Slavery's depravity is so obvious to us today that it obscures the collective mental conversion required to achieve this bit of moral clarity. This conversion entailed a titanic shift from seeing slavery as necessary for civilization (as the ancients believed) to seeing it as necessarily uncivilized. As one of humanity's most radical changes in social thinking, it is unsurprising that it took centuries to unfold.
Religion is often cast an impediment to slavery's moral stigmatization. The Bible treats slavery as a social fact (which it was at the time), and over the centuries religious leaders and communities held slaves and (often with qualifications) condoned the practice. One could legitimately argue that this was a major moral failing on religion's part. What is wholly illegitimate is the claim that secular wisdom dragged religion, kicking and screaming, into the realization that slavery was bad. For example, here's what University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne claimed in a July 31 USA Today op-ed piece on religion and morality: "Secular morality is what pushes religion to improve its own dogma on issues such as slavery and the treatment of women"
Wrong. Instead, monotheism provided the essential tools for making the colossal change in moral thinking outlined above.
Pagan authors occasionally condemned slavery. But they sorely lacked any compelling rationale for why slavery itself, rather than the maltreatment of slaves, was evil. This deficiency was all the more glaring in the face of powerful Platonic and Aristotelian arguments for both the necessity and naturalness of slavery. In discussing the ancient world's (pagan) critics of slavery, Harvard classicist Robert Schlaifer concluded: "Many writers protested against slavery as it was, without having the least doubt of the justice of the institution if properly applied" (Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 47, p. 199).
Among the first communities (maybe the first) to prohibit slavery were two early first-century Judaic sects -- the Essenes and the Therapeutae -- and they did so for purely religious reasons (no secular coercion required). Both Philo ("Every Good Man is Free" 79) and Josephus ("Jewish Antiquities," 18.21; see J. D. Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity," pp. 445-449) tell us that these groups viewed slavery as unnatural and unjust, and therefore against God's laws. Biblical historian John Dominic Crossan sums it up this way:
"The Essene communities were radial attempts to live faithfully and fully the law of God, in justice and righteousness, in purity and holiness, when everyone around them, from their own high priests to their own people, was failing to do so" (p. 462).
This justice and righteousness was in part rooted in the uniquely monotheistic concept of "Imago Dei" -- that all humanity was created in God's image and therefore endowed with inherent value. It was Imago Dei that produced history's first unequivocal condemnation of institutional slavery -- that is, that slavery was flat-out, always and everywhere, morally evil, regardless of the slave's treatment. In his fourth sermon on the Book of Ecclesiastes given during Lent of 379, Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, proclaimed:
"If he [man] is in the likeness of God ... who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power ... God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery ... if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?"
Gregory was not alone. In the fifth century, St. Patrick, himself a former slave, condemned the enslavement of free people and in 1102, St. Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury) presided over a national ecclesiastical council which prohibited the slave trade: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."
America and the British Empire freed slaves in the 19th century (pushed in no small way by religiously inspired abolitionist movements). Popes started freeing slaves in the 15th century.
In 1435, Pope Eugene IV issued "Sicut Dudum," a papal bull ordering (on pain of excommunication) the emancipation of enslaved native Christians of the newly colonized Canary Islands and prohibiting future enslavement. By including both baptized Christians and "those freely seeking baptism" in the order, Eugene apparently intended to protect most if not all Canary Island natives (see J. Panzer's "The Popes and Slavery," p. 9).
In 1537, Pope Paul III issued the bull "Sublimis Deus," prohibiting New World slavery and declaring the full humanity of the Native peoples. Included under the bull's protection were "Indians and all other peoples -- even though they are outside the faith." There are controversies over whether Paul may have rescinded this bull a year later and the degree to which he may have conceded to slavery within Rome itself. Regardless, Catholic missionaries welcomed and employed Sublimis in their defense of natives, and future Popes routinely reaffirmed Sublimis as authoritative.
For example, in 1639, Pope Urban VIII (of Galileo fame) issued "Commissum Nobis," reaffirming Sublimis Deus and reiterating the penalty of excommunication for violators. On March 20, 1686, the Holy Office of the Inquisition issued "Instruction Number 230" ruling that the enslavement of black Africans was immoral and slaveholders were obliged to free and even compensate their slaves.
