Talk:Slavery and religion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Non neutral 2 Next topic 3 One needs more than quotes 3.1 Exegetics is not "special pleading" 4 Noah did not institutionalize slavery 4.1 Arguments please 5 Confrontational text moved 6 Modern day slavery exist EVERYWHERE in the modern world, regardless of religion 7 Pinning down the problem 8 Did anyone in the Roman Empire condemn slavery? 9 Splitting of this article? 10 Move this article - a proposal 11 An outsider's comment 11.1 Aftermath 12 Moving POV material to talk page 13 Slavery and religion today 14 What needs to be done 14.1 New focus: Religion and slavery 15 CANNAN IS A PERSON. 16 Hinduism 17 Why the bold? 18 Islamic section POV 19 Copyright vio? 20 Biblical principles

Non neutral

The tone dramatically changes once we reach the 'Islam' section. The levels of condensation directed at Muslims contrasts sharply with the mostly nuetral discussion of Jews and Christians (by that I mean no derogatory comments or remarks made against their religon in general or the practitioners of it). For instance I don't see any 'Christain apologists' however there is more than one mention of an anti-slavery Islmaic point of view being labeled as 'apologist'. This needs one of the 'non-nuetral disclaimers' at the top of the page. It seems the author is trying to prove a point of view (ie- that Abrahamic Religons DO Condone Slavery) instead of discussing the topic intellectually.

Also, WHY AINT EXPERTS being ASKED? Such as Christian Bishops & Cardinals? Or Muslim Shaykhs and Scholars?

Here are some pages to REFER to, that are QUESTIONS answered by SHAYKHS

"Sex with slaves and women's rights" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00002047.aspx

"Is Slavery Allowed in Islam?" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00000674.aspx

"Slavery: How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the good of humanity, allows slavery?" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00000711.aspx

You demonstrate what some people do to change or suppress history. The fact is muslims had a lot of slaves (25 million +) and had them for a long time (1400 years). Wikipedia isn't about protecting one's image but is about presenting facts. By the way, other religions were/are involved in slavery and should be mentioned along with the expansion of all sections. (Anonymous User) 17 June 2006

Those links are really usful. Anonymous is right we are here to present the facts with as much historical accuracy and lack of bias as humanly possible. Expect a totally disputed tag if the critisism of islam is noticed.Hypnosadist 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Next topic

This section does not have a neutral point of view and is slanted to present the history of Jewish and Christian religions in a bad light. It is correct that Christianity has not always condemned slavery, and any statement that it has is incorrect. To state that Christianity has sanctioned or condoned slavery as an obvious fact, without context, is not neutral. Robert McClenon

Hello Robert,

I don't think you can get more neutral than this. I gave quotes from the Bible to back my statement. If you think what I wrote is only part of the picture, obviously you know of Biblical verses that prohibit slavery. Can you please quote them so we all can learn something new? The fact that you dislike the idea that Paul, Peter and even Jehovah supported slavery does not mean my article is not neutral. Often people have such a great love for their beleifs that they tend not to see what is beneath their nose. Your claim that my article is not neutral is your personal point of view but it is a point of view that you can't prove. Can you please quote one verse from the Bible that says slavery is wrong?

One needs more than quotes

Where is the exegesis? It is not neutral in and of itself just to quote some scripture. It also needs to be interpreted. When one is interpreting one also needs to tell according to which principles. To state that Noah - under divine authority - established slavery and in turn to take that to mean that God would sort of like slavery is not a literal reading of the text. It is a highly biased interpretation, violating the following principles:

1. Distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive text. If someone did something it's not to be seen as God's will until some other text clearly says so. This is especially true in Genesis where the author is trying to make a point on how God choses and blesses the ill-deserving.
2. Distinguish between what is described as God's perfect will and what He is doing with regret. The bulk of the OT texts can be described like the following: "Bad actions will have bad consequences, so please, please do not do them!" Noah speaking a curse
3. Identify the correct genre. A curse is not a governmental decree. Even if Noah curses one of his sons into slavery, that does not mean that he "institutionalises" it. Actually it clearly implicates that slavery must already have been around before the flood, for the curse to make sense.

