What religion were the slave-traders?

[Knightskye]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/29/forced-to-be-free/singlepage


We may soon face an "Islamic takeover of a paralyzed United States," Peikoff warned. Allowing the Manhattan center to be built would be an "objective sign of our weakness," and therefore it would be "immoral and catastrophic for Americans to permit it." Thus, "permission should be refused, and if they go ahead and build it, the government should bomb it out of existence, evacuating it first, with no compensation to any of the property owners involved in this monstrosity."

Peikoff believes this conclusion is consistent with "individualism," and in a sense I suppose it is. It's the individualism that saw slavery in the free exercise of religion, the individualism that saw liberation in the prohibition of alcohol and consensual sex. It's an individualism with deep roots in both American and European history. It just isn't a sort of individualism that believes in individual liberty.

I'm sure they didn't all believe in Islam.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/29/forced-to-be-free/singlepage (http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/29/forced-to-be-free/singlepage)



I'm sure they didn't all believe in Islam.

I'm not sure you are reading the passage correctly? :confused:

This says nothing about the relation (or lack thereof) of Islam and slave traders, only that some individuals felt justified in keeping/trading/selling slaves based on their interpretation of their religion.

It seems to me that the first paragraph is a point, and the second one a counterpoint. Intended to be conveyed as wholly separate authors and ideas.

[sparebulb]

This topic (islamic center in NYC) interests me not. However, as a quick reply to your original question, I believe that the slave ships were owned by jews, and the handlers and owners were generally Anglicans and Presbyterians.

[nate895]

This topic (islamic center in NYC) interests me not. However, as a quick reply to your original question, I believe that the slave ships were owned by jews, and the handlers and owners were generally Anglicans and Presbyterians.

Muslims started the African slave trade as we know it in 900, and operated much of the African arm of the African slave trade until it ended in 1900. The history of Islam is a history of violence and the worse kind of tyranny. The people on here who think Islam is a "religion of peace" or other nonsense like that are simply ignorant of Islam. That does not mean I support going over their and further angering them. That does not mean that most Muslims are not peaceful people. On the contrary, most Muslim are only nominal or moderate/liberal (i.e., only believe what they feel like believing from their professed faith). Furthermore, the fundamentalist ones lack a Caliph who can call an offensive Jihad.

[silus]

Slavists.

[daviddee]

...

[Knightskye]

I'm not sure you are reading the passage correctly? :confused:

This says nothing about the relation (or lack thereof) of Islam and slave traders, only that some individuals felt justified in keeping/trading/selling slaves based on their interpretation of their religion.

It seems to me that the first paragraph is a point, and the second one a counterpoint. Intended to be conveyed as wholly separate authors and ideas.

I was making a point about the Ground Zero "mosque" opponents who think that all Muslims are guilty because 19 of them attacked on 9/11.

[nate895]

The African slave trade has occurred for thousands of years, Muslims did not own much land in Subsaharan Africa where most slaves cam from, those were explored by European powers... stop distorting history. Both Christianity and Islam allow slavery, obviously both have evolved to not practice it anymore.

No, the African slave trade, creating slavery as we know of it in the colonies, started around the year 900 in Islamic West Africa. Also, all of the last countries to abolish slavery were Islamic. Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981, and Saudi Arabia abolished slavery only in 1962.

[lucius]

The Dutch Jews were responsible for the logistics of the slave trade.

The Dutch Antilles were used for logistical support for the slave trade. St Maarten, Curacao, etc...

There were many players: the Africans who captured their own, the Dutch as transport to this hemisphere, the Americans involved in the purchase/reproduction/utilization.

This is the truth right here...just look at the slave ship registries. I suspect this whole story is more demonizing of our new found enemy...

[pcosmar]

I was making a point about the Ground Zero "mosque" opponents who think that all Muslims are guilty because 19 of them attacked on 9/11.

Wasn't that a counter attack? In response to repeated attacks by the US?

Just keeping things in perspective. ;)

as for slave trade, It has been practiced by every religion and people on earth, since very nearly the beginning of man.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, the African slave trade, creating slavery as we know of it in the colonies, started around the year 900 in Islamic West Africa. Also, all of the last countries to abolish slavery were Islamic. Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981, and Saudi Arabia abolished slavery only in 1962.

Pretty sure the US still had slavery in the 1960s and 1970s (conscription). Except it was even more heinous than the slavery that existed in the 1700s. At least they weren't sent to die. Seriously, conscription is no different than the Janissaries under Ottoman rule (Slaves themselves).

[GunnyFreedom]

Portugal had the highest concentration of European slavers, and ships were often registered in the Dutch Indies. Islamic Caliphate slavers (up to and including the Barbary Pirates) predated the European slavers in Africa by at least a quarter of a millenia, but most of the Muslim slavers never traded with the New World -- they served their own regions.

