The evolution of religious and secular morality

[PotatoStew]

This is an offshoot from the "Falsifying the all powerful model of God" thread. From that thread:

Stimpy said:

In fact, in Western society, mainstream Christianity, Islam and Judaism have all had to radically rework their moral codes in order to comply with modern secular standards.

ceo_esq replied:

It seems to me that throughout Western history, secular and religious moral standards have generally evolved in a loose tandem. They inform each other and they are themselves informed by common sources (for example, advancements in disciplines ranging from ethical philosophy to the natural sciences). It's clear that both religious and secular codes of morality have been transformed and refined over time, but why do you believe that this is predominantly a matter of the religious conforming to the secular? There even seem to be notable instances where, by and large, developments in the secular conventional morality lagged behind developments in the religious one (such as with respect to civil rights in the 20th century).


Stimpy rebutted:

On the contrary, pretty much every major development to morality over the past several hundred years was made with the dominant religion kicking and screaming the whole way. This includes your example of civil rights in the 20th century. In fact, virtually all of the resistance to advances in civil rights, in the last century, and historically, has come from the dominant religious groups.

Racial equality, women's rights, personal freedom, democratic rule, religious freedom, the elimination of torture and maiming as punishments, all happened in spite of religious influence, not because of it. In fact, I can't think of a single improvement in modern standards of morality over the last 200 years that wasn't vehemently opposed by the major Christian sects.


ceo_esq answered:

The U.S. civil rights movement is an excellent example, perhaps the best in recent history, of a social revolution that drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion to challenge and reform a secular conventional morality. Religious institutions (especially the African-American church) provided the moral compass and institutional center of the movement. (Aldon Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (1984).)

This is not to say, of course, that a number of religious leaders and adherents weren't among the least willing to embrace the civil rights movement’s moral vision and the resulting transformation of the social order, though this was less of an institutional phenomenon than religious support for civil rights.

Religious leadership and the material and moral support of religious organizations – acting pursuant to a moral vision that, from their perspective, was closely linked to their religious views – were also largely responsible for the abolition of slavery in Europe, the reform of prisons and mental health sanitariums, the development of modern child-labor laws, and many other milestones in modern Western moral history. The conventional morality against which these social revolutions struggled was, generally speaking, a secular one, and the major institutions that resisted the reforms tended to be civil, political and economic rather than religious.

There is one particular example you gave that I’d like to address. You seem to be asserting that religious institutions fought to preserve the practice of torture after the point where secular moral convention, left to its own devices, would have discarded it. In fact, the Western practice of torture (as used, for example, by the Catholic Church in darker times) was not devised by religious institutions but inherited by them, was far more ingrained in secular judicial custom than in religious custom, and continued to be practiced (and with fewer limitations) by civil authorities after it was renounced by religious ones. How you manage to characterize this state of affairs as “kicking and screaming” by institutions espousing a religiously based morality is not at all clear to me.

In sum, you seem not to share any of these historical views, and I’m curious as to your reasons.

(Edited to add:)

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm certainly not arguing that religious standards of morality are always in the vanguard vis-à-vis secular ones. I realize there are many counterexamples. However, to maintain that the reverse is actually true (as you've done) is also unjustified by the historical record.

Stimpy concluded:

This is really way off-topic. Perhaps we should continue the morality issue in another thread?


Here's a new thread. I'm interested in hearing your reply, Stimpy.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

OK. Thanks for starting the new thread, Potato.

The U.S. civil rights movement is an excellent example, perhaps the best in recent history, of a social revolution that drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion to challenge and reform a secular conventional morality. Religious institutions (especially the African-American church) provided the moral compass and institutional center of the movement. (Aldon Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (1984).)

Should it come as any surprise that an African American church would take a different position with respect to racial equality than the other Christian churches? That is beside the fact, though. The civil rights movement in the US (at least with respect to racial equality) dates back to long before then. In fact, it is rather an embarrassment for the US that we were so far behind the rest of the Western World in that respect. In any event, I don't see how anyone could claim that Civil rights movement was religiously motivated. The motivation is obvious and trivial. There were simply a lot of Americans who were sick of being treated unfairly, and took a stand. And fortunately, there were enough other Americans who believed in the basic principles of freedom and liberty enough to stand with them. And lest we forget where those principles came from. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't any religion.

Religious leadership and the material and moral support of religious organizations – acting pursuant to a moral vision that, from their perspective, was closely linked to their religious views – were also largely responsible for the abolition of slavery in Europe, the reform of prisons and mental health sanitariums, the development of modern child-labor laws, and many other milestones in modern Western moral history. The conventional morality against which these social revolutions struggled was, generally speaking, a secular one, and the major institutions that resisted the reforms tended to be civil, political and economic rather than religious.

At any given point in time, the currently held moral and ethical values can be considered "secular". The question is whether the impetus to change those standards was religious or philosophical. I would like to see your support for the claim that the things you listed above were motivated religiously. It is a simple to observe fact that after a moral position in society has changed, the dominant religions have a tendency to change their own views, and claim responsibility for the change being made to society.

There is one particular example you gave that I’d like to address. You seem to be asserting that religious institutions fought to preserve the practice of torture after the point where secular moral convention, left to its own devices, would have discarded it. In fact, the Western practice of torture (as used, for example, by the Catholic Church in darker times) was not devised by religious institutions but inherited by them, was far more ingrained in secular judicial custom than in religious custom, and continued to be practiced (and with fewer limitations) by civil authorities after it was renounced by religious ones. How you manage to characterize this state of affairs as “kicking and screaming” by institutions espousing a religiously based morality is not at all clear to me.

In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law. The origin of the barbaric practices of medieval and prior times is irrelevant. What is relevant is that religions tend to have an immense amount of social inertia. They don't change unless they are forced to. The morality of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, were all formulated during a time when the standards of ethics and morality were, by modern standards, horrific. During the period when the Catholic Church controlled Europe, and even today in places where Islam has total control, those barbaric practices remained in place. It was only after the Church began to lose control to individual rulers, that standards of morality began to change. And historically any such change has been resisted by the Church.

I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm certainly not arguing that religious standards of morality are always in the vanguard vis-à-vis secular ones. I realize there are many counterexamples. However, to maintain that the reverse is actually true (as you've done) is also unjustified by the historical record.

I strongly disagree. I think that in spite of the obvious attempts of religious groups (particularly the Catholic Church) to present the impression that they are the source of modern morality, that the historical record clearly indicates that nearly every advancement in morality over the past few hundred years, has been strongly resisted by religious groups, and primarily supported by society as a whole, rather than by religious groups.

Dr. Stupid

[Yahzi]

How would you decide this issue with respect to slavery? Many of the strongest, early abolitionists were Quakers. On the other hand, the Southern Baptist Convention was convened explicitly to show that the Bible did not condemn slavery.

I think you have to agree with Stimp on this one. While it is true that many abolitionists were religious, it is also true that religious thinking was not what drove their abolition. After all, as everyone at the time agreed, the SBC was right: the Bible does not condemn slavery. So it was not the evolution of Christian theology that condemend slavery. Religion may have given the motivation to act: but it did not determine the cause for which they were acting.

The same for concepts like original sin, punishing the descendants for the crimes of the ancestors, fair labor act (paying people), women's rights, etc. In all of these important cases, Christian thought was the barbaric position from which secular thought moved away from. This is why humanism is so often linked with secularism: because they developed together.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

I think a key factor is to differentiaite between the person/institution making the change, and the motivation/basis for making the change. Christianity has a strong history of 'interpretation', of making the book say what we want it to say. Did the black Civil Rights movement of the 60's start because "their religion told them they should have equal rights", or did they decide they wanted equal rights, and then found support in their religion?

I'd suggest that religion leads change only when there is a clear social/political advantage (for the leadership or congregation) from that change. Otherwise, religion is to be found at the conservative edge of any debate.

In other words, when religion leads the fight for change, it's because there is a non-religious advantage to be gained, and the religion is reworked to incorporate the required outcome.

[ceo_esq]

Thanks to Potato for the new thread, and thanks to Stimpy for rightly pointing out that I was starting to lead the earlier discussion a bit far afield.

Stimpy, you have raised some good points, and I apologize in advance for not having the chance to do them all justice at once; I’ll have to adopt a piecemeal approach and try to revisit as time permits. Meanwhile, I expect other people will have observations to offer that are better than mine.

First of all, could you clarify what you mean by “religiously motivated”?

When I ventured to say that the civil rights movement “drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion”, I should emphasize, I did not mean that religion offered esoteric moral principles relating to civil rights which were not accessible outside of religion. People have an intuitive faculty (more or less developed according to the person) for grasping moral principles and are capable of working out moral matters by the light of reason, or so Aquinas tells us.

However, moral understanding is increased and refined through the many varieties of human experience and discourse. Is it really so extraordinary that the moral understanding elaborated through religious experience and discourse might, from time to time and as to certain issues, occasionally arrive at a new approach to a moral problem which hasn’t yet been broadly embraced by the society at large? I don't need to be religious to recognize that the contrary would be even more surprising.

