Electoral Reform

[kandrathe]

Your claim was about the *ethical* change. (It was niggardly of me to restrict it to England, as this phenomenon was very much transatlantic. Apologies.) The thinking of John Locke, David Hume and Erasmus Darwin (Interesting as a freethinker allied closely to a dissenter, Josiah Wedgwood) in England, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Frankin, Thomas Paine, in America, Voltaire and Diderot in France, and a rather lengthy list of other deists and freethinkers form a part of the movement against slavery, in philosophy. Some of them were widely read (Locke, Paine) and others' opposition was more obscure.

John Locke's parent were Puritans, and it is not clear to me that he was a deist or atheist. Hume was an avowed deist or atheist, but I see little to connect him to abolitionists other than also as a "free thinker" he challenged the establishment status quo. Ben Franklin was a unique deist, who once wrote to Thomas Paine; "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it." Franklin also seemed to be also heavily influenced by the Pennsylvania Quakers. I would certainly concede that ideas of personal freedom, and the questioning of absolute monarchy (which also certified the rulers divinity by dogmatic and corrupt national "church" organizations, whether they be Protestant or Catholic) enabled questioning the authority of what was formerly unquestionable. But, that would also extend to any civic change when absolute power was vested in the hands of tyrants. So, not only was Abolition of Slavery unquestionable, but also the right of personal property, or freedom of speech, or the ability to redress grievances with your government.

But do you really think that without such philosophical underpinnings, that the hectoring of two men turned the tide of public opinion, even just in England? Movements that large are not made of that little. Abolitionism was the result of a long process, and a huge part of that process was the increasing doubt about the church. Sometimes this meant new churches (Quakers, Methodists, etc...) and sometimes it meant no church at all (Deists, Agnostics, Atheists). Some of it came from entirely elsewhere, the beginnings of the labour movement.

I do think it was that unique combination of "zealots" that made it possible in Britain. If not them, it might have lingered on for another few decades until perhaps France, or the America's moral change of heart would have made Britain's position uncomfortable.

If the political muscle came from the churches, that is to be expected. Zealots do tend to be zealous, and atheism neither is nor was popular. Indeed, "atheist" was the great invective hurled at the abolitionists, even at the Quakers on occasion. But politics did not make the ethics, but the reverse.

-Jester

Zealots, yes. Do you mean like global warming activists, or anti-war protesters? If you believe something is morally wrong it is your duty to petition for a change.

[Jester]

John Locke's parent were Puritans, and it is not clear to me that he was a deist or atheist.

I would argue that John Locke was essentially a deist, although he was early enough that it is perhaps better to see him as a transitional figure. Still, his ideas about how consiousness and identity work were fundamental to the notion of the equality of all men, and that, in turn, is an important component in abolitionism. This is based in philosophy and psychology, not theology.

And, of course, one's parents prove nothing. My parents were Anglicans, and it clearly hasn't rubbed off.

Hume was an avowed deist or atheist, but I see little to connect him to abolitionists other than also as a "free thinker" he challenged the establishment status quo.

Well, he was an influential thinker who was opposed to slavery. What more is necessary? I'm not arguing that every atheist personally led the political charge, only that their ideas were part of the fundamental ethical change.

Ben Franklin was a unique deist, who once wrote to Thomas Paine; "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it." Franklin also seemed to be also heavily influenced by the Pennsylvania Quakers. I would certainly concede that ideas of personal freedom, and the questioning of absolute monarchy (which also certified the rulers divinity by dogmatic and corrupt national "church" organizations, whether they be Protestant or Catholic) enabled questioning the authority of what was formerly unquestionable.

On this issue, Quakers, deists, freethinkers, evangelicals, feminists, socialists, and all sorts of other people associated to end slavery. That's pretty much my point.

But, that would also extend to any civic change when absolute power was vested in the hands of tyrants.

Tyrants like the British Parliament? This was post-Cromwell. The British Monarchy was hardly a tyranny, your founding fathers notwithstanding.

So, not only was Abolition of Slavery unquestionable, but also the right of personal property, or freedom of speech, or the ability to redress grievances with your government.

I agree. And not a one of those issues is a particularily christian concept, with the exception of slavery.

I do think it was that unique combination of "zealots" that made it possible in Britain. If not them, it might have lingered on for another few decades until perhaps France, or the America's moral change of heart would have made Britain's position uncomfortable.

Yes. But a unique conbination of zealots in a context where religous dissent, freethinking, and philosophical unorthodoxy were increasingly acceptable. Societies like the Lunar Society were popping up all over Britain. Some were religious zealots, others were freethinkers or deists, many went back and forth. But all this was subtracting, not adding, to the authority of Christianity, at least as traditionally understood.

Zealots, yes. Do you mean like global warming activists, or anti-war protesters? If you believe something is morally wrong it is your duty to petition for a change.

[/quote]

Well, yes. Didn't I already say that religious dissenters were a huge part of the abolitionist movement? What are you questioning here? All I'm saying is that this was not an exclusively Christian concept, that it is hardly fair to claim this as a great victory for christian ethics, having been fought by Christians, deists, agnostics, and atheists of all stripes, and against almost exclusively Christians.

-Jester

Edit: A little early for Victoria. Point still stands, though.

[Tris]

Essentially, the founding fathers were concerned that the average Joe was too incompetent to effectively rule themselves, so we got stuck with the electoral college:P

However, in my area it doesn't really matter, because everbody votes for 1 party and one party only:P

[Chaerophon]

There is much dispute over Locke's Christianity. However, I think one thing is made perfectly clear by reading his two treatises (particularly the first): he was no puritan. I dispute the Straussian claim that he was clearly an atheist, but his Christianity/spiritual tendencies (whatever they might have been) were certainly of a moderate variety, and I think it would be safe to say that he saw his ethical principles as readily springing from reason. As presented in his Two Treatises, I think it is clear that he believes them not to depend on Christianity for their legitimacy. Whether or not they correspond is another matter altogether.

Of course, there are those who disagree...