The slave trade to America was driven mostly by the Portuguese, but something like 5 to 8 different European nations and kindoms perticipated, including England. The Dutch were one of the smaller traders, despite the fact that many slaver ships bore Dutch registries. Vessel registration in the East Indies was very helpful to the slave trade triangle.

C'mon this should have been stuff we all learned in High School...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Portugal had the highest concentration of European slavers, and ships were often registered in the Dutch Indies. Islamic Caliphate slavers (up to and including the Barbary Pirates) predated the European slavers in Africa by at least a quarter of a millenia, but most of the Muslim slavers never traded with the New World -- they served their own regions.

The slave trade to America was driven mostly by the Portuguese, but something like 5 to 8 different European nations and kindoms perticipated, including England. The Dutch were one of the smaller traders, despite the fact that many slaver ships bore Dutch registries. Vessel registration in the East Indies was very helpful to the slave trade triangle.

C'mon this should have been stuff we all learned in High School...

Actually, the Caliphate didn't pre-date European slavers. Romans were enslaving Africans before the Caliphate were. Unless Romans aren't Europeans?

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually, the Caliphate didn't pre-date European slavers. Romans were enslaving Africans before the Caliphate were. Unless Romans aren't Europeans?

Roman slavery was not a slave trade. They only enslaved people who their armies had conquered. Specifically, their prisoners of war. They did not make a business practice out of any sort of slave trade. That's enough of a difference to make them not the same thing at all, and certainly not related to the OP.

ETA -- research seems to indicate that very few of the slaves in the Roman Empire were Africans, and that they were from some Roman conquest into the area now known as Egypt.

[nate895]

Actually, the Caliphate didn't pre-date European slavers. Romans were enslaving Africans before the Caliphate were. Unless Romans aren't Europeans?

That isn't the same African slave trade that we are talking about here. Furthermore, that slave trade, if you can call it that, had been dead for hundreds of years when the Caliph came into town. It is simply an indisputable fact that Islam started the African slave trade as known in the early modern era.

Also, to your other post about the draft, we are talking about chattel slavery, and while I agree the draft is involuntary servitude, it is not chattel slavery.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Roman slavery was not a slave trade. They only enslaved people who their armies had conquered. Specifically, their prisoners of war. They did not make a business practice out of any sort of slave trade. That's enough of a difference to make them not the same thing at all, and certainly not related to the OP.

ETA -- research seems to indicate that very few of the slaves in the Roman Empire were Africans, and that they were from some Roman conquest into the area now known as Egypt.

Externally maybe not, but the Romans had a thriving market within the borders of the Roman Empire. It was vast, large, and constituted a huge share of the economy. So, in that vein, I would say yes, there was a slave trade, unless you define trade as purely with other foreign entities.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That isn't the same African slave trade that we are talking about here. Furthermore, that slave trade, if you can call it that, had been dead for hundreds of years when the Caliph came into town. It is simply an indisputable fact that Islam started the African slave trade as known in the early modern era.

Also, to your other post about the draft, we are talking about chattel slavery, and while I agree the draft is involuntary servitude, it is not chattel slavery.

Conscription is worst than chattel slavery. Unless you consider death better than chattel slavery? I also echo pcosmar, that every religion has had slaves at some point. Pagan, Islam, Christianity, etc. (Not sure about Buddhism though...)

Here is a decent read into the subject:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/050704.pdf

[GunnyFreedom]

Externally maybe not, but the Romans had a thriving market within the borders of the Roman Empire. It was vast, large, and constituted a huge share of the economy. So, in that vein, I would say yes, there was a slave trade, unless you define trade as purely with other foreign entities.

In the Roman Empire, slaves were captured through war, became prisoners of war, and became 'gifts' to influential politicians etc. yes, some were sold, and a market sprang up to handle people selling their slaves and other buying them. That would be a slave market, but not a slave trade.

There is a little bit of equivocation in your argument here. The definition of the philosophical concept of "trade" is obviously not what is being referred to as "the slave trade."

The slave trade harvested or mined slaves as a commodity, sent them through production to become 'obedient' and then mass-marketed them to wealthy slave brokers to be sold on the open market.

The Roman slave market sprang up from the ancillary practices of their methods of warfare. The Romans didn't conquer a region "to bring back slaves," they conquered a region because 'the barbarians are attacking our borders' or whatever else. The capturing of slaves was only a peripheral effect from when their enemies surrendered instead of fought. They didn't have the Geneva conventions then, and since surrendering enemies are a lot easier to deal with than fighting enemies, just killing them was not a good idea. What to do with them? Ship them back to Rome as slaves.

Please don't obfuscate the distinction here with an equivocation on 'trade.' No Roman missions were sent out to capture slaves to supply the nobles back home. Slavery was a side-effect of the Roman method of war. I'm not saying that justifies it, but it is an entirely different thing than the actual slave trade engaged by the Caliphates and post Renaissance Europe.

