National Geographic's Slavery article

[ceo_esq]

I am sorry the Vatican archives do not say what you want them to say, but they don't. Your "unambigious condemnation" of slavery is everyone else's "complete acceptance of."

Yahzi, kindly refrain from misstating what I've written. When I said "unambiguous condemnation" I quite obviously excluded the 1866 statement from the scope of that remark (check my list of dates). This is why I said it could reasonably be viewed as an anomaly. I already quoted earlier in this thread from the 1537 and 1686 statements, and I refer the reader back to them. Here's an excerpt from the 1839 statement:

We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. … We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above-mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth[.]

Now, do you really think that the statements made in 1537, 1686 and 1839 constitute "complete acceptance of" slavery according to everyone else’s standards but my own?

And then you go on to demonstrate that, by concluding that people captured in just wars and criminals can be enslaved. The obvious point that you have simply declined to notice is that their children were also slaves.

I offered no personal comment on whether prisoners and criminals can morally be forced into servitude. I merely noted that this is a different phenomenon than the type of enslavement which the Thirteenth Amendment was primarily intended to rectify. You said "the US government declares the oppression of a particular class of people to be wrong... the Vatican responds with statements supporting the continued oppression", which could easily mislead one into thinking, as you apparently do, that the Thirteenth Amendment and the 1866 statement were targeting the same social institution. If you will give my post an uncharacteristically careful reading, you'll see that I have not defended the 1866 statement or, indeed, offered any value judgments in respect thereof. I simply clarified an arguably relevant distinction that your post tended to obscure.

By the way, which slaves were you referring to when you said that "their children were also slaves"?

Oh and look: lets argue about what the words mean, too.

Yahzi, I live and move in a world where the meaning and usage of words have important consequences. We've established in other discussions that you do not. I suggest we agree to disagree on this.

If you think ceo_esq actually has a point, read the link I provided. He's counting on you not to.

If people don’t read the link, they won't see the sole footnoted source mentioned in connection with the 1866 statement, which is rather illuminating. I therefore count on everyone to read your link. I also count on them to read my posts with a greater degree of objectivity and comprehension than you have heretofore demonstrated.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings elliotfc.

I made that statement because I see no evidence that God has ever written a human book. If it could be proven to me that God has ever written a human book, then I would retract the statement. I do no wish to assign "omni" definitions to God. God is what God is. If he doesn't write perfect human books, he doesn't write perfect human books.

My friend these are statements of belief by you and I respect that and will not respond to most points as it is what you believe and to really respond a debate as to proof of God and your statement of belief if it was made as a statement of fact would need to come before this post. I.e proof of God, etc.

I do debate, not as much as I use to as it is hard to find debate that does not involve emotions greatly so on this topic.

If you like to do so I have several rules for all debate and would do so only by e-mail as my debates or my responses are long and detailed. It becomes hard here and rude to others as it will take up pages.

Rules:
1. All debate must be respectful and kind.
2. All debate must be free from emotion and logical and factual. If one makes a statement of belief it must be said to be a statement of belief and be respected. If it is a statement of fact then facts, proof and detailed logical conclusion must follow. It is never expectable to answer “ because” , “ because my hold book says so” etc.
3. Every single point and question must be address and answered. Too many simply ship over what they can not answer. If I can not answer I will say I do not know and seek to answer best I can.
My e-mail address is mbertran@nycap.rr.com

Quick answers to your above statement. You say

I see no evidence that God has ever written a human book

I of course agree but add see no proof of a God/creator. The main point here is not if “he” wrote the book, sat down and wrote it etc you believe and I respect that, that he inspired it. It represents “him” his wish and what he would be, perfection yet you believe he allows so many contradictions, violence etc.

“He” is portrayed as violent, angry, ego filled, hateful, a killer of “his children”, a God that has sex with prostitutes, 2 sister 9 Ezekiel 23:1-4) etc.

A being of such great power and perfection as I pointed out would know how such a book that must reflect him and his “rules” wishes etc should and would turn out.

Place yourself where you believe this God is. I because of what I do am interviewed often in print and occasionally TV and in an upcoming HBO film.

There was an article just this week in a paper
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStorie...ry=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=8/18/2003

There are quotes that did not come out exactly as I said them. I am not a perfect being, all knowing or all seeing so I could not know she would make a few small mistakes but if I wished, I could get them retracted and corrected.

If I felt someone would be harmed by what I said or how someone printed what I said I would take steps to change it.

You say

God is what God is. If he doesn't write perfect human books, he doesn't write perfect human books.

Again first let me say I respect your belief as to God is, but you say that God did not write a perfect book because he did not create perfect beings yet knowing they were not perfect and knows before hand what they will do and what they will believe he still punishes them for what he knows will happen.

That is not loving nor unconditional love, unconditional love is just that love without conditions.


A perfect being would make darn sure his “ rule book” would be perfect and not be used to cause harm to others.

Humans do their best to write books or rules that cover every knowable problem that may arise. I have already pointed this out, you may have not seen it or may have addressed it later in your post.

God has given every human a conscience/soul, and he became incarnate man and gave his life to reconcile humanity to himself. I ask for nothing more from God, I am satisfied that he has created me and thankful that he experienced human suffering to effect my salvation.

Again here I will only say I respect what you choose to believe.

Why should a perfect being know how to write human books?

WOW my friend, you are a very intelligent person and this question surprises me that you would ask it.

1- I have already answered it in my other post and above.
2- Your own statement contains the answer with in it. I.e.

Why should a perfect being know how to write human books?

Because “he’ is perfect, all knowing. How can not a perfect being, a all knowing being NOT know how to do anything?

You believe he knows all, he knows your thoughts, how to make you and the complexity of life how your brain works yet he does not how to write a book for humans? That is illogical.

When a TV manufacturer makes a TV he knows how it works.

Imperfect beings write human books.

Yes and “perfect ones”.

I define God by what I believe he has done, and what I reason his nature to me.

Again here I will only say I respect what you choose to believe.

My reason does not tell me that God is a writer of human books.

Why? This is not just a book about birds, it is the rules by which “he” is telling you must live to please him and reach the goal of heaven. When I teach my children I am kind and loving and very clear so as they are not confused. If I wish them not to do something I tell them clearly. I can not “punish” a child for something I did not explain to him.

This is not just a “book” this is the base of your religion. My great friend you are an example of what the problem would be, you have your beliefs as to it and almost every Christian has their beliefs and they will interconnect on some points and not at all on others.

I have many Christian friends and family who say “ well I don’t believe Jesus said that but I do believe he said this” How can you pick and choose?

I posted above several post before this to another where Jesus clearly condones slavery and the beating of slaves.

Many will say “ well he did not really say that” how can you know?

God is the author of creative life, of creative creatures.

Again here I will only say I respect what you choose to believe.

If a person who makes space shuttles does not make paper airplanes that does not bother me in the least.

Not sure how that is relevant. I will tell you when someone makes space shuttles he DOES write detailed instructions how it works and how to operate it, lives depend on it. He would instruct that children NOT operate it or anyone who did NOT fully understand his rules and instructions.

If he did not write a detailed operation and instruction manual he would be liable and sued for the harm it caused as he should be. He, could not sue someone he gave it to and was harmed by it when he did not really tell them how it worked.

Whether God has the ability to write human books or not does not matter to me I suppose.

Why?

All I know is that God has yet to write human books, and that God as Jesus did not write human books.

No, you believe it you do not know it. I also do not believe there are such beings or being yet of course I can NOT say I “know it”.

That leads me to believe that he is not interested in writing human books.

Then how can this being, be upset when people do not do as he wishes? He can not.

However I believe that he is extremely interested in inspiring humans to write human books. Their flaws are not flaws if you think of them as intensely human books, as well as being divinely inspired.

