Jim: Topic I: Q2

So, let Topic I be Equality. We've started an historical evaluation of the impact of religion on equality. Seeking to answer: Is Religion Good for the Country? But, maybe this is too dry all alone. Here's another root, which is to explore: Is Religion Good for a Person?

If I were not a Christian, I do not think I would believe all people are equal. It is one of the most significant impact's my faith has had on my value system. Now, I would certainly be a Democratic Populists. But, you can be one of those and still think you are fundamentally better than others. It is my faith that brought me to truly see everyone as a child of God and therefore intrinsically equal.

Jim: MetaPost

Here is a story that sort of shows up a problem we'll have analyzing things. http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html Namely, everyone in government claims a religion. And, just about everyone in history has. So, it makes it super difficult to tell was is secular and what is sectarian.

Jim: Topic I: Equality: Luther

The big question is whether religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, has helped Western Civilization. The current issue is whether this religion brought about the move toward greater equality of its members.

The Protestant Reformation was a gigantic move toward equality. It challenged the authority of the church and right of church members to have access to the holy documents. The notion that, in the eyes of God, we are all equal was crucial to the march toward greater equality. Luther and the Church contributed to the establishment of this value in Western Civilization.

Jim: Topic I: Equality-Origins

By the end of the Fifteenth century inequality was dramatic in the Western World. I will suggest it was at a peak. Europe was ruled by monarchies that separated citizens into many classes with different rights, and much different quality of life. Even worse than Europeans on the bottom of the economic system were non-Europeans being held as perpetual slaves and traded as a commodity.

This system was the product of the savage pursuit of wealth and power. Neither secular philosophers, nor religious thinkers had much to do with the creation of the system. I've pointed out a couple ideas that could help facilitate this turn of events, but seems unlikely either were the cause.

Jim: Topic I: Origins

I have a thought I want to put up before we abandon the origins of slavery. I've been thinking about Machiavelli and any relation he might have to treating people unequally. Now, I've actually read The Prince. It was a long time ago, and I wish I could read it again, but here's the deal. Machiavelli is not about being cold-hearted. He's about being practical. He is talking about how to maintain control when maintain control is your business. As Schepman said to Mellancamp when he came to auction of his land, I'm just doing my job. (Calling it your job ol' hoss sure don't make it right.)

What Machiavelli may have brought that led to inequality, even dramatic inequality, is detachment. Maybe that helps transform an economy (biblical slavery) to an autrocity (atlantic perpetual slavery).

While I'm on it, I think the Judeo-Christian tradition has some ugliness to deal with. Not the recognition of the practice of slavery. That's a sign of the times, and in fact the biblical tradition just regulates a common practice. What the Judeo-Christian tradition brings is the notion of exceptionalism. We are the God's chosen people. Africans aren't. This is a fine offering to a nomadic tribe that is getting conquered every few centuries by another Empire.

(Thanks to Matt for this btw, This really is super: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf )

But when Constantine invited Christianity to mount the horse, well, suddenly exceptionalism becomes dangerous.

Darn, that post wasn't short either.

Jim: Topic I: Secular Philosphers

We were poking around the 1450's. One way to look at this might be to consider the prominent thinker of the era. According to the Great Books Society big thinkers of the time were Erasmus and Machiavelli. Copernicus comes in a little later and Chaucer was much before. I'm just spit balling here because I really dig the idea of the Great Conversation.

Jim: Topic I: Beginning of the Slave Trade

I've done a little Googling around and found a general web consensus that economic motives started the slave trade. Any argument on that? It seems safe.

The idea of forced labor way predates the European slave trade. Matt mentioned its use by Romans/Greeks. You can't talk about slavery, civil rights, or affirmative action for more than ten minutes without someone raising the startling revelation that Africans also practiced slavery.

Do Western religious or secular thinkers bear any blame for the harshness of slavery that came when slavery became a racial issue? For example, the notion that one remained a slave forever and that one's children were the property of the owner. Those were new, right?

I hear that short blogging is the way to go, so I'll leave it there for now.