[GunnyFreedom]

Conscription is worst than chattel slavery. Unless you consider death better than chattel slavery? I also echo pcosmar, that every religion has had slaves at some point. Pagan, Islam, Christianity, etc. (Not sure about Buddhism though...)

Here is a decent read into the subject:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/050704.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epswpc/pdfs/scheidel/050704.pdf)

I happen to agree in that I consider conscription as bad or worse than (many types of) chattel slavery. Conscripted soldiers weren't even trained very well. They were just snatched up from a farm in Iowa and dumped in a jungle as cannon fodder to keep the enemy busy while the "real soldiers" did whatever else. Sure, some did survive it, and later won their emancipation from Uncle Sam, but if getting jerked out of a cornfield and dumped in front of a machine gun to shield some other people from the rounds is somehow 'better' than chattel slavery, I don't see it. I only caveat that with "many types of" chattel slavery, because in some nations slaves were bought specifically as human sacrifices. In THAT case, I think I'd take my chances in Vietnam.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I happen to agree in that I consider conscription as bad or worse than (many types of) chattel slavery. Conscripted soldiers weren't even trained very well. They were just snatched up from a farm in Iowa and dumped in a jungle as cannon fodder to keep the enemy busy while the "real soldiers" did whatever else. Sure, some did survive it, and later won their emancipation from Uncle Sam, but if getting jerked out of a cornfield and dumped in front of a machine gun to shield some other people from the rounds is somehow 'better' than chattel slavery, I don't see it. I only caveat that with "many types of" chattel slavery, because in some nations slaves were bought specifically as human sacrifices. In THAT case, I think I'd take my chances in Vietnam.

Yes, I would agree, however I would disagree that slaves were not a means for war for the Romans. However, I also do agree with the overall view of your previous post. I however think the thread deviated with an ulterior motive. I think it is a little more than hypocritical for Christians to bring this up to club Islam at this point, when Christians should be more focused on their own horrid history, but that's just me.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, I would agree, however I would disagree that slaves were not a means for war for the Romans. However, I also do agree with the overall view of your previous post. I however think the thread deviated with an ulterior motive. I think it is a little more than hypocritical for Christians to bring this up to club Islam at this point, when Christians should be more focused on their own horrid history, but that's just me.

I think that re-writing history is wrong regardless of the motivation. Whether that purpose is to demonize Islam, to glorify Christianity, or to attempt to counter the demonizing of one or the other. History is history, and it should be met objectively as best we can.

Sure, there are things we don't know or have forgotten, maybe you are correct that Rome set out some early springs with the intent and express purpose of collecting slaves. I do not remember any such thing from when I studied Roman history, but I know I could be wrong.

Regardless of how some closed-minded Neo-Con Christians (who have clearly forgotten the face of their Father, mind you) may use the history of the slave trade to demonize Islam, we still do a disservice to our own message if we fail to address the history as objectively as possible. After all, says the sheeple, if we are willing to re-write one thing, what's to stop us from re-writing everything?

No, I'm not saying that's even remotely your intent, but it is the first step on a slippery slope. Nate was right that the Caliphate really did initiate the African slave trade over a thousand years ago. Maybe he has an anti-Muslim bent, maybe not, I really don't know. But what I do know is that his input was based in actual history except for the insinuation that the Caliphate was involved in the trans-Atlantic trade, which they really were not...and a denial or a demurring of the actual history involved will make him LESS likely to be converted to your position.

The goal, of course, is to move people towards the direction of individualism and liberty, and away from collectivism and prejudices. Through the many aberrations of human history, sometimes the histories or the facts just don't line up in our favor. We have to embrace that objective history to make progress in spreading this philosophy. If I ever succumb to the temptation to gloss over any objective fact, for any reason whatsoever, then I would do damage to the growth of our cause, I believe.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think that re-writing history is wrong regardless of the motivation. Whether that purpose is to demonize Islam, to glorify Christianity, or to attempt to counter the demonizing of one or the other. History is history, and it should be met objectively as best we can.

Sure, there are things we don't know or have forgotten, maybe you are correct that Rome set out some early springs with the intent and express purpose of collecting slaves. I do not remember any such thing from when I studied Roman history, but I know I could be wrong.

Regardless of how some closed-minded Neo-Con Christians (who have clearly forgotten the face of their Father, mind you) may use the history of the slave trade to demonize Islam, we still do a disservice to our own message if we fail to address the history as objectively as possible. After all, says the sheeple, if we are willing to re-write one thing, what's to stop us from re-writing everything?

No, I'm not saying that's even remotely your intent, but it is the first step on a slippery slope. Nate was right that the Caliphate really did initiate the African slave trade over a thousand years ago. Maybe he has an anti-Muslim bent, maybe not, I really don't know. But what I do know is that his input was based in actual history except for the insinuation that the Caliphate was involved in the trans-Atlantic trade, which they really were not...and a denial or a demurring of the actual history involved will make him LESS likely to be converted to your position.

