I'm not religious and never have been so help me understand, why did Christians support slavery and jim crow? (activist, radical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were actually two competing camps within American Christianity regarding how to justify slavery. It was in fact one of the great religious debates of the 18th century. The two groups were called the "Polygenists" and the "Monogenists"
The Monogenists ("one origin") claimed that blacks were being enslaved as a punishment by God resulting from the "Curse of Ham" (more correctly, the "Curse of Canaan") in Genesis 9. Monogenist Christians considered blacks to be of the race of "Ham" or "Hamites," and blamed the curse for the color of their skin and their subservient position to whites.
The Polygenists ("many origin") took a harder line and insisted that blacks were not even human beings, but instead a different species of animal... specifically beasts of the fields as created on the 6th day of Creation Week.
Neither group doubted black inferiority or the morality of slavery. They just had different Biblical rationale for the belief.
And this is the sort of stuff that keeps me hooked on this forum. Thanks for sharing.
Education and widespread literacy are the reasons for Western Enlightenment. Up until the 19th century, the church was still a yoke and a HUGE barrier to enlightenment.
It was only after many western nations divorced the church from their governments and forced religion to compete in the free market of ideas did the church become somewhat more open to enlightenment in the form or science, art, philosophy, etc...
When the church had ALL the power, they abused it. And we have a duty to remember how they behaved when they didn't have to compete in the free market of ideas.
You don't seem to know much history at all. The Christian faiths were patrons of the arts and sciences and opened the first universities in Europe and the Americas.
You've also never taken a single anthropological course I can tell. Enroll in some physical anthropology courses in college. Do nt take my word for it, listen to the TA or professor as they "enlighten" you that the science and anthropology of the 19th and early 20th Century was very racist.
British scientist in Tasmania adamant to find proof of the racial superiority of white people over others, through evolutionary processes, tore apart the corpse of the last Tasmanian man for souvenirs. One made a personal tobacco pouch out of his skin.
Terms like the "Enlightenment" and "Dark Ages" are something historians came up with. One can't read to much into those terms. A lot of "unenlightened" things went on during the "enlightenment."
You don't seem to know much history at all. The Christian faiths were patrons of the arts and sciences and opened the first universities in Europe and the Americas.
You've also never taken a single anthropological course I can tell. Enroll in some physical anthropology courses in college. Do nt take my word for it, listen to the TA or professor as they "enlighten" you that the science and anthropology of the 19th and early 20th Century was very racist.
British scientist in Tasmania adamant to find proof of the racial superiority of white people over others, through evolutionary processes, tore apart the corpse of the last Tasmanian man for souvenirs. One made a personal tobacco pouch out of his skin.
Terms like the "Enlightenment" and "Dark Ages" are something historians came up with. One can't read to much into those terms. A lot of "unenlightened" things went on during the "enlightenment."
Ok...they were the patrons of those universities and arts, huh?
Good...answer this then...
How much leeway did those arts and universities have to openly critisize the Christian church and it's teachings?
Actually, they were greedy first, democrats second, and religion was just a way to justify the first two.
Let's not forget that the DNC had to vote on whether or not they could even acknowledge God in their 2012 convention.
And the vote to remove God actually won, but it would have had huge repercussions by the country.
I'm sure that in 2016 God will be removed by the progressives (the hijackers of the Democratic Party), who cannot tolerate a belief in a higher being, other than themselves.
Don't forget to add.........“I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform,†Strickland, who chaired the party’s platform committee, read. “In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and our party’s platform should as well.â€
Following the vote, Debbie Wasserman Schultz tweeted and claimed, “The platform is being amended to maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the prez…â€
I'm sure God is glad for the President's approval!!!
Who can claim Christianity then remove God or cover up banners that have Jesus on them? Is this scripture below for the Democrat party and it's followers
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
When the church had ALL the power, they abused it. And we have a duty to remember how they behaved when they didn't have to compete in the free market of ideas.
How did the Church have "ALL the power"?
