The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

The Church opposed the enslaving of 'civilised' people.  That included most native Americans.  That's a large part of what caused African slavery and the slavery of Brazilian natives.

[Valmy]

In Sweden we had freedom of religion until Christianity became dominant. It took us 800 years to get it back.

It was kind of sad how the Germanic tradition of religious tolerance led to the extinction of their religions.  Even the most hardcore Anglo-Saxon pagan king would let the missionaries come in and a few generations later his descendents would be stamping out that very paganism.

[Malthus]

I'm trying to find where I read that, but I'm having some trouble.  There was some Catholic council on deciding whether slavery was just.  One side argued from the Bible (against), one from Aristotle (for).  The ones arguing on the side of Aristotle won.

The Bible is not against slavery.  I mean it doesn't like slavery of Jews but beyond that it even says it is ok to have foreign slaves which I thought was why the Church decided enslaving Africans and Native Americans was ok.  But I can certainly see Aristotle being used a source as well.  Though I do not know if describing slaves as 'human machines' is really an endorsement

The real issue is that the Bible (at least, the OT) and the great Greek and Roman philosophers came form civilizations in which slavery was an accepted part - but the type of slavery in each case differed dramatically.

In the OT, slavery existed, but it was more what you would call the sort of "traditional" slavery that also existed in many other civilizations - such as sub-Saharan Africa itself: slave status was a punishment for crime (in a civilization that lacked jails, slave status, fines, death or mutilation were the only options for crime), in some cases, obtained as a result of losing a war. It was never intended to be permanent or inherited and was generally somewhat ameliorated by rules of conduct - though of course it was still very nasty. Most importantly, it was still reasonably infrequent.

In Greco-Roman civilization, slave status gradually morphed from this to what could be termed true chattel slavery - in the Roman case, slavery as an economic prop underpinning society, used on a vast scale. Slavery as a system of industrial relations. Their writings reflect that.

After the fall of Rome, the successor states reverted to a system that was more in line with that of the OT or the Sub Saharan - slavery as a punishment for crime or as a result of losing a war. Hence the OT's views on slavery made sense to them.

Flash forward to the end of the middle ages. The Renaissance was all about rediscovering and re-implementing the glories of ancient civilization - slavery along with the rest. Fortuitously, at the same time European navagators were discovering large tracts of easily worked tropical lands and access to easily exploited natives in Africa. Hence, the Roman system made more sense.

[Razgovory]

In Sweden we had freedom of religion until Christianity became dominant. It took us 800 years to get it back.

It was kind of sad how the Germanic tradition of religious tolerance led to the extinction of their religions.  Even the most hardcore Anglo-Saxon pagan king would let the missionaries come in and a few generations later his descendents would be stamping out that very paganism.

How tolerant were they really?  Christian also led to the Germanic tradition of slave raiding and severely curtailed slavery in Europe for a long time.

[Razgovory]

The Church opposed the enslaving of 'civilised' people.  That included most native Americans.  That's a large part of what caused African slavery and the slavery of Brazilian natives.

I think a major part of the appeal of the African slave trade is that the Europeans weren't actually enslaving many of them.  They were already slaves.  The Europeans were simply buying from an existent and convenient market.  Subsaharan African had already been exporting slaves for centuries.

[Valmy]

How tolerant were they really?

Of religion?  Very.  But one shouldn't therefore conclude they were enlightened or nice people.  It was just a cultural quality so 'tolerance' is perhaps the wrong word.

[Valmy]

I think a major part of the appeal of the African slave trade is that the Europeans weren't actually enslaving many of them.  They were already slaves.  The Europeans were simply buying from an existent and convenient market.  Subsaharan African had already been exporting slaves for centuries.

Well obviously it would have been impossible for the African slave trade to exist without this.  Until the 19th century the Europeans did not have the means to capture that many Africans by force in a fashion that would have made economic sense.

[Malthus]

How tolerant were they really?

Of religion?  Very.  But one shouldn't therefore conclude they were enlightened or nice people.  It was just a cultural quality so 'tolerance' is perhaps the wrong word.

Like the Mongols, who were extremely tolerant of religion because they considered it a private matter and not terribly important. But were nonetheless extremely horrible in lots of other ways.

[DGuller]

For the first time ever, I'm using music to motivate myself at work while doing a highly unpleasant task.  My music of choice:  Falalalan.     It's strangely effective, though.

[Valmy]

For the first time ever, I'm using music to motivate myself at work while doing a highly unpleasant task.  My music of choice:  Falalalan.     It's strangely effective, though.

It is the greatest video game song of all time.

[The Brain]

How tolerant were they really?

Of religion?  Very.  But one shouldn't therefore conclude they were enlightened or nice people.  It was just a cultural quality so 'tolerance' is perhaps the wrong word.

Like the Mongols, who were extremely tolerant of religion because they considered it a private matter and not terribly important. But were nonetheless extremely horrible in lots of other ways.

We're not that bad if you get to know us.

[Admiral Yi]

Read another op-ed at lunch about immigration in which the author, some KY DA type dude, claimed that the US annually grants citizenship to more people than the rest of the world combined.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm bored as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!

Well, hmmm...

[Iormlund]

The head of the Agricultural Lobby has come out and complained about so many people leaving the church. He suggested that everyone not being official member of a religion should instead pay a "cultural tax" that's used for the upkeep of historical buildings . . . by which he means catholic churches.

The conservatives at first said, "Interesting idea," but when everyone else started laughing (and besdes, tax money is already going into the upkeep of historical church buildings), they backpeddalled quicker than a tricicle that has a bus rushing at it.

Sounds good...

We don't have a church tax in this country.  But I think preserving the buildings would be a good idea.

If they can't afford to preserve churches the State should nationalize them.

[Sheilbh]

If they can't afford to preserve churches the State should nationalize them.

We did