The goal, of course, is to move people towards the direction of individualism and liberty, and away from collectivism and prejudices. Through the many aberrations of human history, sometimes the histories or the facts just don't line up in our favor. We have to embrace that objective history to make progress in spreading this philosophy. If I ever succumb to the temptation to gloss over any objective fact, for any reason whatsoever, then I would do damage to the growth of our cause, I believe.

I agree.

[YumYum]

That isn't the same African slave trade that we are talking about here. Furthermore, that slave trade, if you can call it that, had been dead for hundreds of years when the Caliph came into town. It is simply an indisputable fact that Islam started the African slave trade as known in the early modern era.

Also, to your other post about the draft, we are talking about chattel slavery, and while I agree the draft is involuntary servitude, it is not chattel slavery.

Christians were slave owners. Philemon was a Christian and owned the slave Onesimus, who stole something from Philemon and then ran away. Under Roman law, this was punishable by death. Paul wrote Philemon a letter to appeal to him to not punish Onesimus, who also was a Christian.

[Knightskye]

Wasn't that a counter attack? In response to repeated attacks by the US?

Try telling that to Sean Hannity. :D

[erowe1]

I'm not sure you are reading the passage correctly? :confused:

This says nothing about the relation (or lack thereof) of Islam and slave traders

+1

[tjeffersonsghost]

The traders as pointed out wasnt perpetrated by one religion it was a number of religions and even the Africans themselves took part.

That being said MOST of the slave plantation owners were hard core Christians. The southern slave owners loved the idea of the slaves conforming to Christianity which is why you have a lot of southern blacks who are Christians. Now get ready for the kicker, the southern Plantation owners actually used the Bible in justification for their slavery.


5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. -Ephesians 6:5-9

[YumYum]

The traders as pointed out wasnt perpetrated by one religion it was a number of religions and even the Africans themselves took part.

That being said MOST of the slave plantation owners were hard core Christians. The southern slave owners loved the idea of the slaves conforming to Christianity which is why you have a lot of southern blacks who are Christians. Now get ready for the kicker, the southern Plantation owners actually used the Bible in justification for their slavery.

Paul also says in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus."

Paul never condemned slavery, so why should the Christian slave owners of the Old South have condemned it? Paul was notorious for putting labels on people, especially women.

[erowe1]

Paul also says in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus."

Paul never condemned slavery, so why should the Christian slave owners of the Old South have condemned it? Paul was notorious for putting labels on people, especially women.

You don't have to condemn all slavery in all circumstances to be against the American variety of it. Kidnapping innocent people whose lives would not otherwise have touched yours and condemning them and their posterity to slavery is far different from using slavery as a way of paying off debt or punishing a crime (which is still allowed in our Constitution). Paul may or may not have been ok with the latter, but it is highly unlikely that he was ok with the former given his frequent condemnations of stealing, greed, and violence. [Edit: In fact, Paul explicitly condemned it in 1 Tim 1:10.]

Also, one thing to be careful about when it comes to biblical ethics is not to expand something unnecessarily beyond its context. Early Christians were in no position to overturn the widespread practice of slavery. Many were slaves themselves, and often were not in the fortunate situation Onesimus was in to have a master who was also Christian. Instructing Christians in that situation to obey their masters is not the same thing as endorsing what their masters did. There is a prominent motif throughout the New Testament that you can see in Jesus' teaching no less than Paul's (and especially exemplified by Jesus on the cross) of upholding the virtue of suffering innocently under the oppression of those more powerful. This idea is probably distasteful to a lot of libertarian types (and to most people for that matter). But it shouldn't be confused for something it is not, such as justification of the oppression itself.

[Sola_Fide]

No, the African slave trade, creating slavery as we know of it in the colonies, started around the year 900 in Islamic West Africa. Also, all of the last countries to abolish slavery were Islamic. Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981, and Saudi Arabia abolished slavery only in 1962.



Yes.

And let's not forget sexual slavery, which still exists in Muslim countries, most notably Mauritania and the Sudan. In my mind sexual slavery is worse than chattel slavery.

[tjeffersonsghost]

But it shouldn't be confused for something it is not, such as justification of the oppression itself.

No one is justifying anything. In showing the Ephesians quote I am simply pointing out what the southern plantation owners used as justification for slavery. It's always easy to look hindsight and say "Man what were those slave owners thinking" but in the day many southern plantation owners thought it was their god given right to own slaves and used such quotes as justification. Many even pushed Christianity on blacks and emphasized such quotes to make them more obedient. Imagine that, religion being used to make people more obedient. I dont think anyone here is saying that we need to have slavery because the bible says so. :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

No one is justifying anything. In showing the Ephesians quote I am simply pointing out what the southern plantation owners used as justification for slavery. It's always easy to look hindsight and say "Man what were those slave owners thinking" but in the day many southern plantation owners thought it was their god given right to own slaves and used such quotes as justification. Many even pushed Christianity on blacks and emphasized such quotes to make them more obedient. Imagine that, religion being used to make people more obedient. I dont think anyone here is saying that we need to have slavery because the bible says so. :rolleyes:

You will notice that I wasn't replying to you. Nor did I imply than anyone here was saying we need slavery because the Bible says so.

