|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 22992
no  |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
Regardless of religion, people will make thier own choices in life.  |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 8:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
There are mass murders, who kill people all the time...and religion is not the reason they do it. They do it because they are just sick people. |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 47865
I don't think you have to be a religious fanatic to have misgivings about the direction some genetic research is going.  |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
What? I am talking about scientific decisions, political decisions (*cough* George Bush *cough*), things that the individual doesn't really have any control over.  |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 62753
No - I think people generally do what people want to do - I DONT beleive in God, but I dont go around killing people, stealing things, and commiting adultry!!!! know what I mean chick!!! Lizard-1  |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 8:49:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Ash-- I guess one thing that really annoys me is the issue of stem cell research. That's the biggie. |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 8:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62753
ah so we are discussing BUSH --- my parents taught me - if you cant say anything nice........ dont say anything at all... and if this is ABOUT BUSHY BOY -- then I bown down, and step aside! Later!!!! LIZARD-1 |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 57225
i dont necissarily believe that religion is holding society back, but i do think it causes a lot of problems. religion is supposed to be a good thing, it was created.. or whatever.. for good reasons, but instead it causes a lot of the major problems in this world. blah  |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 8:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
Ok..my answer is still NO. LOL |
Date: 6/22/2004 8:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 15358
Religion does not hold people back-people using Religion as a political tool, to manipulate other people, that holds society back.  |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 8:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Lizard-- I didn't say this was about George Bush, I simply mentioned his silly belief about stem cell research as one example. But if you can't handle one negative opinion about George Bush, bye-bye. |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 8:59:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
It is the BELIEF in religion that LEADS people to believe and do stupid things. |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
Dizzy, I think what Lizard meant was...that she doesnt like Bush and so she wouldnt have anything nice to say about him, therefor she was leaving the post. Thats how I took her comment anyways. |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 21435
Religion is an excuse we use, to act a certain way towards others. At least that's the way I feel about religion at this moment..I'm such a fickle thing...hehe...Hello, Dizzy Me   |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 50678
Religion is a guide, so no I don't think it is holding back anything!!  |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 9:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 50678
A Spiritual guide I should say!! |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 9:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Adrienne-- I see what you mean, my mistake, But I will clarify this isn't about GW bush. lol |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 9:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
LOL I know |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 15358
I read something on the internet about if you are a real Christian, you need to vote for George Bush. I know this is not about that, but that is just plain wrong, I think. I think it is wrong for Religious Leaders to tell people who to vote for, like God has choosen his candidate. |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Yes, definitely. Those who are afraid of CHANGE. Afraid of the change for fear of losing their special advantages, hesitate and rebel and deny and stifle any new scientific endeavors, using rhetoric such as "they're playing God" or concoct strawman theories about that which they know nothing about or fear. Only those who are free from superstitions and rigid doctrines dare to go into the unknown; take chances and risks. Only militant humans can do the task. It requires the vision of those who are not satisfied with "playing it safe", who NEED to know more; who hunger for knowledge and push themselves , challenge the status quo, and the norm. Religious folks like the comfort, the familiarity of the known, and the expected, the routine.  |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
To a degree, yes. In the case of Politics, since people who are elected to office, (or placed in office by elected officals) play to the public, it would be somewhat obvious that no matter what their own Religious belief is, they would play to the Religious Majority. In the case of the United States, that is the Christian Faith, as the Majority, (and the Jewish faith secondary, since the Old Testament & the Torah are the same documents). So certain "hot" topics, like abortion, same-sex unions, etc, will still be dictated by the Religious Right, and any Politician who wishes to remain in office would be wise to remember that.  |
|
Date: 6/22/2004 9:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
