Islam Stuff: For LCD2YOU

[Guest]

No, that's not the point. That's the point you'd like to make. ;)

...yeah - fair enough. You're right. I guess I've been grabbing the wrong end of the stick here - and I'll try and explain why I did...
Apologies.

"Wow, you just saved her life!" says the theist. "Nonsense," says the atheist, "if he had not saved her someone else probably would have."

What I 'thought' the theist was claiming (to go with the analogy) is "Wow, you just saved her life - and nobody else could if they had been the one around at the time..."

The thread that started this conversation was titled:

"Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity" (And the only reason I moved it to THIS thread was because I was prompted to)

If this is meant to imply 'Stop bashing Christianity all the time, we've done good', then I apologise for going at this the wrong way. I agree that Christianity has contributed good to the world. A LOT of good. I don't - and have never - denied that at all...

Moniker should attest to that - I would hope.

...has it bought more good to the world than Islam? I think I would also agree there too. Yes, I believe it has...

But if it was meant to imply (and this is how I read it...) "If it had been 'atheist' nations, then you guys wouldn't have gotten rid of slavery, so thank US for taking care of it", then I don't apologise for a thing - and THAT'S the notion I was attacking.

Exactly. Apparently, the atheists didn't care to organize themselves and protest it.

There were barely any atheists around to organise themselves at all. At least not admitting it openly. Many people flirting with atheism were messing around with Deism instead...

For you to say Christian nations had cases of slavery, therefore Christianity cannot be accredited for its eventual removal, is really a pathetically absurd argument that is based in nothing more than spite towards the faith.

I don't deny it in the sense of 'Christianity was involved'. I deny it in the sense of 'It's only Christianity that could have been involved'. The 'common source' of the notion that slavery is wrong is NOT Christianity. That's all I'm saying. That's what I mean when I say it's not the 'ultimate cause or source'. I don't mean that it can't be said to be the 'main contributor' in the specific case of Western society...

I'm simply pointing out the reluctance by atheists to admit anything good in religion, especially Christianity, even though everything they enjoy today can be attributed to religious principles they have long since taken advantage for granted. Without Christianity there would be no advancement in science, hence the explosion of atheism, because there would have been no freedoms to make these advancements.

I don't deny that there is good in religion and Christianity.
I do not share the same views as Dawkins and others, and I've made that very clear time and time again.

I think I've picked the wrong fight with you - and I'll admit that it appears to be my fault. I took your proposition to be 'Thank Christianity for the removal of slavery, because atheism - or other belief systems - obviously wouldn't have managed it...'
If this wasn't your proposition, then I do apologise. Sincerely. And yes, many of my arguments would be mismatched, because I was unwittingly attacking a position you didn't actually make. (Which I'm now thinking is likely - but you can confirm either way...)

His example of Wang Mang, a Confucian, is not entirely accurate since he abolished slave trading, but was not willing to abolish slavery as an institution.

I didn't claim that he abolished anything other than slave trading.

[_huckelberry]

Humanity without Christianity had some 20 thousand years to abolish slavery and did not. This is using a conservative number.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Humanity without Christianity had some 20 thousand years to abolish slavery and did not. This is using a conservative number.

Huh?

Are you saying slavery has existed for 20,000+ years (predating civilization and cities)?

[_huckelberry]

20000 years. Obviously I cannot be absolutely sure about the early portions of that time. I know of no reason to think there was not slaviery. There is slavery found all over the world in a variety of sizes of groups. It would be true that it is larger and more developed cities that developed more slavery.. there are some cinties for at least the second half of that time period.

The same general question can be approached by listing all the societies outside of christian shaped cultures which have gotten rid of slavery. short list.

[_Bond...James Bond]

20000 years. Obviously I cannot be absolutely sure about the early portions of that time. I know of no reason to think there was not slaviery. There is slavery found all over the world in a variety of sizes of groups. It would be true that it is larger and more developed cities that developed more slavery.. there are some cinties for at least the second half of that time period.

I can understand slavery existing during city based civilization dating back to at the bare minimum 4,000 BCE and probably at least a thousand years before that [my Ancient Near Eastern history is a little hazy but I don't recall complex cities existing much before 6500 BCE or so] but:

slavery would seem to occur for these reasons during the historical timeline (in order)

1)the Agricultural Revolution and domestication of plants(10,000 ya)
2)which allowed for settled cities around fields
3)ability to store foodstuffs
4)which allowed for population growth
5)which led to conflict over territory and resources
6)which creates an opportunity to capture people
7)labor used to grow more food
8)freeing more people up for bureaucracy, manufacturing, trade, govt, army
9)more people as consequence of increased food production and colonization
10)more cities
11)more conflict over goods and land
12)a neverending cycle as slavery continues to be used to fuel the economy

You could also insert Ag-Math concepts in there somewhere (probably step 8)

Anyways...does anyone know of any arguments for slavery existing during the hunter/gather period?

[_huckelberry]

Bond, your general picture fits my understanding. I suppose it is possible to limit slavery to the shorter time you suggest. There is no record concerning the matter for the older time so it would be speculation. However hunter gathers that exist in historical times used slavery in connection with warfair. that would be more intermittent and flexible use of the idea than the slavery developed in cites. American Indians would be reasonable examples of hunter gathering societies.

I do not mind the uncertainty in the time period for my original proposition. The idea works with a variety of time periods.

A different way of making the observation would be to ask why humans did not develop moral principals making slavery unacceptiable. asked that way one could look at the whole time period for humans extending well before the 20,000 years. What would have prevented people from establishing a no slavery pricipal of society before cities and cities temptations started?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Bond, your general picture fits my understanding. I suppose it is possible to limit slavery to the shorter time you suggest. There is no record concerning the matter for the older time so it would be speculation. However hunter gathers that exist in historical times used slavery in connection with warfair. that would be more intermittent and flexible use of the idea than the slavery developed in cites. American Indians would be reasonable examples of hunter gathering societies.

Yeah there's that. Actually if you want to continue to think on the slavery issue to other things to think about are:

1) When examining the slavery issue is that before Europeans started enslaving the peoples of Africa and the Americas race really wasn't something that made people inherently lesser, and thus allowed the Euros to justify enslaving them. Previously slaves had been people unlucky enough to be on the losing side of a war or people unlucky enough to be part of a society that was chosen for subjugation by a stronger society. Greeks enslaved greeks. Gauls enslaved gauls. and so on...the idea of slavery with it's racist connotations only came about in America and when Americans started bringing people from Africa.

2) What constitutes slavery? There is a broad definition of slavery, with overt slavery (American style) but also de facto forms of slavery, such as serfdom and indentured servitude. Also what about people who had to work substitence wages in cities before the labour movement? Where they not somewhat slaves to their bosses? And so on and so forth down the rabbit hole.

(yeah useless information...but I'm in a posting mood)

A different way of making the observation would be to ask why humans did not develop moral principals making slavery unacceptiable. asked that way one could look at the whole time period for humans extending well before the 20,000 years.

I guess it took human society that long to think up the idea that slavery was wrong. (Or to play Devil's Advocate!) Perhaps slavery isn't wrong. Perhaps slavery is a morbid form of survival of the fittest. Who knows. They say you can justify anything, so I guess that means that the idea that is currently mainstream doesn't have to be right. *shrugs*

What would have prevented people from establishing a no slavery pricipal of society before cities and cities temptations started?

I think the spread out nature of hunter gather groups (coupled with the small sizes of population where there is plenty of room for people and plenty of resources) would lead to less interaction as a whole. Slavery might be lessened inside the groups because of the clanlike nature of groups. People aren't going to enslave their blood kin! (Well probably not).

[_asbestosman]

2) What constitutes slavery? There is a broad definition of slavery, with overt slavery (American style) but also de facto forms of slavery, such as serfdom and indentured servitude. Also what about people who had to work substitence wages in cities before the labour movement? Where they not somewhat slaves to their bosses? And so on and so forth down the rabbit hole.

(yeah useless information...but I'm in a posting mood)

I think the spread out nature of hunter gather groups (coupled with the small sizes of population where there is plenty of room for people and plenty of resources) would lead to less interaction as a whole. Slavery might be lessened inside the groups because of the clanlike nature of groups. People aren't going to enslave their blood kin! (Well probably not).

Don't forget child labor laws. They exist for a reason. Also, women used to be de-facto slaves to their husbands.

[_guy sajer]

I don't have time to respond point by point to the arguments in this thread. I can offer only some general observations.

1. I've read many books on the Crusades, and if recall nothing in them supporting Dart's argument (I don't have the words in front of me) that the Crusades were important, vital, relevant, etc. in any sense to protect or preserve Christianity.

2. I've read even more books on the Civil War (I have a substantial library on the topic), and I find any argument that Christianity was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery to be grossly simplistic, revisionist history. The causes for the Civil War were complex, slavery was at the center of it, and the issues related to slavery were complex, and Christian opposition to it was important but relatively small at the margin. (Both sides quoted the Bible; one to condemn slavery, one to support it.) In the end, it was a largely secular government and a secular army driven by secular motivations that defeated the South and ended slavery. The primary leaders of both were largely not driven either by anti-slavery views nor by religious motivations, nor for that matter were the soldiers in the conquering army.

3. I find any argument that Christianity was primarily responsible for the enlightenment, and thus the liberal socieities we enjoy in the West, to be equally absurd. These ephocal events happened in spite of Christianity, whose power structure fought them tooth and nail for a large part. As I understand it, the enlightenment was motivated not by application of Christian principles to society but application of scientific principles. It is obviously more complex than this. I'm not denying that there was some positive role for the Church, but to credit the Church (or Christianity) with the political, economic, scientific advances of the West is, as far as I understand, wrong.

[_dartagnan]

Well you're absolutely wrong on all three points guy, sorry. Recent scholarship on the crusades has revealed a past myth that has been propagated even in academia, so I suspect your learning on this matter is somewhat outdated. The Crusades were for all intents and purposes, a belated attempt to save Christendom from absolute annihilation. But these attempts failed. Why? Because unlike Islam, Christianity never had a "Christian army." It never did. It has always been a separate entity from the State. This is why it had to call volunteers from all over the continent to risk their lives for a noble cause. And as a result, it was disorganized as all get out, so naturally there were renegade groups who took matters into their own hands, despite disapproval from the Church.

To try organizing something of this magnitude in eleventh century Europe, has failure written all over it. But they were desperate, and felt they had little choice. It was either that or they had to allow the Islamic armies conquer them without a fight.

In a sense the crusades were successful because they prolonged the showdown until Islam's enemies from the far East attacked them from the other side and significantly weakened their forces.

I'm willing to debate the crusade or the inquisition with anyone who is interested. Just say the word.

Incidentally, I just came across an excellent article. It is a pretty detailed, five pager. Worth a read:

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/1 ... istianity/

I also recommend reading Madden on the Crusades:

“Madden's new book seeks to bridge the gap between popular caricatures of the crusades and the more balanced picture of the movement that historians have been producing for more than a generation. The dozen specimens of lively recent scholarship on the crusades that Madden has assembled here are shrewdly calculated to provoke students into rethinking what they thought they knew about the crusading movement.” James A. Brundage, University of Kansas