Why then did religious complicity with slavery persist despite these condemnations? One answer is that an argument for slavery's moral permissibility was possible within the Imago Dei framework. If someone was incapable of governing themselves (a slave to sin), then he or she would be better off under another's control. Thus, an "irrational savage" might benefit from being a "good" Christian's slave. Aquinas and other Church Fathers argued that this control, however, was only justified if the master's authority was exercised for the betterment of his subject ("Commentary on the Sentences," book 2, d. 44 q1, or see S. F. Brett, "Slavery and the Catholic Tradition," pp. 70-72). Theoretically, this might be defendable, but in practice (with large profits at stake) it proved far too easy to abuse.
Abolition's moral victory was laboriously slow and religion was not always an ally in that fight (U.S. Catholic clergy sometimes willfully misrepresented Papal pronouncements in defense of pro-slavery positions). The critical point, however, is this: Over the centuries, using its own moral precepts, religion developed the rationale necessary to categorically condemn slavery and took actions to implement that rationale. Indeed, over those same centuries, the secular world -- with great interests in profits and power -- often either ignored religious criticisms of slavery or pushed religion against abolition, not for it.
Supremely confident broad-brush pronouncements should always be viewed skeptically. History's complexities rarely confer them much credibility.
Mike Nicholas: Modern day Slavery
The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greg Carey: What The Bible Really Says About Slavery
Africans in America | Part 2 | Religion and Slavery
Using Religion To Defend Slavery | The American Catholic
Slavery and Religion in the Antebellum South - Student Pulse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_values
The church/religion is supposed to be a bastion of our societies morals and ethics but currently they are in cohorts with corruption that seeps in all area's of modern day life.
Secularism appeals to many because they are in denial about the types of people they are. Look at some of the famous court cases where issues are brought up to cloud and distort the truth about a person. If a famous person gets busted for adultery, its not his fault...he's "sexually addicted and will go to "treatment". A young mother is accused of killing her kid(s) and the issue of past sexual abuse comes up. A woman has sex with her junior high students... but its not her fault...she is "bi-polar." A man kills a gay politician in a major city and gets off because of a blood sugar imbalance from eating a pastry. This is what secularism does : it takes away moral and absolute responsibility while promoting "game playing". To a person who has been wronged that doesn't allow for "closure" but will bred contempt towards people that support "game playing" Notice the public's response after the Casey Anthony verdict...folks want to punish her because they feel that justice (an absolute) was not served. We can't exist in peace and have it both ways; either we lean towards moral absolutes or secular relative moral behaviors. The philosopher likes to speak of the "social evolutionary progressiveness of moral absolutes ...until his is robbed, his wife is raped, his son's car is stolen, his young daughter has been molested...then he wants justice...no "game playing"...but the absolutes of justice.
It was odd to bring up an argument about excuses and avoiding justice in the secular realm with the colossal scandals that are playing out in the Catholic church and the hypocritical religious right. The Catholic church has ACTIVELY SHELTERED PEDOPHILES! Obviously gay preachers and closeted conservative politicians have been attacking gays to the applause of their followers. If you want to find the first place a scoundrel hides it is behind the pulpit or podium. This is where people have avoided "moral and absolute responsibiÂlity" for ages.
I feel you. I am not saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not at fault for many things, but I simply cannot throw them or Jesus out with the bath water because of scandal. This argument of what is better for society-secular beliefs or Christian beliefs (sorry I simply can't fuse other religions with Christianity)? This secular nonsense is a carryover from aging Hippies that still believe in the Utopian delusion. Remember that society was totally about rebellion and the rejection of absolute moral standards. It was actually a very selfish (that's the key word here) and adolescent level thinking society. It was about fun, sexual pleasure, escapism, moral relativism…the classic behavior of a rebellious teenager. Secularism is not a mature way of dealing with life or people, its deals with people on the responsive level. Christianity deals with all people on the rational level. Said another way. Secularism is to the teenager as Christianity is to the adult. Notice how much arguing comes from the supporters of Secularism? Its like trying to talk to a child…because it appeals to a childlike/pret-een mentality.
"Are you going to cite any ACTUAL law cases or are you just posting a rant about some headlines you saw on yahoo or something? You also fail to illustrate your point between secularism and how it leads to a morally unjust society"
"Your honor, I present Exhibit A-Communist Russia under Stalin. Your honor, I rest my case."
Glad you’re participating in this discussion.