I've read a fair bit of history from military to Christian history. So I'm intrigued. One of my heroes of history is Charles V. He ended up having Rome sacked (his mercenary troops stabled their horses inside St. Peter's basilica) and the Pope was driven into hiding in his castle. If I'm remembering correctly this is when the Swiss Guard became immortalized.
The Popes never had "ALL the power" outside of the Papal States. Even then they did not hold all power within the Papal States. It may surprise you to learn that even inside Vatican City today the Pope does not have any more "ALL the power" than President Obama has "ALL the power" in the United States of America.
You need to go back to watching you Dan Brown conspiracy movies.
It's never been about religion. It's about culture. People use religion to rationalize cultural norms. In the South, racism and slavery where the norm. They just manipulated the Bible to endorse the culture at the time. They are doing the same thing now with muslims and gays. They exploit religion to support their personal philosophy. Most evangelicals are right wing Republicans. They will use the Bible to endorse all Republican propaganda including denying gay rights, liberal use of guns, support for foreign wars, and denying aid to the poor.
Ok...they were the patrons of those universities and arts, huh?
Yes, they were.
Quote:
Good...answer this then...
How much leeway did those arts and universities have to openly critisize the Christian church and it's teachings?
Not much as one could be accused of heresy. But people only knew so much about the physical world centuries ago--even in the 1800s. Biology--which is my major--was primarily a primitive science during the 1800s that focused on what the naked eye could observe. With the improvement of technology (and technological advancement is primarily what drives scientific advancements) we could begin to see human cells. Sometime within the 20th Century biology became a a cell-centric science. In the 19th Century you could say biology was morphology-centric science.
And even the heliocentric view--immortalized in the battles between Galileo and the Church over the ancient geocentric view--is not entirely correct. The Sun is not necessarily the center of the universe.
So, while there might have resulted in some changes had more questioning of Church teachings been allowed it's doubtful there would have been a lot of great change to any significant degree because technology was still primitive relative to today. And our technology and understanding might be primitive to what advances may occur 200 years from now.
Remember too, that it was the Republican Party who developed the " Southern Strategy" to pander to Southern Democrats racism to win elections and turned the South.
I'm not really against Wikipedia when looking up trivia........... but when it comes to History this is not the most reliable source to give us, since people can go in and edit as they please. Something tells me progressives spend a lot of time there.
Ask Gizmo (a Librarian) she'd tell you this is "no good!"
You don't seem to know much history at all. The Christian faiths were patrons of the arts and sciences and opened the first universities in Europe and the Americas.
You've also never taken a single anthropological course I can tell. Enroll in some physical anthropology courses in college. Do nt take my word for it, listen to the TA or professor as they "enlighten" you that the science and anthropology of the 19th and early 20th Century was very racist.
British scientist in Tasmania adamant to find proof of the racial superiority of white people over others, through evolutionary processes, tore apart the corpse of the last Tasmanian man for souvenirs. One made a personal tobacco pouch out of his skin.
Terms like the "Enlightenment" and "Dark Ages" are something historians came up with. One can't read to much into those terms. A lot of "unenlightened" things went on during the "enlightenment."
You can't generalize the Church as being anti-education or pro-education. It varied tremendously depending on the times. The same church criticized Charles Darwin's work but also helped create the field of Genetics with Mendel's work. At times, they were the patrons of the arts and at other times, they sought to inhibit it.
Also Christianity is not the same today. It is split into many different philosophies and belief systems. Evangelicals are far different in their beliefs than moderate Christians. A Southern Baptist and an Episcopalian have very different beliefs.
OP, that is a common misconception. Most Christians that were what today would be called evangelical were abolitionists. In the 19th Century though our society was very culturally Christian so everybody said they were even if they didn't live by Christian values.
There is an incredible tendency among Americans under age 30 to stereotype all Christians as only barely more benign than the Westboro church, being only comprised of old, angry white men who hate anybody and everybody who isn't also an old, angry white man. That isn't the case at all. The religion of Republicanism today is far from Christian. I am sure if Jesus was alive today he would stay completely out of politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
