What is the most contentious issue in American politics?

cpwill said:

:shrug: I was speaking to the past. Slavery was no more "right" when it was legal.

Click to expand...

Slavery has never been right, even though the bible condoned it, old and new, and had rules that regulated the treatment of slaves, and instructions for slaves toward their masters. But today, it is globally recognised that slavery and rape are crimes, whereas not so with abortion. Even so, most people who accept the use of abortion wish it to be safe, legal and rare. As in, most people don't support the notion of irresponsible patterns of behavior that use abortion as birth control.

Montecresto said:

Slavery has never been right, even though the bible condoned it, old and new, and had rules that regulated the treatment of slaves, and instructions for slaves toward their masters. But today, it is globally recognised that slavery and rape are crimes, whereas not so with abortion. Even so, most people who accept the use of abortion wish it to be safe, legal and rare. As in, most people don't support the notion of irresponsible patterns of behavior that use abortion as birth control.

Click to expand...

:shrug: most folks accepted slavery for the vast expanse of human history. It wasn't until Christian churches started the fight to get rid of it that it became "wrong". You seem unwilling or unable to establish a consistent standard.

cpwill said:

:shrug: most folks accepted slavery for the vast expanse of human history. It wasn't until Christian churches started the fight to get rid of it that it became "wrong". You seem unwilling or unable to establish a consistent standard.

Click to expand...

Lol, as much a Christian institution as any, and you credit them for its demise.

Christian views on slavery are varied both regionally and historically. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society.......

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

Most contentious underlying issue is one of control. Everyone has their own version of how much control anyone else should have on their lives or what they think government should and should not do on their behalf.

Basically, whatever you want or don't want to do, someone wants government to prevent or force you to do.

Other or "all of the above" ..
extremism, I think is the main problem .. similar to immaturity .. so many acting as two-year-olds ...its MY way or the highway .. we need to grow up ..

Abortion and SSM should not be political issues. But sadly, they are. I'd say they're the most contentious.

But gun rights is coming in a very close third.

I'd say right now the most contentious issue is police/citizen relations.

Montecresto said:

You win the abortion fight, every time you birth a baby instead of aborting it.

Click to expand...

Both sides win ever time an unwanted pregnancy does not happen.
The fewer unwanted pregnancies the fewer abortions that take place.

In the years 2008 to 2011 abortion numbers fell by 13 percent.

Researchers credit most of that decline because more women of childbearing years were using long term birth control witch has a much lower failure rate than condoms or birth control pills.

From :

Between 2007 and 2012, Colorado saw the highest percentage drop in birth rates among teens 15 to 19 in the country, according to a report released today by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. During that time, its teen birth rates dropped 39 percent compared to 29 percent nationwide. Abortion rates in the state among teens fell 35 percent between 2009 and 2012 and are falling nationally, as well.

The CDC’s report comes on the heels of Colorado’s own study, which reported a 40 percent decline in births among teens 15 to 19 from 2009 to 2013. The stunning decline in teen birth rates is significant not just for its size, but for its explanation. State public health officials are crediting a sustained, focused effort to offer low-income women free or low-cost long-acting reversible contraception, that is, intrauterine devices or implants. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative, supported by a $23 million anonymous donation, provided more than 30,000 IUDs or implants to women served by the state’s 68 family-planning clinics. The state’s analysis suggests the initiative was responsible for three-quarters of the decline in the state’s teen birth rates.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-americas-biggest-drop-in-teen-pregnancies/

Peter Grimm said:

I think at the end of the day, it comes down to religion. The left are anti-Christian, and they are picking away at traditional Christianity one issue at a time: gay marriage, abortion, drug laws, government paid contraception, etc.

....

Click to expand...

There are many mainline Protestant churches that are pro choice.
Over 40 denominations and religious groups are pro choice and are members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

Here is a list of the denominations and groups from the RCRC website :

http://rcrc.org/homepage/about/coalition-council/

minnie616 said:

Both sides win ever time an unwanted pregnancy does not happen.
The fewer unwanted pregnancies the fewer abortions that take place.

In the years 2008 to 2011 abortion numbers fell by 13 percent.

Researchers credit most of that decline because more women of childbearing years were using long term birth control witch has a much lower failure rate than condoms or birth control pills.

From :



The simple policy that led America’s biggest drop in teen birth rates - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

I know. I was just making the point to cp that when Christians are opposed to legal issues, that the best they can do is refrain from it themselves.

