Religion's Effect on society

Invictus, slavery is carried out by the religous. It is acceptable in many Islamic cultures simply because Mohamed kept slaves. You can not place the blame of slavery on a secular belief system. Slavery was condoned by christian leaders for centuries and they even took part in it. If any one officially opposes slavery that opposition comes from secular organisations.

Secular leaders currently are ignorant even of the existence of slavery today, let-alone that more human beings are bought and sold in the 21st century than were in the 16th!

For this reason, I reject the use of slavery as a stick with which to beat Christianity, as you were doing. It is hypocritical and astonishingly ignorant of the fact of things.

William Blake described 'mind-forged manacles'. Slavery is commonly used as a metaphor for entrapment in some state of unpleasant servitude to other people. This entrapment is caused directly by repressive laws as for instance Wahabi laws against women in Saudi Arabia, and also by dearth of opportunities for social mobility as a tendency of Conservative regimes.The three Abrahamic religions are Conservative by nature, the more fundamentalist, the more Conservative.
Actual slavery that includes direct exchange of money in return for total ownership of another human being is outlawed in most urbanised Western countries. Some Christian doctrine is particularly bad for promoting actual slavery because of the teaching regarding other- worldly rewards for suffering experienced in this world.

Invictus, slavery is carried out by the religous. It is acceptable in many Islamic cultures simply because Mohamed kept slaves. You can not place the blame of slavery on a secular belief system. Slavery was condoned by christian leaders for centuries and they even took part in it. If any one officially opposes slavery that opposition comes from secular organisations.

Secular leaders currently are ignorant even of the existence of slavery today, let-alone that more human beings are bought and sold in the 21st century than were in the 16th!

For this reason, I reject the use of slavery as a stick with which to beat Christianity, as you were doing. It is hypocritical and astonishingly ignorant of the fact of things.

Who said I was beating modern Christians? I emphasized religous. Muslims are the culprit for the majority of slavery in the 21c. As for the past, did not the pope sanction slavery. Did we not see christian bishops branding slaves? I am against religion and all it's crimes not just christianity. Secular leaders are not ignorant of these facts they are just powerless to stop it. St Paul or Christ did not condemn slavery. Why not, I may ask, they condemned most other sins. Simply because it was much too much to expect. We then see the result of that omission. The church condones the act of slavery and even our most respected historic figures keep slaves. Religion has never driven moral improvements and even now it refuses to alter it's damaging dogmas.

You need to tighten up your thinking, a lot, if you're to gain any philosophical coherence, let-alone credibility.

"I am against religion and all it's(sic) crimes not just christianity(sic)."

It would be as coherent to say you are against "Europe and all its crimes", "Spain and all its crimes", or "Bristol and all its crimes". Given that human-trafficking has been done by people of a vast raft of nationalities, and religions, and a great many of no religion at all...the only rational way to view it is as a series of wrongs wrought by people.

As to the deranged vitriol elsewhere in your post, it would be demeaning to respond.

-- Updated Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:34 pm to add the following --

Invictus, slavery is carried out by the religous. It is acceptable in many Islamic cultures simply because Mohamed kept slaves. You can not place the blame of slavery on a secular belief system. Slavery was condoned by christian leaders for centuries and they even took part in it. If any one officially opposes slavery that opposition comes from secular organisations.

Secular leaders currently are ignorant even of the existence of slavery today, let-alone that more human beings are bought and sold in the 21st century than were in the 16th!

For this reason, I reject the use of slavery as a stick with which to beat Christianity, as you were doing. It is hypocritical and astonishingly ignorant of the fact of things.

William Blake described 'mind-forged manacles'. Slavery is commonly used as a metaphor for entrapment in some state of unpleasant servitude to other people. This entrapment is caused directly by repressive laws as for instance Wahabi laws against women in Saudi Arabia, and also by dearth of opportunities for social mobility as a tendency of Conservative regimes.The three Abrahamic religions are Conservative by nature, the more fundamentalist, the more Conservative.
Actual slavery that includes direct exchange of money in return for total ownership of another human being is outlawed in most urbanised Western countries. Some Christian doctrine is particularly bad for promoting actual slavery because of the teaching regarding other- worldly rewards for suffering experienced in this world.