In the case of Medical Research, the catch-22 is that research requires funding. Private Companies will fund Medical research as long as it is 1) profitable and 2)there is no negative publicity. Once again, there are "Watchdog" groups that are quite Militant, who will make sure that the Funding is not available for what they consider "immoral", or "sinful" Research. Stem-cell Research is a Primo example. My own poor Grandmother is dying from Alzheimer's Disease. My Mother died from Cancer. So, yes, people need to stop second guessing what God wants, and start thinking in terms of what is for the common good. It seems to me that is what Jesus really did, look at the bigger picture & promote the "Common Good" idea. |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
I believe yes!!! yes yes yes yes yes!!!! Stem cell research has the ability to save millions of lives a year and we are afraid to touch it because of moral and religious reasons. I wish some people would wake up to themselves and get into the position of one of the people who could benefit such research. And other things bother me as well but unfortunalty no one reads a long reply.lol.  |
Date: 6/22/2004 9:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 30527
I am not sure if relegion would classify as being the main thing that holds society back, politics might rate higher, but religion would definately be in the top five.  |
Date: 6/22/2004 10:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 62728
I don't think that religion holds back anything, though I think there are those who would use religion as a tool of their own devices to hold back things that they don't want because their religious view sees it as being against their moral compass. I have to disagree with the assertion that religious folk are satisfied with the status quo and the expected and the routine. There are quite a few "religious" people out there who have challenged the status quo throughout history and fought for radical changes in society and currently do today.  |
| Date: 6/22/2004 10:19:00 PM From Authorid: 59531 i think that some religions, which preach a set of predefined morals, really can be quite cumbersome on society at certain times. if only for the fact that the religion may have already 'made up' the minds of its followers, and not let those followers make-up their own minds about it. now i must make the point, that these followers are pretty much blind followers, of which i know there is at least a small degree. |
| Date: 6/22/2004 10:21:00 PM From Authorid: 59531 so maybe more clearly, it is really the blind followers who are the problem. |
Date: 6/22/2004 11:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
considering the prominence of religion, i'm sure progress is to a degree slowed when it comes to making choices, but, as it is so often said here, morality is not exclusive to religion. you know me diz, i'm not terribly religious, and am in fact quite unlearned having not been raised religious, and yet there are issues i struggle with in regards to issues such as abortion and stem cell research. as to the stem cell research, much more information is needed and in simple english to boot lol.  |
Date: 6/22/2004 11:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 61910
i agree totally with Doheney...i'm a christian...i have a religion...but also i dare, yearn for knowledge, embrace knew ideas...whatever religions and beliefs some of you are refering to are some i haven't encountered yet...we all have morals right? they tell us whats right and wrong...without that the world would be a place of total anarchy and chaos...if our morals change with the season or tides what good would they be? as the old saying goes if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...  |
Date: 6/22/2004 11:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
Could be! Morality isn't dependent on religion thank goodness. And if it were, we would be in a sorry state.... back in the dark ages.  |
Date: 6/23/2004 12:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 57232
not so much religion but being "PC" as a whole. It's like that PCU movie is coming true. You can't say or do anything anymore without offending, whether it be religion, race, sex, creed, weight..whatever. Lindsay Lohan in People Magazine commented about people asking her if she got a boob job and she said they are retarded, what's in the mail bag in the next People? "I'm so offended by what Lindsay Lohan said about retarded people" grrr  |
Date: 6/23/2004 2:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 11348
Unfortunately yes, in some ways. In scientific ways like what you're speaking of, yes it does. There are so many things that could really advance medicine and knowledge, yet we steer clear because of the uproar we know will follow from those who think we are messing with destiny, or not doing God's will. I think science should move forward and some of these moral issues are holding us back. On the other hand, I think without religion, we might have many many many more murderers and much more crime, because there would be nothing to base those morals off of. Good post.  |
Date: 6/23/2004 3:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 53558
So sorry, no comment...hugs...  |
Date: 6/23/2004 3:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 30229
I would dearly HATE to see society without some form of hope and without any morals. It is bad enough as it is, but with NONE it would be horrific.  |
|
Date: 6/23/2004 3:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 30229
Well Dizzy... I will say one thing... If GB has morals I have yet to see them. He only SAYS he has morals, lol |
Date: 6/23/2004 4:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
The most stagnant time in man's history, the Dark Ages, was also a time when religion was the most prevalant. Religion does tend to hold society back from.  |
|
Date: 6/23/2004 5:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 47865
But Two Spirit, is that strictly true? The Dark Ages were a time when organised religion in Western Europe was under attack from outside, eg the sack of Lindisfarne Abbey by the Vikings, and it was the Muslims who were the driving force of culture and education. |
|
