Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Only god can save us now

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:39 PM
Original message
Only god can save us now
http://news.scotsman.com/science/Fear-of-God-has-kept.5622255.jp


A DIVINE hand that smites wrongdoers could be at the core of human civilisation, according to a leading scientist peer.Lord May of Oxford, former government chief scientific advisor and president of the British Science Association, believes authoritarian religion may have helped protect human society from chaos and anarchy.

Belief in a god, or gods, that punish the unrighteous could be part of the mechanism of evolution that has maintained co-operation in a dog-eat-dog world, he argues.But he warns that the system is inherently resistant to change – which does not bode well for a future needing big changes to combat climate change.

Speaking on the eve of the British Science Festival, at the University of Surrey in Guildford, Lord May said research had shown that "a few sticks as well as carrots" were needed to ensure co-operative human behaviour.Psychological studies in which participants won cash rewards suggested that punishing selfishness paid dividends for the group as a whole.

Having a god as the ultimate punisher was possibly a logical step for a society to take, said Lord May, an avowed atheist who says he went through an "inverse epiphany" at the age of 11.

"Given that punishment is a useful mechanism, how much more effective it would be if you invested that power not in an individual you don't like, but an all-seeing, all powerful deity that controls the world," said Lord May. "It makes for rigid, doctrinaire societies, but it tends to bind them."

Such a system would be "immensely stabilising in individual human cultures and societies, but unusually resistant to change", he pointed out.In less troubled times religions had become softer and less dogmatic, said Lord May. But that pattern was now reversing with the rise of fundamental Islamic and Christian beliefs.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. i have a friend that believes god takes care.. has 2 kids in prison
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. This post should not be construed as an endorsement
of a divine presence. The idea of smiting the unworthy has a powerful appeal and is one of organized religions' strongest arguments; sign up with our god and he'll take care of your enemies list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, there's certainly something to be said for the threat of "divine retribution"
Edited on Mon Sep-07-09 01:13 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Even though people may seem to escape punishment in life (we like to tell ourselves) they will not escape punishment after this life.

So, for example, while some believe in "Hell," others believe in "Karma." (Perhaps it is not God who metes out justice, but a simple law of nature, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_third_law:_law_of_reciprocal_actions">Newton's "third law".)

If people believe that no evil deed ultimately goes unpunished, then they may be convinced to avoid doing evil. If (however) they believe there is no ultimate justice, they may feel less restrained from doing whatever they please.

(Maybe the concept of "simple decency" is not enough.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I'm afraid Gresham's law is in play here
Simple decency is debased currency. Profit rules. Everyhing has a price. If it sells, it's good and conversely, if you can't make a buck off it, it's worthless. Thus the marketplace renders judgement. Being poor is a worse crime than stealing millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Sure of that, are you?
It certainly goes against my belief system. I haven't seen where religion has actually done that much good for human civilization...in the long run. Indeed, the most successful governmental system yet devised was created on purely secular grounds.

I'm an atheist. My actions are based on reason. Reason tells me that it is not a good thing to cause harm to others, except in a defensive action. The mainstream religion in this society believes that you can be forgiven of even the most heinous acts. I don't believe that at all. I believe that heinous acts are not forgivable. So I don't commit them.

Your mileage may differ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. On the whole, I'd say the influence of religion on society has been positive, yes
For example, who is it who feeds the hungry and shelters the homeless in your area?

Are there atheist organizations akin to the YMCA, YWCA, the Red Cross, CARE, The Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity?

Do atheists organize as atheists to do good works united under the banner of atheism?

What have atheist organizations accomplished?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Atheists aren't that big on organization, but all the atheists I know
are heavy donors to all sorts of charities. We are, and act as, individuals, for the most part.

And then we have the fundamentalists. They're religious, too. My point is that it is not the religious belief that makes the person. There are wonderful people of all faiths and of no faith at all. Equally, there are evil people in those categories as well.

As for the Salvation Army, I no longer donate to that organization, due to their intolerance for GLBT people. Habitat for Humanity is not a religious organization, and many non-religious people, including myself, have worked on projects for that organization.

