Slavery. Religious or secular phenomena.

[jeremyp]

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.

Wrong.

Wilberforce did not get slavery criminalised, he got the slave trade criminalised (in 1807). There were still slaves after that until slavery itself was criminalised in 1833.

To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd. So called Christian values held sway in Europe for 1600 years prior to any Christians actually getting off their arses to stop slavery.

[Gordon]

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?

I'm not suggesting anything, Vlad, just noting your simplistic use of correlation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong.

Wilberforce did not get slavery criminalised, he got the slave trade criminalised (in 1807). There were still slaves after that until slavery itself was criminalised in 1833.

To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd. So called Christian values held sway in Europe for 1600 years prior to any Christians actually getting off their arses to stop slavery.

So no Christians released slaves in the Roman period.
Didn't Augustine write on how appaling he found slavery.
That a society that called itself Christian let bad things happen is certainly regrettable although it is debatable that the rule of Kings in many places amounted to utter theocracy anywhere.

The picture Jeremy P paints is that it took secularism to persuade naturally rabid slave wanting christianity to get rid of slavery (see my earlier post on the likelihood of that).

Well Jezzer we now have an increasing secular society and slavery is making a come back. Do you think that's because secularists didn't get off their arses to stop it's reintroduction?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not suggesting anything, Vlad, just noting your simplistic use of correlation.

If there is a proposal that a secular society stops slavery then I'm afraid theactual correlation needs to be flagged up. Be Rational is suggesting there is no slavery in the UK and ventures this is because we are more moral with regards to slavery than Christianity.

Jeremy P and Hillside are at pains to reduce the role of Christianity in the abolition.......which is all very well but merely acts as a distraction from the rise of slavery in an increasingly secular society.

[Gordon]

If there is a proposal that a secular society stops slavery then I'm afraid theactual correlation needs to be flagged up.

Who has made this specific proposal? Since you support the use of correlation what variables do you envisage using?

Be Rational is suggesting there is no slavery in the UK and ventures this is because we are more moral with regards to slavery than Christianity.

I'm sure BR will confirm if that is his position.

Jeremy P and Hillside are at pains to reduce the role of Christianity in the abolition.......which is all very well but merely acts as a distraction from the rise of slavery in an increasingly secular society.

I think you are misrepresenting them, since it seems to me nobody disputes that Christianity has had a role in social changes in general given its historical  influence but you've still to demonstrate the link you are asserting between secularism and slavery - such as how this has been measured (given you seem convinced there is an association).

[jeremyp]

So no Christians released slaves in the Roman period.

Didn't they? That strengthens my point, especially when you consider that the Romans frequently freed their slaves and even allowed them to buy themselves out of slavery. And here you are telling me that Christians stopped all that.

Didn't Augustine write on how appaling he found slavery.

One Christian: all the rest ignored him for 1600 years.

The picture Jeremy P paints is that it took secularism to persuade naturally rabid slave wanting christianity to get rid of slavery (see my earlier post on the likelihood of that).

I didn't paint that picture. I don't even mention the word secularism in my last post.

Well Jezzer we now have an increasing secular society and slavery is making a come back. Do you think that's because secularists didn't get off their arses to stop it's reintroduction?

Slavery is not making a come back, it's still very much illegal.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Jeremy P and Hillside are at pains to reduce the role of Christianity in the abolition.......which is all very well but merely acts as a distraction from the rise of slavery in an increasingly secular society.

This, from Wikipedia

The British campaign to abolish the slave trade is generally considered to have begun in the 1780s with the establishment of the Quakers' antislavery committees, and their presentation to Parliament of the first slave trade petition in 1783.

and on William Wilberforce:

Wilberforce's involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life. He and other Evangelicals were horrified by what they perceived was a depraved and unchristian trade, and the greed and avarice of the owners and traders. Wilberforce sensed a call from God, writing in a journal entry in 1787 that "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]"

[jeremyp]

This, from Wikipedia
and on William Wilberforce:

Wilberforce's involvement in the abolition movement was motivated by a desire to put his Christian principles into action and to serve God in public life.

Why did it take 1600 hundred years for Christianity to produce somebody who was prepared to act on his "Christian principles" to abolish the slave trade?

Do you not realise that the people Wilberforce was fighting against were also most likely Christians serving God in public life?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Why did it take 1600 hundred years for Christianity to produce somebody who was prepared to act on his "Christian principles" to abolish the slave trade?

Do you not realise that the people Wilberforce was fighting against were also most likely Christians serving God in public life?

This has no bearing on your claim in #50 about William Wilberforce (emphasis mine)

To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd.

The quotes on that Wikipedia article (and there are more) would suggest otherwise, and not just about William Wilberforce. The Quakers are Christians too.

[jeremyp]

This has no bearing on your claim in #50 about William Wilberforce (emphasis mine)The quotes on that Wikipedia article (and there are more) would suggest otherwise, and not just about William Wilberforce. The Quakers are Christians too.

And the fact that it took 1600 years for even some Christians to wake up to the immorality of slavery gives the lie to the idea that emancipation movement was some great Christian triumph.

Clearly, Wilberforce and Wikipedia are both wrong in ascribing his humanitarian principles to being a Christian. That should be obvious even to you.

[Maeght]

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

Thanks.