Now that I think of it, Stimpy, perhaps I could ask you to describe the type of historical example you would accept as validating my point. I don’t expect you to come up with my evidence for me, of course, but if you could broadly describe the criteria (e.g., “a moral advancement where A and B are true, but Y and Z are absent” or whatever), it might spare me the trouble of coming up with an example that doesn’t meet your criteria and spare you the trouble of refuting it. I hope you’re not going to say “a true moral advancement that no one supported except for religious reasons and that was completely unjustifiable by reference to any non-religious moral precept,” or anything like that.

Moving right along:
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law. The origin of the barbaric practices of medieval and prior times is irrelevant. What is relevant is that religions tend to have an immense amount of social inertia.
Your first statement is an overly broad generalization. I grant that the notion of the divine origins of civil authority persisted until relatively late in Western history, and the modern understanding of the separation of church and state is, well, modern. However, it's simply untrue that premodern societies (such as during the Middle Ages) did not exhibit a distinction – in some respects a reasonably sophisticated one – between civil authority and ecclesiastical authority, as well as identifiably separate legal and judicial institutions in each sphere. I think this is relevant in the context of my remarks about torture.

And immense inertia is a feature of social institutions, full stop; it’s demonstrably not unique to religious institutions.
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?
One specific example is slavery. I assume you’ll agree that the Church once tolerated slavery, and that Western society at large did not make a collective judgment that the practice was morally wrong until the 19th century in the United States and slightly earlier in Europe.

Yet Pope Paul III, in his 1537 decree Sublimus Deus (http://college.hmco.com/history/west/mosaic/chapter9/source233.html) addressing the practice of enslavement of natives in the New World, wrote:
We define and declare … that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
Much later, in 1839 (after several generations of consistent Church pronouncements), the papal document In Supremo Apostolatus (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/G16SUP.HTM) was released, touching off a storm of controversy in North America:
We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. … We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above-mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth[.]
To continue:
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I think that in spite of the obvious attempts of religious groups (particularly the Catholic Church) to present the impression that they are the source of modern morality, that the historical record clearly indicates that nearly every advancement in morality over the past few hundred years, has been strongly resisted by religious groups, and primarily supported by society as a whole, rather than by religious groups.
Don't you think moral advancements (much like legal advancements or artistic advancements) are frequently resisted by society as a whole in their initial stages? In fact, widespread social acceptance is often the last chapter in the story of any moral revolution. Society generally has to be won over, and sometimes religious institutions and beliefs lend impetus to the movement.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ceo_esq,

First of all, could you clarify what you mean by “religiously motivated”?

I would say that a movement can be called "religiously motivated", if the reason behind the movement is that the people involved have concluded that their religion implies that the movement should be made.

For example, when Catholics protest against abortion, that is religiously motivated. On the contrary, the behavior of the Black churches in the civil rights movement could not really be considered to be religiously motivated, because the motivation was clearly a desire for equal rights on the part of the people involved.

When I ventured to say that the civil rights movement “drew inspiration, resources and key moral insights from religion”, I should emphasize, I did not mean that religion offered esoteric moral principles relating to civil rights which were not accessible outside of religion. People have an intuitive faculty (more or less developed according to the person) for grasping moral principles and are capable of working out moral matters by the light of reason, or so Aquinas tells us.

However, moral understanding is increased and refined through the many varieties of human experience and discourse. Is it really so extraordinary that the moral understanding elaborated through religious experience and discourse might, from time to time and as to certain issues, occasionally arrive at a new approach to a moral problem which hasn’t yet been broadly embraced by the society at large? I don't need to be religious to recognize that the contrary would be even more surprising.

I don't disagree with any of this. My point is simply that over the past several hundred years, most of the changes to morality occurred in society at large, with the disapproval of the dominant religions. And that only after the standard of morality held by society as a whole had changed, did any of the major religions modify their position.

This is apparent even now. There are still many things which the major religious organizations consider immoral, which society at large does not, (divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, sexuality in entertainment, etc...) and vice versa, many things which these religions still consider moral, which society no longer tolerates (coercive techniques for keeping members, the notion of revenge as a reasonable motivation for punishment, etc...).

Now that I think of it, Stimpy, perhaps I could ask you to describe the type of historical example you would accept as validating my point. I don’t expect you to come up with my evidence for me, of course, but if you could broadly describe the criteria (e.g., “a moral advancement where A and B are true, but Y and Z are absent” or whatever), it might spare me the trouble of coming up with an example that doesn’t meet your criteria and spare you the trouble of refuting it. I hope you’re not going to say “a true moral advancement that no one supported except for religious reasons and that was completely unjustifiable by reference to any non-religious moral precept,” or anything like that.

OK. Any example within the past few centuries of the Church changing its position with respect to an issue of morality, while society as a whole still held the former position, and then said church leading society to change its position. And just to avoid any ambiguities, when I say "the Church", I simply mean the dominant religious power at that time and place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law. The origin of the barbaric practices of medieval and prior times is irrelevant. What is relevant is that religions tend to have an immense amount of social inertia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your first statement is an overly broad generalization. I grant that the notion of the divine origins of civil authority persisted until relatively late in Western history, and the modern understanding of the separation of church and state is, well, modern. However, it's simply untrue that premodern societies (such as during the Middle Ages) did not exhibit a distinction – in some respects a reasonably sophisticated one – between civil authority and ecclesiastical authority, as well as identifiably separate legal and judicial institutions in each sphere. I think this is relevant in the context of my remarks about torture.

Actually, by ancient times, I was referring to the period of 2 to 3 thousand years ago, over which the dominant religions of today were being formed. As I said, the standard morality of these religions dates back to the nature of society at that time, which was by modern standards, barbaric.

And immense inertia is a feature of social institutions, full stop; it’s demonstrably not unique to religious institutions.

It is a feature of certain types of social institutions, and Religions are of that type. Society as a whole, tends to change as the conditions change. Religions, and many other types of institutions, tend to resist such change.

This just serves to support my point. Change to societal norms, including but not limited to morality, tend to come about dynamically, and in a rather unorganized way. They are not typically the result of a specific concerted effort on the part of a particular organization, religious or otherwise. The exception, of course, is when the organization is forcing those changes on the population.

One specific example is slavery. I assume you’ll agree that the Church once tolerated slavery, and that Western society at large did not make a collective judgment that the practice was morally wrong until the 19th century in the United States and slightly earlier in Europe.

Yet Pope Paul III, in his 1537 decree Sublimus Deus addressing the practice of enslavement of natives in the New World, wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We define and declare … that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much later, in 1839 (after several generations of consistent Church pronouncements), the papal document In Supremo Apostolatus was released, touching off a storm of controversy in North America:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. … We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices above-mentioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth[.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Question: At the time that Papal decree was made, was slavery considered moral in the societies that were predominantly Catholic? It was my understanding that at this time, slavery was already considered immoral by the majority of European society, and that most Europeans were not happy with the treatment of natives of other countries.

Don't you think moral advancements (much like legal advancements or artistic advancements) are frequently resisted by society as a whole in their initial stages? In fact, widespread social acceptance is often the last chapter in the story of any moral revolution. Society generally has to be won over, and sometimes religious institutions and beliefs lend impetus to the movement.

Well they certainly try to, but as Loki pointed out, they are almost always on the conservative end of the scale. When they are trying to change something, it is usually them trying to change things back to the way they were when the Church had more control over society.

Dr. Stupid

[ceo_esq]

Thanks for the cogent responses, Stimpy, which I'm mulling over.

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
There are still many things which the major religious organizations consider immoral, which society at large does not, (divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, sexuality in entertainment, etc...) and vice versa, many things which these religions still consider moral, which society no longer tolerates (coercive techniques for keeping members, the notion of revenge as a reasonable motivation for punishment, etc...).
I accept your basic point, but I question some of your examples. When you talk about social acceptance or tolerance, are you determining this by reference to the absence of legal prohibitions, expressions of public opinion, or something else?

You might be surprised to learn the following (I certainly was):

- only 52% of American society at large morally approves of couples living together outside of marriage;

- only 59% of American society at large morally approves of divorce; and

- a majority of American society at large considers homosexual behavior to be immoral.

(source 1 (http://cultureandfamily.org/report/2001-05-31/n_sexpoll.shtml); source 2 (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_prev.html))

This suggests to me that, at least in the United States, society at large is a long way from reaching a moral consensus on such issues (although it's obvious which way the wind is blowing).
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Question: At the time that Papal decree was made, was slavery considered moral in the societies that were predominantly Catholic? It was my understanding that at this time, slavery was already considered immoral by the majority of European society, and that most Europeans were not happy with the treatment of natives of other countries.
Good question. By the way, let's focus on the earlier papal decree; I'll concede that the slave trade had largely disappeared from Europe by the time of the second one, which seems to have been aimed primarily at the United States (which was, of course, not a predominantly Catholic country).

Frankly, I don't know enough about social attitudes of European societies of the 16th-19th centuries to be able to answer with confidence. Maybe someone else here does?

However, from my reading of basic reference sources such as Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_trade), I would draw the tentative conclusion that a majority of European society did not come to view the slave trade as immoral until the late 18th century in most countries. I base this conclusion on two factors: (1) I find no references even to small anti-slavery social campaigns prior to the late 17th century at the very earliest, and (2) slavery laws and practices persisted until the late 18th to mid-19th century depending on the country, and it seems unlikely that they could have withstood more than a generation or so of widespread public disapproval.

Ironically, it seems that the worst and most recalcitrant offenders (apart from the United States, of course) were nominally Catholic countries such as Portugal and Spain.

