaves.

I may be wrong but believe you may be leaning as to this conversation towards the Christian belief.

Remember of the many OT passages concerning this EX 21:20,21 God clearly says we can beat slaves to death.

Exodus 21
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

As to Jesus

Luke 12
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

This of course is not in line with the great quote at the bottom of your post.
The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.

Violence has a habit of returning.

Your point that “religion = slavery” is wrong is true when said in any sweeping fashion as to say religion if free or has clean hands as to it is also wrong when said in a sweeping fashion.

To say the National Geographic's Slavery article points to today and does not mention some religions means religion has no hand in it at all is not a clear look at the roots of this tree.

Of course as to that religion is not the main root of slavery, not any religion greed is but to say some religions thousands of years ago did not facilitate in their teachings slavery is not the case.

These are old religions during an old time things have gotten better and while the “back then it was different” is often used remember some, a few very old religions were very much against slavery.

One last thought, if one in a God based religion were to say “back then it was different, that is why they did it then and now we don’t” can they really say their God is always right, unchanging etc?

What is wrong in a “perfect mind” as to an act that brings harm is always wrong.

That is just what I believe.