My next point. Where is the hermeneutics? Having identified a texts original meaning is the first step. The next step is to identify its meaning for the reader. Passages from the OT have always been interpreted by the christians, already within the New Testament, in the light of the alleged fulfillment of prophecy in Christ. All texts therefore have an interpretative history which can not be neglected.

A passage in the OT must be read in the light of Christian interpretative history if it is quoted as an example of what christians once believed. Which is the question at hand in an Encyclopedia. Wheher such a belief is good or bad, or whether it actually makes sense, can be nothing but POV.

Likewise all good hermenutics must take into account exactly what question did the original text try to answer and how that question guides the applicability of a certain text today. No text in the NT tries to answer our specific question, namely what should one think of slavery per se. The texts try to answer questions more like "how should one behave in a hostile world where slavery is an established fact?" This is actually very clear if you read the paying close attention to words like "because", "so that", etc.

Another hermeneutical aspect is whether a text should be considered a temporary measure or if it reflects an eternal value. The christian viewpoint has always been that there are lots of stuff in the OT that is not eternal.

• It might be fulfilled in Christ (like the sacrificial system)
• It might be hygenic rules (like the prohibition to eat certain food)
• It might be rules intended for the Israelitic nation under God only. (Some fringes of Christianity have held the belief that the society in which they live should be transformed into such a nation "under God" as well, but this was not the original (pre-Constantin) view, nor is it the majority view today.)
• Etc.

This is nothing but normal hermeneutics, used all of the time in most questions. To ignore it is highly POV!

My third point. Having used sound exegesis and hermeneutics, one arrives at the third stage: dogmatics and ethics. When one is doing systematic theology, which is what one is doing when is tryng to answer what the christian (or some other religious) view is towards slavery, one needs to look not only at passages in the scripture, but it's general values and other themes that touch upon our subject as well.

If you look at church history this (the general "geist") actually is what has guided most christians through the ages. When christianity arrived for good in my country (Sweden) in the 11th century, it was the driving force to abolish slavery, as indeed it was throughout most of Europe.

What americans need to understand is that history did not start in 1776. Slavery had ceased in most parts of the "christian" world long before your civil war. Even though slavery can have been considered to continue in the form of feudalism, "slavery light", feudalism was not the brainchild of theologians but an inevitable consequence of the need for chivalry. The total abolishment of slavery therefore could not be accomplished except through thorough societal change. (Which makes st Paul's or st Peter's stance all the more understandable. Now this is apologetics, but I am not proposing it be put into an article!) itpastorn 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the above editor's special pleading (for example, he removes the point that certain passage sanctions slavery, and makes the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved; plenty of endorsers of slavery have agreed. In the same way, those who support capital punishment don't think that sentencing someone to death is anything but a dreadful punishment). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Exegetics is not "special pleading"

"I've reverted... special pleading", says Mel Etitis. So simple to disregard more than ten paragraphs where I talk about the disciplines of exegetics and hermenutics. What has been reverted?

• An interpretation of a narrative text about Noah. Narrative texts, especially in the Genesis, do not claim that the actions of the people automatically should be considered as God's will. on the contrary. Even if Noah "institutionalised" slavery (very much disputed) that can in no way be taken as an indication that this was a good thing to do. One needs corroborating texts to make such a claim. Remove this hermenutical principle and the Bible says absolutely everything.

To prove the point that I am wrong, please state what exegetical and hermeneutical principles you follow in order to substantiate the following: "In this way slavery appears to be not only sanctioned but institutionalized by Noah."

• "The apostle Paul never explicitly addressess the issue of slavery as an institution." Please provide a text where st Paul addresses the institution of slavery, where his topic is if slavery should be abolished in society or not. My claim was that he addressess the topic of how a special group of people should conduct themselves in a society where slavery is everywhere. This is no "special pleading" but a simple fact.

What one should make from the fact that the institution is not addressed is another step, namely in constructing a christian ethic. I am discussing exegetics.