Yes they are flaws when seen as the only way to God.

i.e. "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Remember Leviticus are said to be God’s LAWS. Also the 10 commandments are said to be just that commandments not suggestions.

All books that I've ever read are intensely human.

Of course we do not disagree here but most Christians will disagree with you, most by far.

I've never read a purely divine book, so I reason that such books do not exist. It does no good to blame God, or discredit God, because divine books do not exist. He created me and I am content with that.

Of course it would have to be blamed on this God, this book has been used to harm millions he would have known this and yet did not stop it would be his fault. In this human realm such a thing would be followed by a law suit and jail time for a human who wrote a book that told followers to stone people to death for example.

I wrote: A father does not tell a child not to hit the don then shoot the dog. He does not say, do not kill your brother then kill his other child.

You responded

Some fathers do though. Perhaps you should say a *good* father does not do those things. Of course I have already said that I do not believe the Bible to be the purely divine perfect book, as others believe. However I do feel aligned with these "others" since I believe it better to see complete divinity in the Bible than to see zero divinity in the Bible.

First you are very right as to

Perhaps you should say a *good* father

I always use the father analogy when discussing God with a person who believes in that and “always say a good father” well almost always as I misspoke a bit this time.

But that does not change the point of my statement, a God, a perfect being would be a perfect father.

You can not simply say Christianity or God is true and the Bible proves it then say well there a lot of mistake in the Bible and that’s mans fault don’t blame God.

Seems to me strange to just pick and choose what fits ones desires. But I have explained several times why above and do not wish to be redundant.

As far as I can tell, the majority of Christians/Jews are not literalist fundamentalists who believe the Bible is the purely divine voice of God.

Actually as far as the US the fastest change within the Christian community is movement towards evangelical conservative Christianity.


I would not agree that the “majority of Christians/Jews” do not believe the Bible is the word of God.

I base this on knowledge of people, and the reading of many books.

Well I respect that but I have also read many books, talked to, debated many people have many friends who are Christian etc, been to many discussion boards, have a few years on you..lol

For me I would not agree with you, I believe nothing just because someone says it.

This is a testable thesis Pahansiri. Tomorrow, encounter 10 Christians/Jews, and ask them if they feel the Bible is the purely divine voice of God, as opposed to a divinely inspired book written by humans.
The next day ask 10 more. And then 10 more. After 10 days, I'd be very interested to hear a percentage of response. I will go ahead and conduct this experiment myself, and report back in a couple of weeks.

Such have been done some examples can be found on line easy and here in this site. Examples being. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/15/nyt.kristof/index.html

Please do read the article, a quick snippet being

Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

It is easy to find such surveys.

God, I suppose, could tell the funniest knock-knock joke of all time.

But yet you believe he could not make sure a book with his laws and rules was not clear for all?

Has he? When I say God cannot write a human book, I mean to say that he has shown no evidence that he has done so, and when he had the chance as Jesus he passed up the chance.

Again here I will say I respect what you believe.

Jesus didn't invent electricity either.

Again here I will say I respect what you believe. Please remember I do not believe Jesus existed but do believe there was a person who never said he was God or the son of a God but was a good being and Paul used him as a model for his desires to build a religion. Remember Paul’s first writings said this Christ was a spirit and not a human.

I don't worry about what Jesus/God does not do.

I respect that as your belief, many, most Christians would not agree with you. But their belief is no more valid then yours nor to be respected less.

God doesn't write human books.

You believe.

As for God being perfect, he is by definition perfect, and God as the definition of perfect supercedes any other definition of perfect that would separate God from perfection.

These are word games, the facts is your word game only points out more that such a being would be free from any flaw such as geo, anger, vengeance etc. It would never kill or harm nor demand it’s own way.

Consider this using Bible passages.

If
“1 John 4:8] ...God is love.

And

“[1 Cor 13:5] Love...keeps no record of wrongs.”

And

“..Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;...it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right...Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...LOVE NEVER FAILS; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues,they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away...[1Cor 13:4-8]


and

“[1John 4:18.8] There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.

Then
1) it is clear”he” keeps no record of wrongs and does not judge.
2) “he” is not a “jealous” God.
3) “he” has no ego and can not demand to or wish to be worshiped or placed before any other
4) “he” does NOT “insist on his own way”
5) Does not want to be feared in any way.
And
6) does not punish.

Yet the Bible is filled with God killing and asking others to kill for him, condoning rape, murder, stealing. God flooding and killing almost all life because his children did not do what he knew they would not before hand.

Sending bears to kill children, etc etc etc.

"All powerful" needs to be rethought.

You are preaching to the wrong man…lol

If God does not want to do something, or does not do something, that does not limit his power.

How? If he makes something he knows will be flawed he can not then demand it be not flawed. Back to my cake analogy again, you keep avoiding that.

That would be a consequence of his perfection.

How?

If God does not rape 1000 earth women every day, does that mean God is not all powerful?

I mean no disrespect but that is one of the silliest statements I have ever heard.

My religion forbids me from putting the Lord to the test.

Have you ever question why? Fear is the reason for that. I will always allow my children to question me.

There is a great quote that goes Philosophy is questions that may never be answered, religion ( some) is answers that may never be questioned

I find that so sad, fear seeks to blind and bind.

As Buddhist we have this from the Buddha as a base of our belief.

Kalama Sutta

Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.

Buddha
(Anguttara Nikaya Vol. 1, 188-193 P.T.S. Ed.)

Now we agree. Jesus said many things that I can understand. Jesus, as far as I know, did not write any books.

All I will say is

"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Seems he would be more clear, as a father when you have children will you not seek to be? And you are not perfect.

He wishes the best for all of us.

I respect that you believe what you do, but wonder how you know what God thinks or wishes if you do not believe his only rule book is not by him.

He did not create mindless automatons with the incapacity to choose contrary to his will.

But how can we know his will if the book of his will is not his will???

Rather, God felt it important to create creative creatures with the ability to choose evil, and the ability to choose love.

I respect you believe this and I am sure you are making these statements as statements of belief and not fact.

If he made you with the ability to choose things he would not you to choose but knew well before hand you would choose what he did not want you to choose, how can he punish you when he knew before you were born whet you would do or get harmed etc and he did nothing to change it?

If you as a father knew your child would be rapped next Wed at 3:00 by a man you let in the house. You had full control over this house, this man and your daughter. Would you on Wed leave your child alone in the house and let this man in before you left?

Please answer all my questions and points as I have for you.

Who am I to blame God for that decision?

Why not?

I am a creative being who is glad to be a creative being. I don't want to be a robot. I am not a robot.

What if you were a non creative being born in a country with little food, seeing your family starve to death, you were born with one arm and no legs.

You were rapped every day and beaten. Would you think as you do now? Do you believe you are “special” and these other beings that suffer so much are less special?
Not a good fair and loving father this God be.

If you want to assign "fault" to God, that is OK, as long as you also fault the creative beings that we are for choosing evil.

I do not “assign "fault" to God” as I do not believe in God, I believe in causes and conditions. I speak as to you believing in God.

Does a child choose evil if his father knows before hand the child will do something he does not wish them to but does nothing to stop it?
That is not a good father.

Spreading around fault is OK as long as you accept your share.

I do not spread around fault for my actions, I am Buddhist, I believe in the law of Karma, action/cause and effect I am the only one who has control over my actions.

165. By oneself the evil is done, by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left undone, by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself, no one can purify another. Buddha

And God did submit to human evil as Jesus,

No the Bible says he created it, ( I can provide passages) but did he not?

The bible says he lies, murders, has sex with whores etc etc etc.

so he did not merely ignore the human problem of evil and suffering and fault.

He created it, as to your belief.