Date: 6/23/2004 6:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 47865
And I do agree with alot of what had been written here; to find the development of human embryos just to provide 'spare parts' is not a sign of supersticious belief, nor an unwillingness to leave the past, it is a sign of moral unease. |
|
Date: 6/23/2004 6:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 47865
Dammit should have read: 'to find the development of human embryos just to provide 'spare parts' dangerous' etc |
Date: 6/23/2004 7:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 32133
lol no.....the teachings in most religions are the only teachings that make sense anymore. if more people followed those then the world would be abetter place. if you want to believe that the world would be better run by a bunch of liberal athiests then thats your choice lol  |
Date: 6/23/2004 7:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
We've already seen the world run by religion in the past, it was far from a better place. How worse would Atheists make it?  |
Date: 6/23/2004 11:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 23796
I don't believe that Religion in itself holds society back, it's more like the people who follow that religion that can cause problems (Which you stated with Religious Fanatics). In my honest opinion, we are all born with the innate sense of right and wrong...thus the similarities in various Religious Moralities. As for Science, Yes, science is often "Set back" because of Moralities sake. But then comes the question...what really is the question...is Religion that stops science or Societies MORALS. Morality isn't exactly relgion, even Athests & Satanists have "Morals"  |
Date: 6/23/2004 12:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 29928
MO In todays society, I need religion {God} to hold me up.  |
Date: 6/23/2004 2:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
I don't see how  |
Date: 6/23/2004 10:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Religion doesn't hold society back and neither does the promotion of morals. Religion in general, promotes healthy moral codes. Your post generalizes those that are religious as being, "fanatics." Generalizing is far more dangerous than having a preference toward doing the right thing.  |
|
Date: 6/24/2004 8:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
History has shown that religion does not "promote healthy morals". Quite the opposite. Good morals hasn't anything to do with religion! Morality is a product of society, and good and evil are terms to define what's okay and what isn't, not separate cosmological forces that battle for our souls. See, ALL civilized societies on this planet admit that killing your neighbour is wrong. Some may allow it under specific circumstances (such as the religious right, who assures us that "our good American soldiers" should kick the "evil muslims'" backsides, or Middle Eastern cultures with their concept of blood feud), others will perhaps tolerate or encourage the killing of "enemies", yet they will still maintain that it is basically wrong to kill your next door neighbour just because. Why is that? Because a society that shreds itself to pieces by allowing its members to kill each other at a whim won't last long. No higher authority. Just the simple rules of survival. See, a strong individual may gain control by killing his rivals, yet sooner or later those who are weaker will realize that they can overcome him by banding together. This leads to the forming of clans, which in turn leads to the forming of tribes, which in turn leads to the forming of larger communities and in the end, even nations. However, I will say that if religious beliefs is the ONLY thing that keeps someone from killing me or stealing from me, then I sure as heck am very glad that they DO have or hold those beliefs! There does not need to be a supreme or supernatural authority. Much of morality is based around society, which has it's own checks and balances regardless of any religious beliefs. If a murderer is out roaming the streets, he or she would quickly be hunted down and eliminated. This creates an intrinsic morality of cooperation within the society, which leads to laws and so on. Regardless of whether there is a god, people are social creatures -- we like to form relationships with each other and live together in society. For society to work, we have to have ground rules. I resent and am offended by the assumptions of religious folks when they imply that without a god belief, one just automatically trashes all morals, can't have morals, and simply won't be able to function and will run amok. Down right ridiculous, and to perpetuate such is NOT anything to do with truth or anything "moral" for that matter. IF RELIGION and god beliefs actually did make people more moral, more loving, kind and intolerant, then there would have been much much more evidence of that in adherents of those religions, but as I said, history has not reflected that, nor is it reflected in what MY observations have been so far. |
Date: 6/24/2004 8:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
yes  |
|
Date: 6/24/2004 12:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 47865
But doesn't the morality of a society come from the religious beliefs that underpin it? |
Date: 6/24/2004 11:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
I think stuff like stem cell research and cloning isn't a bad thing, but religion is the largest opponet of that right now. Logicaly, there's no reason why we shouldn't take atvantage of our capibilities, we could have cures of all types of diseases by now if it weren't for the religious leaders calling it "evil" and such.  |
|
Date: 6/25/2004 8:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 34487
IN MOST CASES, and I am speaking about in this day and age, religion does promote good moral practices and beliefs. I didn't say it was the only thing that did or that those without a religious belief system didn't have morals and didn't practice them. The subject of this post is about those that have a religion and it's only asking if those that believe in a religion are holding back society. The examples Thinker gave are those of radicals and terrorists...not the average person that believes in God. NO, the average citizen that believes in God and tries to live THEIR life by what they know to be MORAL, doesn't hold back society in any way, shape or form. The question of this post isn't specific enough. Assuming that all religious people are "fanatics" is not only offensive but rediculous. It should say that we're only speaking about those that are truly fanatics and radicals and in that case...yes, those people do hold back society. Some people are trying to throw two different things into the same catagory here. On a personal note...I will say that I DON'T know one person in my family or out of my religious friends, that is holding society back in any way. |
Date: 6/25/2004 4:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 49539
Yes I agree. Politicians who are trying to ban gay marriage because it is immoral...This is the land of the free, is it not? So, why must we make others' choices for them?  |
|
Date: 6/25/2004 9:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 62728
All one has to do is study history to see that there are many examples of society being "hindered" in the name of "religion" and one can also find examples of society being advanced in the name of "religion". You can find what you are looking for, but both sides exist. You have incidents like the Spanish Inquisition on the bad side, but also many of the strongest abolitionists were strong religious people and they effected a very positive change for the nation and the world. Many times we simply see what we look for in the world and in life. |
|
Date: 6/26/2004 12:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 15070
One does not need "Religion" in order to be "Moral" |
|
Date: 6/26/2004 4:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
DeltaRebel, I fear you have been badly misinformed. (as I was for many years growing up in the South, as a Christian). The religious plantation and slave owners invoked Biblical scriptures which clearly sanction slavery in many forms. When William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and most earnest abolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery address in Boston, Massachusetts, the only building he could obtain, in which to speak, was the infidel hall owned by Abner Kneeland, the "infidel" editor of the 'Boston investigator,' who had been sent to prison for blasphemy. Every Christian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garrison the use of the buildings they controlled. Lloyd Garrison told of how honored deacons of a Christian Church joined in an actual attempt to hang him. When abolition was, advocated in the United States in 1790, the representative from South Carolina was able to plead that the Southern clergy did not condemn either slavery or the slave trade and Mr. Jackson, the representative from Georgia, pleaded that "from Genesis to Revelation" the current was favorable to slavery. Elias Hicks, the brave Abolitionist Quaker, was denounced as an Atheist, a Hicksite Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern American Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these his abolitionist "Friends." When the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in North America, large numbers of clergymen of nearly every denomination were found ready to defend this infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous abolitionist, was driven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely because of his attacks on slave-holding. Northern clergymen tried to induce "silver tongued" Wendell Phillips to abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits rang with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner. The slayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed Christian men. Guizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the Church exerted its influence to restrain slavery, says ("European Civilization," vol. i., p.110)" "It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery among modem people is entirely due to Christians. That, I think, is saying too much. Slavery existed for a long period in the heart of Christian society, without its being particularly astonished or irritated. A multitude of causes, and a great development in other ideas and principles of civilization, were necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all iniquities." And my contention is that this "development in other ideas and principles of civilization" was long retarded by Governments in which the Christian Church was dominant. The men who advocated liberty were imprisoned, racked, and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough to be merciless. The Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his recent earnest volume ["Capital and Wages," p. 19] on the struggles of labor, admits that "a few centuries ago slavery was acknowledged throughout Christendom to have the divine sanction. ... Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the decline of the belief in The righteousness of slavery, can be defined. It was doubtless due to a combination of causes, one probably being as indirect as the recognition of the greater economy of free labor. With the decline of the belief the abolition of slavery took place." The institution of slavery was actually existent in Christian Scotland in the seventeenth century, where the white coal workers and salt workers of East Lothian were chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern States they "went to those who succeeded to the property of the works, and they could be sold, bartered, or pawned." ["Perversion of Scotland," p. 197.] "There is," says J.M. Robertson, "no trace that the Protestant clergy of Scotland ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew up before their eyes. And it was not until 1799, after republican and irreligious France had set the example, that it was legally abolished." Take further the gain to humanity consequent on the unbelief, or rather disbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry. Apart from the brutality by Christians towards, those suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to scientific initiative or experiment was incalculably great so long as belief in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries, and especially those of the eighteenth century, might have benefitted mankind much earlier and much more largely, but for the foolish belief in witchcraft and the shocking ferocity exhibited against those suspected of necromancy. After quoting a large number of cases of trial and punishment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J.M. Robertson says: "The people seem to have passed from cruelty to cruelty precisely as they became more and more fanatical, more and more devoted to their Church, till after many generations the slow spread of human science began to counteract the ravages, of superstition, the clergy resisting reason and humanity to the last." |
|
Date: 6/26/2004 5:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Applause! |
|
Date: 6/26/2004 9:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
thank you ~THINKER~, again, the voice of reason |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 12:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62728
Thinker, I spent about two hours this morning doing some more research to answer your argument that you posted yesterday, one that was well worded and thought out, though many of the citations were slanted to a European view and dealt with mostly the European struggle with slavery. It was surprising to find in my research that none of that was an original argument, but was simply a cut and pasted excerpt from Charles Bradlaugh's essay "Humanity's Gain From Unbelief", which can be found at: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bradlo01.htm I would love to discuss the issue with you more, and can share some of the interesting cases on the opposite side in America that illustrate that Mr. Bradlaugh's argument is somewhat flawed and omits some strong religious movement in the United States toward the abolition of slavery and other social issues. Though he would be accurate that the religious groups of Britain and France did not take up the abolitionist movement with great fervor, it would be inaccurate to say that religious groups in the United States did not take up the movement with fervor. |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 1:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Yes, that was from the source you cited. Come on, what of it? Anyone can see the references to pages, books, etc, and conclude that it is just an excerpt from a larger source, and not meant to be a complete analysis (far from it!). It was merely just a little snippet of info to reply to your misleading statement that many of the "strongest abolitionists were strong religious people". Now, if you have any rebuttal; and since you disagree and say Bradlaugh's stance is "flawed", please, let it be shown here. Give us what YOU have; show all where he is flawed, instead of getting hung up on whether something was copy and pasted or not. Address the CONTENT; the assertions, conclusions, etc. that are made. I am most anxious for you to show how Bradlaugh, mine or ANYONE's assertion: "Slavery is sanctioned, it was condoned by the Christian slave owners; and they fought against abolishment" IS "flawed". |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 1:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Oh yes, and could you please elaborate a bit on HOW it all was a "European view or mostly European struggle"?? Maybe my eyes are really going bad, because I could swear that I see references to particular states in America, and whenever I've read anything to do with Slavery in America, the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, Abolition, Emancipation, etc, I don't see any references to any "European view or struggle"?? |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 1:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Ok, back to Dizzy's post. Dizzy, I ran across this from a Christian website: QUOTE: ""The atheist has no valid basis on which to engage in scientific activity. I recall one individual on this forum who criticized Mr. Kiper for engaging in science as a Christian. Shame on you. Mr. Kiper has every reason to engage in science. You, however, do not. The atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and rationality altogether. But since they do occasionally behave rationally, they do so at the expense of borrowing from the Christian worldview."" ONE OF THE STUPIDEST STATEMENTS I've ever ran across in my life. We "occasionally behave rationally" ? That would be downright hilarious, were it not so pathetically ignorant. "Give up on logic and rationality" ??? Yeah, but it takes FAITH to do that! hehehe...yeppers, this guy says you can only be a scientist....only qualified to or has "reason to engage" in science...(or whatever the heck he's trying to talk about) IF you're a Christian. |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 5:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 62728
Thinker, first off at no time did you indicate that your post was not your original work and merely the thoughts of another lifted from a website and signed with your name as your thoughts. As for the European view, the sources in Mr. Bradlaugh's argument are primarly European writers, and there is a long discussion of the Scottish clergy and British abolition and France. As for your eyes, I don't think they are bad, but you did misread my original post and seemingly take it to read that ALL Christians were for abolition. To me, that says you have a larger problem with Christianity, because you brought Christianity into the argument specifically, which originally stated simply that many abolitionists were RELIGIOUS. This has not been a debate about Christianity holding society back until you brought Mr. Bradluagh's essay into the discussion. With that being said, I'll compose my thoughts for you and show you many examples that expound upon his statements and show that, while they aren't entirely untrue, they aren't the whole truth either. |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 6:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
WHERE DID I SAY "ALL" ....WHERE did I indicate that you were saying "all christians were for abolition"? Your assumption. And, please, I get rather sick of people moving the goalposts; changing meanings of words, equivocating, redirects, semantics, anything and every thing but reply to the questions ask, or WHAT is said (as opposed to the source), anything to avoid, evade, or even throw off the attention all together. STOP with the accusation that I said or indicated you were talking about ALL christians! As far as the last half of your reply there about saying "christianity" instead of religious? Excuuuuuuuuse me, but since Christianity IS a religion, and since Christianity IS the MAJORITY religion......forgive the heck out of me for using the TERM: Christianity, will ya?? Quite frankly, since it has taken you several replies and as yet haven't given anything to support your original assertion; and since you say "not entirely untrue but not the whole truth either", I'm not quite sure I even care to get into a whole equivocation, semantic, dodge ball game with you. I'm simply so tired of this sort of round and round , tit for tat, everyone-has-their-own-definitions kind of exchange. Thank you very much. |
|
Date: 6/27/2004 9:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62728
It’s interesting to hear the arguments presented in your post, but there are several strong points that counter it. One of the first problems is that Bradlaugh’s writings are almost a century old and the examination of history has changed since that point and many of the theories and examinations that have come about in looking back at what occurred have changed. Saint Patrick is one of the first abolitionists in history, beginning his writings for the abolition of slavery in the 5th century after he escaped the bonds of slavery himself after being captured and taken to Ireland as a child and made a slave in a Druidic clan. Here you have a case of a clear cut Catholic, one who achieved sainthood, wrote for the abolishment of the institution of slavery nearly 1400 years before the Civil War. Your points about the abolition in Scotland and other nations are well taken, as are the ones that not all Chritians and not all pulpits preached abolition. But Mr. Bradlaugh’s presentation as if that means a religious group as a whole supported slavery unanimously is a disservice and misrepresentation of fact. It’s also a great disservice to history. Just as it would be a mistake to say that Christianity is the sole reason for abolition (which you notice has not been stated at all in this discussion). One problem is with Bradlaugh’s assertion about the “irreligious French” abolishing slavery is that slavery was abolished in Britain in 1772 with a court ruling from William Murray in British court. It did not stop slave trade in colonies, but did in the nation itself. France did not abolish slavery until 1794. They then reinstated the practice of slavery again in 1802. England ended the slave trade for good entirely in 1807 and slavery entirely in all of its colonies in 1833. France did not do this until 1848. The 1790 stance of the South Carolina representative is without question a strong argument, but the abolition movement in the United States did not take firm hold until around 1830 following the Second Great Awakening (a massive religious movement in the United States that saw abolition, women’s suffereage, and many other social issues take hold in the South and gain momentum. This movement saw abolition take hold in the northern protestant churches. Admittedly, Southern ministers were going to argue the other stance, that a Biblical expression of slavery was condoned and endoresed. That is an expected reaction where the entire social system and financial system was being threatened. It should be noted that a bulk of abolitionists came from the Evangelical and Protestant religious orders like the Methodists, Baptists, Quakers and the like. Many of the established religions. “A growing anti-slavery movement emerges even in South. From 1808-1831, the South is the nation's leader in Anti-Slavery societies. There are Anti-Slavery societies in Kentucky by 1808, in Tennessee by 1815, and in N.C. by 1816. By 1826, there are 45 societies in the South, and the region also led the nation in the number of anti-slavery newspapers. All of this created real dissonance for the South. The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves, and those who did owned on average between 1 and 11.” (taken from a lecture by Terry Matthews, history professor at Wake Forest University The idea of free labor causing the decline of slavery is one that many economists and historians have argued for years and can come to no conclusive stance on, simply because there was never an opportunity for the theory to play out. There was a rise in free labor in the north, but the south was seeing a dramatic demand for slaves increase because of the Cotton Gin. In the 60 years from the invention of the Gin to the outbreak of war, the South had gone from producing fewer than 5000 cotton bales a year to 4,500,000 a year in 1860. The number of slaves in the South in the same time grew from half a million to more than 4 million slaves.The demand for slavery was great, and the argument that it would have died out from a rise of free labor is not one that can be proven conclusively, because there was no demand for free labor in the Southern states at the time and the Civil War prevented the theory from playing out over time. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
