Bush commutes Libby sentence

[kandrathe]

Slavery was perfectly popular with religious folk until around 1700. Indeed, enslavement by-christians-for-christians-of-heathens made up the bulk of world slavery, from 1500-1800 or so. Why the change in opinion?

Here is a pretty detailed history from the Catholic Church's own encyclopedia --Slavery and Christianity. I know you will want to take that link with a grain of salt, but it does seem historically accurate to me. Slavery in the 1500-1800 time period was not a Christian enterprise, and it was not blanketly accepted as you might believe. Conquistadors, for example, were first military expeditionaries, secondly treasure seekers, 3rd conquerors, and then somewhere down the list some may have been Christians (at least they thought they were). This is the same group of randy seamen who often so enraged the indigenous populations with their arrogant taking of women and property. Those who captured the slaves were not good examples of Christians, however once taken and shipped to those places that needed them, it is true that some Christians were complicit in buying and owning slaves. And, I would point out that many of the US founding fathers and elder statesmen who owned slaves did so knowing it was also wrong. But, for example, if one merely reads the New Testament it is filled with passages such as "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28) This verse and many others clearly establish the equality of humanity in the eyes of God.

Slavery prior to the 17th century was reserved for a conquered people or serf/chatel of a noble or wealthy man regardless of race. It was an anachronism of barbarism inherent in the culture and often a belief in cultural superiority. Often people could purchase their way out of slavery as well once they became productive and assimilatable into the reigning culture. In Roman times slaves frequently became citizens as they became so qualified. I would also reflect on the writings of Plato on the subject in ancient Athens for example.

Anyway, my original premise was that those institutions (including religion) that promote peace, harmony, and morality have a positive effect on civilization, while those institutions that promote destruction, anarchy, and immorality have a detrimental effect on civilization. You might reflect that "the law" or "the government" are also institutions, but I think that again begining at a tribal society on upward that the primary institution that promoted civilization would be that cultures religion. If we can agree that this seems obvious, then the next leap here is to reflect on the actual tenets of each religion. You point at specific anecdotes of some failures of some Christians to then condemn the entire creed, without reflecting on the basic tenets and beleifs of its true adherents.

For example, if a primary tenet of Judaism is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", then we can surmise that we might find endless cycles of retribution for past crimes, or as Ghandi reflected, pretty soon the whole world is blind. My observation is that Islam in general, and especially Wahabism promotes a 6th century ruthlessness that is uncharacteristic of European culture. A primary tenet of Islam is Jihad, or the highest honor that one can perform for God is to further the 'movement' or 'struggle' to convert the world to Islam. In this regard in some peoples interpretations of the Koran, it is acceptable for a Muslim to even be violent or deceitful if in the end it furthers the Jihad. I would then ask you to imagine the conditions in Afghanistan, with the burkas, the high walls with razor wire, and the armed henchmen by which it is the culture that has formed that need within the society. It existed before the Infidels invaded. Why? Then look to India which used to enjoy more freedoms, but now as time progresses its culture is slowly becoming more and more like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Why? What is happening in India?

Eppie cuts religion out of the picture of culture entirely. That is almost certainly wrong. But I don't think it makes sense to put religion on too high a pedestal. Society is mostly driven by other things.

What things? It seems to be a pretty popular worldwide phenomena by which most people define their existence and worldly purpose.