Atheists Rally In Washington

[Artevelde]

Slavery disappeared in Europe only because it was replaced by serfdom, an alternative form of forced labor. This is a quibble in any case; what about the rest of the social norms that were mentioned?

You are completely wrong. First of all because serfdom is something very other than slavery. Second because serfdom was limited to only certain parts of Europe. Third because serfdom did not immediately follow the disappearance of slavery.

As for the other norms, I responded already. Please read.

 

[Dragon]

You are completely wrong. First of all because serfdom is something very other than slavery. Second because serfdom was limited to only certain parts of Europe. Third because serfdom did not immediately follow the disappearance of slavery.

Incorrect or misleading on all three counts. First, while slavery is not identical to serfdom, they both serve the same purpose: providing a source of forced labor to work the lands that provide the wealth for the rich and powerful. Second, whether "serfdom" was limited to only certain parts of Europe depends on how one defines the term. Third, the wealth of the elite in the Roman Empire was based on slavery, that of the elite in Medieval Europe was based on serfdom, and in between Europe suffered a collapse of civilization in which institutions like slavery and serfdom could not be maintained. EDIT: I just looked this up and found that the simpler answer to your third point is that you're wrong. Slavery persisted until the Middle Ages, and it actually disappeared only in countries that DID have serfdom even by a restricted definition.

There has never been an agrarian civilization that was not founded on some form of forced labor. Slavery was the most common form but not universal. Slavery was actually abolished in Europe, as opposed to being mostly, but not entirely, abandoned for a workable alternative, in the 19th century, slightly before it was abolished in America.

Now, how about those other social norms that were mentioned? You responded only with a flip falsehood.

 

[Artevelde]

You are completely wrong. First of all because serfdom is something very other than slavery. Second because serfdom was limited to only certain parts of Europe. Third because serfdom did not immediately follow the disappearance of slavery.

Incorrect or misleading on all three counts. First, while slavery is not identical to serfdom, they both serve the same purpose: providing a source of forced labor to work the lands that provide the wealth for the rich and powerful. Second, whether "serfdom" was limited to only certain parts of Europe depends on how one defines the term. Third, the wealth of the elite in the Roman Empire was based on slavery, that of the elite in Medieval Europe was based on serfdom, and in between Europe suffered a collapse of civilization in which institutions like slavery and serfdom could not be maintained.

There has never been an agrarian civilization that was not founded on some form of forced labor. Slavery was the most common form but not universal. Slavery was actually abolished in Europe, as opposed to being mostly, but not entirely, abandoned for a workable alternative, in the 19th century, slightly before it was abolished in America.

Now, how about those other social norms that were mentioned? You responded only with a flip falsehood.

Too bad you don't care about historical facts.

 

[Dragon]

Too bad you don't care about historical facts.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Slavery in early medieval Europe was relatively uncommon and in Western Europe slavery largely disappeared by the later Middle Ages. . . . Slavery declined in the Middle Ages in most parts of Europe as serfdom slowly rose, but it never completely disappeared. It persisted longer in Southern and Eastern Europe. In Poland slavery was forbidden in the 15th century; it was replaced by the second enserfment. . . . Throughout this period slaves were traded openly in most cities . . .Chaos and invasion made the taking of slaves habitual throughout Europe in the early Middle Ages. . . . Germanic laws provided for the enslavement of criminals, as when the Visigothic Code prescribed enslavement for those who could not pay the financial penalty for their crime . . . In Carolingian Europe 10-20% of the entire population consisted of slaves. . . . The restoration of order as the early Middle Ages passed was accompanied by the transmutation of this state into serfdom . . . Slavery in medieval Europe was so common that the Church repeatedly prohibited it—or at least the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands was prohibited at, for example, the Council of Koblenz in 922, the Council of London in 1102, and the Council of Armagh in 1171. . . . The Crusader states inherited many slaves. To this may have been added some Muslims taken as captives of war. . . . Slavery (Romanian: sclavie) existed on the territory of present-day Romania from before the founding of the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia in 13th–14th century, until it was abolished in stages during the 1840s and 1850s. Most of the slaves were of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity. . . .In Kievan Rus and Muscovy, the slaves were usually classified as kholops. A kholop's master had unlimited power over his life: he could kill him, sell him, or use him as payment upon a debt. The master, however, was responsible before the law for his kholop's actions. A person could become a kholop as a result of capture, selling himself or herself, being sold for debts or committed crimes, or marriage to a kholop. Until the late 10th century, the kholops represented a majority among the servants who worked lordly lands. . . . The laws from 12th and 13th centuries describe the legal status of two categories. According to the Norwegian Gulating code (in about 1160), domestic slaves could not, unlike foreign slaves, be sold out of the country. This and other laws defined slaves as their master's property at the same level as cattle. . . . Gaelic Ireland and Scotland were among the last areas of Christian Europe to give up their institution of slavery. Under Gaelic custom, prisoners of war were routinely taken as slaves. However, ironically, it was during the period that slavery was disappearing across most of western Europe that it was reaching its zenith in Ireland and Scotland . . . "

I shall let the historical facts above speak for themselves, regarding who does or does not care about them.

 

[amrchaos]

They are not doing it to abolish religion (maybe a very little select few want that), they are doing it for the interest of everyone's rights. If one religion has their way, then everyone else's rights get stepped on. If non believers has their way, then they can make it where everyone has their rights (Gay marriage and every religion is free to do their own shit). But if they try to make religion illegal, then it should be everyone's duty to throw them out of government.

Unfortunately many atheists are motivated by anti-religious feelings and intolerance. The idea that atheists are somehow more "neutral" than religious people is bogus.

As for gay marriage, that is first and foremost a cultural and social issue, not a religious issue. Advocates of gay marriage aren't just opposing religious rules, they are proposing throwing out a few thousand years of basic social norms.

You do know that for a long time, Aristocracy and Depotism was considered a norm that persisted for the majority of mankinds existance.

The removal or overthrow of such government types actually benefitted man, not destroyed or undercut mans development. Thus the argument to maintain a tradition cannot be based on the fact that it is a tradition. You have to make an argument that the tradition must be maintained for the benefit of all.

For instance, the concept of charity in western religion does benefit the group in question and should be maintained by the group.

Conversion by force or intimidation by one religion onto non-members can be considered a tradition in certain religious groups, but it is detrimental for stability and order in a region that contain multiple religious identies. That tradition should be abandoned for the benefit of all in the region.

 

[daveman]

Ya'll realize how much crazier the players are on this board than the average American is, right?

Between racists and religionsists (which includes the radical atheists, incidently since they too are religiously obsessed -- only in their case their obsession is anti-religion) this board exposed quintessentially everything that is WRONG with this nation.

Mindless unthinking statists like you are what's wrong with this nation.

So go find someplace more to your liking, and quit trying to **** up my country. Kthnxbai.