On the whole, I'd say that more wars have been fought over religious differences than over any other aspect of humanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Habitat for Humanity
http://www.habitat.org/how/christian.aspx

Habitat for Humanity: a Christian ministry

Shelter from wind, rain and cold is a basic human need
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian organization. We are dedicated to eliminating substandard housing and homelessness worldwide and to making adequate, affordable shelter a matter of conscience and action. Our ministry was founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent place to live in dignity and safety.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I have to jump in on that one...
How about Aid to Families with Dependent Children, SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, and every other program organized by our secular government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The US government is secular; not athiest
Edited on Mon Sep-07-09 11:10 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I specified that in my post.
Edited on Mon Sep-07-09 11:15 PM by kristopher
But that is a distinction without a difference when it comes to social units. If it isn't organized around a religion, it isn't organized around a religion.

BTW My theory is that religion is a malfunction of our enhanced pattern recognition ability. My observations tell me that the distinguishing mental ability marking humans is a pattern recognition ability that is able to connect very widely dispersed dots. An example would be seeing images in clouds.

When (as a certain percentage of our population inevitably does) we see patterns that aren't representative of reality and yet accept them as reality, it is a malfunction that must inevitably be damaging compared to a non-malfunctioning state. Unfortunately I can't see any possibility for rectifying this defect so we are stuck with religion as a fact of life no matter how far our understanding of reality advances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Couldn't agree more.
When (as a certain percentage of our population inevitably does) we see patterns that aren't representative of reality and yet accept them as reality, it is a malfunction that must inevitably be damaging compared to a non-malfunctioning state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. The question was, whether religion has had a positive influence or not
Edited on Mon Sep-07-09 11:40 PM by OKIsItJustMe
I said that I believe (on the whole) that it has had a positive influence.

One can reasonably point to "The Crusades" as an example of the evils of religion. On the other hand, certainly the purges of Joseph Stalin don't speak all that well for atheism.


A quick example, consider this list of relief agencies who helped out after Hurricane Katrina:
http://www.opm.gov/cfc/disasters/Katrina-relief.asp

Notice how many are explicitly religious. (Many are founded by religious organizations, but that is not obvious from their name.) The key here is that most (if not all) religions have charity toward others as a basic tenet of their beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I'm not arguing any of that
And I understood your belief from your first post, but thank you for restating it.

The "evils of religion" go far beyond the Crusades and I would find a great deal of trouble associating Stalin with atheism. A different form of mental illness was at work with him and it had little to do with religion (yes I know he targeted religion but he targeted a lot of groups and categories).

I realize that I mis-spoke earlier when I used "religion" in such a generalized manner. What I actually am referring to are the monotheistic religions that claim exclusivity and the right to convert non-believers.

Try;
* Jensen, G. F. (2006). "Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations" (PDF). Journal of Religion & Society 8: 1–14. ISSN 1522-5658. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf.

* Paul, G. S. (2009). "The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions" (PDF). Evolutionary Psychology 7(3).: 398-441. ISSN 1474-7049. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf.

* Paul, G. S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popularity Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" (PDF). Journal of Religion & Society 7: 1–17. ISSN 1522-5658. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. The thing that "Organized Religion" has going for it is… organization
I will freely acknowledge that atheists can be good people, and people of faith can be horrible.

However, organized religion has been quite successful in promoting the social good. Where (for example) would the civil rights movement have been without the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Would there have been a need for the civil rights movement
If religion hadn't been part of the mechanism for justifying slavery?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. You believe that slavery was the creation of religion? (Really?)
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 09:11 AM by OKIsItJustMe
Slavery is known to date back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#The_ancient_Mediterranean_civilizations">about as far as civilization itself, and probably dates back further.

As you say, religious rationalizations were used to defend slavery; but they were an attempted defense against the religious organizations fighting to abolish slavery (perhaps most notably, the http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_21.html">Quakers and the http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_32.html">Methodists.)

The “evangelical movement” inspired many social reforms in the US during the “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening#Political_implications">Second Great Awakening.” (Nowadays, our view of what it means to be “evangelical” is distorted; remember, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070109/carter-clinton-join-to-reshape-baptist-image/index.html">both Southern Baptists.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. How does that address the point?
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 09:45 AM by kristopher
Religious rationalizations weren't used because other religions were against slavery they were used because they allow people to engage in actions that contradict their innate sense of right and wrong. And American slavery was unique in that it made slavery an hereditary condition. The shape of slavery throughout history was not one where groups went out searching for free labor, but one where prisoners captured during conflict were brought home and temporarily used for labor. The common trend was that after a few years the captives were usually freed to join the community. And in no case were the children of slaves born into the condition of slavery. This evolution in concept of slavery was codified into laws of the individual states. I pulled up Virginia's laws as an example.