As long as the tea party side of the Republicans dominates the political agenda for the GOP and Obama is still in power, everything is contentious, even choosing a surgeon general and things that previous presidents did hundreds of times are suddenly the acts of pure evil if one believes the part of the GOP that is furthest away from "center".

Montecresto said:

Lol, as much a Christian institution as any, and you credit them for its demise.

Click to expand...

That is correct. The Emancipation and Abolition Movements were explicitly Christian, both in Britain and here in the United States, and had long roots in the Christian tradition.

Christian views on slavery are varied both regionally and historically. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society.......

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Hey, that's funny how you chose to chop the sentence there. Full sentence, of course, being:

In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this persisted in different forms and with regional differences well into the Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

Man. It would almost seem as though you were selectively editing...


You may benefit from reading the rest of the piece. This bit, for example: only in Christianity did the idea develop that slavery was sinful and must be abolished.

cpwill said:

That is correct. The Emancipation and Abolition Movements were explicitly Christian, both in Britain and here in the United States, and had long roots in the Christian tradition.



Hey, that's funny how you chose to chop the sentence there. Full sentence, of course, being:



Man. It would almost seem as though you were selectively editing...


You may benefit from reading the rest of the piece. This bit, for example: only in Christianity did the idea develop that slavery was sinful and must be abolished.

Click to expand...

Wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. read the whole damn thing. It starts with Christianity's early history, during the period of the Roman Empire and continues for 18 centuries. Furthermore, in the end, it wasn't JUST some Christians leading the abolitionist charge. And too, that doesn't excuse eighteen centuries of the Christian institution of slavery.

Montecresto said:

Wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Surprised you, eh? That's what can happen sometimes when you don't read the sources you cite.

Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries. read the whole damn thing.

Click to expand...

I did It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know - there was an anti-slavery bias in Christianity (and no other faith or belief system) from:

1 Timothy 1 said:

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Click to expand...

and that yet it remained a debate within the Church (and no where else) for centuries. Yet generally, the spread of Christianity was marked by a reduction in slavery - it almost disappeared in Europe, though it was replaced by feudalism.


From your source on the Abolitionist Movement:

...In particular, the effects of the Second Great Awakening resulted in many evangelicals working to see the theoretical Christian view, that all people are essentially equal, made more of a practical reality. Freedom of expression within the Western world also helped in enabling opportunity to express their position. Prominent among these abolitionists was Parliamentarian William Wilberforce in England, who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals."[88] With others he labored, despite determined opposition, to finally abolish the British slave trade. The famous English preacher Charles Spurgeon had some of his sermons burned in America due to his censure of slavery, calling it "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood."[89] Methodist founder John Wesley denounced human bondage as "the sum of all villainies," and detailed its abuses.[90] In Georgia, primitive Methodists united with brethren elsewhere in condemning slavery. Many evangelical leaders in the United States such as Presbyterian Charles Finney and Theodore Weld, and women such as Harriet Beecher Stowe (daughter of abolitionist Lyman Beecher) and Sojourner Truth motivated hearers to support abolition. Finney preached that slavery was a moral sin, and so supported its elimination. "I had made up my mind on the question of slavery, and was exceedingly anxious to arouse public attention to the subject. In my prayers and preaching, I so often alluded to slavery, and denounced it.[91] Repentance from slavery was required of souls, once enlightened of the subject, while continued support of the system incurred "the greatest guilt" upon them.[92]...

Roman Catholic statements also became increasingly vehement against slavery during this era. In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. In 1815 Pope Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna the suppression of the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders;[105]

Click to expand...

Ironically, in the United States, opposition to the Abolitionist movement accused it of violating the separation between Church and State .

molten_dragon said:

I'm curious what people think about this. What issue do you believe is the most contentious or divisive, one that the two sides are least likely to come to any sort of agreement or compromise about.

Click to expand...

RIGHT NOW... I would say gay marriage.

Ask again in a year and it'll probably be something else.

cpwill said:

That is correct. The Emancipation and Abolition Movements were explicitly Christian, both in Britain and here in the United States, and had long roots in the Christian tradition.



Hey, that's funny how you chose to chop the sentence there. Full sentence, of course, being:



Man. It would almost seem as though you were selectively editing...


You may benefit from reading the rest of the piece. This bit, for example: only in Christianity did the idea develop that slavery was sinful and must be abolished.