• "In his context however, this principle did not lead to any agitation for the abolishment of slavery per se." is reverted to "Yet, Paul never takes this to the stage of calling for the abolition of slavery." The word yet speaks volumes and is in itself definately more POV than my phrase. My phrase is nothing but a very simple stating of facts. It does not condone st Paul, nor explain why he chose his topic. It simply says he did not argue that slavery as an institution should be dropped (just as he never argues the opposite either).
• "Present-day Christians argue ... And that early christianity did not have a poltical voice, but was often trying to survive in the face of hostility and persecution. They would also argue that as soon as christianity became a more dominant factor in society it mostly have stood for the abolishment of slavery, as is evidenced when it overtook belief in the Æsir gods." In this paragraph we address the issue of how present day christians look at the passages in Scripture and what guiding principles they follow when the claim that Christianity is anti-slavery. That is the topic. To deny the very voicing of these arguments in such a context is offensive. Should it be considered OK if a christian went to the article on ateism and simply removed the arguments that ateists have? Of course not.

Before anyone reverts once again, I would appreciate some exegetics and some hermeneutics!

Mel Etitis also makes the following claim that I make "the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved" (emphasis added). Nonsense. The topic at hand is how did the biblical authors regard slavery. When something in the bible is considered a curse that is not simply another way of saying that someone had an unpleasant experience. It speaks volumes about how God regards something.

Noah cursed on of his sons. That is in no way a comparable act with issuing a law. When the people of Israel disobey God, they face the possibility of being taken as slaves by other people. That is a consequence of not fulfilling the Covenant with God, something God especially pleads with the people that they should in every way avoid. itpastorn 16:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't do "exegetics" and "hermeneutics", I read and think; I'm sorry if that's not fancy enough.

It is not a matter of being fancy. It is a matter of telling us according to what principles one thinks. What guiding principles? What steps of logic? How do you weigh a particular word?

1. Most of the above evades (albeit at great length) the points that I made. For example, itpastorn deleted the true comment that Paul didn't criticise slavery, replacing it with the evasive point that Paul didn't talk about slavery. Well, yes, not talking about is not criticising, but it neatly evades the point that someone in a society to which slavery is central should criticise it if they disapprove of it, especially when they're concerned to discuss morality. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mel Etitis's reasoning with one exception. He is doing exegesis if he is reading and thinking about how to interpret a scripture. He may not be following any particular school of exegesis or hermeneutics. In a pluralistic society, he is not required to follow any particular school. Robert McClenon 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I was, I admit, reacting to what I saw as unnecessary sesquipedalianism. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But for the Wikipedia to be NPOV one must at the very least tell which school one should follow or what line of reasoning one has. Mel Etitis simply reverts but does not say how he arrived at his conclusion. Please explain why his "school" is better than mine? Because as it is right now, his school is being allowed to dictate what the article should say. At the very least both interpretations should be presented - in a pluralistic society. Right now he is no more pluralist than I am.--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, what you and I believe that st Paul should discuss is one matter, but the first step must be to acknowledge correctly what he did discuss. From there we can move on to the question of how he did chose his topics. We can find a multide of ethical and dogmatical questions that st Paul did not discuss per se. What was st Pauls guiding principle when he wrote his letters? What was the guiding principle of the people who collected some of these letters into what we today call the NT? From silence one can argue anything!

--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

When prominent people say nothing about prominent evils, one is entitled to say that they failed to criticise those evils. I don't know their reasons, though I can theorise — but to call it a failure to criticise is perfectly NPoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"When prominent people say nothing about prominent evils, one is entitled to say that they failed to criticise those evils." If you had access to everything Paul said and wrote this would be true. We do not. We have some of his letters, originally written to a specific audience addressing specific questions. On those points all scholars agree. The words I suggested said exactly what we can see in the text - that he does not address the institution of slavery per se. To call this a "failure" is an interpretation and needs to be substantiated. Otherwise it is simply an argument from silence, i.e. no argument at all.--itpastorn 19:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Noah did not institutionalize slavery

I am opening up this section in order to facilitate a discussion about one of the issues at hand.

The last revert by Mel Etitis has been done without him justifying his actions on the talk page. How can a curse be interpreted as a governmental decree? Study the topic of curses (and blessings) in the Bible, the OT, and the Pentateuch and you will very easily see that they are something else.