[LW]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
It was only after the Church began to lose control to individual rulers, that standards of morality began to change.

I'll now interrupt this thread to comment this one sentence.

I don't know much about the general situation in Europe, but at least in Sweden (that ruled over my home country back then) the standards of morality changed to much more religious after the king took control of the Church.

The old laws were modified to take the Laws of Moses into account. Sentences became much more strict for most crimes, and there were even some cases where a man was sentenced to death for breaking the 4th Commandment when he had argued back to his parents in public. Withcraft in general became a crime, as well as adultery and sex before marriage.

One reason for this change came from the power struggle between the king and the nobles. The stricter laws enabled the king to assert more control over the population as he nominated the judges.

The Mosaic Laws were used for roughly a hundred years (17th century) with some vestiges staying in books up until 1971 when homosexuality was decriminalized in Finland (I don't know when it was decriminalized in Sweden).

[Stimpson J. Cat]

ceo_esq,

I accept your basic point, but I question some of your examples. When you talk about social acceptance or tolerance, are you determining this by reference to the absence of legal prohibitions, expressions of public opinion, or something else?

Both.

You might be surprised to learn the following (I certainly was):

- only 52% of American society at large morally approves of couples living together outside of marriage;

- only 59% of American society at large morally approves of divorce; and

Nope, not surprised at all. For one thing, this does not contradict my point. I think it is clear from the statistics that you just cited, that society at large, does not consider these things to be immoral. Secondly, this is a wonderful example of how the difference between poles, and actual actions, illustrate human hypocrisy. The fraction of people who consider divorce and living outside of marriage to be moral appears to be far less than the fraction of people that actually do those things. Go figure.

- a majority of American society at large considers homosexual behavior to be immoral.

Agreed. This moral change is still largely in progress. It is pretty telling, though, that about the only justification for homosexuality being immoral that anybody can come up with, is religious. Once again, this is an advancement in morality that is occurring as we speak, and once again, it is the religions that are opposing it with all their might.

This suggests to me that, at least in the United States, society at large is a long way from reaching a moral consensus on such issues (although it's obvious which way the wind is blowing).

Moral consensus is a pipe dream. I am more concerned with simple tolerance. I don't care whether somebody considers my actions to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it.

Good question. By the way, let's focus on the earlier papal decree; I'll concede that the slave trade had largely disappeared from Europe by the time of the second one, which seems to have been aimed primarily at the United States (which was, of course, not a predominantly Catholic country).

Frankly, I don't know enough about social attitudes of European societies of the 16th-19th centuries to be able to answer with confidence. Maybe someone else here does?

However, from my reading of basic reference sources such as Wikipedia, I would draw the tentative conclusion that a majority of European society did not come to view the slave trade as immoral until the late 18th century in most countries. I base this conclusion on two factors: (1) I find no references even to small anti-slavery social campaigns prior to the late 17th century at the very earliest, and (2) slavery laws and practices persisted until the late 18th to mid-19th century depending on the country, and it seems unlikely that they could have withstood more than a generation or so of widespread public disapproval.

Ironically, it seems that the worst and most recalcitrant offenders (apart from the United States, of course) were nominally Catholic countries such as Portugal and Spain.

I also do not have enough specific knowledge of that period to argue the point properly. I will say this, though. There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places. In particular, if the current level of interest in foreign affairs is any indication, I would suspect that the majority of people living in Portugal Spain had little interest, and even less knowledge, of what their colonists and explorers were doing halfway around the globe.


LW,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
It was only after the Church began to lose control to individual rulers, that standards of morality began to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll now interrupt this thread to comment this one sentence.

I don't know much about the general situation in Europe, but at least in Sweden (that ruled over my home country back then) the standards of morality changed to much more religious after the king took control of the Church.

The old laws were modified to take the Laws of Moses into account. Sentences became much more strict for most crimes, and there were even some cases where a man was sentenced to death for breaking the 4th Commandment when he had argued back to his parents in public. Withcraft in general became a crime, as well as adultery and sex before marriage.

One reason for this change came from the power struggle between the king and the nobles. The stricter laws enabled the king to assert more control over the population as he nominated the judges.

The Mosaic Laws were used for roughly a hundred years (17th century) with some vestiges staying in books up until 1971 when homosexuality was decriminalized in Finland (I don't know when it was decriminalized in Sweden).

Dammit man, I'm making broad generalizations here! No fair bringing up specific counter-examples! :mad: :p

Seriously, though. This does not contradict what I said. It was still only after the Church lost control that moral standards began to change for the better. The fact that there was an initial backlash effect, just goes to show that the religious authority does not have to be the church. It can be anybody that attempts to use religion to exert control over the public. From what you have said, this is exactly what happened.

Dr. Stupid

[stamenflicker]

And fortunately, there were enough other Americans who believed in the basic principles of freedom and liberty enough to stand with them. And lest we forget where those principles came from. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't any religion.

That seems a bit shortsighted at best. While it is true that religious institutions in the South were hardly pictures of ethnic tolerance, several in the North were pushing for equality. That makes it a geo-social issue more than any particular religious issue to me. Racism is present both within and without various religious systems, and many of the white churches both north and south participated in marches and rallies in favor of civil rights. In fact, the seminary from which I graduated was the first Southern Baptist institution to host MLK, jr. They lost some funding over it too.

There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places.

It's facinating to me to think there are people who believe slavery does not exist in the US. When 50% of a workers wages go to support the government, that's slavery friend. Maybe I have the illusion of freedom because I can sit on the internet at night, or go to the movies, but the facts are simple-- the social class structure in America, even in the upper middle class is organized and pimped out slavery for the needs of the rich. Not only that, but we as a nation continue to employ slave labor around the world, and employ slave states to carry out our military will and national interests. The problem with secular morality as I see it, is that it never gets to the "heart" of the issue to institue life change. I would ask, what is the motivation for anyone to adhere to a secular morality?

I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

Dude Roger Williams is the primary reason we have freedom of religion in America. Conservative Baptist fudamentalist. Is secular society going to take credit for everything? How about preventing drunk driving? Or drunk wife beating? Or drunk drop out of school-ism? Is that their issue, or does it belong to religion? It seems to me religion has warned of these sorts of problems for a while, and secular society is trying to decide if they should join the bandwagon. Another example is equality for women-- it may not have been practiced as such after say 200AD, but the early church was chocked full of gender equality.

I don't care whether somebody considers my actions to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it.

That doesn't work Stimp... unless you are doing something in the privacy of your own home. We live in a society, in communities... and in many cases what one person does affects another person.
Should I hassle a drunk driver? Or a wife beater? Damn straight dude.


Loki,

I'd suggest that religion leads change only when there is a clear social/political advantage (for the leadership or congregation) from that change. Otherwise, religion is to be found at the conservative edge of any debate.

I'm not so sure there is a problem here. Sometimes folks need to be on the conservative side of a debate. For example, the current trend of our young ladies becoming loosey-goosey whores is a good example. Nothing good comes from early teenage sexuality, unless you like STD's, teen pregnancy, or ovarian cancer. You can site religion for trying to make a difference there.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Flick,

And fortunately, there were enough other Americans who believed in the basic principles of freedom and liberty enough to stand with them. And lest we forget where those principles came from. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't any religion.

That seems a bit shortsighted at best. While it is true that religious institutions in the South were hardly pictures of ethnic tolerance, several in the North were pushing for equality. That makes it a geo-social issue more than any particular religious issue to me. Racism is present both within and without various religious systems, and many of the white churches both north and south participated in marches and rallies in favor of civil rights. In fact, the seminary from which I graduated was the first Southern Baptist institution to host MLK, jr. They lost some funding over it too.

Once again, I am not disputing this. I am not saying that religions were not involved in these types of events. What I am saying is that these types of events were not religiously motivated, and that typically the dominant religious groups have been against such changes. That is all I am saying.

There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places.

It's facinating to me to think there are people who believe slavery does not exist in the US. When 50% of a workers wages go to support the government, that's slavery friend. Maybe I have the illusion of freedom because I can sit on the internet at night, or go to the movies, but the facts are simple-- the social class structure in America, even in the upper middle class is organized and pimped out slavery for the needs of the rich. Not only that, but we as a nation continue to employ slave labor around the world, and employ slave states to carry out our military will and national interests.

Good grief man. As much as I would love to rip into such a ludicrous statement, let's try to stay on topic here, OK?

The problem with secular morality as I see it, is that it never gets to the "heart" of the issue to institue life change. I would ask, what is the motivation for anyone to adhere to a secular morality?

The same as the motivation for adhering to any code of morality. Because you think it is the right thing to do. Remember, morality is a set of rules or guidelines for behavior that are ultimately based on some set of values. When we talk about the state of morality in society changing, what we are really talking about is a change in the values held by those people. Everybody has values, and those are motivation enough to adhere to a moral code that is consistent with those values. It is only when you try to implement rules that are not based on values the people hold, and then call them "morality", that it becomes necessary to try to give people incentives for following them, like Heaven, Hell, prison, death, torture, etc...

I don't know of any example of the Church deciding that a particular practice they once endorsed, was now immoral, before society at large already made that judgement. Can you give a specific example?

Dude Roger Williams is the primary reason we have freedom of religion in America. Conservative Baptist fudamentalist. Is secular society going to take credit for everything?