If someone (man woman whoever) wishes that you, Pahansiri, loves them, and then you love them, how would you feel?

The question is worded poorly so I am not sure I get your point.

How would I feel if someone wanted me to love him or her? What do you mean by love them? I seek to love all beings. Do you mean a relationship? No one can make me love him or her in that way and I can not make anyone love me in that way NOR would I DEMAND IT.

Your God demands humans love him and believe in him or they will suffer. That is not unconditional love.

If any person on the street makes the wish that you love them, and then you automatically love them, your choice has been taken from you.

Your point is illogical and irrelevant. No one can make anyone do, think or believe, feel etc anything. But you believe your God demands you love him or suffer, that is not free will or choice.

It is also illogical and not love to force one out of fear to love you as that is fear not love, also illogical is to want someone to love you when you know ahead of time they can not and will not, then you get mad at them??? Illogical and wrong.

Your will has been taken over. That is not how God operates, and I would not have him operate that way.

???? really?
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

Do you not believe as most Christians do “if you do not believe in God and except Christ dying on the cross for your sins” you will be sent to hell?

Is that choice, free will? That is like you asking out a girl by gun point.

She either says yes or gets shot.Free will? Choice? No Fear and intimation.

That is why he gave the gift of salvation to humanity. After we die and our sinful souls meet God he will cleanse them for us if we are willing.

Thank you, you have just proven my point above. “believe in me, love me, worship me or else”.

That is not free will, not unconditional love. It is fear and intimidation.

If we, as a vanilla cake as you put it, are content and adamant in remaining a vanilla cake, he will let us be a vanilla cake. You see permanence in temporary human existence.

1-You have missed entirely the point of the cake analogy. The cake has no choice if it was made with vanilla ingredients, it can not be chocolate when the baker has used only vanilla ingredients. The baker can become angry all he wishes at the cake for not being chocolate when he is the one that used the vanilla ingredients. He knew before hand what the cake would be it is illogical for him to become angry when it was what he made it to be.

2-

You see permanence in temporary human existence.

I know you said you knew little about Buddhism but you will learn that a very base of Buddhism is the truth of impermanence. I see all things for what they are, impermanent. I am not sure where in my post you cam to believe that I thought other wise.

I think that the temporary human existence must be justified/rectified.

I am not sure about “justified or rectified” but it is fact all that is compound ( all things) are subject to death and decay.

So you cake analogy needs to be extended. The cake must be cognizant of itself and the standards of creation, and the cake must be able to choose itself, or the standards.

My sweet friend you are not comprehending my statements.

I will try one more time.

If a baker ( God) sets out to make ( creates) a chocolate cake ( say me as a Christian ) but uses all vanilla ingredients ( knowing before hand, before “he” created me that I would be Buddhist and not believe in him) he can not become angry or caught off guard when the cake ( me) was not chocolate ( Christian).


Lets try this one.

If a baker ( God) sets out to make ( create) a chocolate cake ( a Christian who believed in him and did not ‘sin”) but uses all vanilla ingredients (say a child molester who would and he knew would harm many children. The reason he would is he had it done to him as a child and God knew it and did nothing to protect him ) he can not become angry or caught off guard when the cake ( the molester) was not chocolate (a Christian who believed in him and did not ‘sin”).

How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think? Or that it would not think?

That is a question I should ask you or you should ask yourself. You have sated many times what God thinks, or wants. How do you know this? One would believe if Christian and as most Christians do that the Bible would be the instrument that would give people this information yet you believe it is not. What do you use to form your beliefs and prove them?

I do not believe in this God so do not believe in this perfect creating mind.

I have pointed out a perfect all knowing mind would not be capable of thought as it is all knowing.

I can know it would have to be free of flaws, such as ego, hate, vengeance etc.

Jesus was capable of thought. Therefore God is capable of thought.

Again I will say I respect what you choose to believe. I will also not ask for facts as there can be none.

I have pointed out and you have not addressed it that a mind that is all knowing is not capable of pondering. There would be nothing left unknown. You can not have it both ways or seek to massage what is the definition of all knowing.

God's thoughts are translated into creative action.

I know you believe that. But do you really believe this being sat alone for countless trillions, trillions etc etc etc etc years and 6 thousand years ago said “ hey I have an idea I wonder how this would work?”

Not logical, not all knowing.

That is my conceptualization of how God thinks. It is on a completely different level from our thinking.

David Brooks wrote

To seek to explain what is unknown using what is known is scientific and logical system. To seek to seek to prove what is known using what is unknown is theological lunacy.

This is to say “ well it is a sin to kill unless god does it because that is different and it’s Gods way and so it is Ok to kill then”

So perfection is not really perfection it is the opposite or human idea of perfection, but wait the opposite of human perfection is non-perfection..??

Again I ask you what you asked me

How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think?

Humans ponder because we are confused, are prone to confusion.

Because we are not all knowing or perfect.

So I would agree that God does not ponder, or consider, contemplate, deliberate, etc. How he thinks is different from how we think.

I ask you again what you asked me.

How can you know how a perfect all knowing mind would think?

What facts do you have to support what you are saying?

It is a pleasure conversing with you.

Thank you my friend same here. You are clearly a smart and good being. I must say though if you wish to continue you must respond to all points and questions and not simply ignore parts. This form of debate I do is long but it is the most honest.

I disagree with your theological sentiments about God. Since you do not believe in God (correct?)

I respect that but you can not simply ignore facts or logical conclusion by someone because he does not believe as you do, that is illogical.

I am curious why you are so forthright about your opinions about God. Is it possible to have opinions about what you believe does not exist?

Of course. I do not believe in Santa Clause and have many opinions about “him” I can also using logical conclusion and facts point out why the myth is most likely not true.

As I had pointed out in my posts I was born into a Christian family, raised as such, schooled as such and studied the Bibles for many years. My name is Mark Bertrand, Pahansiri is a given Buddhist name. I am “ white” lol not Indian.

If so, then that means that your opinions of God do not exist.

That is completely illogical.

Does that mean then you believe that God dies not exist due to the fact you have opinions on atheism that can not exist because you are not an atheist?

And I would agree completely. Pahansiri, your notion of God does not in fact exist. We can, at the very least, agree on that. The God you articulate does not exist.

LOL. This is again strange. But I will agree with you, a loving, all powerful, all knowing creator God does not exist, The God of the Christian Bible does not exist.

I guess I am glad we have that cleared up.

May you be well and happy my new friend.

Have for yourself and all living things loving kindness, respect and compassion.

 

[jj]

Fair enough ML.

If I may editorialize...

Any Christian who does not believe that Christian morality does not evolve needs to consider several points:

1) Jesus did not write any books, or, any extant books.
2) The ideas of Jesus were therefore filtered through others, either others who talked with Jesus (ie Peter) or others who talked with people who talked with Jesus (ie evangelists)
3) The concept of Trinity is not articulated in the N.T. I would argue that it can be *gleaned* from the N.T. but that is besides the point. What this means is that theology did evolve past the N.T., at the very least in the articulation of the concept of Trinity.
4) Many Christians are members of churches that were defined over 1500 years after the death of Christ. That these denominations were not defined in the first century AD proves that Christian theology evolves.

Yet I am sympathetic to even the most dogmatically annoying Christians. Actually I am sympathetic to everybody. But I've known some absolutely outstanding literalists, so I think there is something to what they are saying. They surely don't have everything wrong.

-Elliot

How about Constantine's editing of nearly everything?

That is, I think, a significant point in the evolution of "God's Word", isn't it?

How about Paul's contributions, and his previous anti-female attitudes that don't seem to have entirely faded?

How much of "Christianity" is about 'Christ' and how much was just made up to suit somebody's ideas of social order?