On what grounds can one say that this particular action by Noah reflects the will of God? The author never says so. On the contrary, he very often, especially in Genesis, portraits the people as very ill-deserving of the blessings God gives.

Arguments please! itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Arguments please

itpastorn writes: Arguments please! Yes. He and Mel Etitis were in a revert war. Can they both please summarize what points they are trying to make?

I am inclined to agree with Mel Etitis that he was within reason in deleting a specific interpretation, not on the grounds that it was "special pleading", but on the grounds that it is original research, one editor's exegesis. If itpastorn wishes to provide an exegesis and a hermeneutic, he should cite the scholar who has published this exegesis. Robert McClenon 11:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this principle not apply to us both? What scholar says that Noah did institutionalize slavery? Shouldn't such a quote be just as required?--itpastorn 13:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Confrontational text moved

"However I invite those who disagree with the above to quote at least one verse from the Bible that prohibits or even discourages slavery."

This statement is not neutral, but invites discussion. It is my understanding, and I may be completely wrong, that the NPOV concept is that the encyclopedia itself should identify non-neutral points of view rather than inviting the presentation of other points of view. I think that is an entirely reasonable statement to make on this discussion page. Robert McClenon

We're discussing what is what isn't neutral. He's telling you that if you have something that proves it is not neutral, you should discuss it on this page. Xunflash 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but.... There is a rule that I have seen but am not about to look up that says that Wikipedia editors should avoid making first-person statements on an article page. In this case, the proper place for first-person statements was the talk page. The fact that there was discussion on the talk page is apparent from the NPOV banner. Similarly, if an article has a banner disputing its accuracy, that is itself an indication to go to the talk page. Robert McClenon 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Modern day slavery exist EVERYWHERE in the modern world, regardless of religion

It is a human trait, that in every enclosed group of people, a certain minute segment seems to rise above the rest, and takes hold of the vast majority of all available resources to that community. The rest of society, becomes a 'slave' to the whims of these people, who have manipulated themselves into positions of supreme power, over them.

Take any modern country and you will notice a disturbing pattern: About 5% of the elite of the population, usually controls over 80% of the country's wealth. The rest of the 95% of the population, is left to fight over the remaining 20% or less, of the resources that are still free for the taking. And they do so like cats & dogs, fight over chunks of food.

Have you ever noticed the traffic jams of endless seas of cars in bumper to bumper morning hour rush to their cages called offices and places of work? These people work their butts all their lives, enriching the handful of private individuals who own their work. The salary structures are such, that a worker HAS to continue working ALL his life, in order to support his life, his wife and his family and life style. If he quits for even a month, his finances go completely haywire and he sees himself free-falling into the abyss of economic doom.

So, despite the various rants in this article against the three Abrahamic religions, the fact is that slavery, unfortunately, is encoded in the human DNA. And thus, will NEVER go away, and CAN'T EVER go away, no matter what your religion is or isn't. Pale blue dot July 6, 2005 05:45 (UTC)

That statement about the various in this article is itself a rant. Since this is a talk page, ranting is permitted. Robert McClenon 19:32, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article seems a bit strange. I think what happened was that certain people were attacking certain religions about the followers of said religions owning slaves. So someone felt it was necessary to combine all three religions and show that all three condoned owning slaves at different points in time and that they don't now. While I agree with this fact, I still do not see the comparison of modern-day slavery with slavery as written in the various holy texts as relevant. The world was a very different place when many of these religions were founded and what may seem abhorrent to us now was not then. So even if Jews, Christians, and Muslims traded in slaves (which they all did) that does not mean their religions actually forced them or encouraged them to enslave people. I think we can all agree that in reality slavery has little or nothing to do with religion.

The only time people associate slavery with religion is when they particularly despise a certain religion and want to connect it with slavery as it existed in the past few centuries to make it seem a maleficient religion. I have seen atheists who have bashed Christianity and Judaism for encouraging slavery and I have seen Christian polemical writers bash Islam for encouraging slavery. In either case, the motive was crystal clear, to spew vitriol against a certain religion. In many cases the person doing the "spewing" is a hypocrite Heraclius 6 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Well it DID happen. The fact that all three religions (and certainly non-religious texts too) have passages condoning slavery reflects the time when they were written. (if you subscribe to Marxist theory, slavery is a nesscessary stage of cultural and economical developement, and we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for slavery).It doesn't make them "malefficient" (i learned a new word today!). Fortunately all three religions have progressed beyond slavery, and big congrats to them. But it doesn't mean the relationship between religion and slavery (in ancient times) shouldn't be examined and discussed. It would be like teaching history students that slavery didn't exist in America. We learn from our past, and just because some people use history as hypocritical hate propaganda doesn't we should totally ignore it. Xunflash 20:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Pinning down the problem

I think this is largely a question of tone. Points that have factual basis, are being put in an unneccessarily judgmental way. Specifically:

Today, the followers of the three Abrahamic religions are against slavery. They also claim that their religions have always been against slavery. [1], [2] However, this claim does not seem to be supported by the scriptures of these religions. In fact the reverse seems to be true. The holy books of the three major Abrahamic religions sanction and legitimize slavery. It's unfair to say that these books "sanction and legitimize slavery" -- that's a question of interpretation. Today, they would not be read by the vast majority of people as doing so. Centuries ago, the same words were read that way. The whole structure of this paragraph -- "everyone THINKS these religions were ALWAYS good, but they WEREN'T!" -- is leading towards a conclusion. It would suffice to point out that there are references in the holy books of these religions that condone or legitimize slavery.

Then, the claim about Peter "clearly endorsing" is ok by me, because, well, he does; the quote proves it. However, the fourth paragraph of "Slavery in the New Testament" is all speculation/conclusion and should go. The sentence "The above verses prove this apologetic statement is unsubstantiated" should also go, obviously. As, similarly should the references to "Muslim apologists." The sentence about a "bitter joke" also has a totally inappropriate tone.

Religion can bring forth the best in us. Alas, it also can bring the worst. - Obviously opinion and should go also.

So, I think there is a good job here of describing the attitudes towards slavery in these three holy books, but let the facts speak for themselves and don't suffocate us with sharp wording and your own conclusions. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 02:36 (UTC)

This article appears to be an essay not an encyclopedia topic. What merits the discussion of "Slavery in abrahamic religion" as a separate article? I am tempted to put this up for VfD. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

This article was originally a section in a larger article on slavery. When I tried to edit the section to reduce what I saw as its non-neutrality (anti-religious slant), it was then moved into a separate article. I would agree either with deleting it or moving it back into slavery. Robert McClenon 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Whilst Islam did not 100% legally abolish slavery, wouldn't it be appropriate to cite verse 177 in Sura 2 which allows slaves to demand their own freedom and ENCOURAGES the Muslims to give them the money to buy their own freedom? The part about Islam improving condition for slaves 'being a bitter joke' sounds alot like Islamophobic propaganda to me, although it is true that in practice, slavery was quite evident throughout Islamic history. As for the Prophet Muhammad, whilst he did have slaves for some time, and did sell his enemies into slavery, he eventually encouraged widespread freeing of the slaves in conjunction with the afforementioned Koranic verse. I think the reference to Muhammad making a fortune from enslaving people is exaggerated.

It's called "Slavery in abrahamic religion" because there are other articles titled "Slavery in (blank)" (i.e. north america, medieval europe, list goes on an on), though a better title would've been Slavery in Abrahamic Religions during Biblical Times, since it discusses slavery as a widespread practice during the time that wasn't explicitly condemned by abrahamic religion. Someone should expand the bottom section, on how abrahamic religion had a positive effect on the removal of slavery since then to be fair. Xunflash 20:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone in the Roman Empire condemn slavery?

I have a question. Is there any reliable record that anyone in the Roman Empire, with the possible exception of the leaders of the three wars of slave rebellion, advocated the abolition of the institution of slavery? Did any philosophers, poets, or political or social reformers recommend the end of the institution of slavery? If the answer is no, as I think it is, then why should Paul be criticized for not proposing something that no one else had done?