Newsflash, the motivation for religious freedom was the coexistence of minority religions with a dominant one. The minority religious want the right to exist, go figure. Such freedom has (at least with respect to Christianity), always been opposed by the dominant religion.

How about preventing drunk driving? Or drunk wife beating? Or drunk drop out of school-ism? Is that their issue, or does it belong to religion? It seems to me religion has warned of these sorts of problems for a while, and secular society is trying to decide if they should join the bandwagon.

Trying to decide if they should join? Are you kidding? These are all social problems. The involvement of religious groups in them is irrelevant. I mean come on. THe bottom line is that the majority of society is religious, so obviously relevant social issues are going to be reflected in those religions. This is exactly why religious institutions are forced to change their position on issues as society changes.

Please try to argue against my point. Nothing you are saying seems even remotely relevant.

Another example is equality for women-- it may not have been practiced as such after say 200AD, but the early church was chocked full of gender equality.

You have got to be kidding.

I don't care whether somebody considers my actions to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it.

That doesn't work Stimp... unless you are doing something in the privacy of your own home. We live in a society, in communities... and in many cases what one person does affects another person.
Should I hassle a drunk driver? Or a wife beater? Damn straight dude.

Once again, you are misinterpreting what I said. It is my opinion that morality is only an issue when other people are involved. I was simply pointing out that I don't care if people consider my actions which don't effect other people to be immoral or not, as long as they don't hassle me about it. Obviously society as a whole has to implement rules to protect the rights of the people that make up the society. Remember, my comment was in reference to the question of whether there would ever be a consensus in morality. The point is that there does not need to b a complete consensus, as long as everybody agrees on the basic notions of personal freedom and tolerance.

Dr. Stupid

[ceo_esq]

Stimpy,

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
There is a big difference between having a society that supports slavery, and having a society which tolerates the use of slavery in other places. In particular, if the current level of interest in foreign affairs is any indication, I would suspect that the majority of people living in Portugal Spain had little interest, and even less knowledge, of what their colonists and explorers were doing halfway around the globe.
I agree that people’s moral attitudes (or at least how people follow through on them) differ depending on whether the phenomenon in question is occurring in their backyards. For example, American society does not tolerate the presence of sweatshops on American territory, and most Americans would state that they morally disapprove of the practice wherever it is found. However, when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, most Americans will turn a blind eye to immoral labor practices overseas and keep purchasing low-cost goods produced in sweatshops in developing countries. I find this kind of hypocrisy disheartening, all the more so because I'm sure I’ve been guilty of it myself.

This paper (http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:M_ZjUsg9kY4C:europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/courier/courier187/en/en_039.pdf+europa.eu.int/comm/development/publicat/+courier/courier187/en/en_039.pdf&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) indicates that the number of foreign slaves within Europe in the 16th through 18th centuries was sufficiently high that European society at large was completely familiar, and by all appearances morally comfortable for the most part, with this social evil. For example, it’s estimated that in the year 1620, more than 10,000 slaves were living in the city of Lisbon alone. (I note with dismay that, at least according to this paper, a few of the early successes in prohibiting slavery on European soil were due not to a change in morals but simply to the fact that Europeans began to resent the presence of so many nonwhites).

Now that I’ve had a chance to examine and learn a bit more about slavery and anti-slavery in European history, I would venture to suggest that this sample case is looking like a better and better candidate for meeting the criteria you offered for a religiously-motivated moral advancement.

Let’s recap the situation:

The Church once tolerated slavery. At least by the 16th century, though (which roughly coincided with the beginnings of large-scale enslavement of, and commerce in, blacks and native New Worlders by Europeans), the Church was publicly teaching in no uncertain terms that the practice was incompatible with Christian faith and morals.

Whenever this change in religious view actually occurred, it must have preceded any significant shift in the moral attitude of European society at large toward slavery. European countries continued to tolerate on their own soil, both in law and in practice, the treatment of human beings as brutes and chattel for a long time after the Church began pointing out the serious moral problems inherent in the practice. The practice was widespread enough, and close enough to home, that it’s unreasonable to claim that the average person living in these countries was either too ignorant of or too far removed from the facts to be able to adopt a moral stance against slavery.

[Edited to add: Also, this does not appear to have been an instance in which the people/institutions militating for a change in policy were acting pursuant to a banal or evident motivation such as their immediate and direct self-interest.]

Unless I’m overlooking something crucial, what we have here is an example of a religious institution achieving a noteworthy moral insight (1) on a matter of significant gravity, (2) which did not correspond to (and represented a momentous advancement over) the prevailing conventional morality and (3) which was eventually (but only after great time, effort and persistence) integrated into the secular ethical landscape of the culture involved (images of kicking and screaming spring unbidden to my mind).

I'm confident that this advancement would have been achieved sooner or later in the absence of any religious involvement. But I also think it remains to the everlasting credit of the dominant religious institution in question that it was able to achieve the breakthrough it did without the kind of external social pressure that is sometimes (I agree with you) required.

[Loki]

Flick,

...loosey-goosey whores...
Cultural reference, right? Don't worry explaining - I get the (creatively colorful) image.

Nothing good comes from early teenage sexuality,...
A true enough statement, but any solution here would seem to require the cooperation and argeement of the participants (ie, teens). In this sense, I guess "conservative" relates to the approach, not the outcome.

Statement : Teen Sex is bad.
Conservative : "Why is it bad? - because it is, okay! Now don't you talk back to me boy..."

So I guess I'm saying that even if the outcome is desireable, religions often find a 'path' that is undesireable. Jeez- you guys just can't win! (yes, tongue in cheek at this point...)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Loki
I think a key factor is to differentiaite between the person/institution making the change, and the motivation/basis for making the change. Christianity has a strong history of 'interpretation', of making the book say what we want it to say. Did the black Civil Rights movement of the 60's start because "their religion told them they should have equal rights", or did they decide they wanted equal rights, and then found support in their religion?

I'd suggest that religion leads change only when there is a clear social/political advantage (for the leadership or congregation) from that change. Otherwise, religion is to be found at the conservative edge of any debate.

In other words, when religion leads the fight for change, it's because there is a non-religious advantage to be gained, and the religion is reworked to incorporate the required outcome.
Our discussion seems to be leading to the conclusion (in my view, at least) that this is not a hard and fast rule. However, to the extent it is true, isn't it a property of institutions as such (as I proposed to Stimpy earlier) rather than uniquely of religious ones?

The characteristics of institutions and the mechanisms of institutional change (http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:Meh4aXtIUuQC:www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/grief_228/Self_enforcing.pdf+%22www-econ.stanford.%2Bedu/academics/grief_228/Self_enforcing.pdf.%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) are well documented, and suggest that successful, long-lived institutions (such as Christianity) combine both conservative and progressive traits.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ceo_esq,

Sorry for getting back to this so late. The spam-clan knocked it right off the page, and I didn't even notice it till the last post.

This paper indicates that the number of foreign slaves within Europe in the 16th through 18th centuries was sufficiently high that European society at large was completely familiar, and by all appearances morally comfortable for the most part, with this social evil. For example, it’s estimated that in the year 1620, more than 10,000 slaves were living in the city of Lisbon alone. (I note with dismay that, at least according to this paper, a few of the early successes in prohibiting slavery on European soil were due not to a change in morals but simply to the fact that Europeans began to resent the presence of so many nonwhites).

I will admit that I don't know enough about this era to properly respond to this. I did notice that the paper you cite makes no reference to the church opposing it, though.

Now that I’ve had a chance to examine and learn a bit more about slavery and anti-slavery in European history, I would venture to suggest that this sample case is looking like a better and better candidate for meeting the criteria you offered for a religiously-motivated moral advancement.

Well, all except for the problem that the initiative on the part of the Church that you are talking about happened nearly 500 years ago. Remember in my original post that I was referring to advancements in morality over the past couple of centuries. There is a reason for that. Prior to about 300 years ago, Christianity still had so much control over the European governments that it is basically meaningless to try to talk about any social movement independent of the dominant religions of the time. Those nations were religious monarchies, where the Kings derived their right to rule from God. Religion was a dominating, and legally mandated, social force.

It is only in the past few hundred years that we have actually had secular societies in which issues of morality could be discussed outside of the framework of religion. Prior to that, you would have to go back to the pre-Christian Roman Empire.

In other words, I don't see how any of this addresses my point that pretty much every significant advance to morality over the past 300 years or so, has been secular, rather than religious, or my point that during this time, the largest opponents to these changes have typically been the dominant religions.

Our discussion seems to be leading to the conclusion (in my view, at least) that this is not a hard and fast rule. However, to the extent it is true, isn't it a property of institutions as such (as I proposed to Stimpy earlier) rather than uniquely of religious ones?

The characteristics of institutions and the mechanisms of institutional change are well documented, and suggest that successful, long-lived institutions (such as Christianity) combine both conservative and progressive traits.

I would go along with that. Religions are simply a type of institution for which conservative traits are far more dominant than progressive ones. Society as a whole, though, is not an institution. My original point could easily be expanded to say that, overall, it is not institutions (religious or otherwise) that have been responsible for most of the positive moral changes over the past few centuries, but rather dynamic changes to society as a whole. Such changes are only really possible when no single institution has a dominating stranglehold on the moral standards of the society.

Moral changes come about as the result of changes in philosophy. In religion, the philosophy is fixed, and only changes when it is forced to in order to insure the survival of the religion. And even then, the changes are fiercely resisted. In society as a whole, though, so long as the society is not dominated by a religion, philosophies tend to naturally change and adjust over time. Over the past few hundred years, the philosophical position of most of western society has become more humanistic. This is the primary reason that morality has changed. As a result, most forms of Christianity have become more humanistic as well, although they still lag behind society as a whole.

Dr. Stupid

[Tricky]

I have to agree with Stimpy on this one. Before the Renaissance, most of the common people likely had no real concept of the dogma of Christianity. After all, most of it was in Latin. As people became more educated, they became restive about the unfair and un-Christian setup of society. It seems entirely likely to me that this unrest in the formerly quiescent peasant segment of society "infected" the policy of the church with the memes that subjugation of the masses was wrong.

Why do I feel like quoting Monty Python here?

[Gregor]

I suspect that the subtopic - whether the Christian church was ahead of the societal curve on abolition - is the subject of a least a doctoral thesis, not the cursory review we can give it. However, I do not see how CEO can make the following assertion:
___________
"Whenever this change in religious view actually occurred, it must have preceded any significant shift in the moral attitude of European society at large toward slavery. "
___________

Given the state of the evidence presented, I think "must have" is too strong.

Solving this question would require research into (i) when legislators introduced proposals (that started with little support and later reached greater approvals) banning slavery, (ii) when associations were started to help those impacted by slavery, (iii) when pamphlets and books were written complaining of slavery.

Further, unlike today, people of 17th century Europe did not have the financial ability or government-granted freedoms to hold an "anti-slavery" rally in Wittenberg.

Unless someone has done this in depth research for us, we really cannot say whether the church's stand on abolition was at the fore, in the middle, or at the rear.

Finally, I doubt that "religion" is monolithic enough to make generalizations one way or the other. For each Quaker you have a Southern Baptist. For each Catholic anti-Vietnam priest you have a Lutheran pro-Nixon minister. I would generalize that when a particular flavor of religion has societal dominance, it is loath to change its moral codes if it would lessen the church's authority - but that is not particular to religions.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
I suspect that the subtopic - whether the Christian church was ahead of the societal curve on abolition - is the subject of a least a doctoral thesis, not the cursory review we can give it. However, I do not see how CEO can make the following assertion:
___________
"Whenever this change in religious view actually occurred, it must have preceded any significant shift in the moral attitude of European society at large toward slavery. "
___________

Given the state of the evidence presented, I think "must have" is too strong.
Britain seems to have been ahead of the other European powers on the anti-slavery front. Certainly (we have already seen), it was the first to adopt anti-slavery legislation. If everyone accepts these facts, then we can fruitfully devote our attention to the British case, because if the Christian abolitionist stance preceded the coalescing of public anti-slavery sentiment in Britain, it appears logical to conclude that it also preceded the same phenomenon in other European countries.
Solving this question would require research into (i) when legislators introduced proposals (that started with little support and later reached greater approvals) banning slavery,
The first legislative proposal attempting even to regulate (much less abolish) the British slave trade was introduced in Parliament in 1778. It was defeated, but other efforts followed. (source (http://www.users.muohio.edu/mandellc/projects/aronowml/History.HTM))
(ii) when associations were started to help those impacted by slavery,
I find no references in my preliminary research to identifiable anti-slavery movements in Britain prior to the late 1600s, and those were religious in nature (notably the Quakers). General histories of British abolitionism characterize it as an 18th and 19th-century phenomenon. (source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/antislavery_1.shtml))
(iii) when pamphlets and books were written complaining of slavery.
The dates of the major figures and documents of the British anti-slavery movement appear to correspond to the timeframe we've already provisionally identified. (source (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REantislavery.htm))
Further, unlike today, people of 17th century Europe did not have the financial ability or government-granted freedoms to hold an "anti-slavery" rally in Wittenberg.
True enough. Organizing a grass-roots movement at that time was a different affair. However, people in 17th-century Europe did participate in anti-status-quo social movements and stage acts of protest. If you mean to suggest that secular attitudes toward slavery in Europe really had changed ahead of religious attitudes, but the anti-slavery populace was forced to remain a "silent majority" for all those years, I'm skeptical but open to argument.
Unless someone has done this in depth research for us, we really cannot say whether the church's stand on abolition was at the fore, in the middle, or at the rear.
I realize that the evidence presented thus far on the slavery issue is not based on dissertation-quality research. However, I think it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions (am I overlooking, by the way, any actual evidence offered by someone other than myself?).

If any of the abolition-related evidence I've submitted seems particularly dubious, or if I've failed to make an unrefuted showing in support of any premise, please identify the problem area specifically so we can see about addressing it.

Otherwise, I daresay that a case - not an unassailable case, but certainly a prima facie one - in favor of the validity of my slavery example has emerged from this discussion.

By the way, PotatoStew, if you're still reading this thread, feel free to contribute to the debate or offer your own assessment of our progress. I know you started the thread and I'd hate for you to leave it orphaned.

EDITED TO ADD: Stimpy, I've noted and am considering your objections as to the timeliness of the slavery example.

[Loki]

ceo-esq,

However, to the extent it is true, isn't it a property of institutions as such (as I proposed to Stimpy earlier) rather than uniquely of religious ones?
Even if true, I still find it a problem that the "area of expertise" of these particular institutions (ie, the Catholic church) is "good and evil". I don't have as strong an objection to the the cotton growing industry failing to lead the charge against slavery, because their primary "are of expertise" is "profit from cotton production". Even the government gets a partial exception, because that institution has a number of roles to play, only one of which might be stated as "moral guidance".

I guess the point is (in case it's not already clear) is that I would expect the NFL lead to way on "what makes Football better", rather than the Ohio Womens Bakery Association, (or even the NBA).

...am I overlooking, by the way, any actual evidence offered by someone other than myself?).
Oh, you wanted evidence, rather than just my opinion? :D Well, time is short at the moment, but I'd like to pursue this, so I'll try and find the time to dig a little. Certainly not planning a dissertation, but you are right - it's time for me to either offer more that "I think so", or to just shut up!

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Loki
Even if true, I still find it a problem that the "area of expertise" of these particular institutions (ie, the Catholic church) is "good and evil".
Yes. Morality isn't the only or even the primary preoccupation of the Church, but it is something to which the Church is supposed to be devoting a lot of higher-level thinking. So I agree that we should reasonably be entitled to expect that the Church should at the very least not be a chronic underachiever in the field of ethical philosophy. Otherwise, it should consider a better use of time and resources, sticking perhaps to rummage sales.

One of my points in this thread, though, is that the charge Stimpy and others have leveled against religious morality (vis-à-vis secular morality) is not (or has not yet been shown to be, in any event) well founded. Understandably, it's taking a while to slog through the arguments and evaluate particular case studies.
Oh, you wanted evidence, rather than just my opinion?
Hehe. I wasn't singling you out. Opinion's a good start (after all, my initial stance in this thread was really just supposition for which I had no evidence at hand).

[Gregor]

CEO
I appreciate your efforts in researching this issue and making this an enjoyable sub-topic to this thread.

My thoughts upon reviewing your references are:

(i) the Pope appears to be well ahead of the curve in the Bull of 1589. Since his bull might have had negative implications for the Church's primacy in western expansion, it seems laudable. Some could ask, why did he not threaten to anathemize slave traders - but that may be asking too much of a 16th century pontiff.

(ii) there little official church stuff for 200 years, and it is difficult to discern whether the the 19th century abolitionists were humanitarians first who happened to use the Church (the only "morality" association available) as a means for change or were church people first, who felt that xianity needed to be on the vanguard.

[PotatoStew]

By the way, PotatoStew, if you're still reading this thread, feel free to contribute to the debate or offer your own assessment of our progress. I know you started the thread and I'd hate for you to leave it orphaned.


Definitely still reading -- and enjoying -- the thread. I haven't contributed because I don't know much about the subject and haven't had time to research.

As for the progress so far, I'd have to say that ceo_esq's case seems much stronger so far, mostly because you're the only one who has actually presented hard data to support your case. Unless I missed something (entirely possible), most of the other arguments have been speculation.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

Just doing a little research ... found an embarassing note here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm)

Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.

One thing that already jumps out as a 'obfuscating' factor in examining the history of British slavery is that it is linked to race - that is, slaves between 1600 and 1800 in England were black africans. The owning of slaves (in the strictest sense of the word) in Britain was largely non-existent between 1000 CE and 1600CE, and seems to have 'taken off' for a few hundred years as an offshoot of the settlement of the 'New World'. This seems to paint a picture of a society at large that 'stumbled into' a period of legalised slavery largely because the slaves were "clearly" different (ie, though of as 'sub-human').

Oh, and a potentially interesting tidbit for Soubrette! :

When the monopoly of the London-based Royal Africa Company came to an end in 1698, Bristol found itself well placed to enter the 'Africa Trade' and by 1730 had replaced London as the centre of operations for the slave trade.

[Loki]

A little more background here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REantislavery.htm). Although the leaders of the English movement were almost entirely religious people, the actual churches don't seem to be credited with much direct involvement. The organisations that lobbied for and finally achieved legislative change appear to be specifically created for that purpose by "concerned individuals", rather than being church-driven.