The point you're making about southern slave holders appealing to the Bible to justify their practice is so obvious and so endlessly repeated by educators, the media, and opponents of Christianity that it hardly needs reiteration.

[Sola_Fide]

The Islamic prophet Muhammad encouraged manumission of slaves, even if one had to purchase them first. On many occasions, Muhammad's companions, at his direction, freed slaves in abundance. Muhammad personally freed 63 slaves, and his wife Aisha freed 67.[32] In total his household and friends freed 39,237 slaves.[33] The most notable of Muhammad's slaves were: Safiyya bint Huyayy, whom he freed and married; Maria al-Qibtiyya, given to Muhammad by a Sassanid official, whom he freed and who may have become his wife;[34] Sirin, Maria's sister, whom he freed and married to the poet Hassan ibn Thabit[35] and Zayd ibn Harithah, whom Muhammad freed and adopted as a son.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_and_slavery



Reading this does not make me think any better of Muhammed. Does it you?

[amy31416]

Yes.

And let's not forget sexual slavery, which still exists in Muslim countries, most notably Mauritania and the Sudan. In my mind sexual slavery is worse than chattel slavery.

It also exists in the US, Israel, Europe, Asia and South America....hell, even the Mormons were recently implicated in a sexual slavery case.

So...which religion is this specific to again? Christianity? Buddhism? Islam? Judaism?

[Sola_Fide]

It also exists in the US, Israel, Europe, Asia and South America....hell, even the Mormons were recently implicated in a sexual slavery case.

So...which religion is this specific to again? Christianity? Buddhism? Islam? Judaism?


You know. You got me. When I think "evangelicals in America", I think "forced female sexual slavery".


Thanks for reminding me of that.

[amy31416]

You know. You got me. When I think "evangelicals in America", I think "forced female sexual slavery".


Thanks for reminding me of that.

But you do think "forced female sexual slavery" when you think of Islam?

I think you just might have some sexual slavery on the brain...mmmmhmmmm.

[Danke]

But you do think "forced female sexual slavery" when you think of Islam?

I think you just might have some sexual slavery on the brain...mmmmhmmmm.

Islam is not my trigger.

[amy31416]

Islam is not my trigger.

Ummm...mine either? :eek: :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/29/forced-to-be-free/singlepage



I'm sure they didn't all believe in Islam.


Literally, the definition of a bondsman is someone who doesn't own their own souls, or, is someone whose master can end their life without justification. This was the condition of African outcaste "untouchables" before they were offered up on the trade market.
In order to have a slave trade, the people buying the slaves must value the souls of the slaves more than the people selling them.
By the act of them being sold by the slave owners in Africa to the Portuguese slave traders for sale to Europe and North America, the uncomely Africans were no longer considered as worthless once they arrived at the shores of Europe or North America.
Therefore, although they weren't treated as well as one would want to be treated, they were no longer true slaves.
In other words, there existed nothing in Africa that freed African Americans from bondage as that existed in the self evident and unalienable Civil Purpose expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

[Vessol]

No religion is a "religion of peace", that's the biggest joke in the book.

[Sola_Fide]

No religion is a "religion of peace", that's the biggest joke in the book.




Especially the religion of atheism right?



Stalin's Russia...Mao's China...wonderful, peaceful examples of atheism right?

[sratiug]

Here's a video on the Jewish role in the slave trade. We don't want to leave anyone out.

YouTube - Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL9hGmfGTXc&feature=related)

[oyarde]

If you checked ship registry , ownership , investment etc ,and included the pagan Africans , nobody would be clean on the slavery thing that I can think of. How anyone can wake up and think it is ok to own a person ? I have no answer for that , but there would be something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks that is acceptable .

[GunnyFreedom]

if you checked ship registry , ownership , investment etc ,and included the pagan africans , nobody would be clean on the slavery thing that i can think of. How anyone can wake up and think it is ok to own a person ? I have no answer for that , but there would be something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks that is acceptable .

+1776

[DamianTV]

My vote is Christians.

They dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and if a person doesnt believe in the same religion as they do, they are inferior to dog food and think those people should be treated as such.

---


No religion is a "religion of peace", that's the biggest joke in the book.

Does this mean that if I follow No Religion at all (athiest) that I now have myself a Religion of Peace?

Kind of like "No War is a Good War" and the ways that can be interpreted...

[oyarde]

Just quickly glancing through some things , it looks like the ancient Buhdist civilizations may have had the least slavery for these time periods , but I will have to check it out when I have more time.