There is ample evidence from cultures with low levels of religiosity that values associated with "the golden rule" are common to human culture. This willingness to take care of our fellow man is NOT enhanced by vertically oriented religious structures that require belief in an absolute truth as promulgated by the heads of the religions. This is a crucial distinction that manifests itself in the history of the world's major religions - there have been innumerable conflicts spawned by monotheistic beliefs, but none have been rationalized by the horizontally structured religion of Buddhism.

It is also important to recognize that the data available to judge the negative impacts of religion is extremely biased in favor of a positive view of religion by the historic prevalence of extreme sanctions for apostasy.

It strikes me that you are skirting the No True Scotsman argument. You aren't making it directly and you are presenting the idea of a balance between the good works and the bad, but the undercurrent I see is that the good is able to be enhanced while the negatives can be minimized. Perhaps that is true, there is evidence to support both sides of the argument; and since I believe we are stuck with religion, I certainly hope that your perspective is correct.


Here are Virginia's laws regarding slavery. :
Back to documents list

Here is the full entry for your selection:

Title: Virginia Slave Laws

Type of document: laws

Quotation: "All children...shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother"

Annotation:

Black slavery took root in the American colonies slowly. Historians now know that small numbers of Africans lived in Virginia before 1619, the year a Dutch ship sold some twenty blacks (probably from the West Indies) to the colonists. But it was not until the 1680s that black slavery became the dominant labor system on plantations there. As late as 1640, there were probably only 150 blacks in Virginia and in 1650, 300. But by 1680, the number had risen to 3,000 and by 1704, to 10,000.

Until the mid-1660s, the number of white indentured servants was sufficient to meet the labor needs of Virginia and Maryland. Then, in the mid-1660s, the supply of white servants fell sharply. Many factors contributed to the growing shortage of servants. The English birth rate had begun to fall and with fewer workers competing for jobs, wages in England rose. The great fire that burned much of London in 1666 created a great need for labor to rebuild the city. Meanwhile, Virginia and Maryland became less attractive as land grew scarcer. Many preferred to migrate to Pennsylvania or the Carolinas, where opportunities seemed greater. To replenish its labor force, planters in the Chesapeake region increasingly turned to enslaved Africans. In 1680, just seven percent of the population of Virginia and Maryland consisted of slaves; twenty years later, the figure was 22 percent. Most of these slaves did not come directly from Africa, but from Barbados and other Caribbean colonies or from the Dutch colony of New Netherlands, which the English had conquered in 1664 and renamed New York.

The status of blacks in seventeenth century Virginia was extremely complex. Some were permanently unfree; others, like indentured servants, were allowed to own property and marry and were freed after a term of service. Some were even allowed to testify against whites in court and purchase white servants. In at least one county, black slaves who could prove that they had been baptized successfully sued for their freedom. There was even a surprising degree of tolerance of sexual intermixture and marriages across racial lines.

As early as the late 1630s, however, English colonists began to distinguish between the status of white servants and black slaves. In 1639, Maryland became the first colony to specifically state that baptism as a Christian did not make a slave a free person.

During the 1660s and 1670s, Maryland and Virginia adopted laws specifically designed to denigrate blacks. These laws banned interracial marriages and sexual relations and deprived blacks of property. Other laws prohibited blacks from bearing arms or traveling without written permission. In 1669, Virginia became the first colony to declare that it was not a crime to kill an unruly slave in the ordinary course of punishment. That same year, Virginia also prohibited masters from freeing slaves unless the freedmen were deported from the colony. Virginia also voted to banish any white man or woman who married a black, mulatto, or Indian.

The imposition of a more rigid system of racial slavery was acommpanied by improved status for white servants. Unlike slaves, white servants and free workers could not be stripped naked and whipped. As the historian Edmund S. Morgan has suggested, a hardening of racial lines contributed to a growth in a commitment to democracy, liberty, and equality among white men.

Full Text:

December 1662

Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand Assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother; and that if any Christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act.