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.

Then point that out to them rather than making the same error - two wrongs don't make a right.

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,...

You may disagree but without evidence of a direct link then you are incorrect on this I'm afraid. As has been said - association is not causation.

... particularly within the context of a claim that that society is more moral in regards to slavery than a Christian society.

Just because someone claims one thing it is not correct to just claim the opposite. As above, two wrongs don't make a right so best debate the point being made rather than claim an unsupported counter view.

[Gordon]

This has no bearing on your claim in #50 about William Wilberforce (emphasis mine)The quotes on that Wikipedia article (and there are more) would suggest otherwise, and not just about William Wilberforce. The Quakers are Christians too.

So was 'Bloody Mary' and also some Christians involved in the American Civil War.

In the 1860s, Southern preachers defending slavery also took the Bible literally. They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9). Christians who wanted to preserve slavery had the words of the Bible to back them up.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-28-column28_ST_N.htm

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Didn't they? That strengthens my point, especially when you consider that the Romans frequently freed their slaves and even allowed them to buy themselves out of slavery. And here you are telling me that Christians stopped all that.
One Christian: all the rest ignored him for 1600 years.
I didn't paint that picture. I don't even mention the word secularism in my last post.
Slavery is not making a come back, it's still very much illegal.

I'm suggesting that Christians debated the rights and wrong of slave ownership, trading, and treatment at a time when other romans probably would not have.

I merely use Augustine as aninfluential exemplar.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks.

Then point that out to them rather than making the same error - two wrongs don't make a right.

You may disagree but without evidence of a direct link then you are incorrect on this I'm afraid. As has been said - association is not causation.

Just because someone claims one thing it is not correct to just claim the opposite. As above, two wrongs don't make a right so best debate the point being made rather than claim an unsupported counter view.

Again you seem to be in denial of the correlation between an increasingly secular society and a society which has slaves. Have I mentioned a direct link? That has got to be proved. Is it valid? Yes since both axes refer to the same population. Is there causation? If slavery is to do with the morals and moral imperatives of a society and the society is secularist?

To go back to my OP Christianity emerges in a slave economy.
Modern slavery emerges in a secular society.

I merely point out that it goes against any statement that secularisation decreases slavery

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the fact that it took 1600 years for even some Christians to wake up to the immorality of slavery gives the lie to the idea that emancipation movement was some great Christian triumph.

Clearly, Wilberforce and Wikipedia are both wrong in ascribing his humanitarian principles to being a Christian. That should be obvious even to you.

But if you are ascribing humanitarian principles to secularism how come slavery is now increasing in an increasingly secular country?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And the fact that it took 1600 years for even some Christians to wake up to the immorality of slavery gives the lie to the idea that emancipation movement was some great Christian triumph.

But that is not the point being made. This was the point being made:

To claim that his work had anything to do with being a Christian is absurd.

and it has been shown to be wrong.

[floo]

But that is not the point being made. This was the point being made:and it has been shown to be wrong.

Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!

[Gordon]

Again you seem to be in denial of the correlation between an increasingly secular society and a society which has slaves.

Which you've yet to demonstrate with some workings out (hint: strength of correlation is numeric).

Have I mentioned a direct link? That has got to be proved. Is it valid? Yes since both axes refer to the same population. Is there causation? If slavery is to do with the morals and moral imperatives of a society and the society is secularist?

Assertion (of the rambling variety).

I merely point out that it goes against any statement that secularisation decreases slavery

Who has stated this: have you been at the straw again?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!

Can you provide references in the Bible where Paul did what you said? Thanks.

[Hope]

Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!

You're entitled to your view, but history says otherwise, Floo.  Perhaps the God you so despise is another of these fantasies?  As for slavery having 'something to do with the faith' I supose you could equally say that Paul's references to the treatment of slaves by their masters would seem to dispel your thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Paul invented Christianity, imo, and urged slaves to honour their masters, so it must have something to do with the faith!

You'd have had something to say if he had commanded slaves to slit their throats Floo....''werr werr ....Christians.....werr werr........murderous.......werr werr........''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which you've yet to demonstrate with some workings out (hint: strength of correlation is numeric).

Assertion (of the rambling variety).

Who has stated this: have you been at the straw again?

...And you Gordon seem to be in denial over Be Rational's declaration that there is no slavery in the UK and that that assertion forms the basis that secular society is more moral than Christianity. Even Floo has taken him to task over this one.

[BeRational]

...And you Gordon seem to be in denial over Be Rational's declaration that there is no slavery in the UK and that that assertion forms the basis that secular society is more moral than Christianity. Even Floo has taken him to task over this one.

Find someone who is a slave and we can free them immediately.

[Hope]

My evidence point is regarding the link to secularism. I have made this quite clear so think you should acknowledge that please.

Maeght, I think you will find that there is as much evidence regarding the link between slavery and secularism as there is with religion, insofar as slavery has existed for just about as long as humanity has.

[Gordon]

...And you Gordon seem to be in denial over Be Rational's declaration that there is no slavery in the UK and that that assertion forms the basis that secular society is more moral than Christianity. Even Floo has taken him to task over this one.

No I'm not - I made a point earlier on of not commenting on anything BR actually said, I just noted I'd leave it to BR to clarify your take on his comment.