[BlackTerrel]

The traders as pointed out wasnt perpetrated by one religion it was a number of religions and even the Africans themselves took part.

That being said MOST of the slave plantation owners were hard core Christians. The southern slave owners loved the idea of the slaves conforming to Christianity which is why you have a lot of southern blacks who are Christians. Now get ready for the kicker, the southern Plantation owners actually used the Bible in justification for their slavery.

This is unfortunately true. You only have to look at the religion of most black people today to know what the religion of the majority of the slave owners was? How many Mormon, Catholic, Jewish black people do you know? And despite the NOI types - they weren't Muslim either.

[BlackTerrel]

My vote is Christians.

They dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and if a person doesnt believe in the same religion as they do, they are inferior to dog food and think those people should be treated as such.

Oh RPF.... how your members stab their own cause in the foot again and again :rolleyes:

BTW would this be tolerated if it was said against any other group of people?

[Vessol]

Especially the religion of atheism right?



Stalin's Russia...Mao's China...wonderful, peaceful examples of atheism right?

I'm not an atheist. I'm more of a "I don't care"ist.

My statement is what it was.

No religion is "peaceful" otherwise, how would it exist? Conversions are needed in some way shape or form. Otherwise your religion dies.

[Sola_Fide]

Christianity as a theology is absolutely fundamentally against conversion by force. Christianity sees conversion as a purely spiritual matter.

Paul says that the war that a Christian fights is a spirtual war--a war of ideas--not a war of material conquest.


To the extent that Christian cultures have used force to "convert" others just shows how humanism infiltrated their theology.

[fj45lvr]

Wasn't that a counter attack? In response to repeated attacks by the US?

Just keeping things in perspective. ;)

as for slave trade, It has been practiced by every religion and people on earth, since very nearly the beginning of man.


If the average american works and 40% of his "income" is taken by TAXES what does that make him??

I'd say he's nearly half a slave. And that is only the tip of the iceberg in what his "masters" allow him to do or NOT DO with his own property and life.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

What he talkin' about willis? The dems were the ones whom were pro-slavery.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If you checked ship registry , ownership , investment etc ,and included the pagan Africans , nobody would be clean on the slavery thing that I can think of. How anyone can wake up and think it is ok to own a person ? I have no answer for that , but there would be something fundamentally wrong with anyone who thinks that is acceptable .

Marriage is a joint ownership of another to the extent that both beings become one. I often joke that the only person truly freed during emancipation was the black woman. A marriage is not one person owning another but is a joint enslavement of two beings towards a single purpose of becoming a single entity. The fruit of such an entity is offspring. A person's face represents their authority. If a woman is wearing a veil, then she is not exposing her face. How each member in a marriage expresses their authority is a mystery revealed by Christ. The book of acts in the New Testament juxtaposes the old marriage that was expressed in the Jewish Temple with the new marriage expressed in Christ's Church.
We are born tyrants. The best we can be is a tyrant. Of all the tyrants in the world, the worst was not Adolph Hitler. To the contrary, the worst tyrant, the one who offended the Holy Spirit, an unforgiveable offense, was Saul. Being He is extremely efficient, the Almighty took Saul, the worst, and transformed Him into the chosen vessel Paul, a serving Apostle to the very least.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If the average american works and 40% of his "income" is taken by TAXES what does that make him??

I'd say he's nearly half a slave. And that is only the tip of the iceberg in what his "masters" allow him to do or NOT DO with his own property and life.

In a world ruled by legal precedence, the lawyers determine what the people do, whereas, in a world ruled by Civil Purpose, the people determine what the lawyers do. If you want to determine what the lawyers do, then, for cripes sake, you don't hire one! No, you start off by firing them. The first place to start firing lawyers is the corporations. As only a few corporations will be needed to serve a nation of lawyers, most corporations won't be needed once the lawyers legislate every administrative function away from the people. So, as most of today's corporations depend more on the Civil Purpose of the people than on the legal precedence of lawyers, it would be in their best interest to gather to fire as many lawyers from their legal departments as possible.
Now, tell me this isn't an agenda! ;)

[oyarde]

Marriage is a joint ownership of another to the extent that both beings become one. I often joke that the only person truly freed during emancipation was the black woman. A marriage is not one person owning another but is a joint enslavement of two beings towards a single purpose of becoming a single entity. The fruit of such an entity is offspring. A person's face represents their authority. If a woman is wearing a veil, then she is not exposing her face. How each member in a marriage expresses their authority is a mystery revealed by Christ. The book of acts in the New Testament juxtaposes the old marriage that was expressed in the Jewish Temple with the new marriage expressed in Christ's Church.
We are born tyrants. The best we can be is a tyrant. Of all the tyrants in the world, the worst was not Adolph Hitler. To the contrary, the worst tyrant, the one who offended the Holy Spirit, an unforgiveable offense, was Saul. Being He is extremely efficient, the Almighty took Saul, the worst, and transformed Him into the chosen vessel Paul, a serving Apostle to the very least.

I am not married , widowed .

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

My vote is Christians.

They dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and if a person doesnt believe in the same religion as they do, they are inferior to dog food and think those people should be treated as such.

---



Does this mean that if I follow No Religion at all (athiest) that I now have myself a Religion of Peace?

Kind of like "No War is a Good War" and the ways that can be interpreted...

Okay, but you will need to create a new rational system to use in developing a new religion as logic has already been developed and incorporated by Islam.
An economy is a religion as a religion is an economy. So, tell me, what do you plan on having as your economy? Whatever it is, that will become your new religion. Why people think that atheism will somehow develop a rich economy is, well, baffling. It was Friedrich Nietzsche who recognized that economies exist as moral systems. He then recognized morality as only as good as the parts making up the whole. If the parts are corrupt, then the whole exists as a lie. Nietzsche then predicted nihilism as a result, the total breakdown that led up to both world wars.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I am not married , widowed .

A "Son of God" is intimate in classification. He is not just the greatest of people, but the greatest offspring from that greatest of people. In comparison, a "Son of Man" is a stranger. He is not just an outcaste, but he is rejected as the most uncomely offspring from out of that outcaste stranger.
The birth of life happens when the darkest of souls understands how she represents not only the commoner people, but how she represents the many worthless sons of man within them as well.
This is the marriage I am speaking about. We see a seperation from tyranny in The Declaration of Independence. This decree divorced the people from a tyrant. But then our Founding Fathers did something kind of surprising. They didn't keep us seperated from tyranny, but, as rightful gentlemen of social status, they then stooped to act out another masterpiece by remarrying us to a "more perfect union," with this being a "necessary tyranny."
Today suffers a wretched soul deemed too withered and uncomely for her master's business. The only choices left to her are to kneel to him, or for her to stand in faith in darkness and then to walk away in faith from that darkness. As the plight of the people envisions and strengthens her to walk against her nature, so then let her plight strengthen and envision the people to do likewise.

[erowe1]

No religion is "peaceful" otherwise, how would it exist? Conversions are needed in some way shape or form. Otherwise your religion dies.

Throughout the first three centuries of Christianity Christians were in no position to impose their wills on anyone with violence, and in fact were the frequent victims of violence at the hands of the state just for being Christians, many going to their deaths rather than deny the lordship of Jesus Christ. And despite this physical disincentive the state provided for being and/or becoming Christians, their faith grew dramatically in numbers by way of conversion.

[Sola_Fide]

Throughout the first three centuries of Christianity Christians were in no position to impose their wills on anyone with violence, and in fact were the frequent victims of violence at the hands of the state just for being Christians, many going to their deaths rather than deny the lordship of Jesus Christ. And despite this physical disincentive the state provided for being and/or becoming Christians, their faith grew dramatically in numbers by way of conversion.

Yep.

In AD 197 Tertullian famously said:


“kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice is the proof that we are innocent... The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”

[robert68]

...



Could you cite the source for the quote in your signature line of “Murray Rothbard”? When I google it, I only get your post above.

[ClayTrainor]

Especially the religion of atheism right?


I think it's dishonest that you keep referring to atheism as a religion.

Atheism and Theism are not religions. Atheism is a word to describe an individuals lack of belief in any particular "God". Theism is a word to describe an individuals belief in 1 or more "God". Nothing more.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Throughout the first three centuries of Christianity Christians were in no position to impose their wills on anyone with violence, and in fact were the frequent victims of violence at the hands of the state just for being Christians, many going to their deaths rather than deny the lordship of Jesus Christ. And despite this physical disincentive the state provided for being and/or becoming Christians, their faith grew dramatically in numbers by way of conversion.

The early cult of Christianity called "The Way" did not depend on property ownership as it was embodied mostly by slaves who would meet under over turned fishing vessels. As it was against Roman law to worship Christ, as being caught doing so meant that a person had to suffer the same penalty as the false profit they worshipped, watchmen had to be posted outside as guards.

[erowe1]

I think it's dishonest that you keep referring to atheism as a religion.

Atheism and Theism are not religions. Atheism is a word to describe an individuals lack of belief in any particular "God". Theism is a word to describe an individuals belief in 1 or more "God". Nothing more.

I agree with you on this.

But it's also important to emphasize that every person has a religion. And for atheists, their atheism is a part of their religion (whether Buddhism, secular humanism, utilitarianism, or whatever) among other things, just as for theists their theism is a part of their religion (whether Christianity, Islam, Hindu, or whatever) among other things. So even though these tenets are not religions by themselves, they are important parts within religions.

The problem is that atheists sometimes play this rhetorical trick where they try to set themselves apart as uniquely rational, as if the set of answers other people give to questions like, "Is there a god?", "Why are we here?", "Is there an afterlife?", and other religious questions, are the result of superstitious leaps of faith, whereas they fancy their own answers as some kind of nonreligious default that depends on reason alone.