September 1667

Whereas some doubts have risen whether children that are slaves by birth, and by the charity and piety of their owners made partakers of the blessed sacrament of baptism, should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted and declared by this Grand Assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptism does not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedom; that diverse masters, freed from this doubt may more carefully endeavor the propagation of Christianity by permitting children, through slaves, or those of greater growth if capable, to be admitted to that sacrament.

September 1668

Whereas it has been questioned whether servants running away may be punished with corporal punishment by their master or magistrate, since the act already made gives the master satisfaction by prolonging their time by service, it is declared and enacted by this Assembly that moderate corporal punishment inflicted by master or magistrate upon a runaway servant shall not deprivate the master of the satisfaction allowed by the law, the one being as necessary to reclaim them from persisting in that idle course as the other is just to repair the damages sustained by the master.

October 1669

Whereas the only law in force for the punishment of refractory servants resisting their master, mistress, or overseer cannot be inflicted upon Negroes, nor the obstinacy of many of them be suppressed by other than violent means, be it enacted and declared by this Grand Assembly if any slave resists his master (or other by his master's order correcting him) and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his death shall not be accounted a felony, but the master (or that other person appointed by the master to punish him) be acquitted from molestation, since it cannot be presumed that premeditated malice (which alone makes murder a felony) should induce any man to destroy his own estate.


ETA link: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=217

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. "American slavery was unique in that it made slavery an hereditary condition."
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 10:24 AM by OKIsItJustMe
Are you familiar with the “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots">Helots” and the “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penestai">Penestae?”

Have you heard the story of the “Exodus” (of the Israelites) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity#Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt">Egypt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. This line of dispute misses the larger point
that Lord May was making. The evils generated by religious belief are irrelevant to the larger issue of the survival of life on the planet. In this larger context, freedom, slavery, socialized health care, even war and peace are secondary, even trivial. Religion, because it functions at the level of our most primitive urges, may be the only force powerful enough to alter the behavior of the great mass of men on a sufficient scale and with sufficient speed to draw us back from the brink of self-destruction. This is the kind of thing Glider Guider talks about when he advocates for the quickening consciousness of the new environmental movement. Unfortunately, that quickening is the result of rational processes. It lacks the heat to inflame the minds of mens in the mass. Religious conviction provides he necessary heat. As noted, the resulting conflagration would certainly do a lot of collateral damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. You're absolutely correct
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 11:36 AM by OKIsItJustMe
Which was my point as well, the advantage of “Organized Religion” is that it’s “organized,” and is able to bring out social change. (ex. the abolition of slavery.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Not quite
Organizaton is merely the exploitive side-effect of religion. Men seeking power use organization as we use a tap to draw water from a reservoir. The transformative power of religion lies in the atavistic fervor of belief. If we wait for the pope or Pat Robertson to start ex-communicating the heads of coal companies and their bought politicians, or advocating for birth control, we might as well throw in the towel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. On this, I quite disagree
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 12:33 PM by OKIsItJustMe
There are religious people who behave as you describe, mindlessly following some charismatic, authoritative leader. They tend to go by names like “Fundamentalist” and “Radical.”

They are most noticeable, but I believe they’re actually in the minority.

So (for example) while (as you mention) the “Pope” is not likely to advocate birth control, many of his “flock” do.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050418/18american.htm

A Feisty But Loyal Flock

American Catholics take dissent seriously

By Katy Kelly and Linda Kulman
Posted 4/10/05

Julia Roberts is a lifelong Roman Catholic who learned the rules early. "In religion class they said, 'It's not a buffet; you can't select what you believe,'" says the 26-year-old paralegal at the U.S. Department of Justice. But as an adult she has come to think that birth control is a responsible moral choice. "I don't want to deny what I believe. I struggle with that because I don't want to be a hypocrite."

Among America's 67 million Catholics there is a distinct minority who feel that Pope John Paul II's traditionalist ideas and hard line on social issues put the church back on track, giving it structure and clear guidance. But the pope's teachings made keeping the faith more difficult for the many so-called cafeteria Catholics, who embrace some but not all of the church's tenets. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 78 percent of American Catholics support allowing Catholics to use birth control, 63 percent think priests should be able to marry, and 55 percent think women should be ordained as priests. Last week Gallup reported that more Catholics than non-Catholics believe that homosexual behavior, divorce, and stem-cell and human-embryo research are morally acceptable. "The paradox," says David Gibson, author of The Coming Catholic Church, "is that while was enormously popular, he did not necessarily change behavior" of the lay people in America.