One can outlaw something with paper laws and promote it with paper money. This can be said of "most urbanised Western countries".

Invictus you obviously have a problem with the truth. Secular values were never considered as worthy of consideration when slavery was deemed the norm. It was the duty of religion to make a moral statement condemning its practice but it never did. It actually encouraged the evil trade and for hundreds of years the church benefited from slavery. This idea that we have been guided and taught to be morally correct by the abrahamic beliefs is total nonsense.

Invictus you obviously have a problem with the truth. Secular values were never considered as worthy of consideration when slavery was deemed the norm. It was the duty of religion to make a moral statement condemning its practice but it never did. It actually encouraged the evil trade and for hundreds of years the church benefited from slavery. This idea that we have been guided and taught to be morally correct by the abrahamic beliefs is total nonsense.

Secularism doesn't have any values, it's the principle that "government ought to be separate from religion", and it's a principle adopted by certain Christians, Muslims, and atheists alike.

Now, when you've finished with your rhetoric, perhaps you could address the points I raised re: the pan-human nature of allowing slavery, and the secular context in which it has mushroomed out of all proportion in our current era?

Invictus you obviously have a problem with the truth. Secular values were never considered as worthy of consideration when slavery was deemed the norm. It was the duty of religion to make a moral statement condemning its practice but it never did. It actually encouraged the evil trade and for hundreds of years the church benefited from slavery. This idea that we have been guided and taught to be morally correct by the abrahamic beliefs is total nonsense.

Secularism doesn't have any values, it's the principle that "government ought to be separate from religion", and it's a principle adopted by certain Christians, Muslims, and atheists alike.

Now, when you've finished with your rhetoric, perhaps you could address the points I raised re: the pan-human nature of allowing slavery, and the secular context in which it has mushroomed out of all proportion in our current era?

Sorry, you want me to comment on the secular moral attitude towards slavery but you also tell me they have no values. Make your mind up please. I use the word secular to indicate those of us whose morals are not driven by religous dogma. When slavery was at it's most heinous men of religion actively condoned it and any concept of ethical secularism interfering in moral guidance would have been treated with violence by the clergy. The bible was even used to sanctify the slavery of black Africans so please do not try to use this strange idea that some how atheists, secular merchants, had a bigger say in the trade of humans.

Invictus you obviously have a problem with the truth. Secular values were never considered as worthy of consideration when slavery was deemed the norm. It was the duty of religion to make a moral statement condemning its practice but it never did. It actually encouraged the evil trade and for hundreds of years the church benefited from slavery. This idea that we have been guided and taught to be morally correct by the abrahamic beliefs is total nonsense.

Secularism doesn't have any values, it's the principle that "government ought to be separate from religion", and it's a principle adopted by certain Christians, Muslims, and atheists alike.

Now, when you've finished with your rhetoric, perhaps you could address the points I raised re: the pan-human nature of allowing slavery, and the secular context in which it has mushroomed out of all proportion in our current era?

Sorry, you want me to comment on the secular moral attitude towards slavery but you also tell me they have no values. Make your mind up please. I use the word secular to indicate those of us whose morals are not driven by religous dogma. When slavery was at it's most heinous men of religion actively condoned it and any concept of ethical secularism interfering in moral guidance would have been treated with violence by the clergy. The bible was even used to sanctify the slavery of black Africans so please do not try to use this strange idea that some how atheists, secular merchants, had a bigger say in the trade of humans.

Oh my, this could take some time, but here we go..

a) Secularism is the principle that religion ought to be kept out of government.
b) We live in a more secular era than we did in the times when slavery was legal.
c) Therefore; the values guiding governments in this era - in which the number of human beings being bought and sold has skyrocketed - are values which are less dominantly religious than they were in times past.
d) Therefore...

...it falls to you, in your slavering animosity toward religion, to explain why it is that slavery was less widespread under the rules of more religious governments than it is in the 21st Century under less religious governments.

Clearer?