Also, reading a few biographies of the leaders, they seem to be social reformers of the first order - involved in prison reform, women's rights (including the vote) and separation of state and church (the 1828 repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts).

In short, so far the leaders and institutions that abolished slavery in England appear to be religious, but not religions.

[ceo_esq]

Well done, Loki. :) I can only assume that the slaveholding Bishop of Exeter being referred to was the state-appointed Anglican bishop, because Catholic bishops would have been bound by prior papal decrees and could not have owned slaves without placing themselves in a position of grave disobedience.

We already noted that England was no longer a predominantly Catholic country at the time in question, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Church of England as such was a vocal participant one way or another on the slavery question. It would probably have been difficult for the C of E to adopt an anti-official-policy line, given its position as a state religion beholden to the monarch. A better inquiry than whether domestic religious institutions led the struggle for abolition in England, though, would be whether they resisted it “kicking and screaming”, as that is the general allegation that has been raised against religious morality in this thread.

At any rate, the central determination we’re trying to make with regard to the slavery example is whether the Catholic Church was ahead, even with, or behind the social curve in concluding that racial enslavement was immoral. We’ve focused on the British case not because anyone’s asserted that it was religion that abolished slavery there (which is kind of nonsensical, when you think of it), but because it was the first European power to reach this sociopolitical achievement and was arguably ahead of the “moral curve” compared to its neighbors. For this reason, I proposed earlier that if one could demonstrate that the Church’s position on the immorality of racial slavery was more progressive than that of British society at large, one would have identified a valid counterexample to Stimpy’s thesis. Obviously, I hope to be able to identify other counterexamples as the discussion progresses if I expect to seriously undermine that thesis.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

We’ve focused on the British case ... because it was the first European power to reach this sociopolitical achievement and was arguably ahead of the “moral curve” compared to its neighbors. For this reason, I proposed earlier that if one could demonstrate that the Church’s position on the immorality of racial slavery was more progressive than that of British society at large, one would have identified a valid counterexample to Stimpy’s thesis.
Okay, I missed the thrust of your approach. In essence, you're shooting for :

1. Pope says "Catholicism believes slavery is a moral no-no".
2. Some time later, Britain makes slavery illegal
3. Therefore, Catholicism crossed the "moral finish line" on slavery first.

Well, you may be right! I'll look a little to see if I can find any info relating to "pro-slavery" attitudes within the Vatican prior to 1830.

In a desperate attempt to salvage some sort of point here, I'll just add that I was (mentally, at least) assuming that we were discussing whether the church was a "force for change", rather than just "in favour of a change". This started as "does the secular conform to the religious, or vice versa". In this case, it's looking more like they both arrived at the same point at roughly the same time - it's not at all clear that one influenced the other to any great degree!

[ceo_esq]

Well, there is some ambiguity in the approach. My initial objection was to the notion that religious codes of morality are generally playing catch-up against secular codes.

However, when I asked Stimpy for his criteria for a counterexample, he raised the bar by asking for an example in which religion not only reaches the "finish line" first, but "leads" society to a moral change. I didn't object at the time, but I now realize that this extra criterion makes my rhetorical task substantially harder - I'm not even sure what "leading" would entail.

Anyhow, I'm continuing to follow the thread with great interest and learning quite a bit along the way.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Newsflash, the motivation for religious freedom was the coexistence of minority religions with a dominant one. The minority religious want the right to exist, go figure. Such freedom has (at least with respect to Christianity), always been opposed by the dominant religion.

Great thread! I'm coming to this late, but hope I'm not too late to stick my nose inside the tent.

Before I get to my main point, I'd like to do a couple of short posts addressing minor things. First, the assertion above. I hate to quibble with a cat, especially since I agree with the general point being made. But I can think of one exception to your always: the state of Pennsylvania.

Granted, most of the religious groups fleeing Europe were of the attitude, "Back there we were the minority and were oppressed; now we'll set up our own colony, we'll be the majority, and it's our turn to run things the way we like them." The old oppressed minority became the new oppressing majority.

There was one exception, however. The Quakers who founded Pennsylvania were of the attitude, "Back there we were the minority and were oppressed; we didn't like it; now we'll set up our own colony, and make sure no one is treated that way." Although Quakers were originally the majority religion in Pennsylvania, they voluntarily set things up so that all faiths were to be welcome and free to practice in their own way.

This made Pennsylvania a fairly attractive place to settle. By some time in the 1700s the Quakers were no longer a majority; with the decision-making assemblies now controlled by people with significantly different beliefs on key issues (such as military actions against the Indians), the Quakers felt they could no longer participate in these assemblies, and voluntarily withdrew rather than take part in decisions that would violate their consciences.

(Sorry; I got carried away and went on a paragraph longer than the point I wanted to make.)

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
When I asked Stimpy for his criteria for a counterexample, he raised the bar by asking for an example in which religion not only reaches the "finish line" first, but "leads" society to a moral change.
I can give one such example (I think). One of the things I'm interested in (in relation to decision-making processes) is the evolution of the Quaker decision against slavery among its members. Some hold the decision up as an example of poor decision-making, as it took a long time to reach consensus (80 years by one way of figuring); I'm intrigued by it as an example of good decision-making, since the group was able to reach a strong stand against slavery 100 years before the culture at large.

Let me back up. The question of slavery was first raised among Quakers in the late 1600s, following a visit by George Fox to Barbados. The early concern was primarily that slaves be treated as having souls, and thus be taught to read (especially the Bible) so that they could learn Christianity. However, this quickly grew to a larger concern among a few Quakers that slavery as such was immoral.

There was some agitation against slavery among Quakers in the early 1700s, but it was strident, hostile, and largely ineffective at influencing the Quaker movement. (The basic tone taken was, "I know that slavery is wrong, and anyone who disagrees with me is going to Hell" -- not a good approach.)

It was several decades later. about 1740, that an effective movement against slavery began in the Quaker ranks. It started with John Woolman, a shop clerk, who realized on being asked to do paperwork dealing with the sale of a slave that he in good conscience could not do this. He started, not by asking others to change, but by making changes in himself. Over the course of several decades, from the 1740s to the 1770s, the Society of Friends through agreed to a number of small steps to move itself progressively farther from any support of slavery: not to buy any new slaves, then not to have anything to do with the slave trade in their businesses, then to free any slaves owned, followed by positive steps such as setting up schools for freed slaves, providing back wages and creating new jobs for freed slaves, until by 1776 agreement had been reached to free all slaves held by members of the Society and assist them in starting new lives.

So there is an example of a religious group where a religious group made changes among its own members close to 100 years before such changes would be made in the larger society around them.

Following the eradication of slavery within their own ranks, some Quakers then were influential in building a movement against slavery in the wider society. So that would be an example of the second part: being part of the movement that leads society to the change.

I do not want to make Quakers out to be better than they were. While Quakers are quick to take credit for their actions against slavery, it was actually a minority of Quakers who were active in the anti-slavery movement, with a good deal of the society apathetic to or hostile to these efforts.

Which is actually getting me pretty close to the larger point I wanted to make in this thread, concerning the role religious groups have played in social change movements... Except I have to go off-line for a few hours now.

[Nova Land]

Having gotten two minor points out of the way, here's the main thing I wanted to contribute to this thread.

I'm interested in the history of social change movements. It seems to me that most such movements begin with a "prophetic minority" -- a small number of people who see an injustice needing to be remedied well before the rest of society around them do. Examples include the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the union movement, and the civil rights movement.

(In my personal list I would include numerous other examples, such as the movement to protect civil liberties -- notably the founding of the ACLU in the early 20th century -- and various anti-war movements; but not everyone may agree with me that those are examples where a minority correctly perceived a problem before the rest of society. The four examples I list are ones where, in hindsight, most people are now willing to agree that those who raised and fought for the issue were right, even though at the time they were ridiculed and even reviled by society at large.)

There appear to me to be certain groups that are represented in the "prophetic minority" out of proportion to their numbers in the general population. Some people have observed (especially in looking back at the abolition and civil rights movements) the involvement of religious people, but I think this misses a key factor. Many of the people who were key players in these movements did indeed consider themselves religious -- but they usually came from non-conformist and free-thought branches, and were generally looked on as heretics and infidels by the mainstream religious folks of the time.

The famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, for example, was a religious person -- but I think I recall one of his nicknames being "The Great Infidel".

Which brings me to another point: as well as non-conformist religious groups such as Quakers being represented out of proportion to their numbers in society, other groups that tend to be in the "prophetic minority" much more than their number in the general population would indicate are atheists, agnostics, and related free-thinkers. Jews were also well-represented (leading some to see a "Jewish conspiracy" behind many social change movements) and liberal Catholics also make up a key element.

It should be noted that it is not necessarily the "parent group" that should be credited. Using the group I am most familiar with: while individuals who were Quakers or Quaker-connected were influential in many early social change movements, these individuals made up only a small percentage of the Quaker movement.

In other words, the Quaker community was a better breeding ground for people who would perceive social problems sooner than society at large and were more likely to get involved in efforts to solve those problems.

Ditto for the atheist and agnostic and free-thinker communities being better breeding grounds for people who would perceive social injustice and be moved to act because of it.

Since Jews are a social as well as religious community, and a large element of Judaism is concern with living an ethical life, I do not know if the Jews who were involved in early social change movements were religious Jews or (as I think quite possible) agnostic Jews influenced by Jewish ethical teachings.

Likewise, I do not know enough about liberal Catholics involved in early social change movements. I do know they were an important element in the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1950s and 1960s, and (tying in with the heretic notion mentioned earlier) were often looked on by other Catholics (especially more right-wing elements) as "not real Catholics".

Now that several decades have elapsed since the days of Martin Luther King and the freedom rides and bus boycotts, now that most people acknowledge that those working for the end of segregation were correct, there is a tendency for religious folks to point out the involvement of religious folks in the struggle. Randall Terry and others in the Pro-Life movement took to calling quoting King in some of their literature and calling themselves "the true civil rights movement" of our time. It is good to remember that, at the time, it was a minority within primarily liberal churches that actively supported the civil rights struggle, that moderates tended to want to remain neutral (condemning extremists on both sides, i.e. the Klansmen who shot civil rights workers and the "outside agitators" who were trying to end segregation), and that conservative churches tended to denounce the civil rights movement as communist-inspired and the churches that supported the civil rights movement as communist dupes.

When the National Council of Churches (and World Council of Churches) came out in support of the civil rights movement, it led many of the more conservative Christians to denounce these bodies and move increasingly away from them. The literature of the time frequently indicated these were not genuine Christians, these were communists trying to subvert the true church. (Over the course of time, the charge has changed to de-emphasize communism and focus more on these groups being part of a one-world unified Beast-controlled church. I haven't read Tim La Hayes Tribulation Force series yet, but think that would likely contain good examples of this.)

Rarely has mainstream religion been in the forefront on social change movements. Almost always, it seems to me, it has been non-conformists (non-religious as well as religious) who have been the first to recognize a problem. Their perseverance leads more liberal elements of mainstream religion to voice support (and to be denounced for trying to "subvert" the church.) If the movement continues, then the mainstream becomes involved, and tends to deny it ever opposed the change in the first place.

What I find especially interesting is the large number of atheists/agnostics who were involved in social change causes in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It is hard to know how their participation in these causes compares to their numbers in the general population, since people in this country have often reluctant to state explicitly that they do not believe in a god. But clearly, the idea that lack of a belief in god leads to immorality and lack of compassion stands the historical facts on their heads.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

A short summary of what I've turned up so far (still looking for a smoking gun, one way or the other)...

From : Slavery and the Catholic Church (http://users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html)

1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:
...
Unfortunately a few American bishops misinterpreted this Bull as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself. Bishop John England of Charleston actually wrote several letters to the Secretary of State under President Van Buren explaining that the Pope, in In Supremo, did not condemn slavery but only the slave trade (Ibid., pp. 67-68).

With all these formal condemnations, it is a shame that the Popes were largely ignored by the Catholic laity and clergy. Two Catholic nations were largely involved with slave trafficking. Many Catholics at that time owned or sold slaves.

So there's some argument that even in 1839, the Pope was still *not* against the owning of slaves as such. Of course, the interpretation of "In Supremo" is arguable both ways, and the 21st century church is clearly trying to press the "no, he meant slavery, not just the African-American Slave Trade" version. Just as clearly, in 1839 this was a disputed interpretation - and the Pope desn't appear to have wanted to clear up the confusion.

From : on living with our fallibility (http://sean.tc/sss/roy/interpretation.htm#slavery)

It is embarrassing to admit that no serious objection to slavery was raised by Christians prior to the eighteenth century.
...
In 1519 Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican monk, dared to challenge it, at least in respect to the enslavement of American Indians. But he was scorned as an eccentric fool. The Papacy itself owned many hundreds of slaves and had done so for centuries.
...
In the late seventeenth century the Roman Catholic theologian, Leander, could confidently declare:

"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery ... is proved from Holy Scripture.... All theologians are unanimous on this."
...
But it was not they [abolitionists], but the supporters of slavery, who quoted biblical texts most extensively.
...
The eventual victory of the abolitionist cause in America was military rather than theological. And in England, though the rhetoric of William Wilberforce was indisputably fired by a passionate evangelical Christian faith, he rarely expounded specific Bible texts to prove his point. The success of his reforming zeal owed as much to the influence of secular-rationalist ideas about human liberty as it did to Jesus' golden rule.

A bit broad and general - trying to find out more info on Papal slave holding.

From : "The Popes and Slavery" (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0013.html)

Certainly the papal statements presented here are strong. They are dated 1435, 1493, 1497, 1537, 1591, 1639, 1686, 1741,1839, 1866, 1888, and 1890. The author reprints most of them, in Latin and English. But why have they not been seen as a definitive teaching?

Two reasons are considered: one is that a statement of 1537 was revoked in 1538, due to conflict with the Spanish power. Panzer argues, however, that the later popes simply disregarded this revocation and accepted the powerful 1537 statement.

The second reason is that the 1866 statement allowed Catholics in a particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions.
So it appears that even when the Popes wanted to make a point about slavery, they continued to find "exceptions to the rule" in order to accommodate political or econmonic pressures. Again, there seems to be (at least) two interpretations of what the Popes were saying - the one generally accepted then (which seems to be that the Popes were dealing in and outlawing specific details of slavery, but not the institution itself) and the one accepted by the Church now (that the Popes were anti-slavery fullstop). All seems a little 'revisionist' to me.

[ceo_esq]

Interesting.

Two things come to mind:

1. If the Church was pressured into making political concessions to pro-slavery interests like Spain, doesn't that simply suggest (among other things) the extent to which this "new" moral understanding was greeted with hostility from the secular powers?

2. To refer back to our discussion of the British anti-slavery movement, I also recall that the legislative efforts were themselves incremental - regulating slavery at first, rather than banning it outright, and abolishing the slave trade well before prohibiting the actual ownership of slaves.

I'd be interested to know more about the papal slave assertion. I strongly suspect that there weren't any "modern" slaves (in the sense of the post-New World racial slavery phenomenon). But I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of earlier slaveholding, since as we know the Church (like everyone else) once tolerated slavery at least in theory.

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks for the links. Here's part of my current reading list on this issue (haven't gotten through them yet):

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.htm

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

Finding any direct evidence that links the Papacy to slavery in the Middle Ages is proving difficult! A littel more info from here (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/376/5126)

In 1452 the Portuguese approached Pope Nicholas V seeking permission to begin abducting slaves off the coast of West Africa. According to the Catholic Church's rules of "just and unjust slavery," one could not simply abduct innocent people for slavery. However, the Church permitted Christians to capture prisoners of war and make them slaves. So the pope justified the abduction of Africans by reclassifying them as "Saracens" — that is, the Muslim Turks whom the Christians had been fighting in the Crusades for centuries. Of course, no one could seriously mistake a West African for a Turk — they live on completely different continents, nearly 2,500 miles apart. But these were the legalistic gyrations the pope went through to justify the abduction of innocent Africans, even by the Church's own twisted laws of "just and unjust slavery."
This clearly states the Pope was directly involved in the creation of the slave trade - by clearing away any 'moral obstacle' that might prevent 'good catholics' from engaging in African slave trading.

Still looking for any info on the direct ownership of slaves by the Papacy. The lack of info suggests either it's been well hidden, or perhaps never existed.

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

More on the Pope and slaves - about as close I can get. Seems pretty clear that any Papal involvement was with "just" slaves - war prisonsers, etc, rather than African slavery.

rom here (http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa012698.htm)

Christians also owned, bought and sold slaves, as evidenced by the following:
...
Pope Gregory XI excommunicated the Florentines in the fourteenth century, and ordered them enslaved wherever taken.2

In 1488, King Ferdinand sent 100 Moorish slaves to Pope Innocent VIII, who presented them as gifts to his cardinals and other court notables.

Women slaves taken after the fall of Capua in 1501 were put up for sale in Rome

[crocodile deathroll]

Religious opinions on slavery have sure evolved over the past 200 years:eek:

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Religious opinions on slavery have sure evolved over the past 200 years:eek:
Yes, but apparently not as much as secular opinions have! ;)

Good finds, Loki. (By the way, ought one refer to you with a masculine or a feminine pronoun?)

[Christian]

It seems to me that Stimpson is arguing that atheism has a better chance (or is) more moral than religious morality. In other words, one has a better chance to be a moral person if one can rid him or herself of religion.

His evidence (I guess) is that most moral advancement has been secular and not religious. Stimpson goes as far as saying that morality in society is hindered or crippled by religion.

History, I think, contradicts this view (If I have it right Stimp? and hello again) specially because when morality viewed from a philosophycal standpoint, it clearly demonstrates that the argumentation is way off.

Stimpson wrote:
In ancient times, there was no distinction between religion and law.

And this is an example of why is off.

In ancient times there was a clear distinction between religion and law. Please note that all jurisprudence (as we know it to be from documentation) began in Greece. And the first exponents (please find the translation, I know of these authors in Spanish) Callicles, Trasímaco, and Carneades believe in a biological theory of law, totally contrary to any religious notion of law.

Also please note the Stoics, Aristotle, the Cinics and the Sofists. None of these held religion and law to be the same.


To understand morality, it is my opinion that one must look at the evolution of philosophical human thought and the influences of the proponents (schools). When doing this, one can find the tremedous impact Christianity has had in the development of the correct moral compass.