Contrast this with a body like the United Methodist Church or the Presbyterian Church (USA) where there is no figure analogous to the Pope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. Those examples are not comparable to US slavery
The first two are examples of serfdom, not slavery; and the third stipulates the ability of "foreigners who live with you" to sell their own children into slavery. That is a very important distinction from a system that breeds people for a labor force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Perhaps I made a bad choice of groups. Some believe they were chattel slaves. Some do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penestae


Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us (II, 9) that they were beaten when they refused to obey and that, generally speaking, they were treated like chattel slaves (i.e. people considered to be the property of others). They appear to have been much less numerous than the free Thessalians.



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


Helots were assigned to citizens to carry out domestic work or to work on their klēroi. Various sources mention such servants accompanying this or that Spartan. Plutarch has Timaia, the wife of King Agis II, "being herself forward enough to whisper among her helot maid-servants" that the child she was expecting had been fathered by Alcibiades, and not her husband, indicating a certain level of trust. According to some authors, in the fourth century BC, citizens also used chattel-slaves for domestic purposes. However, this is disputed by others. Some helots were also servants to young Spartans during their agoge, the Spartan education; these were the μόθωνες / móthōnes (see below). Finally, helots, like slaves, could be artisans or tradesmen.




However, the Greeks clearly had chattel slaves.

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

Slavery in ancient Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slavery was common practice and an integral component of ancient Greece throughout its history, as it was in other societies of the time including ancient Israel and early Christian societies. It is estimated that in Athens, the majority of citizens owned at least one slave. Most ancient writers considered slavery not only natural but necessary, but some isolated debate began to appear, notably in Socratic dialogues while the Stoics produced the first condemnation of slavery recorded in history.

In conformity with modern historiographical practice, this article will discuss only chattel (personal possession) slavery, as opposed to dependent groups such as the penestae of Thessaly or the Spartan helots, who were more like medieval serfs (an enhancement to real estate). The chattel slave is an individual deprived of liberty and forced to submit to an owner who may buy, sell, or lease him or her like any other chattel.



Houseborn slaves (oikogeneis) often constituted a privileged class. They were, for example, entrusted to take the children to school; they were "pedagogues" in the first sense of the term. Some of them were the offspring of the master of the house, but in most cities, notably Athens, a child inherited the status of its mother.



The Romans had a similar system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity#Slavery_in_Rome


Estimates for the prevalence of slavery in the Roman Empire vary. Some estimate that the slave population in the 1st century consisted of approximately 1/3 of the total. At the least, some 25% of the population of Ancient Rome was enslaved. A high proportion of the populations in Italy, present-day Tunisia, southern Spain and western Anatolia consisted of slaves. The overall proportion of slaves may not have reached 20% for the whole Empire of 12-15 million people, but there are few reliable statistics. The best statistic that we have refers to Roman Egypt, in which slaves made up only 7% of the total population. The provinces with more expensive labour (like Roman Italy) absorbed a large number of slaves that came from provinces with low wages.

In the Roman Republic, the law recognized slaves as a social class, and some authors have found in their condition the earliest concept of a proletariat, given that the only property they might own was the gift of reproduction. Slaves lived then within this class with very little hope of a better life; and free men owned and exchanged them just like goods. They had a price as "human instruments"; their life had not, and their patron could freely even kill them.



A type of slave marriage called 'contubernium,' was permitted, but it had no legal power, and could only exist as long as permitted by the slave owner. The children of the union of slaves would become slaves instantly and belong to the same master, and were called 'vernae'. As these had known no other estate but that of slavery, owners tended to believe that these were the more easily managed.





Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no desire to defend American slavery; but I think it is a mistake to present it as a unique aberration. Instead, we need to acknowledge that this is something humanity is capable of, and something which we must be vigilant of. (Particularly in turbulent times.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. Say rather that religion was the inevitable result
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 10:47 AM by pscot
of our advanced pattern recognition ability. Pattern recognition is an incredibly useful survival trait. An unfortunate side effect is the tendency to perceive that the Sun revolves around a flat Earth enclosed in crystaline spheres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. That isn't exactly what I see...
In the case of celestial mechanics, the basic theory you describe is based on accurate but *limited* perception. The two bodies are in motion relative to each other, but the more nuanced observations needed to establish the exact pattern were not available. It is even reasonable to assume that your point of observation is the "center" of the puzzle.

