How Christian Were the Founders?

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=magazine

[Marcus Bryant]

In fact, the founders were rooted in Christianity — they were inheritors of the entire European Christian tradition — and at the same time they were steeped in an Enlightenment rationalism that was, if not opposed to religion, determined to establish separate spheres for faith and reason. “I don’t think the founders would have said they were applying Christian principles to government,” says Richard Brookhiser, the conservative columnist and author of books on Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington. “What they said was ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God.’ They didn’t say, ‘We put our faith in Jesus Christ.’ ” Martin Marty says: “They had to invent a new, broad way. Washington, in his writings, makes scores of different references to God, but not one is biblical. He talks instead about a ‘Grand Architect,’ deliberately avoiding the Christian terms, because it had to be a religious language that was accessible to all people.”

Or, as Brookhiser rather succinctly summarizes the point: “The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.”

[Marcus Bryant]

Besides the fact that incorporation by reference is usually used for technical purposes rather than for such grandiose purposes as the reinterpretation of foundational texts, there is an oddity to this tactic. “The founders deliberately left the word ‘God’ out of the Constitution — but not because they were a bunch of atheists and deists,” says Susan Jacoby, author of “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.” “To them, mixing religion and government meant trouble.” The curious thing is that in trying to bring God into the Constitution, the activists — who say their goal is to follow the original intent of the founders — are ignoring the fact that the founders explicitly avoided religious language in that document.

[spursncowboys]

Is there any group before the Chistians who fought racism? Were they the first? Peter and Paul were the first civil rights leaders.

[Marcus Bryant]

Probably the Greeks. Yes, there were slaves, but AFAIK race wasn't the issue.

And I guess I'm unblocked now.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe not "fought" so much as it wasn't a major concern. It seems like as though during the Enlightenment slavery had to be rationalized, and what better way than creating the inferiority of the race you were enslaving?

Though, yes, the influence of certain Christians in opposing slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

[PixelPusher]

Christianity would have remained a small sect among a handful of Jews if not for that liberal internationalist Paul.

[ploto]

the influence of certain Christians in opposing slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

Likewise, then, the influence of certain Christians in supporting slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. Though I believe that was a result of a desire to read into the faith what was not there. A practice which continues to this day.

[sabar]

18th century? The existence of a creator is assumed as fact. The founders didn't use specific language so they wouldn't step on any protestant/catholic/orthodox/jewish toes. Remember what happened in the centuries prior. An "Abrahamic God" was assumed to be a fact, but what sect should the state be with? None, of course.

This language would conveniently work out later as people of a ton of foreign religions flocked to the country along with their immigrant vessels. The fall of religion as the world becomes more learned brings this whole situation into the spotlight (atheists vs God).

These are indisputable facts:

1. The founders were largely Christian protestants
2. The existence of a god was assumed at the time
3. The founders left out specific references to Christianity

They were very Christian, but that doesn't matter. The state was clearly created with no religion in mind.

The problem is that nuts try to turn the second point (everyone believed a god at the time) into some sign that the constitution was bestowed by God himself and that the state should champion Christianity.

I contend that any and all references to god in any state documents/currency/mottos/songs are purely a sign of the times and nothing more. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.

No god in the constitution can't be any clearer. There will never be a Church of the United States, as there is a Church of England.

[spursncowboys]

Isn't that funny that peter denied God three times, but makes his stand against eating pig and hanging out with uncircumcised people. Just shows religion was messing it up back then too.

[Marcus Bryant]

No god in the constitution can't be any clearer. There will never be a Church of the United States, as there is a Church of England.

Right.

Not to mention that the state church of England lacks in attendance while in the US, they're packing them in.

Still, the Constitutional framework stands the test of time, to the chagrin of Falwell and friends. No state church, but personal liberty to believe as you wish.

[spursncowboys]

Probably the Greeks. Yes, there were slaves, but AFAIK race wasn't the issue.

And I guess I'm unblocked now.

they wouldn't let me.

[PixelPusher]

Sure. Though I believe that was a result of a desire to read into the faith what was not there. A practice which continues to this day.
The slave owners quoting specific Biblical passages that acknowledge the institution of human slavery as the norm leveled the same charge against Abolishionists and their airy, fairy "interpretation" of the Bible.

[spursncowboys]

The slave owners quoting specific Biblical passages that acknowledge the institution of human slavery as the norm leveled the same charge against Abolishionists and their airy, fairy "interpretation" of the Bible.

they would had to of completely left out the new testement. that wasn't the case.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, you can find what you want in the Bible, especially if you dig into the OT. However, what would be in line with Christ's teaching?

[PixelPusher]

they would had to of completely left out the new testement. that wasn't the case.

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

[PixelPusher]

Sure, you can find what you want in the Bible, especially if you dig into the OT. However, what would be in line with Christ's teaching?

(read with Southern drawl)

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

(btw, SnC, these are all New Testament verses.)

[Bartleby]

And this little gem from Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." (23:15-16)

[Marcus Bryant]

That's cool. What did Christ say?

[spursncowboys]

16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. 19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant [4] above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign [5] those of his household.
Have No Fear

26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. [6] 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? [7] And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Like this one the new testiment was written for the slaves and not the slave owners.

[PixelPusher]

Damn, I haven't read the Bible in years, but I DID read it. And I have access to Google. Why am I always more informed about what's actually in the Bible than all the Christians on these boards?

[Marcus Bryant]

Read in an effete, urbane, Yankee sneer...

"If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people." (Matthew 20:26-28, CEV)

"Whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else." (Mark 10:44, NLT)

:jack

[PixelPusher]

That's cool. What did Christ say?


A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

[spursncowboys]

Book of Matthew was written for the Jews. It was focused on all of Jesus' prophesies he fulfilled.

[PixelPusher]

Read in an effete, urbane, Yankee sneer...

"If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people." (Matthew 20:26-28, CEV)

"Whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else." (Mark 10:44, NLT)

:jack

That's good enough for me, but I'm one of those egalitarian liberal types and don't take many of the conservative troupes about defending institutions all that seriously.

[PixelPusher]

It only took Christians 1800 years to get what Christ really meant about slavery. I wonder how much longer it'll take to grok all that other stuff about loving your neighbor, helping the poor, etc.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, those passages and verses were read out of context.

In the civic arena, Jim Crow lasted for a century despite the Civil War amendments.

[Marcus Bryant]

dupe

[Marcus Bryant]

It only took Christians 1800 years to get what Christ really meant about slavery. I wonder how much longer it'll take to grok all that other stuff about loving your neighbor, helping the poor, etc.

Probably when some realize there wasn't a Book of Rand.

[PixelPusher]

LOL, right below this thread is:

Pew Poll: A majority of Americans believe torture is often or sometimes justifiebbd (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146515)

Only way to top that is if there was a thread about Gay marriage.

[Marcus Bryant]

True. We've lost our way. Especially if this is a 'Christian nation.'

[EVAY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=magazine

MB, when I read this article I wondered if anyone would have the guts to put it one this forum. Thank you for doing it.

I have thought for a long time that if secularists were less dogmatic, they would get a lot further. Instead, they allow the religious right to characterize them as atheists to the detriment of the nation.

That article was, I believe, cautious in the extreme. I spoke to my married son about the article today. I told him how pleased I was that he was not in this state for his son to be inculcated with the right-wing extremism, although two of my grandchildren are. I have decided to send money to the Republican running against the right-winger fron the Houston areas for the Board of Education. I had never considered doing that before I read in this article that Texas textbooks inform about 46-47 of the states. Even when Texas students do so poorly in standardized tests vs. other states. I was simply appalled.

I disagree altogether with the interpretation that these people give to the separation of church and state. I was raised Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic school in decidedly Protestant Southern state (not Texas). It was quite a financial burden for my family, but it was always our position that we were lucky to be living in a country that allowed our religion to be practiced freely when so many did not. Nowadays, evangelical protestants want me to support their right to a religious education under the pretense that we were, historically, 'Christian'.