I

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Christian
To understand morality, it is my opinion that one must look at the evolution of philosophical human thought and the influences of the proponents (schools). When doing this, one can find the tremedous impact Christianity has had in the development of the correct moral compass.
Hi and welcome back, Christian. Hope the kids are doing well. I can understand you haven't had much time to post lately. :D

Now to savage you unmercifully. )

Correct moral compass? I was unaware that such a thing had been developed. As far as I can tell, there is a great deal of difference, even within Christianity about what is "correct". There is some general agreement about big issues (don't murder or rape) but the fuzzy areas are just as fuzzy as ever. A lot of Christians (in the US at least) feel the death penalty is biblically justified, while a lot of atheists (in Europe at least) feel this is completely wrong.

I certainly don't think Christianity has any more claim to "correctness" than any other group.

[Loki]

Christian,

Hiya, long time no argue! I hope the wife and kids (new and old) are doing fine.

Haven't time for a long post, but I have a quick question.

I've been hunting around for info on the relationship between the Papacy and slavery (especially African slavery). There's a lot of Catholic sites that are keen to portray the church as "anti-slavery" from a very early time onwards. No surprise there.

The thing that I thought you might shed some light on is some thinly veiled attacks on the Protestant movement. In other words, it appears that at least some Catholic histories want to paint the Catholic church as a leading opponent of the African slave trade (if not universally, then at least at the top - ie the Pope), and simultaneously portray the Protestant churches as 'pro-slavery'. Does this fit with your understanding of the stance that the the early Protestant churches took in regards to the issue? Or is this just a cheap shot by a few militant Catholics?

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

By the way, ought one refer to you with a masculine or a feminine pronoun?
That's Mr loki to you pal.

[Christian]

Tricky wrote:
Hi and welcome back, Christian. Hope the kids are doing well. I can understand you haven't had much time to post lately.

Hello my friend, thanks. You got that right, I'm going to try to post more often again.

Now to savage you unmercifully. )

Carry on. :D

Correct moral compass? I was unaware that such a thing had been developed.

For centuries. One of the main concerns in philosophy has been morality and justice. Another way to put it, (from a legal standpoint) is that humans have been searching for what is infinately??? just. In jurisprudence there is a classical school of thought that deals specifically with this very thing. They call it "natural law". This is the compass that according to them must be used to create positive law.

You see, I really don't agree with Stimpson's concept of morality. And most philosophical thinkers definately do not agree with his view of morality religious or not.

As far as I can tell, there is a great deal of difference, even within Christianity about what is "correct". There is some general agreement about big issues (don't murder or rape) but the fuzzy areas are just as fuzzy as ever. A lot of Christians (in the US at least) feel the death penalty is biblically justified, while a lot of atheists (in Europe at least) feel this is completely wrong.

I agree, and please note that this does not contradict that universal moral laws exists. It just says that humans have and will disagree on what they are.

I certainly don't think Christianity has any more claim to "correctness" than any other group.

This is an interesting point Tricky, it is not related to the one I'm trying to make. My point is that Christianity has made enormous contributions to the understanding and eventual implementation of morally correct principles.

Loki wrote:
Hiya, long time no argue! I hope the wife and kids (new and old) are doing fine.

Thanks Loki.

Loki wrote:
The thing that I thought you might shed some light on is some thinly veiled attacks on the Protestant movement. In other words, it appears that at least some Catholic histories want to paint the Catholic church as a leading opponent of the African slave trade (if not universally, then at least at the top - ie the Pope), and simultaneously portray the Protestant churches as 'pro-slavery'. Does this fit with your understanding of the stance that the the early Protestant churches took in regards to the issue? Or is this just a cheap shot by a few militant Catholics?

It is my understanding that the most progressive (over all)Christians have been the Catholic. The evidence would support this view. One of the darkest points in American History is that slavery went on for such a long time even with overwelming education against it. Protestants in America should have taken a different path. They did not.


But, this in no way diminishes the theory that Christians have had and still today are a mayor contributor to the effective application of justice.

[Gregor]

Slavery in the US - Well, we read that the primary opponents of slavery in the US were Quakers and New England protestants. Were there sufficient Catholics in the US at the time to be on the forefront? Not that I have read.

Law and religion - What gross generalizations and what rubbish

You said:
------------
"In ancient times there was a clear distinction between religion and law."

and

"Please note that all jurisprudence (as we know it to be from documentation) began in Greece"
------------

Let's bash these with a two-fer:

From Gerald A. Larue (infidels.org): "The discovery of Oriental codes much older than those of the Bible, yet prescribing laws similar to those found within the Bible, has helped scholars to understand better the nature of Hebrew law. The Imperial law code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, coming from the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries [BCE]"

[Hint: this predates ancient Greece by a couple of years]

Continuing: "Hammurabi's laws were not an original creation but reveal development, for it can be demonstrated that the Hammurabi code is related to the law code of King Lipit-Ishtar of the city of Eshnunna who lived in the nineteenth century B.C. Both the Hammurabi code and the Lipit-Ishtar code indicate that the laws had divine sanction. The stele upon which the Hammurabi laws were inscribed depicts, in a relief, the monarch receiving authority to enact law from Shamash, the sun god and patron of justice. In like manner King Lipit-Ishtar, in the prologue to his law code, indicates that he was summoned by the god Enlil to establish justice in the land which he proceeded to do in accordance with the divine command.28 Just how the laws were supposed to have been imparted to the monarchs is not revealed, but the point was that the directions or laws for the guidance of human affairs were given by the gods and therefore were superior to the intentions and desires of any single human being."

[Christian]

Gregor wrote:
Slavery in the US - Well, we read that the primary opponents of slavery in the US were Quakers and New England protestants. Were there sufficient Catholics in the US at the time to be on the forefront? Not that I have read.

I would agree with this. Since the general population was protestant, most opponents would have been protestants.

Law and religion - What gross generalizations and what rubbish...Let's bash these with a two-fer:

Yes, I shouldn't have said all. I should have said most. The thing is that the richest source of philosophical thinking we have is from Greek and Roman sources. That is the Western bias (as well as in music, art, etc.) So, Gregor my point is (was) that the vast historical Western documentain (as oppossed to other histories) showes that religion and law were much different.

And if you think about it, you're actually supporting my point. The eastern cultures also made a distinction between religion and law.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
Slavery in the US - Well, we read that the primary opponents of slavery in the US were Quakers and New England protestants. Were there sufficient Catholics in the US at the time to be on the forefront? Not that I have read.
Although the U.S. Catholic population probably didn't really begin to surge until the Irish influx in the 1840s, I suspect that there were at nearly all times more Catholics than Quakers in America (which goes to show that sheer numbers aren't everything).

Also, I expect that the Catholic voice was somewhat hampered by widespread anti-Catholic suspicion in the country at large. The U.S.-targeted release of the papal anti-slavery document In Supremo Apostolatus in 1839 (see supra), for example, was viewed by many in the non-Catholic mainstream as yet another insidious attempt by papists and their cultic foreign potentate to meddle in American affairs.

[ceo_esq]

[/i]Originally posted by Loki[/i]
More on the Pope and slaves - about as close I can get. Seems pretty clear that any Papal involvement was with "just" slaves - war prisonsers, etc, rather than African slavery.
...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[snip]

In 1488, King Ferdinand sent 100 Moorish slaves to Pope Innocent VIII, who presented them as gifts to his cardinals and other court notables.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(And we thought this thread was dead.)

Loki, at the time, I couldn't locate any useful scholarly references to the episode you cited above. However, I just happened to find a brief treatment of it by Princeton sociologist Rodney Stark, whose take on it is as follows:It is true that some popes did not observe the moral obligation to oppose slavery – indeed, in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals. Of course, Innocent was anything but that when it came to a whole list of immoral actions... However, laxity must not be confused with doctrine. Thus while Innocent fathered many children, he did not retract the official doctrine that the clergy should be celibate. In similar fashion, his acceptance of a gift of slaves should not be confused with official Church teachings. These were enunciated often and explicitly as they became pertinent.That's from For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003). (I picked up this book once before but never reached the part about slavery.) I still haven't finished that chapter; maybe I'll post here again when I'm done if I think anyone might still be interested in this thread topic. However, you can tell from the title of the book what conclusion Stark draws about the role of religion in the abolition of slavery in the West.

[hammegk]

Wow, talk about a "resurrection from the dead".

Synchronistically -- well, ok, by cooincidence -- this is currently an interesting topic for me, although my musings may hi-jack the thread.

IMO, Stimpy's position misses the utility of "religion". The question is not when they enter the game, rather if. Does anyone believe we'll see anytime soon 1 billion people praying 5 times a day to Bill's Handbook of Secular Humanism? I don't.

Over the last 50 years we've seen the info explosion allow more & more splinter groups -- think male homosex, NOW, NAACP, etc --to get their message publicized to the point they gain adherents to their particular cause yet fail to gain the public acclaim and acceptance they seem to desire. Conversely, Bush's simple message of reliance on a "higher power" resonates with (I'm too lazy to research it) maybe 75% of the "god-fearing" US population.

Belief in the "higher power" appears to me to be hardwired for large numbers of us, and harnessing of this belief for good or ill provided and will continue to provide all real impetus for societal change.