I think that anyone who favored the abolition of slavery, which was the primary form of economically productive labor in the Roman Empire, would have been viewed at best as a rabble-rouser and more likely as a Spartacus. Robert McClenon 14:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Top of my head, I think Slavery is questioned by some philosophers - Epicurius and the Cynics. But since they were often viewed as anti-social anyway they serve to strengthen your point. Most philosophers advised responsible ownership. Interestingly, I don't think Sparticus condemned slavery. Indeed, few slaves did. It appears the aspiration of slaves was not for the abolition in the abstract, but for personal freedom - wealth - and the ownership of their own slaves. (But this is from memory, so I could be wrong. - I've got a few books on the subject to I'll check it out when I've a moment. --Doc (?) 14:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Diogenes and the Cynics? I think that Epicurus, like other philosophers, would have urged humane treatment of slaves.

If I recall correctly, Diogenes also opposed the ownership of property. Today he would probably be called an 'anarchocommunist' (or simply anti-social).

In any case, I think we are in agreement that anyone who had favored the abolition of slavery would have been viewed as a trouble-maker. Robert McClenon 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Epicurus admitted slaves to his school, The Garden — but as that was some 300 years before Paul, it's not clear that it's relevant here.
2. Zeno (the Stoic) seems to have argued against slavery, and in general stoicism was opposed; as stoicism was very influential among Roman intellectuals, that might be a line worth pursuing. I believe that at least one of them, Seneca, was anti-slavery.
3. Jewish philosophers were often anti-slavery (Philo of Alexandria was certainly one of them).
4. It may be that anyone who was against slavery was viewed as a trouble-maker (though I don't know of any evidence for that), but that certainly didn't mean that they were suppressed, or even dissuaded from expressing their views. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting of this article?

The following is a quote from a Wikipedia guideline:

In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view.

Perhaps, since the remainder of the article was not considered controversial, and since a summary was not left, the splitting of this article was incorrect. Robert McClenon 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly have concerns about the POV reasons for the split, but I do think Christianity and slavery is a legitimate subject for an article. Given this was a hot debate historically in the UK, and a contributing factor in the US Civil War. It is also a regular objection to the use of the Bible in modern ethics. This article has growth potential - although it needs much more on the historic views of the religions and how they have interpreted their texts through the ages - instead of just a record of the contents of Biblical texts (and thus an argument about how editors interpret them - which is rather irrelevant). I'm not too sure whether lumping 'Abrahamic religions' together is helpful - but then my knowledge is limmited to Christianity. --Doc (?) 08:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The relationship between Christianity and slavery is sufficiently tangled historically that it is worthy of its own article. I am willing to let Muslims decide whether a stand-alone article on slavery and Islam is in order.

In addition to the fact (noted) that Christian views on slavery were a contributing factor in the US Civil War, the question of slavery was a long-term influence on many religious denominations in the United States. The Methodist and Presbyterian churches split into a Northern and a Southern denomination over the issue, because the Northern majority in the general conference authorized the excommunication of slaveowners. They did not reunite until the twentieth century. The Baptist denomination remains divided to this day. The Protestant Episcopal Church avoided a schism because it had a Southern majority (being the historical church of the planter class). Robert McClenon 11:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Move this article - a proposal

I've just discovered that there is already an article Islam and slavery (there is also a Slavery and Islam currently on VfD as a POV fork. I am thus suggesting that the Islamic material here should be merged there. Could we then move the rest of the material to a Christianity and slavery article as I've pointed out above I think the topic merits an article (unless there is already one out there?). My only problem is what to do with the Hebrew Bible/OT material - does it merit it's own Judaism and slavery page?? This page could then be a fork to all three religions. Any thoughts?? --Doc (?) 12:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

An outsider's comment

This is the first time I've seen this article and I have to say that while the article seems factually correct, it certainly to me presents the facts in a non-neutral way. I have to agree with Dcarrano in saying it is a matter of tone. Is anyone working on improving the article? --K. 14:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the introductory text. It helps.

By the way, my concerns really always had to do with tone (point of view), not with accuracy. Robert McClenon 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I can see that now. So what should the article focus on? From my POV it seems that Abrahamic religions have a problem in that slavery is now more or less universally condemned, yet their scriptures don't always condemn it. That POV needs to be put across, but obviously the other side has to as well-- if I understand correctly, that it was specific to the time and not meant to be carried on til today. Comments? --K. 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Having a look at the Slavery article, I don't see why there should be an article on slavery in Abrahamic religions and not others. I think the article should be renamed to something along the lines of Slavery and religion, and cover what other religions say and have done with regard to slavery. --K. 09:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm ignorant about the other religions - but there has been a longterm debate within Christianity on this issue. An article could cover Biblical material and subsequent interpretations, 18th-19th Cent abolitionism in the UK, and religious debate arround the US civil war. All this would easily justify one stand-alone article. --Doc (?) 11:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't think there was enough information to warrant separate articles, but from your comments I can see would be. --K. 11:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath

Thank you to K. for adding the introductory paragraph. I have now replaced the NPOV banner with a request for cleanup. Robert McClenon 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Responding to RfC: Material has potential for a good article, but as it stands it does not cut it. It needs a thorough cleanup and NPOV'ng. Until that happen the article deserves an NPOV warning. It will be good as proposed above to move the article to Slavery and religion. --ZappaZ 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving POV material to talk page

As there is still a lot of POV material as mentioned by ZappaZ above, I'm going to move POV material to the talk page to be worked on. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Material moved from main article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavery and religion today

In all fairness, it must be noted that most believers of these religions today neither advocate nor condone slavery in any way. On the contrary they are a major force behind anti-slavery movements and many of them are valiantly fighting to eliminate this evil. A couple of examples of these courageous souls are: Mohamed Adam Yahya, Chairman and Spokesman of Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy (DCFD) and Maria Sliwa whose faith in Christianity has moved her to help people half a world away.

What needs to be done

Looking at this page after a break, I see a couple of things:

• There needs to be a Slavery and religion or Religion and slavery article.
• The article focuses on scripture, but the article is about religion. If the title is religion, the sections should be Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Otherwise, the article should be renamed "Slavery in Abrahamic scripture(s)".
• The section on the New Testament needs so much work I don't want to pull it out as there'll be nothing left. I think it should have a NPOV tag.

Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For those interested, please look at Christian views of slavery and Slavery in antiquity; both of which go into the Bible, Abrahamic religion and slavery. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge the NT (cleaned up) and later Chritianity sections with Christian views of slavery and leave this as an article on religions. Organise by religion with a link to the sep Christian article - other religions can also be split off if they grow too large. I fact I'd rename this 'religion and slavery' - as I see no particular merit in singling out 'Abrahamic' --Doc (?) 09:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Anyone object to renaming this article to Religion and slavery? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Be bold --Doc (?) 09:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, no, don't be bold — significant page moves always have to be discussed with other editors. I'd go along with this one, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  Sorry, Mel, your caution is correct - my comment was inappropriate. But this suggestion has been here for a while and no-one has posted a 'nay', so I think that speaks for itself. --Doc (?) 10:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  True enough; perhaps we could now just do it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the input. I'll wait 24 hours, and then move if there are no objections. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

New focus: Religion and slavery

Okay, I've moved the article to Religion and slavery, and so it now needs work to adapt it to a structure listing each religion and it's response to slavery, etc. Please help! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

CANNAN IS A PERSON.

IN THE PASSAGE MOSES NAMES A PERSON CANNAN SON OF HAM NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE REREAD THE TEXT ,VEEERRYY CAREFULLY,

No. Canaan is the son of Ham, and the ancestor of the Canaanites. The passage is not by Moses. Moses had not been born. Canaan was accused of violating the law, but it was clearly the pre-Mosaic law, and not the Mosaic law. Robert McClenon 03:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism

There is nothing here on salvery under Hinduism. Maybe thats because it's only recently been moved from that Abrahamic title.. Anyway, I have nothing of a source on hand on this subject.. can anyone sterr me in the right direction?--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why the bold?

Why is the following have bolded parts?