"The important point, professor, is this: Morality is not sprung from religious precepts; rather it evolves relative to social and environmenÂtal pressures and is then supported by social discipline exacted in religious forums. I.E., morality is relative." This is true that morality is relative; who is the "bad" guy in a war? It depends upon your point of view. Why is it that in the movies the Native People are usually the good guys and the Native People are usually the bad people? Why? I coined an expression and call it "cultural narcissism" Basically; it's saying that in all people of a particular racial group, there is this learned behavior to exalt ones culture or heritage over another’s. It’s the precursor to racism. It’s a little different that racism in that- at that level- not trying to dominate, cruelly oppress or even resort to genocide because you feel that another is clearly inferior.. What the Bible is saying, for one to take on a different perspective of people, the Spirit of God, must be present within that person. It is the connection with God that allows the individual to override his tendencies to actually do malice to another person or group. That cultural narcissism works best with moral relativism because, moral relativism, justifies doing malice (in whatever form) to others.
End part 1…
When I was a kid, I was told that the American Civil War was about a bunch of concerned people who wanted to end slavery. When I went to college I came to understand that it was a matter of economics that caused the war. That made sense because I simply couldn't understand why (amongst Whites) a father would be against son and brother against brother over some unknown Black slave(s). It then came clear to me that man often is motivated by agendas and not altruism. If man is motivated by agendas, then he operates on the level of moral relativism with the intent to beguile, swindle and use his fellow man for his personal gain. As it is written, the Ten Commandments are on everyone’s' heart (folks are born knowing right from wrong and is not a product of social evolution) but man's sin nature wants to override those reminders of how to live in peace with his fellowman (Romans 7:15-20). This is a long way of saying that man operates on agendas-not altruism- and that, in reality, he cares little about his fellow man (false morality and humanitarian boasts) unless s/he is connected to God. Secularism is basically a rejection of God's recommendations so that one can live in peace with his fellowman. Secularism feeds is sinful nature because s/he will see the world in through their eyes and follow their hearts (Jeremiah 17:9) on matters
TBC...
For some being anti-slavery was moral and others it was economic.
"Secular morality is what pushes religion to improve its own dogma on issues such as slavery and the treatment of women"
Wrong. Instead, monotheism provided the essential tools for making the colossal change in moral thinking outlined above.
Pagan authors occasionally condemned slavery. "
After dismissing secular morality he does not go into arguments against secularist views on slavery but chooses the much easier strawman argument against pagans.
This is really poor scholarship.
"In 1435, Pope Eugene IV issued "Sicut Dudum," a papal bull ordering (on pain of excommunication) the emancipation of enslaved native Christians of the newly colonized Canary Islands and prohibiting future enslavement. By including both baptized Christians and "those freely seeking baptism" in the order, Eugene apparently intended to protect most if not all Canary Island natives".
So in other words if you were not a baptized Christian you had better convert to christianity and get baptized or you were subject to being enslaved. This shows the immorality of the Pope no his morality.
The only reason any followers of the Abrahamic faiths are against slavery is because of the penetration of Enlightenment values into our society, thus superseding religious ones.
You can blame religion for every ill on the planet, and that's fine, it's your opinion.
But don't blame God for mankind twisting and distorting His words to justify their evil and selfish desires.
Would you really prefer to go back to the Middle Ages, when the Church ruled?
Religion had thousands of years and plenty of control to nip slavery in the bud, it never did.
"Abolition's moral victory was laboriously slow and religion was not always an ally in that fight "
This is where I think you're argument falls flat.
Out of the vastness of religious history and thousands of years,
*Here's a couple of sects that denounced slavery.
*Here is what a bishop said once during lent,
*Heres what a few different popes, separated by a century each said about it.
Yet, not realizing or carefully omitting the fact, that these popes only found certain *forms* of slavery unjust, not slavery itself, a number of Popes did issue papal bulls condemning "unjust" enslavement, ("just" enslavement was still accepted)
As well, the first extensive shipment of african slaves to replace indian slavery which he opposed, was initiated by a Bishop, and became know has *the transatlantic slave trade.*
Then we jump to the 19th century, and slavery is alive and well while religion is both a conditional ally to certain *forms* of slavery, and it takes a secular civil war, and secular amendment to abolish slavery, in 1865.
A year later after the abolition of slavery in 1866 The Holy Office of Pope IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, *it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.*
So, when did the church decide to official declare all slavery unjust? Not until 1965.
As for what the Catholic Church said and did how does that matter to America? In 1850 Catholics made up only five percent of the total U.S. population. By 1906, they made up seventeen percent of the total population. So what the Pope taught or thought had very little influence on America.
The author of the article makes an argument using statements by past popes, I'm siting that those popes only opposed certain forms of slavery not all, and that a Bishop initiated the transatlantic slave trade, in response what he considered unjust slavery using indians. and then sited it wasn't until 1965 that the church the author is referencing to make a declarative statement opposing all forms of slavery