 

[jj]

Um.

Speachless, are we?

 

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

If you will give my post an uncharacteristically careful reading, you'll see that I have not defended the 1866 statement or, indeed, offered any value judgments in respect thereof. I simply clarified an arguably relevant distinction that your post tended to obscure.

So in other words, all you really wanted to post is that the 1866 statement used a word that meant "person compelled to labor for the profit of others and lacking freedom or political rights" instead of "slavery."

The shallowness of your argument makes my case for me.

Yahzi, I live and move in a world where the meaning and usage of words have important consequences. We've established in other discussions that you do not.

We have not established this. When I caught you out with your word games about "humanism," you simply decided to not respond.

So I'll ask again: when you read my use of the unqualifed word "humanism," knowing that I am an atheist, writing on a board whose major audience is atheist, and recognizing that the only possible way my sentence could make sense was if I meant "secular" humanism, how exactly it was it that you were mystifed? How exactly did you decide I must mean an obscure Catholic doctrine, and therefor assume I was talking nonsense? Are you a) so parochial that secular humanism is new to you, or b) so focused on winning that you will look for any pretext of a mistake, even when you know perfectly well what I mean?

If I use a word that can be interpreted in one of two ways, and one of those ways is out of context, obscure, and completely invalidates my point, then I meant the other way.

This is the nature of philosophical discourse. What you did was the nature of legalistic discourse. Don't you agree? When you deliberatly misinterpret my terms even though you know what I mean, I think that shows that you live and move in a world where words are divorced from meaning.

I also count on them to read my posts with a greater degree of objectivity and comprehension than you have heretofore demonstrated.

You probably count on them to understand the words you use in their normal, everyday common use, and expect them to apply a little context from the rest of your post and indeed your entire reputation on this board. I have bad news for you: there are certain posters on this board that will not do that.

 

[ceo_esq]

So in other words, all you really wanted to post is that the 1866 statement used a word that meant "person compelled to labor for the profit of others and lacking freedom or political rights" instead of "slavery."

The shallowness of your argument makes my case for me.

Yahzi, you implied that the 1866 statement directly supported the perpetuation of slavery as we knew it in the New World - that is, the compulsion to labor for others and the removal of freedom and political rights of an entire class of persons, and the entry into that status by innocent people through forcible capture or misfortune of birth.

Without opining on the absolute morality of penal servitude, indentured servitude and the like (in jurisprudence, sometimes called "just-title servitude"), it is obvious that they are not the equivalent of what we generally mean when we say "slavery" (chattel slavery, usually race-based). A document tolerating the former situation under certain circumstances, however morally problematic it might be, should probably not be relied on as evidence of support of the latter situation. The reverse is also true: for example, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished chattel slavery and contractual servitude, but permits penal servitude. If you think the distinction between a "slave" and a "person compelled to labor for the profit of others and lacking freedom or political rights" is so shallow, then I take it you consider prison work to be a form of slavery approved by American law.

Put another way, it seems logically possible to agree with the 1866 statement and simultaneously see a moral imperative for abolition. Since you profess to be big on "context", let me suggest that there are two relevant contexts in which the 1866 statement can be placed, as my earlier post tried to point out. The first is the context of the particular institutions of servitude (not including racial enslavement) to which the 1866 statement was responding. The second context is the long line of Church statements (both pre- and post-1866) criticizing the practice of slavery on theological and ethical grounds. Isn't an interpretation of the 1866 statement that, insofar as reasonably possible, can be read in harmony with these contexts, likely to be a better interpretation? And if it is not reasonably possible to harmonize them, then the 1866 statement is, as I suggested it might be, anomalous.

So I'll ask again: when you read my use of the unqualifed word "humanism," knowing that I am an atheist, writing on a board whose major audience is atheist, and recognizing that the only possible way my sentence could make sense was if I meant "secular" humanism, how exactly it was it that you were mystifed? How exactly did you decide I must mean an obscure Catholic doctrine, and therefor assume I was talking nonsense? Are you a) so parochial that secular humanism is new to you, or b) so focused on winning that you will look for any pretext of a mistake, even when you know perfectly well what I mean?

If I use a word that can be interpreted in one of two ways, and one of those ways is out of context, obscure, and completely invalidates my point, then I meant the other way.

And if you make an argument that appears ignorant of context, obscure and completely invalid, I suppose I should just assume that I've misunderstood your meaning.

Seriously, though, I do see past your insults to an actual point that I can acknowledge. I'm sorry if you thought I was playing cute. However, I simply noted that there was a prima facie inconsistency in your statement about humanism being incompatible with Christianity and effectively gave you a chance to clarify whether (1) you really intended something more specific or (2) you actually did mean that there is something intrinsic to humanism generally that is ultimately at odds with religious belief (and before you scoff at this possible interpretation, let me say that I have heard people make such arguments before - I simply find the arguments confusing).

I was prepared for either response. But curiously, your subsequent replies suggested even more strongly than your initial posts that perhaps you did have general-encyclopedia-definition "humanism" in mind rather than "secular humanism". If one reads references to humanism in your replies as pertaining specifically to secular humanism, your replies actually become more rather than less confusing; some of your later statements about humanism are thereby transformed into truisms or incoherencies.

Should I really presume that you intended to say, for example, "I did not say that secular humanism was incompatible with theism" and "Catholic scholars can't figure out that secular humanism is inconsistent with the assertion that the purpose of human existence is to please some non-human entity"? I hope you agree that these statements of yours seem slightly more reasonable (and less - to borrow your phrase again - "out of context, obscure and completely invalid") if they are construed by reference to humanism generally rather than secular humanism. So which way should I have interpreted them?

I think the moral is, if you can't resort to fewer generalizations, at least try to be more consistent in the way you make them.

By the way, I hope that my initially linking to the encyclopedia definition of humanism made it sufficiently clear that I was interpreting the term in a general way, of which Christian humanism is only one (albeit the original) subset and secular humanism another, rather than interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy. I agree that that would have been unjustified.

 

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Yahzi, you implied that the 1866 statement directly supported the perpetuation of slavery as we knew it in the New World

.
And the people who read it almost certainly agreed. It is only now, after the fact, when the timing of the American amendment and the Papal pronoucement can be dismissed as accidental, that anyone can make the argument otherwise.

however morally problematic it might be

But you see, in your long defense of the statement, you at no point acknowleged that it was morally problematic. Do you understand how acknowledging that the Pope was clearly endorsing a principal that we find objectionable (even though it wasn't slavery) would have weakend your case, and therefore, you were philosophically required to have brought it up?

then I take it you consider prison work to be a form of slavery approved by American law.

Yes, I do (when it is compelled, that is). Don't you?

Put another way, it seems logically possible to agree with the 1866 statement and simultaneously see a moral imperative for abolition.

Of course it is possible. But you have not shown that it was the case, or even that it was probable. When the Pope goes to such length to defend the compulsion of labor for another's profit, you have to wonder what his point was. In case you didn't notice, penal servitude was not under threat. There was no global movement to banish penal servitude. Only slavery. So why did the Pope issue this proclamation to defend an institution that was not under threat, at exactly the same time that a different institution was under threat? Me, I'll go with the parsimonious explanation that the Pope meant what he said.

The second context is the long line of Church statements (both pre- and post-1866) criticizing the practice of slavery on theological and ethical grounds.

Your peculiar interpretation of thie 1866 statement does not give me great faith that all these other statements actually say what you think they say. I would go look them up, but I don't want to argue over the translation of every word with you, and frankly I don't care that much.

Isn't an interpretation of the 1866 statement that, insofar as reasonably possible, can be read in harmony with these contexts, likely to be a better interpretation? And if it is not reasonably possible to harmonize them, then the 1866 statement is, as I suggested it might be, anomalous.