"“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 1 Timothy 6:1"

I can understand, the need for emphasis, but I think that, as a sober and unbiased page, it should not contain any bolds or underlines etc. Therefore I am removing the emphasis. Bless sins 2 August 2005

Can we limit the scope of this article, it seems like an entire detailed paper has been attached on Slavery in Islam. Also does this section address just theoretical theological stands or the actual practise. It seem to me it should be limited to the Theological side though the Theological vs. Actual needs to be addressed but somewhere else!! Maybe it all belongs in the Slavery sectin as sub-sections.

Islamic section POV

The first paragraph in the Islamic section is very POV and propagandic:

"Unlike slavery during the colonial era, slavery in Islam was never intended to be based on race and the main source of slaves were prisoners of war. This was influenced by the Greek and Roman models which formed the foundations for the practice of slavery in pre-Islamic society. Islam revised the structure of society in the Arabian peninsula, and this included addressing the institution of slavery."

1. Colonial era slavery is not related to the religious issue. The issue is religious institutions of slavery. 2. Islamic slavery was also prejudiced against Blacks, Zanj Rebellion is one example, and it occurred only a century or so after Muhammad, the practice of Slavery in islamic countries in Africa, Iraq, and elsewhere disproportionally and historically has been towards darker skinned slaves. 3. The Qur'anic verses on slavery are very clear and I find it amazing that in this day and age, for the sake of counterbalancing western imperialsm (which I agree is a worldwide social problem), we then ignore Islamic imperialism which has been just as devastating, especially for women and black people throughout history.

So what i did was take every passage in the Qur'an and in the Bible and compared the two. Considering the Qur'an is based ON THE BIBLE, i find it utterly amazing how Islamic scholars and theologians try to compare it TO the Bible. Of course the Islamic excuse can be used "those verses in the Bible we don't like we will say are the corrupted verses"... but never the less, here are the Qur'anic verses which I find rather fascinatingly worse than any Biblical account. I will agree, they are consistent with colonial type slavery.

"Believers shouldn't kill believers, unless by mistake. If you kill a believer by mistake, you must set free a believing slave. 4:92" (In other words, even keeping slaves who are Muslim is permitted. Christianity teaches that one should not hold another of the faith as slaves).

"Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30 (Where in the Bible is adultury with slave girls permitted with Christian believers???")

i can go on and on, but I am not here to inflame. I am offended myself however, and I would like to know why this kind of bias is permitted. Zaphnathpaaneah 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If one wishes to bring race into this discussion, it's important to remember, the first Ethiopian Christian was a representative of the Kandaka (Candace) empire in Ethiopia. He was a treasurer, a person of high standing in the Kandaka court.

The first Ethiopian Muslim was... a servant... of Muhammad. Zaphnathpaaneah 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The first Ethiopian Muslim converted shortly after the emergence of Islam...Bilal was offered the utmost of respect; servitude to the Prophet was a held in high esteem in Muslim society, Bilal was the first Muslim to call for the salat. Let's keep things in prespective, shall we? 213.42.2.28 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that sections of the islamic section should be moved over to Islam and Slavery which is currently totally one-sided, and then a wikilink to it placed at the top of the section.Hypnosadist 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you seriously think that the Noble Qur'an is supposed to be based on the Bible, then you should be banned from editing Islam-related articles. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright vio?

This section was added in a massive chunk and reads and smells like a cut/paste job from an outside source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_slavery&diff=42861285&oldid=42503158

However, I haven't been able to track down this source yet, if it exists. The user who made it is long gone. Anyone else? - Merzbow 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Biblical principles

"Despite the fact it has taken Western society over 1800 years to reach that point, it is important to note, the institution of slavery in the United States was challenged through war, ultimately on Biblical principles, and not on economic conveniences. The institution itself had been creating friction based on the hypocritical principles of the constitutional statement the "All men are created equal under God.", that inherent inequity present in slavery initiated the subsequent changes in it's perception that has reverberated in Western society to this day. Despite secular and economic ambivilance to social change of enslaved people, the Biblical underpinnings of the U.S. Civil War and the Enlightenment period in Europe created the foundation of the current Western perceptions of slavery to this day."

What are those biblical principles? Are you saying the bible was used to free slaves after it was used to have slaves?