I disagree with the history and I disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution and I disagree with the religious interpretation of the founding fathers. The whole thing is absurd, IMHO. Utter nonsense!!

Over Valentine's Day dinner my spouse and I discussed what it would mean to us financially to send our grandchildren to a school that did not suggest that our constirution inculcated Christianity as a state religion. What rubbish!!!

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, the weird thing is how the erstwhile defenders of liberty seem threatened by heterogenity.

As for guts, this is the internets. It's rather relative. I was a little surprised this hadn't been posted yet.

This article does show the true mission of public education. Should we only be concerned when one group of fanatics seek control of its pedagogy?

[boutons_deux]

"threatened by heterogeneity"

The "defenders of liberty", themselves missing no liberties, are often "religious" and religiosity strongly correlates with racism/heterogeneity.

"Should we only be concerned when one group of fanatics seek control of its pedagogy"

Democracy only works when people agree to be civil and seek the common good, in good faith. Because it's simply impossible to police/enforce everything, everybody, everywhere.

The Repugs, Movement Conservatives, and their militant "religious" extremists have really fucked up/terrorized America since the 1970s with their smash-mouth, eliminationist, We're Number One politics and "religion".

[spursncowboys]

Damn, I haven't read the Bible in years, but I DID read it. And I have access to Google. Why am I always more informed about what's actually in the Bible than all the Christians on these boards?

Probably because you are so much smarter than everyone else. Take what you want from the words. I guess google the word slave in the nt and use every reference. Your argument that these were references the slave owners used to suppress the slaves, I think you proved your point. However if you had read all those in full context, you would see it differently I believe. The slaves didn't have to be converted to christianity. They chose it. Also the slave owners, did not have church services ran by them, atleast no record of it. They invited the local pastor.

[spursncowboys]

It only took Christians 1800 years to get what Christ really meant about slavery. I wonder how much longer it'll take to grok all that other stuff about loving your neighbor, helping the poor, etc.

Like I said before, Christians were the first to break the barriers of racism. Before, every culture didn't even eat with each other, let alone talk and work with other cultures. Christianity were the first.

[boutons_deux]

New Timely Study Links Religion and Racism, Duh.

http://i550.photobucket.com/albums/ii403/hahayouredeadblog/DemocratRacism.jpg

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/12/a-new-timely-study-links-religion-and-racism-duh/

[admiralsnackbar]

Like I said before, Christians were the first to break the barriers of racism. Before, every culture didn't even eat with each other, let alone talk and work with other cultures. Christianity were the first.

If you say so. By which I mean, "no."

Just as one could easily prove that race wasn't terribly important to ancient Greeks (Antony and Cleopatra being just one example of North African and European trade/fellowship/romance, Alexander and Roxane of European and Persian), one could easily say much racism has been perpetuated by the Bible, from OT endogamy to the application of Biblical poetics that align good with light and evil with darkness.

[Bartleby]

In fact, one could say that the concept of race didn't even exist during the early years of Christianity. It's a fairly recent social construct that goes back only a few centuries.

[spursncowboys]

In fact, one could say that the concept of race didn't even exist during the early years of Christianity. It's a fairly recent social construct that goes back only a few centuries.

If you said that then you'd be wrong. The customs, language and culture that these tribes had, were everything to them. It was unheard of to speak to someone of a different group, let alone eat, and pray together.

[spursncowboys]

If you say so. By which I mean, "no."

Just as one could easily prove that race wasn't terribly important to ancient Greeks (Antony and Cleopatra being just one example of North African and European trade/fellowship/romance, Alexander and Roxane of European and Persian), one could easily say much racism has been perpetuated by the Bible, from OT endogamy to the application of Biblical poetics that align good with light and evil with darkness.

Anthony lost his base for hooking up with cleopatra if im not mistaken. Mostly you are talking about a political factions taking over a group of people. This has nothing to do with groups coming together. In those class systems, I doubt greeks were allowed to live with and associate with the other groups.

[Bartleby]

If you said that then you'd be wrong. The customs, language and culture that these tribes had, were everything to them. It was unheard of to speak to someone of a different group, let alone eat, and pray together.