So slavery under christian values when the population of the world was so much smaller is not to be considered or even debated? Fine but if you examine the slave trade now you will find it is a product of another abrahamic faiths, Islam. Those muslims who handle slaves use the same scriptures the christian slave traders used to sanction their evil transactions. Like it or not friend religion has been used to subjugate and control us all in one way or another and I long for the day when it no longer has any influence.

Excuses excuses...but no answers?

Come back when you've formulated some.

Excuses excuses...but no answers?

Come back when you've formulated some.

There are answers but they do not fit your request to ignore the facts. The facts that religion did and is responsible for the enslavement of man. Just like the burning of witches and heretics in the name of god they are uncomfortable historic truths you would rather ignore.

Wooden Shoe please peruse the site here. Recently discovered Gobekli Tepe evidence suggests religion predated agriculture and may have been the impetus for community.

smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/ ... -tepe.html

Hi Jerry.

Thank you for letting me know about this site. All knowledge is welcome.
I am not going to draw any conclusions about this discovery, interesting as it is.
However it at least would have had to be place for people to get together in sufficient numbers to be able to erect this site.
Any permanent settlement would have to have a sufficient food supply for the settlers.
Even in that part of the world crops of wild plants have seasons, they do not ripen year round, and wild plants have small seeds which would not be enough for a larger group of humans to stay in one place all year.
So perhaps agriculture started there as it seems the wild plant available would have given it a start.
It is also possible that this place was a meeting area for a large number of nomadic tribes that would gather once a year to trade and interact.
A reasonable food supply is essential for civilization.

Regards, John.

Invictus #141 would be good as fact if it were backed by statistics of particular population sizes correlated with guiding religious principles in the stated populations. Those stats could then be compared with 1.comparative- over- time figures for general criminality in the populations studied and followed by comparison with slavery in particular.

We still have the problem of to what extent historiography is interpretation and how much it is science.

This is supposed to be philosophy and not social history, and so the direction of this discussion shouid be about the concept of slavery and philosophy of language with particular emphasis on semantics and not about matters of historical fact, nor historiography.

The bone of contention remains that someone used the word 'slavery' to mean ownership of persons by other persons that often involved no visible manacles and no direct exchange of money or services.An example of this is forced marriages perpetrated upon young women by their families and culture of belief.It is in order to call such 'slavery' by implying that it is similar enough to buying and selling people.

The ethical principle involved in all cases of slavery and pseudo slavery is the human righst of self determination, and that of integrity of individuals' bodies. As a free and liberal person I extend those rights to include ownership of individuals' own minds with the necessary accompaniment of free education for all accompanied by the utmost equality of opportunity.Any ethical or civil laws that fall short of such equality of opportunity tend towards slavery not freedom.

Invictus #141 would be good as fact if it were backed by statistics of particular population sizes correlated with guiding religious principles in the stated populations. Those stats could then be compared with 1.comparative- over- time figures for general criminality in the populations studied and followed by comparison with slavery in particular.

We still have the problem of to what extent historiography is interpretation and how much it is science.

This is supposed to be philosophy and not social history, and so the direction of this discussion shouid be about the concept of slavery and philosophy of language with particular emphasis on semantics and not about matters of historical fact, nor historiography.

The bone of contention remains that someone used the word 'slavery' to mean ownership of persons by other persons that often involved no visible manacles and no direct exchange of money or services.An example of this is forced marriages perpetrated upon young women by their families and culture of belief.It is in order to call such 'slavery' by implying that it is similar enough to buying and selling people.

The ethical principle involved in all cases of slavery and pseudo slavery is the human righst of self determination, and that of integrity of individuals' bodies. As a free and liberal person I extend those rights to include ownership of individuals' own minds with the necessary accompaniment of free education for all accompanied by the utmost equality of opportunity.Any ethical or civil laws that fall short of such equality of opportunity tend towards slavery not freedom.

No.

The bone of contention was "eyesofastranger" typing the total absurdity that "The original idea behind religion is slavery." and nobody here having the intellectual cojones to call their bluff on it.

Obedience to the will of god through religous dogma creates a hierarchical system that enslaves man. The man born into slavery never fully appreciates freedom. That is why religion insists you attend and keep the communion.

That post was so substanceless. Have you no shame?

Try harder.