That differs markedly from seeing a turtle in a cloud. And if you come to believe that the turtle is controlling everything, well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. No, no, no ...
> That differs markedly from seeing a turtle in a cloud. And if you
> come to believe that the turtle is controlling everything, well....

The turtle isn't in the *cloud* ... it is under the four elephants
that are under the ... oh ... that wasn't what you meant was it?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean01 Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. Conservative Christianity vs. Liberal Christianity
This characterization of christianity depends on the belief that humans are inherently evil. While that doctrine does appear a few times in the christian bible, it is not the sole philosophy that particular book proposes.

If you willing to accept the radical notion that humans are inherently good, then you realize that the bible shows that "civilization" can be motivated by love and compassion.

Consider for a moment the words of this radical liberal voice in the bible before assuming christianity is only about a punishing, vengeful sky-deity:
"As You Have Done Unto the Least of These , You Have Done Unto Me." -Jesus Christ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Sadly, most people equate "Conservative Christianity" with "Fundamentalist Christianity"
Edited on Mon Sep-07-09 02:43 PM by OKIsItJustMe
"Fundamentalism" is not "Conservative." It's a relatively new innovation.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/">“Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”

… We should not identify the Fundamentalists with the conservatives. All Fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Fundamentalists. The best conservatives can often give lessons to the liberals in true liberality of spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is essentially illiberal and intolerant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. There's a little problem with that theory
in that god has yet to come down and rule anywhere, so what we have in his place is a long history of mere people claiming to rule in his stead. Usually the reason to make the claim of divine authority is to justify cruelty, greed, wars, prejudice, oppression, genocide, stupidity, etc, which would otherwise not be tolerated by rational populations.

When it comes to authority, patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is often the first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-07-09 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
8. Leading scientist calls on religious leaders to tackle climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/global-warming-religion

Leading scientist calls on religious leaders to tackle climate change

President of the British Science Association, Lord May, says faith groups could lead policing of social behaviour

Ian Sample
The Guardian, Monday 7 September 2009

Religious leaders should play a frontline role in mobilising people to take action against global warming, according to a leading scientist.

Lord May, a former chief scientist to the government, said religious groups could use their influence to motivate believers into reducing the environmental impact of their lives.

The international reach of faith-based organisations and their authoritarian structures give religious groups an almost unrivalled ability to encourage a large proportion of the world's population to go green, he said.

Lord May highlighted the value of religion in uniting communities to tackle environmental challenges ahead of his presidential address to the British Science Association festival at the University of Surrey in Guildford today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. Check out the religious profile of Inhofe's fans. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuvuj Donating Member (874 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
21. I do notice that as the shit hits the fan...
...the religious and other crazies come out of the woodwork.

Just when humanity NEEDS to get rational and actually deal with and solve some serious world wide issues...the crazies expand their influence.

There are apparently two parts to the human brain...the rational/practical and the "don't think...just let 'god' and the 'free market' (greed?) solve everything" side.

Right now the relatively rational people are in power...but the slathering beast of irrationality is frothing at the mouth...waiting impatiently to take over again...and it will again...in time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
22. Misleading title
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 07:26 AM by Nihil
"Only god can save us now" doesn't capture what he is saying at all.

Lord May (Wiki has him "a devoted agnostic" rather than "atheist" FWIW) said
"People who believe in the End of Days, who believe the world is going to come
to an end, don't care about climate change. I think there is quite a strong
connection between the religious right and climate change denial."

This is exactly the charge that many on this forum have laid at the feet
of fundamentalists, climate change deniers and other trolls. Why is it
different when he says it? It is still correct.


> "A supernatural punisher maybe part of the solution" to enforce necessary
> measurements to cope with climate change.

I read this as more of a "if it works, use it" approach rather than any form
of "only God can save us now".

That guy has his faults but I wouldn't put this down amongst them.

:shrug:

(Edit for typo + clarification)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-08-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Poetic license
I agree that "if it works, use it" is probably closer to what he intended. I could also have used "Head of royal society capitulates to religion". If headline writers are to be held strictly accountable, we'll be hanging editors right and left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Well there's an idea ...
> If headline writers are to be held strictly accountable,
> we'll be hanging editors right and left.

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC