Slavery. Religious or secular phenomena.

[Maeght]

I understand it was Wilberforce a Christian who got Slavery criminalised not a secular state of the type which could allow and encourage an internship culture or expect work from people with no return. Therefore legislation made in more religious times is decaying because of lack of commitment in enforcement by the secular state.

But you are linking the state being secular with an increase in modern slavery with no evidence to support that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you are linking the state being secular with an increase in modern slavery with no evidence to support that.

No.
To be fair the state is merely lacking in it's commitment to protecting it's citizenry from slavery.

But in doing so it fulfils Hillsides and Be Rational's definition of condoning. If they don't want to extend their definition to the states lack of enforcement then they are special pleading IMHO.

If Modern slavery rises with an increased secularism then any thesis which lays slavery at Gods or religions feet is clearly wrong. Hillside perpetuates the error by saying that Theocracies condone slavery He gussies up the definition of theocracy and condone in his normal way.

[Hope]

Does anyone know of any culture, modern or historical, that doesn't/didn't rely on slavery for their economic 'success'?  Remember that slavery can take a whole host of formsd, and doesn't need to rely the importing of individuals from abroad.

[Gordon]

No.
To be fair the state is merely lacking in it's commitment to protecting it's citizenry from slavery.

So, your assessment of the risk of being enslaved (as a proportion of the general population is)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

I understand it was Wilberforce a Christian who got Slavery criminalised not a secular state of the type which could allow and encourage an internship culture or expect work from people with no return. Therefore legislation made in more religious times is decaying because of lack of commitment in enforcement by the secular state.

By the way Hillside  conflates the pastoral leadership of a minor sect obviously considering the position of slavery and whether it fits in with it's core teachings with a theocracy in his usual way.

In which Vlad:

1. Just ignores the rebuttal to his misunderstanding of "special pleading";

2. Mistakenly states that Wilberforce "got slavery abolished" whereas it was in fact a combination of religious and secular thinkers that overcame the resistance of the remaining anti-abolitionist religious and secular (ie, commercial) grouping that supported it;

3. (Grotesquely) conflates internships with slavery;

4. Wrongly states that legislation is "decaying" whereas what in fact is happening is that enforcement hasn't been agile enough to cope with the resurgence of behind closed doors (but still fully criminal) slavery;

5. Wrongly accuses the person who corrected his false conflation of condoning with criminalising, and then compounds his error by claiming that the clear injunctions of various books in the OT were just the house rules of a "minor sect" that contradicted some (non-existent at that time) supposed "core teachings" of his faith. 

Desperate stuff indeed.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

To be fair the state is merely lacking in it's commitment to protecting it's citizenry from slavery.

In which Vlad wrongly assumes the fact of a resurgence in slavery to mean a lack of commitment to apprehending and prosecuting those who do it rather than the fact that crime occurs despite the best efforts to prevent it, while all the while hoping that no-one notices that (either way) this has absolutely bugger all to do with the state being a secular one in any case.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, your assessment of the risk of being enslaved (as a proportion of the general population is)?

Higher than what it was a few years ago.

[Maeght]

No.

Yes, by referring constantly to the 'secular state' rather than just the state you are linking things which happen uunder the state to its being secular.

If Modern slavery rises with an increased secularism ...

No evidence that it does.

...then any thesis which lays slavery at Gods or religions feet is clearly wrong.

Has anyone actually blamed God or religion for slavery? Saying religion and the Bible appears to have condoned it isn't quite the same as it being to blame for its existence.

[Gordon]

Higher than what it was a few years ago.

More precisely?

[Brownie]

These links are about slavery as it exists now:

http://www.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/

The following article of two years ago concerns slavery in the UK:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/13000-slaves-uk-four-times-higher-previously-thought

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More precisely?

Figures are difficult to come by. However recently the Salvation army reported a fivefold increase in victims assisted.

[Gordon]

Figures are difficult to come by. However recently the Salvation army reported a fivefold increase in victims assisted.

So, having raised the issue you're really not all that certain of the precise details.

Sounds to me like you were flying a kite.

[Anchorman]

Does anyone know of any culture, modern or historical, that doesn't/didn't rely on slavery for their economic 'success'?  Remember that slavery can take a whole host of formsd, and doesn't need to rely the importing of individuals from abroad.

Depends on your definition of slavery, Hope.
The Greco-Roman idea was not a universal idea in the ancient world.
The concept of buying and selling is certainly not a well documented practice until relatively late in Greek society.
In Egypt, slaves were normally simply prisoners captured on military expeditions. If the power of the state was strong - as in the New Kingdom, there were many slaves used on public (i.e. religious and royal) building projects - but when the state was weak - as in the Davidic era and afterwards in the Old Testament - slaves were relatively few in number.

[Hope]

So, having raised the issue you're really not all that certain of the precise details.

Sounds to me like you were flying a kite.

Gordon, this whole topic was covered in a thread a year or so back, with several references to media and other websites.  The problem that Vlad highlights - that details are difficult to come by - is very much true with figures based on what has already come to light, but recent court cases have shown Brits using other Brits as slave labour on farms and in other areas of life.  The Evangelical Alliance website has a non-exhaustive list of anti-slavery groups, both religious and secular.

http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/politics/modern-slavery/anti-slavery-groups.cfm

[Harrowby Hall]

I see no-one has yet mentioned the Magdalene laundries.

A clear example of religious slavery.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see no-one has yet mentioned the Magdalene laundries.

A clear example of religious slavery.

I think the thread was occupied in demonstrating to deniers of secular slavery that it does exist:
Be Rational.....There is no slavery in the UK.
Gordon on Vlad stating that slavery has risen in an increasingly secular UK....sounds like you are flying a Kite
Maeght on the same....No evidence.

I think the need to demonstrate increasing slavery in a society which clearly considers itself above that and has been shown not to be has been the focus of the thread.

I don't think anybody is denying the evidence that has come out of the Magdelene laundries and there has been a thread on it.

Here there has been from at least one poster denial of slavery in the UK.......
I would hazard that this is due to the fact that evidence of it belies the thesis that increased secularisation equals increased social improvement.

[Gordon]

Gordon on Vlad stating that slavery has risen in an increasingly secular UK....sounds like you are flying a Kite
Maeght on the same....No evidence.

You misunderstand me, Vlad: my point was simply that you raised the issue of slavery without illustrating the scale of the problem, hence my query regarding this aspect (that you brushed off).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You misunderstand me, Vlad: my point was simply that you raised the issue of slavery without illustrating the scale of the problem, hence my query regarding this aspect (that you brushed off).

I beg your pardon. I have misunderstood you in that case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad wrongly assumes the fact of a resurgence in slavery to mean a lack of commitment to apprehending and prosecuting those who do it rather than the fact that crime occurs despite the best efforts to prevent it, while all the while hoping that no-one notices that (either way) this has absolutely bugger all to do with the state being a secular one in any case.

I don't completely. One knows that crime is tackled with resources. Now, a priority for the UK is that it should be seen as civilised. There is clearly a reduced commitment to that among the populace...from underclass culture, to treatment of foreigners. Criminals are secular too.

I think what I am saying is that slavery should be one of the big no no's in society yet here we are.

Finally I was responding to Be rational who states that We....presumably he is talking about UK society are more moral than God...he states then that there is no slavery in the UK so I seek to show him that there is slavery in the UK increased secularism not withstanding.

Now the million dolloar question is, is secularism responsible or is secularism more moral than God because ....secularism abolishes slavery. Clearly the latter thesis is disproved both on the grounds that we still have it and on the grounds that it's abolition was not a fully secular project which is why I have raised Wilberforce and Thomas Jefferson(The US founded on secular principles condoned slavery).

The position is that Christianity emerges in a slave economy, is comprised of slaves ...and believe me has been derided as a losers religion because of it, has debates about slavery, Roman Christian slavers clearly treated their slaves better and were exhorted to treat them as brothers as a result of their faith and others released theirs in the NT.

Even in an extreme version of a pessimistic view of Christianity, rabid Christian slavers were brought to heel by tireless secularists and even Wilberforce against his own barbaric Christian urges to own slaves and slavery was abolished as part of the great secularisation of society........which now it seems is seeing increased slavery.....it doesn't look good for secularism as an invariably civilising and more moral force in respect to slavery does it?

So, no secularism did not get rid of slavery but for a while supported it's abolition but, in an increasingly secular backdrop, is now seeing it creep back in.

[Maeght]

Maeght on the same....No evidence.

I have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK. My evidence point is regarding the link to secularism. I have made this quite clear so think you should acknowledge that please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK. My evidence point is regarding the link to secularism. I have made this quite clear so think you should acknowledge that please.

I think you will acknowledge that a graph of the population of those declaring themselves as having no religion and those of the number of slaves within said society would show a positive correlation. Are we entitled to draw that graph....I think we are.

[Maeght]

I think you will acknowledge that a graph of the population of those declaring themselves as having no religion and those of the number of slaves within said society would show a positive correlation. Are we entitled to draw that graph....I think we are.

No, not without evidence of a link. And you haven't acknowledged that I have nopt denied the existence of slavery in the UK as you suggested.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, not without evidence of a link. And you haven't acknowledged that I have nopt denied the existence of slavery in the UK as you suggested.

I acknowledge you have not denied the existence of slavery in the UK.

But those who say there is no evidence of bad things happening as a result of secularisation should be careful when suggesting that good things do come from it.

I disagree with your view that we cannot draw a graph between the increased lack of religious belief in a society against the number of slaves within that society, particularly within the context of a claim that that society is more moral in regards to slavery than a Christian society.

[Gordon]

I think you will acknowledge that a graph of the population of those declaring themselves as having no religion and those of the number of slaves within said society would show a positive correlation. Are we entitled to draw that graph....I think we are.

Association isn't causation though: a graph would also show a positive correlation (leaving aside for now the statistical tests required to do this properly) between seasonal deaths from hypothermia and the increased used of power for home heating - how can that be? (clue: something else is going on).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Association isn't causation though: a graph would also show a positive correlation (leaving aside for now the statistical tests required to do this properly) between seasonal deaths from hypothermia and the increased used of power for home heating - how can that be? (clue: something else is going on).

association isn't necessarily causation. But Be Rational makes the thesis that We (the secular society) are more moral in regards to slavery. In the NT I think we find evidence of people in the early Christian community releasing slaves.......In today's increasingly secular society slavery increased.

That is the context.......are you suggesting that the increase is due to non secular reasons?