You're conflating customs, language and culture with racial categories, which came out of an Enlightment Era emphasis on taxonomy and a desire to justify treating certain groups of people as little more (or less) than beasts of burden.

[admiralsnackbar]

Anthony lost his base for hooking up with cleopatra if im not mistaken. Mostly you are talking about a political factions taking over a group of people. This has nothing to do with groups coming together. In those class systems, I doubt greeks were allowed to live with and associate with the other groups.

You are mistaken. Antony spent too much time lollygagging with Cleopatra, which was all the rope Caesar needed to hang him. And the Greeks were hospitable to just about anyone thanks to their abiding pre-Christian belief (http://books.google.com/books?id=JHk8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA7-PA576&lpg=RA7-PA576&dq=law+of+the+stranger+greek&source=bl&ots=C6cWemKSG6&sig=u665Tu_KyMvmzoulDGgzdy3p0-g&hl=en&ei=ZW15S_7XKImWtgfXpaWaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg) that Zeus walked among men, and would punish anyone who mistreated him.

As to fellowship between groups... was there no trade between Mediterranean countries? I agree that families of different religions would be unlikely to marry into one another, but that is an issue distinct from different races coming together -- which would have been rather easy given the enormous variety of races brought under the political, economic, and often religious banner of Hellas during their imperial age.

Not for nothing, but have you ever read any pre-Christian history? Or do you always assume that everything good finds it's source in the Bible? Even with a lack of proof to support yourself?

[admiralsnackbar]

You're conflating customs, language and culture with racial categories, which came out of an Enlightment Era emphasis on taxonomy and a desire to justify treating certain groups of people as little more (or less) than beasts of burden.

Bingo.

[spursncowboys]

You're conflating customs, language and culture with racial categories, which came out of an Enlightment Era emphasis on taxonomy and a desire to justify treating certain groups of people as little more (or less) than beasts of burden.
racism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

[admiralsnackbar]

racism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Now look up "race" to see why Bartleby is still right.

[Wild Cobra]

These are indisputable facts:

1. The founders were largely Christian protestants
2. The existence of a god was assumed at the time
3. The founders left out specific references to Christianity

They were very Christian, but that doesn't matter. The state was clearly created with no religion in mind.

The problem is that nuts try to turn the second point (everyone believed a god at the time) into some sign that the constitution was bestowed by God himself and that the state should champion Christianity.

There are also those who try to say that the unnamed God is the God of Christians and Jews, but that is never said either.

[Winehole23]

Xj3Q9l9Ivng

[z0sa]

Ben Franklin was a Deist and not Christian, though his attitude towards Christianity was described as "moderate" compared with his contemporaries.

[PixelPusher]

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect." - James Madison

"Every other sect supposes itself in possession of the truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong. Like a man traveling in foggy weather they see those at a distance before them wrapped up in a fog, as well as those behind them, and also people in the fields on each side; but near them, all appears clear, though in truth they are as much in the fog as any of them." - Benjamin Franklin

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." - Thomas Jefferson

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams

[PixelPusher]

Probably because you are so much smarter than everyone else. Take what you want from the words. I guess google the word slave in the nt and use every reference. Your argument that these were references the slave owners used to suppress the slaves, I think you proved your point. However if you had read all those in full context, you would see it differently I believe. The slaves didn't have to be converted to christianity. They chose it. Also the slave owners, did not have church services ran by them, atleast no record of it. They invited the local pastor.

First, that bit of snark was in reference to the "pull it out of your ass" assertion that any references to slavery were Old Testament. The verses I posted were from Matthew's account of Jesus and various letters from Paul to various churches acknowledging and tacitly endorsing the institution of human slavery.

Second, of course the slave owners were only too happy to provide access to Christian religious services to their slaves; it puts a nice goodly Christian bow on their argument that as long as their slaves' souls were saved, that was the end of their Christian duties towards them.

[rjv]

i love it when others speak for dead people they never knew.

[NFGIII]

There are also those who try to say that the unnamed God is the God of Christians and Jews, but that is never said either.