[ClayTrainor]

I agree with you on this.

But it's also important to emphasize that every person has a religion. And for atheists, their atheism is a part of their religion among other things, just as for Christians their theism is a part of their religion among other things. So even though these tenets are not religions by themselves, they are important parts within religions.


I don't feel that I'm religious according to any of the definitions I'm currently googling but, I suppose I should ask, how would you define the term religion?

Would you say something like the NAP is kind of like my religion, since I use it as a moral guide?



The problem is that atheists sometimes try to play this rhetorical trick where they try to set themselves apart as uniquely rational, as if the set of answers other people give to questions like, "Is there a god?", "Why are we here?", "Is there an afterlife?", and other religious questions, are the result of superstitious leaps of faith, whereas they fancy their own answers as some kind of nonreligious default that depends on reason alone.

I have no doubt that is true with some atheists, though I'd like to consdier myself a bit better than that.(maybe I'm wrong) I actually rather enjoy pursuing answers to those types of profound questions you just listed. I don't think anyone can really answer the definitively but it's enjoyable to speculate.

To be fair, many Christians can be just as dishonest with rhetorical tricks in these kinds of discussions.

[oyarde]

You think Islam was accepted when Muahammad came back to Mecca from the mountain? They kicked him out of Mecca and he had to flee to Medina, where there he laid Islam, fleeing punishment from the tribes of Mecca... Reading history is really important, I can't see how you fail to bring up Islam's beginning when making a statement about Christianity, both had trouble beginnings, both were minorities, and now both are major religions, through conquest, spreading of education and others.

I agree that in the history lies everything everyone needs to know.

[Sola_Fide]

You think Islam was accepted when Muahammad came back to Mecca from the mountain? They kicked him out of Mecca and he had to flee to Medina, where there he laid Islam, fleeing punishment from the tribes of Mecca... Reading history is really important, I can't see how you fail to bring up Islam's beginning when making a statement about Christianity, both had trouble beginnings, both were minorities, and now both are major religions, through conquest, spreading of education and others.


Abe, let's be very honest about how the two religions began. Christianity did NOT begin in military conquest. Christianity began as a persecuted Roman cult and exploded throughout the known world DESPITE its small number of worshippers being tortured, brutalized, and supressed.

Christianity and Islam did NOT have similar beginnings. I don't know how you could even make that claim. Jesus was not a military commander like Muhammed. Jesus did not lead his troops into battle like Muhammed. Jesus was not married to a 9 year old girl like Muhammed was (just being completely honest here).

[amy31416]

Jesus was not married to a 9 year old girl like Muhammed was (just being completely honest here).

Why do people always forget that Muhammad's first wife was like 30 years older than him or something?

Call him a pedophile, if that suits your agenda, but plural marriages at a very young age were common, and happened in the bible pretty frequently, if I recall correctly.

[erowe1]

I don't feel that I'm religious according to any of the definitions I'm currently googling but, I suppose I should ask, how would you define the term religion?


Here's the top definition at dictionary.com:


a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That's pretty much what I mean.



Would you say something like the NAP is kind of like my religion, since I use it as a moral guide?

That would definitely be a part of your religion. But it can be a part of many religions, including Christianity. Your religion is the whole system that includes that along with other foundational beliefs you have about things like whether or not a god exists and so on.

[erowe1]

You think Islam was accepted when Muahammad came back to Mecca from the mountain? They kicked him out of Mecca and he had to flee to Medina, where there he laid Islam, fleeing punishment from the tribes of Mecca... Reading history is really important, I can't see how you fail to bring up Islam's beginning when making a statement about Christianity, both had trouble beginnings, both were minorities, and now both are major religions, through conquest, spreading of education and others.

Maybe you didn't see the post I was replying to. But it looks like, if you want to frame Islamic history the way you do, you're merely providing an additional piece of evidence in favor of the point I made.

Never mind. I misread you. So your point is that Islam is a counterexample. Whereas Christianity thrived in its early period as passive victims of violence and not bringing about conversions by force, you point out that Islam did not take off until it began to win converts with the sword.

But still, the post I replied to made an absolute statement about all religions requiring violence. So it only takes one counterexample, which early Christianity amply provides, even if Islam does not.

[robert68]

Here's the top definition at dictionary.com:


That would definitely be a part of your religion. But it can be a part of many religions, including Christianity. Your religion is the whole system that includes that along with other foundational beliefs you have about things like whether or not a god exists and so on.

The term “Christianity”, much of the time, means the doctrines of the Christian Church, which are a political product largely of the 4th century.

[erowe1]

The term “Christianity”, much of the time, means the doctrines of the Christian Church, which are a political product largely of the 4th century.

I must be missing something. How does this comment relate to the quote of mine that you're replying to?

FWIW, I agree that the term "Christianity" means that much of the time.