If only you showed that much concern for reading my statements in harmony. Do you detect the possiblity of bias on your part?

I'm sorry if you thought I was playing cute.

So you weren't? You actually could not guess that I mean "secular" humanism? The knowledge of that philosophy was so far removed from your ordinary consciousness that you failed to recognize it? So you are opting for option a) parochialism. Ok. Please note in the future that I am an atheist, the audience I am writing to is atheist, and therefore, whenever there are two possible meanings to word I use, I am using the one that atheists would use. Does that help?


However, I simply noted that there was a prima facie inconsistency in your statement about humanism being incompatible with Christianity and effectively gave you a chance to clarify whether (1) you really intended something more specific or (2) you actually did mean that there is something intrinsic to humanism generally that is ultimately at odds with religious belief (and before you scoff at this possible interpretation, let me say that I have heard people make such arguments before - I simply find the arguments confusing).

I was prepared for either response. But curiously, your subsequent replies suggested even more strongly than your initial posts that perhaps you did have general-encyclopedia-definition "humanism" in mind rather than "secular humanism". If one reads references to humanism in your replies as pertaining specifically to secular humanism, your replies actually become more rather than less confusing; some of your later statements about humanism are thereby transformed into truisms or incoherencies.

Should I really presume that you intended to say, for example, "I did not say that secular humanism was incompatible with theism" and "Catholic scholars can't figure out that secular humanism is inconsistent with the assertion that the purpose of human existence is to please some non-human entity"? I hope you agree that these statements of yours seem slightly more reasonable (and less - to borrow your phrase again - "out of context, obscure and completely invalid") if they are construed by reference to humanism generally rather than secular humanism.

Absolutely not. The confusion disappears when you realize that theism is not equivalent to Catholicism.

For a person that complains about precision in words, you don't seem to notice when I do choose my words carefully.

When I say that it is possible to be Theistic and humanist, what I mean is that you can concievabley construct a god that is not incompatible with humanism. When I say that it is not possible to be Catholic and humanist, I mean that the specific Christian God (as defined by Catholic doctrine) is incompatible with humanism.

rather than interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy. I agree that that would have been unjustified.

Do you agree that being "mystified" by my use of the word, when it should have been obvious from context, is sufficient reason for one to suspect that you might be interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy? Again, for one who complains about choosing words with care, your choice of "mystified" seems indefensible. You weren't mystified. You knew exactly what I meant. You just thought I was wrong. That's not the same thing at all.

 

[ceo_esq]

And the people who read it almost certainly agreed. It is only now, after the fact, when the timing of the American amendment and the Papal pronoucement can be dismissed as accidental, that anyone can make the argument otherwise.

Bear in mind that the 1866 statement was a ruling from the Holy Office addressing a specific dispute relating (as I recall from the Panzer book) to particular institutions of non-hereditary just-title servitude in parts of Africa, rather than the American form of slavery. I do not, in fact, dismiss the timing as entirely accidental; I find it extremely likely that the African inquiry to the Holy Office was prompted, for purposes of clarification, by the well-publicized passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the United States (which, by all accounts, the Church supported). That this is probably true, however, in no way bolsters an interpretation of the 1866 statement as endorsing the morality of slavery as practiced in the United States.

But you see, in your long defense of the statement, you at no point acknowleged that it was morally problematic. Do you understand how acknowledging that the Pope was clearly endorsing a principal that we find objectionable (even though it wasn't slavery) would have weakend your case, and therefore, you were philosophically required to have brought it up?

What do you understand my case to be, that you think it would be materially weakened by a personal acknowledgment that the 1866 statement (for the sake of accuracy, not a papal one) endorsed an objectionable principle?

Yes, I do [view penal labor as a form of slavery approved under modern American law] (when it is compelled, that is). Don't you?

Don't jump all over me for saying this, but it probably depends on one's definition of slavery. Most people distinguish penal or indentured servitude from slavery. However, in certain contexts (perhaps including the 1866 statement) I suppose the term slavery could legitimately be applied to penal and indentured servitude. Such usage should not be taken to obscure, however, the moral distinctions to be drawn among the varying degrees of injustice manifested by different forms of slavery (e.g. the prison chain gang versus the plantation slave).

Originally posted by Yahzi
Of course it is possible. But you have not shown that it was the case, or even that it was probable. When the Pope goes to such length to defend the compulsion of labor for another's profit, you have to wonder what his point was. In case you didn't notice, penal servitude was not under threat. There was no global movement to banish penal servitude. Only slavery. So why did the Pope issue this proclamation to defend an institution that was not under threat, at exactly the same time that a different institution was under threat? Me, I'll go with the parsimonious explanation that the Pope meant what he said.

As I suggested above, I do not consider the timing itself to have been accidental. There was indeed a global movement to banish chattel slavery, which movement was significantly backed by the Church. However, the support given by the Church to the abolition of chattel slavery in perhaps its largest remaining bastion (the United States) could reasonably have been expected to raise questions as to whether the Church meant for its condemnation of chattel slavery to extend to just-title servitude, simply because (as we have noted), while not equivalent institutions, they nonetheless present certain features in common. This explanation, all things considered, seems both plausible and parsimonious.

If you really think that the 1866 statement was a direct endorsement of chattel slavery, then how do you account for the part of the statement that says that the acceptability of slavery hinges, inter alia, upon "whether the slave ... has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty"? Before you answer that the Church probably considered entrapment and/or racial identity to be a sufficiently just basis on which to deprive a human being of his liberty, consider how much or how little corroboration for that notion is provided by other Church statements.

Originally posted by Yahzi
Your peculiar interpretation of thie 1866 statement does not give me great faith that all these other statements actually say what you think they say. I would go look them up, but I don't want to argue over the translation of every word with you, and frankly I don't care that much.

Fair enough, Yahzi. How about if we limit our consideration to the most immediate context - say, the two Church statements addressing slavery closest in time to the 1866 statement, i.e. the next preceding and the next following statement? I hope you will agree that this should give us a clearer notion of the proper context in which to construe the 1866 statement.

Both documents, as it happens, are actually directly from the papal pen (unlike the 1866 statement). The first is the 1839 papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus. This document is of particular interest to our discussion, because it was an instruction letter addressed specifically (and in English) to the bishops of the United States on the issue of slavery. I have already quoted from it, but for ease of review I will repeat such quotation here:

We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. ...

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.

The second document, i.e. the Church statement on slavery next following the 1866 statement, is the 1888 papal encyclical In Plurimis (On the Abolition of Slavery). It is addressed to the bishops of Brazil:

In the presence of so much suffering, the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature. The Supreme Author of all things so decreed that man should exercise a sort of royal dominion over beasts and cattle and fish and fowl, but never that men should exercise a like dominion over their fellow men. ...

Even those who were wisest in the pagan world, illustrious philosophers and learned juris-consults, outraging the common feeling of mankind, succeeded in persuading themselves and others that slavery was simply a necessary condition of nature. Nor did they hesitate to assert that the slave class was very inferior to the freemen both in intelligence and development of bodily perfection, and therefore that slaves, as things wanting in reason and sense, ought in all things to be the instruments of the will, however rash and unworthy, of their masters. Such inhuman and wicked doctrines are to be specially detested; for, when once they are accepted, there is no form of oppression so wicked but that it will defend itself beneath some color of legality and justice. History is full of examples showing what a seedbed of crime, what a pest and calamity, this system has been for states. ...

Would that all who hold high positions in authority and power, or who desire the rights of nations and of humanity to be held sacred, or who earnestly devote themselves to the interests of the Catholic religion, would all, everywhere acting on Our exhortations and wishes, strive together to repress, forbid, and put an end to that kind of traffic, than which nothing is more base and wicked.

Both of these documents include, incidentally, historical overviews (at least from the authors' perspective) of the actions and attitudes of their authors' predecessors in regard to slavery.

In view of the foregoing, let me pose two questions:

1. Do you still suspect that these two documents which, chronologically speaking, bookended the 1866 statement, fail to say what I have suggested they say - i.e. that they cannot reasonably be construed other than as condemnations of the institution of slavery (in the commonly understood sense of the term)?

2. Do you still maintain, in the light of the relatively immediate historical context provided by these two documents, that it is unreasonable to venture an interpretation of the 1866 statement that excludes chattel slavery?

Originally posted by Yahzi
Absolutely not. The confusion disappears when you realize that theism is not equivalent to Catholicism.
...
When I say that it is possible to be Theistic and humanist, what I mean is that you can concievabley construct a god that is not incompatible with humanism. When I say that it is not possible to be Catholic and humanist, I mean that the specific Christian God (as defined by Catholic doctrine) is incompatible with humanism.

Yahzi, how does the realization that theism is not equivalent to Catholicism improve statements like "I never said that secular humanism is incompatible with theism" or "Catholic philosophers can't recognize that secular humanism is incompatible with their beliefs"? Are you aware of a theism that is compatible with secular humanism? Is it plausible to assert that anyone fails to recognize that secular humanism is incompatible with Catholicism?

Originally posted by Yahzi
Do you agree that being "mystified" by my use of the word, when it should have been obvious from context, is sufficient reason for one to suspect that you might be interpreting it solely as a Christian philosophy? Again, for one who complains about choosing words with care, your choice of "mystified" seems indefensible. You weren't mystified. You knew exactly what I meant. You just thought I was wrong. That's not the same thing at all.

Yahzi, I have reviewed the other thread and determined that the only person who used the term "mystified" was you. What I said, precisely, was "I am a little confused by your references to humanism" (emphasis added). I will chalk this off to an honest mistake on your part. But what does it say when you aren't even choosing my words with care?

 

[Yahzi]

What do you understand my case to be, that you think it would be materially weakened by a personal acknowledgment that the 1866 statement (for the sake of accuracy, not a papal one) endorsed an objectionable principle?

Yes. Because the discussion was not about the Vatican's support of slavery per se: it was about the Vatican's support of social oppression. When you refuted (or I should say attempted to refute) the Vatican's endorsement of slavery without mentioning anything else, you gave the impression that the entire argument against the Vatican was moot. It was not. Even if we accept your arguments against the narrow definition of slavery, the larger context of the argument - that the Vatican has routinely supported state oppression - is still valid.

This is like a strawman argument. You shoot down the spector of slavery with a big gun, and hope nobody notices that the very real monster of servitude is laughing quietly in the shadows.

Yahzi, I have reviewed the other thread and determined that the only person who used the term "mystified" was you.

The tone of your passage suggested that adjective, and then I made the mistake of substituting my word. I agree that was my mistake. But I'm not the one claiming - or even demanding - precision. All I want is communication. And disproving a very narrow point, while you know perfectly well that its larger context is valid, without making it explicitly clear to your audience exactly what context your narrow point belongs in, is the opposite of philosophy. It is legalism. (I realize that legalistic rhetoric is technically a form of communication, but it's one I'm not interested in, which should be obvious from context)

Note: I'm not surrendering the argument. I still think the Vatican objected to slavery only after the rest of the planet did away with it. But that's not relevant to the issue at the moment. The issue at the moment is whether you can walk in, knock down the charge of slavery, and then proclaim the Church innocent while carefully stepping over the bodies of "servants."

 

[ceo_esq]

Yes. Because the discussion was not about the Vatican's support of slavery per se: it was about the Vatican's support of social oppression. When you refuted (or I should say attempted to refute) the Vatican's endorsement of slavery without mentioning anything else, you gave the impression that the entire argument against the Vatican was moot. It was not. Even if we accept your arguments against the narrow definition of slavery, the larger context of the argument - that the Vatican has routinely supported state oppression - is still valid.

This is like a strawman argument. You shoot down the spector of slavery with a big gun, and hope nobody notices that the very real monster of servitude is laughing quietly in the shadows.

I'm not sure that we should downplay the significance of slavery either to this discussion or as a social institution. At any rate, my first post to address the slavery-Christianity relationship was essentially in response to T'ai Chi's initial thread-starting post (which is strictly about slavery) and my successive posts either flowed from that or addressed specific comments about slavery.

I realize that some posters have tried to re-cast the discussion in broader terms; for example, when the Mad Linguist wrote "Let me say this again: the argument is that that Christians do not have a necessarily superior moral code. ... This argument is supported by finding examples of things which we recognise today as being immoral which were practiced or not opposed by Christianity. Slavery is such an example."

So, I've just been engaged in pointing out the defects of that example - not because I necessarily think the Vatican has not supported social oppression, but because it's a weak example and weak examples shouldn't be suffered to stand. Slavery also happens to be the example that has chiefly been preoccupying the thread. That's why I can't agree with your comparison to a strawman - yes, I knocked the slavery example down, but I didn't erect it in the first place.

If we want to replace the slavery example with another example, such as just-title servitude, then that's a different matter. Frankly, it's not as good an example as the slavery example would be if it were valid, but I suppose we'll have to use what we have available.

Why should it be incumbent on me, though, to simultaneously lend support to the just-title servitude example? I'm not presenting a case-in-chief, I'm presenting a targeted rebuttal. Hopefully your argument will be the better for it, although at present I think it's in dire need of reinforcement. The examples that get shot down, get shot down. The examples that stand, stand. If, from the mere fact that the Vatican was a relatively progressive voice on slavery, anyone infers that the Vatican did not support other forms of social oppression, it's a faulty inference on his part. I agree with you. But what has that got to do with me?

And disproving a very narrow point, while you know perfectly well that its larger context is valid, without making it explicitly clear to your audience exactly what context your narrow point belongs in, is the opposite of philosophy. It is legalism. (I realize that legalistic rhetoric is technically a form of communication, but it's one I'm not interested in, which should be obvious from context)

Having devoted a great deal of training to both disciplines, I'm not sure I fully concur with your definitions or your application thereof to my remarks. However, upon further reflection I believe you have something of a point regardless. Accordingly... I will take your criticism in the constructive spirit in which I hope it was intended, and I apologize to you and our readers for the "humanism" imbroglio.

Note: I'm not surrendering the argument. I still think the Vatican objected to slavery only after the rest of the planet did away with it. But that's not relevant to the issue at the moment. The issue at the moment is whether you can walk in, knock down the charge of slavery, and then proclaim the Church innocent while carefully stepping over the bodies of "servants."

I haven't proclaimed the Church innocent of all wrongdoing; that's not my affair. I've proclaimed the Church not guilty of the particular charge I addressed. Maybe it's my "legalistic" background, but I approach the question of guilt by reference to particular enumerated charges and specific evidence adduced, and with a general (though obviously rebuttable) presumption of innocence.

Even though I realize the slavery issue is not dispositive of the question of the Vatican's overall moral blameworthiness, I really think one has to overlook or refute a lot of contrary and apparently exculpatory evidence in order to argue that "the Vatican objected to slavery only after the rest of the planet did away with it." I mean, you have the Church writing to the New World colonial powers in 1537 urging the abolition of slavery there. You have the Church writing to America in 1839 urging the abolition of slavery there. You have the Church writing to Brazil in 1888 urging the eradication of the remaining vestiges of slavery there. I don't know about other people, but that is not the sort of politically risky public relations exercise I bother to engage in repeatedly with respect to policies and social phenomena toward which I am favorably, or even tolerably, disposed.

In each case, of course, these anti-slavery statements were issued against the objections of the relevant civil powers. I've provided links to the texts of all these documents, so I hope we can discuss this body of evidence further. Meanwhile, if you have the time, I would again invite you to peruse the "Evolution of religious and secular morality" thread I linked in my second post. Among other things, it considers in some detail the other aspect of your assertion; namely: when, how and under what circumstances "the rest of the planet did away with" slavery.

EDITED TO ADD:

Something else occurs to me in this regard, Yahzi: if, after looking at some of these other Church pronouncements, you are still not persuaded that they reflect an abolitionist position on the Vatican's part, what exactly would you accept as affirmative evidence of such a position?

For example, you appear to concede that the Vatican eventually did take a stand against slavery, but on what do you base that? To what year do you trace the Vatican's current anti-slavery position? Which document convinces you?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, from what I can see, modern slavery comes in a few different forms. I know in India that children are taken when a family is given a 'loan' from a silk production/processing place. The kids have to work to pay back the loan. But deductions for food and such such keeps the kids there until nearly adulthood, and working the whole time with no education.

So child labor and forced labor are still common in many countries...
More examples
Here

Then we have civil wars and such

Finally, there is Sudan. It is a country of 33 million people, Africa's largest country, located between Egypt and Ethiopia. It is profoundly divided between northern and southern areas of the country:

The government of Sudan has been widely accused of condoning slavery in that country. While there is convincing evidence that some slavery does occur there, the total picture is far more complex. There are a few different ways in which large numbers of Sudanese men, women and children lose their freedom:
-raids from civil war
-Kidnapping and held for ransom
-The Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), which is fighting the Sudanese government, has raided villagers and forced men and children to work as laborers or porters for the rebel army. Some have been forcibly conscripted into the army.


The north is largely Arab; the south is largely black Africans.
The north is largely Muslim; the south has large Christian and Animist minorities. Over-all, the country is about 70% Muslim, 20 to 25% Animist and 5% Christian.
The northern population largely speaks Arabic; the southerners speak a variety of languages.
Many in the north advocate shari'a (Islamic law) for the entire country; southerners favor a secular federal government.

From what I can see is that religion may not be a cause of slavery, people from different religions and races are feuding and enslaving each other.

"In the 1960's, western Christian missionary groups began arming Stone Age southern Dinka tribesmen, encouraging them to rebel against Khartoum. Israel secretly armed and aided southern Christian rebels to destabilize Sudan, an ally of Egypt.

Since then, southern Sudan has been convulsed by civil and tribal war.

Christian Freedom International is a U.S. Christian group working in Sudan who bought the freedom of about a dozen slaves in 1998. They have decided to discontinue the practice because they now realize that it only helps to increase the slave traffic.

It seems interference from christian groups aren't helping things.

 

[Yahzi]

I haven't proclaimed the Church innocent of all wrongdoing; that's not my affair. I've proclaimed the Church not guilty of the particular charge I addressed. Maybe it's my "legalistic" background, but I approach the question of guilt by reference to particular enumerated charges and specific evidence adduced, and with a general (though obviously rebuttable) presumption of innocence.

That's my entire point.

If you don't understand how that position is utterly incompatible with philosophical discourse, then your great deal of training was completely wasted.

In this specific instance, note: your general presumption of innocence was indefensible, given that you knew the church supported something similar to slavery. Your attitude is perhaps necessary for the courtroom, but it is an unquestionable hindrance in the search for truth.

Your unflagging willingness to defend the Catholic church pro bono speaks to me of a bias: but perhaps you just like arguing.

For example, you appear to concede that the Vatican eventually did take a stand against slavery, but on what do you base that? To what year do you trace the Vatican's current anti-slavery position? Which document convinces you?

I took the time-line at religioustolerance.org at face value. ReligousTolerance.org is a non-sectarian source of information that I have found to be quite reliable in the past, both in facts and in lack of spin. That is the document that convinces me.

You, on the other hand, have admitted that you will only display the evidence necessary to win the argument at hand. If that leaves me with the wrong impression of what occurred, you don't care. You don't think educating me is your responsiblity. Perhaps you can see why you do not qualify as a reliable source of information.

 

[ceo_esq]

That's my entire point.

If you don't understand how that position is utterly incompatible with philosophical discourse, then your great deal of training was completely wasted.

Spoken with the intellectual hubris (and grasp of philosophy) of - I'll go out on a limb here - an undergraduate in the field. Anyway, I'll ignore your insult and simply point out that you have either misunderstood or are intentionally mischaracterizing, or else you are applying some unexpected standard. Whatever the case, complaining that my discourse doesn't suit you is not actually any form of argument, so can we please return to the regularly scheduled program?

In this specific instance, note: your general presumption of innocence was indefensible, given that you knew the church supported something similar to slavery. Your attitude is perhaps necessary for the courtroom, but it is an unquestionable hindrance in the search for truth.

I really wonder for what chief purpose you think the courtroom and its procedures have evolved, except as aids in searching for the truth in disputed matters. After I researched the servitude connection, I pointed it out to everyone (although the same connection was somewhat apparent from the footnotes at religioustolerance.org). The result was that one likely falsehood has been challenged, and a more complete comprehension of our sources has emerged. You think that's a net setback for our collective understanding of the subject-matter?

I took the time-line at religioustolerance.org at face value. ReligousTolerance.org is a non-sectarian source of information that I have found to be quite reliable in the past, both in facts and in lack of spin. That is the document that convinces me.

OK, I see. I agree that religioustolerance.org is generally devoid of conscious bias. However, the timeline doesn't cover a very long period or provide much analysis, and by increasing the depth and breadth of our inquiry as we are currently doing (and especially examining primary sources), I think we can achieve a better understanding than one based on the timeline alone. In fact, there's no reason why we can't achieve, with moderate effort, a better understanding than the authors of that timeline.

You, on the other hand, have admitted that you will only display the evidence necessary to win the argument at hand. If that leaves me with the wrong impression of what occurred, you don't care. You don't think educating me is your responsiblity. Perhaps you can see why you do not qualify as a reliable source of information.

When I make a point, Yahzi, I generally contribute as much relevant evidence as I have (provided it is not duplicative of other evidence already contributed). I dismiss your suggestion that I have somehow misled you. Educating you and doing your thinking/arguing for you are two different matters. If you've been generally receptive to anything I've said in this discussion, you are now more educated than you were before (when you had an extremely incomplete notion of the history of the Church and slavery, and no notion whatsoever about the servitude issue). I won't hold my breath waiting for a "thank you", but please return to critiquing my reasoning and evidence instead of what you surmise to be my character and attitude.

 

[Yahzi]

Spoken with the intellectual hubris (and grasp of philosophy) of - I'll go out on a limb here - an undergraduate in the field.

This sentence implies that you are far above a mere undergraduate degree. Hmm. An overweening pride... what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh yea... hubris comes to mind.

You certainly react badly whenever you are shown to be in error.

However, the issue need not go further. If you are willing to state that you do not feel an intellectual duty to reveal information that weakens or disproves your case as soon as it becomes available to you, then I can just stop wasting my time. You are free to argue for the sake of argument: if you identify that as your goal, I'll trouble you no more.

I really wonder for what chief purpose you think the courtroom and its procedures have evolved, except as aids in searching for the truth in disputed matters.

The courtroom is a method of resolving disputes, the process of which is greatly helped by the truth. But to assert that the goal of the courtroom is truth is to suggest that whatever your education, you don't actually practice law.

Educating you and doing your thinking/arguing for you are two different matters.

No, they aren't. If I'm not making the best possible case for my position, and you can make a better one, you are duty bound to make it for me.

If you observe the behaviour of many of the leading lights of this board (such as Doctor X, Doctor Stupid, etc.) you will see that time and time again they do exactly this.

Again I draw your attention to the distinction between the search for truth and the mere resolution of a conflict.

no notion whatsoever about the servitude issue

To turn to the topic, at last:

Here is another site I found.

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Slavery.htm

In general, it agrees that the Church held a general opposition to chattel slavery (meaning that the children of slaves were also to be slaves), despite certain lapses such as "in 1452 Pope Nicholas Vth issued a bull "Dum Diversas" which granted the King of Portugal permission to conquer and reduce to perpetual slavery all "Saracens and pagans and other infidels and enemies of Christ" in West Africa.

However, it agian makes clear that the Vatican had a uniform policy of accepting slavery (other than chattel slavery) as a practice consistent with God's divine law.

So far in my researchs I have not seen the 1866 document translated as "servitude" rather than slavery. This may be due to the distinction between chattel slavery and various other forms. The church's practice of declaring the children, and then the wives, of priests to be slaves, and also the practice of owning Muslim slaves (whose children would either be slaves or Christians) seems to argue that despite their words, they tolerated even chattel slavery reasonably well. Perhaps modern audiences simply don't draw a distinction between chattel slavery and serfdom. While I agree there are techinical differences, I don't think they matter very much to the issue at hand. The church supported forced labor for someone else's profit, and the diminution of rights associated with that status.

Indeed, from the 2nd Vatican council:

such as .... slavery .... where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons
(Gaudiem et Spes #27)

Here the Pope is not being nearly so scrupulous about what the word slavery means. He is clearly defining it in the broader sense than just chattel slavery. Perhaps you could reference this document in Latin and tell us if the word used here is the same word used in the 1866 document.

My point being that the Church's current condemnation of slavery does not concern itself with the niceties of distinction that you brought up. This implies that perhaps those distinctions aren't terribly important.

This site also claims that "In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution," and thus identifies the 1866 document as a direct response to the American action. I don't know how to verify this, but it certainly is incompatible with your suggestion that the two were unrelated.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm ):

(after noting that slavery was replaced by serfdom during the middle ages, but the new war gave rebirth to slavery) Turkish prisoners and also, unfortunately, captives imported by conscienceless traders. Though these slaves were generally well-treated, and set at liberty if they asked for baptism, this revival of slavery, lasting until the seventeenth century, is a blot on Christian civilization. But the number of these slaves was always very small in comparison with that of the Christian captives reduced to slavery in Mussulman countries

Note the last sentence. That's the kind of spin-doctoring that doesn't belong in a reasoned argument. It wasn't so bad that Christians were taking slaves because the Muslims took more?

 

[Cleopatra]

Yahzi said:

The courtroom is a method of resolving disputes, the process of which is greatly helped by the truth. But to assert that the goal of the courtroom is truth is to suggest that whatever your education, you don't actually practice law.

Welcome to the club ceo_esq!

This is the third time a member of this forum questions whether another member practices the profession that has stated that he does.

It seems that everybody here knows about the nature of Law better than those who have stated that they practice Law...

The first "victim" was Nikk, then it was me, now it's you ceo_esq.

 

[Hazelip]

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

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

Why should the content choices of the author of the article be at all relevant?

 

[Yahzi]

Welcome to the club ceo_esq!

\
Funny, you didn't have any objections when he was confusing legalism with philosophy.

Never mind: I'm done with it. I don't have time to discuss things with people who defend their right to not reveal information when it harms their case. Ceo both defended his right to do that, and then claimed he didn't do it: now you are objecting to the common sense, understood by everyone on the planet idea that Truth and the Courtroom are not synomous.

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have lawyers as naive as you two defending my interests.

 

[Cleopatra]

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have lawyers as naive as you two defending my interests.

I cannot talk on behalf of ceo_esq but I am amused when people think that they can offend me by saying that

Yahzi, a legal expert like you doesn't need a lawyer anyway.

 

[ceo_esq]

Yahzi, I only have time for a partial reply today. Since I'm following the order of your post, I unfortunately won’t get to the slavery issue this time around.

You certainly react badly whenever you are shown to be in error.

I merely take a dim view of your persistently insulting stance, Yahzi. Don't mistake errors you have alleged (of which there are many) for errors you have shown (of which there are none).

However, the issue need not go further. If you are willing to state that you do not feel an intellectual duty to reveal information that weakens or disproves your case as soon as it becomes available to you, then I can just stop wasting my time. You are free to argue for the sake of argument: if you identify that as your goal, I'll trouble you no more.

If you mean to suggest that in this discussion, I have failed to reveal factual information known to me and not already introduced that weakens or disproves my case, kindly point out where I have done so. And with respect to "my case", don't necessarily confuse it with the opposite of some case you think you are making. Stick to the assertions I actually make.

Moreover, your remark is a dressed-up argumentum ad hominem, Yahzi. If you really cared whether your own beliefs repose on a solid foundation, your assessment of my arguments would hardly depend on why you think I make them or whether you think I believe in them.

The courtroom is a method of resolving disputes, the process of which is greatly helped by the truth. But to assert that the goal of the courtroom is truth is to suggest that whatever your education, you don't actually practice law.

Trials have evolved first and foremost as fact-finding exercises, although they also seek to serve other societal goals. They are intended to help bring to light the best version of the truth available under the circumstances, given such concerns as the uncertain reliability of evidence. The concept behind our adversarial system of justice is that the truth emerges from a dialectic process in which the presentation and consideration of thesis and antithesis is supposed to equip the observer to reach a conclusion. This idea did not arise uniquely within a legal context; classical philosophy has long favored adversarial argument, dialectics and debate as a method of arriving at the truth. It also has ties to the notion of "the marketplace of ideas".

Obviously the truth-seeking function of this process can be hindered if the participants lie or otherwise distort the truth, and in certain other circumstances. And of course, there are other truth-seeking mechanisms besides this method. The benefits of such a system, however, are apparent to most people familiar with it, and that is why the system has not been discarded.

At any rate, you are simply wrong if you think that this is not a process that has developed chiefly as an aid in truth-seeking. More importantly, I think most of the forum members understand that a similar principle animates many of the discussions here (though I speak only for myself).

No, they aren't. If I'm not making the best possible case for my position, and you can make a better one, you are duty bound to make it for me.

I acknowledge an intellectual obligation not to misrepresent facts or knowingly conceal the existence of contrary evidence to my theses, and I am not aware of having breached such obligation. However, I can deduce no general duty along the lines of what you're now talking about. What you seem to be asking me to do is advance a more well-founded case than you did for the moral turpitude of the Catholic Church, and the criticisms you've hailed down on me amount to a convoluted way of objecting to the fact that I tried to poke holes in parts of your argument in the first place.

Arguments are supposed to emerge from challenges with at least some of the weaker parts pared away. Arguably, that's an improvement. I think that this is precisely what's happened here. So while one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as the saying goes, nonetheless, I have indirectly made your argument better than it was.

Again I draw your attention to the distinction between the search for truth and the mere resolution of a conflict.

Duly noted, Yahzi. But don't draw the distinction too sharply. The just resolution of a conflict depends on arriving at the truth first.

 

[Yahzi]

Moreover, your remark is a dressed-up argumentum ad hominem, Yahzi.

I have no interest in playing a game of challenge. You seem to simolutaneously assert that you aren't doing that and that it would be ok if you did.

I did not intend my remarks to discredit your logical argument. I intended them to discredit you. I am not refuting your argument: I am establishing whether it is worth my time to bother arguing with you at all.

You can sling all the hash you want: but your initial reaction speaks for itself. When I drew your attention to the difference between legalism and philosophical debate, you were, for once, honestly confused.

I have made the decision that my limited time is best spent more productively.