Correct but couldn't you possibly see an implied meaning in that? The colonies were founded by people who believed in Judeo-Christian ethics regardless of how they applied them to others. The first Europeans to successfully colonize North America came for differing reasons but primarily for religious freedom (Pilgrims, Quakers, Puritans..etc) and financial and personal opportunity, even to the point of being an indentured servant for seven years in order to get out of the hopeless situation that they found themselves in. Mainly Protestant - that is the British territory and the French were Catholic - and with an attitude that they were God's people and destined to conquer this untamed land and it's native tribes. Henceforth the doctrine of Manifest Destiny used to spur on the final conquest of the West in the 19th century and teach those savage Injuns a thing or two. Frankly if you were to ask anyone at the time who that unnamed God was most would have said the Holy Trinity in some form.

[boutons_deux]

The religious beliefs of the founders is totally irrelevant.

In reaction to the Dark Ages and the centuries of oppression of the tandem of European states and the Catholic Church, the Founders absolutely founded a secular government, while assuring religious freedom for all. They didn't found a country to be terrorized and corrupted by perverting millitant "Christian" supremacists.

[admiralsnackbar]

There are also those who try to say that the unnamed God is the God of Christians and Jews, but that is never said either.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right... did you just essentially say "some people claim that the unspecified God is the Judeo-Christian God, but it isn't specified,"?

[PixelPusher]

i love it when others speak for dead people they never knew.

Lucky for us the Founding Fathers were prolific letter writers, and weren't adverse to airing out their opinions on a large variety of subjects, particularly any topic with political implications - like religion.

[NFGIII]

i love it when others speak for dead people they never knew.

^


Lucky for us the Founding Fathers were prolific letter writers, and weren't adverse to airing out their opinions on a large variety of subjects, particularly any topic with political implications - like religion.

So long as we discuss issues with an open mind and not be ethnocentric then it becomes an historical debate in order to understand the subject better rather than an assault on someone else's beliefs/acts that at that moment in time might have been sanctioned but today abhorred/questioned.

[rjv]

Lucky for us the Founding Fathers were prolific letter writers, and weren't adverse to airing out their opinions on a large variety of subjects, particularly any topic with political implications - like religion.


nevertheless, epistles are no replacement for one-on-one discourse and any text can be "rewritten" so to speak when interpreted. granted, this is all historians have to work with and it is what we base our definitions of those in the past on, but when more controversial points are made regarding these texts then that is when the pandora's box of deconstructionalism enters the picture.

[mogrovejo]

All the Western civilization is, historically, Christian. The tensions between Athens, Jerusalem and Rome are the roots for the West, its moral and philosophical foundations. A key event in the history of the West was the separation of Church and State that took place when Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium. Away from the emperor, the first fissure in the absolute power of the ruler was created: the Church was the first and for many centuries only institution to temper the absolute power of the monarchs.

I don't think there's the danger of a theocracy. I'm more worried about those who want to exclude religion or religious people from the public and political sphere - the danger they pose to liberty isn't smaller.

[admiralsnackbar]

All the Western civilization is, historically, Christian. The tensions between Athens, Jerusalem and Rome are the roots for the West, its moral and philosophical foundations. A key event in the history of the West was the separation of Church and State that took place when Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium. Away from the emperor, the first fissure in the absolute power of the ruler was created: the Church was the first and for many centuries only institution to temper the absolute power of the monarchs.

I don't think there's the danger of a theocracy. I'm more worried about those who want to exclude religion or religious people from the public and political sphere - the danger they pose to liberty isn't smaller.

What does it really mean to say all Western Civ is historically Christian? You could just as easily say all Christianity is, historically, Neo-Platonic. But my point isn't to argue about origins of ideals, as much as to question whether the individuals who make up history can so conveniently be cast as members of a group, and -- if they can -- what descriptive value the name of that group really has.

[rjv]

What does it really mean to say all Western Civ is historically Christian? You could just as easily say all Christianity is, historically, Neo-Platonic. But my point isn't to argue about origins of ideals, as much as to question whether the individuals who make up history can so conveniently be cast as members of a group, and -- if they can -- what descriptive value the name of that group really has.

..and to add to this, domains can vary greatly in scope. for instance, categorizing kierkegaard, camus and sartre all as existentialists.

[mogrovejo]

You are mistaken. Antony spent too much time lollygagging with Cleopatra, which was all the rope Caesar needed to hang him. And the Greeks were hospitable to just about anyone thanks to their abiding pre-Christian belief (http://books.google.com/books?id=JHk8AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA7-PA576&lpg=RA7-PA576&dq=law+of+the+stranger+greek&source=bl&ots=C6cWemKSG6&sig=u665Tu_KyMvmzoulDGgzdy3p0-g&hl=en&ei=ZW15S_7XKImWtgfXpaWaCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg) that Zeus walked among men, and would punish anyone who mistreated him.

As to fellowship between groups... was there no trade between Mediterranean countries? I agree that families of different religions would be unlikely to marry into one another, but that is an issue distinct from different races coming together -- which would have been rather easy given the enormous variety of races brought under the political, economic, and often religious banner of Hellas during their imperial age.

Not for nothing, but have you ever read any pre-Christian history? Or do you always assume that everything good finds it's source in the Bible? Even with a lack of proof to support yourself?





(...)
But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.

But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say,

It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;

as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.

[mogrovejo]

You're conflating customs, language and culture with racial categories, which came out of an Enlightment Era emphasis on taxonomy and a desire to justify treating certain groups of people as little more (or less) than beasts of burden.

False.

There are few contexts in the history of the mankind where racist was more rampant than during the Reconquista, from the early to the high middle-ages and well before the Enlightenment.

[admiralsnackbar]

So, by quoting Aristotle, are you saying Western Civ is, historically Hellenic, mogro? Jokes aside, I never said the Greeks didn't have slaves -- just that slaves weren't chosen on the basis of race. Slaves were made up of the conquered, but not all the conquered became slaves, as they would in a racist society.

As for the Reconquista... no mames. If it was simply a racist purge, why were people allowed to live if they forsook their heathen faith? Moreover, I assume that you are a Spaniard? If so, explain the racial differences between a Tarifeño and a Tangerian.

[mogrovejo]

So, by quoting Aristotle, are you saying Western Civ is, historically Hellenic, mogro?

Sure, didn't I just write that "the tensions between Athens, Jerusalem and Rome are the roots for the West, its moral and philosophical foundations"?

I'm not sure what do you mean by that question.


Jokes aside, I never said the Greeks didn't have slaves -- just that slaves weren't chosen on the basis of race. Slaves were made up of the conquered, but not all the conquered became slaves, as they would in a racist society.

It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;

Most slaves were barbarians, few barbarians were free.

The idea that in a racist society all the conquered become slaves is bizarre, to say the least. Where has such a society existed? In that case, one could make the case that racism never existed.

The point is that ethnic stereotypes were abundant in the Antiquity - even before the Greeks. The assumption of the natural superiority of the Hellenistic man over the barbarian (who was devoided of individuality, as Aristotle explains) was consensual. As an intellectual and emotional concept with a practical translation to the public life, racism, discriminatory ideas and acts, was there - even if it wasn't called racism (which is a very recent word - but the idea that there wasn't racism before the existence of such a word is a very weak thesis).


As for the Reconquista... no mames. If it was simply a racist purge, why were people allowed to live if they forsook their heathen faith? Moreover, I assume that you are a Spaniard? If so, explain the racial differences between a Tarifeño and a Tangerian.

The idea that the Reconquista was simply a racist purge is certainly a product of your imagination. Why were people allowed to leave? I think your concept of racism is just...crazy. The fact that people were allowed to leave suggests there wasn't racism?

[mogrovejo]

Al-Jahiz (http://books.google.pt/books?id=c3--MnTLC0QC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Life+and+Works+of+Jahiz&source=bl&ots=LZZ00E1zMB&sig=bIqHgc7OrjNTjfWBW2e-YwTfm0I&hl=pt-PT&ei=e-B5S_K5E8iOjAe8wODCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false) was an Arab scholar, theologist and thinker of the 8th century. A very influential intellectual and public man. He wrote a few books, including one titled "Risalat mufakharat al-sudan 'ala al-bidan (http://www.macalester.edu/%7Ecuffel/jahiz.htm)" - which can be translated to "The superiority of Blacks to the Whites". He was one of the pioneers of the environmental determinism school of thought. And this centuries before the Enlightenment or the modern notion of scientific racism.

The fact that people weren't exterminating each other doesnt' mean there wasn't racism - it's like saying there wasn't racism in South Africa during the Apartheid.

[Supergirl]

I think perhaps the problem is in trying to classify all the "founding fathers" as one type. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were certainly not devout Christians. They considered themselves deists, Jefferson created his own "bible" which was a collection of spiritual readings from a variety of sources, including the Bible but also other religions and other sources.

John Adams was a Unitarian, George Washington was an Episcopalian, so which founding father are we talking about? Although 3 out of the 4 I've listed here - possibly the four best known - were solidly NOT Christian believers.

Which, BTW, is why they advocated so strongly for the separation of church and state. They wanted people to be able to practice their religion in freedom, but they also wanted people to have the freedom to not practice any religion.

A distinction which seems to have been lost on much of the fuckwits you hear in contemporary discourse.

[Bartleby]

Al-Jahiz (http://books.google.pt/books?id=c3--MnTLC0QC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Life+and+Works+of+Jahiz&source=bl&ots=LZZ00E1zMB&sig=bIqHgc7OrjNTjfWBW2e-YwTfm0I&hl=pt-PT&ei=e-B5S_K5E8iOjAe8wODCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false) was an Arab scholar, theologist and thinker of the 8th century. A very influential intellectual and public man. He wrote a few books, including one titled "Risalat mufakharat al-sudan 'ala al-bidan (http://www.macalester.edu/%7Ecuffel/jahiz.htm)" - which can be translated to "The superiority of Blacks to the Whites". He was one of the pioneers of the environmental determinism school of thought. And this centuries before the Enlightenment or the modern notion of scientific racism.


You're making the same mistake SNC made. Of course skin color has been used as a marker to identify the Other throughout history, but the widespread institutionalization of the concept of race and its incorporation into the dominant ideology of large populations is a relatively modern phenomenon.

[mogrovejo]

You're making the same mistake SNC made. Of course skin color has been used as a marker to identify the Other throughout history, but the widespread institutionalization of the concept of race and its incorporation into the dominant ideology of large populations is a relatively modern phenomenon.

That's a petitio principii.

Here's what you wrote first:


You're conflating customs, language and culture with racial categories, which came out of an Enlightment Era emphasis on taxonomy and a desire to justify treating certain groups of people as little more (or less) than beasts of burden.

Now, faced with things you didn't know, you're talking about a "widespread institutionalization of the concept of race" (what does this mean?) and "its incorporation into the dominant ideology of large populations" (huh?).

Widespread and institutionalized discrimination of people due to their race, as a classification of humans accordingly to various sets of their heritable characteristics, existed well before the Enlightenment. You may want to re-define racism to include only the post-XVIII century scientific racism, but that's nothing more than a cheap sophism.

[spursncowboys]

You're making the same mistake SNC made. Of course skin color has been used as a marker to identify the Other throughout history, but the widespread institutionalization of the concept of race and its incorporation into the dominant ideology of large populations is a relatively modern phenomenon.
You are making the mistake of putting the racism definition into some kind of narrow context from your personal experiences. Tribes conquered tribes. States conquered states. However there were always classes. One better than the other. How can putting someone in a class because of their race and treating them less than someone of their own race not considered racism?

[SAGambler]

Likewise, then, the influence of certain Christians in supporting slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

So true. Where in this country was slavery practiced the most? The Southern states. What part of this country is commonly referred to as the "Bible Belt"? The Southern States.

Nuff said about so called "Christians" and their practice of enslaving a group of people, based on race.