Click to expand...

Abolishing slavery had NOTHING to do with religion - let alone Christianity. As Montecresto stated, slavery had been used by Christians for many centuries. So giving Christianity ANY credit for slavery abolishment is totally baseless.

'However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)'

'When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)'

Slavery in the Bible

Slavery ended because humanity evolved, both morally and economically, to the point that it just was not worth it any longer.

It had, imo, NOTHING to do with religion or Christianity.

Though I am quite sure once religious types of the time saw the winds of change blowing against slavery, they jumped on the bandwagon by finding a few passages in their Club Manifesto (Bible) to justify their new found abolitionist's bent...and then probably claimed it was 'God's will' or some other nonsense.

DA60 said:

Abolishing slavery had NOTHING to do with religion - let alone Christianity.

Click to expand...

:shrug: that is historically illiterate.

As Montecresto stated, slavery had been used by Christians for many centuries. So giving Christianity ANY credit for slavery abolishment is totally baseless.

Click to expand...

Not only is this an incomplete historical picture, logically, your conclusion does not follow follow from your data.

A quick example: The United States had slavery for many years. Therefore crediting any of the ending of slavery in North America to the United States is totally baseless.

See how that doesn't make sense?

Slavery was a debate within Christianity for centuries - and nowhere else. Those seeking to apply directions to Christians who were slaves in a society where slavery was a massive, accepted fact clashed with those seeking to apply the proscription that slave-trading was sinful and that in Christ all men were equal. Abolition was a theme from Christianity's earliest centuries - and nowhere else.

'However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)'

Click to expand...

That is Judaic law (so was the proscription to set slaves free every 7 years). The Christian texts that you are thinking of are:


or


To the modern western view it seems a bit muddled - how can he not call for rebellion against slave owners, demand immediate emancipation, etc?

Well, a couple of things. The New Testament Greek for slave (dou'lo) covers both the kinds of slaves that we would associate with slavery, bondservants, and some variants in between. In Roman slavery, it was common for slaves to work their way out of servitude or be freed upon their owners death - Cicero estimated that it took about 7 years for a slave to free him or her self, though plenty of work suggests that lengths of time varied, and that would have been a low estimate. After Spartacus' rebellion, the treatment of slaves changed in many sectors of the Roman empire for the worse, but that was not the environment in which Jesus preached or Paul wrote.

The form of slavery Paul is addressing (or how he distinguishes within the variety of servitude covered under dou'lo) can be found in the Letter to Philemon, the Letter to the Ephesians, and the Letter to Timothy. The kind of trading that involves buying, trafficking, and selling human beings like chattel is sinful (1 Timothy 1:10), those who find themselves currently masters are to consider those who serve them as their equals and brothers (Philemon 1:16), and, in fact, are called upon to serve them (Ephesians 5:9).

Like so much else, ancient Christianity sought to turn dou'lo on its head where it was found by replacing both resentment and abuse with love and service.

Slavery ended because humanity evolved, both morally and economically, to the point that it just was not worth it any longer.

Click to expand...

:shrug: according to the people who kick-started the movement to end it, and pushed that through in this country and in Britain, it ended because their Christian faith demanded that it do so. And they were considered religious fanatics for it.

cpwill said:

Surprised you, eh? That's what can happen sometimes when you don't read the sources you cite.



I did It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know - there was an anti-slavery bias in Christianity (and no other faith or belief system) from:



and that yet it remained a debate within the Church (and no where else) for centuries. Yet generally, the spread of Christianity was marked by a reduction in slavery - it almost disappeared in Europe, though it was replaced by feudalism.


From your source on the Abolitionist Movement:



Ironically, in the United States, opposition to the Abolitionist movement accused it of violating the separation between Church and State .

Click to expand...

The big surprise is in your attempt to dismiss the Christian institution of slavery on the merits that Quakers began to oppose it in the latter 1600's. The point being that it doesn't excuse centuries of Christian justification of slavery, particularly of black Africans because they were descendants of a biblically historic criminal. It wasn't until about 1980 that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially ceased to advance the notion.

For many centuries slavery was perfectly acceptable to Christians. Christians had no doubt that it was divinely sanctioned, and they used a number of Old and New Testament quotations to prove their case. Looking at the relevant passages it is clear that the Bible does indeed endorse slavery. In the Old Testament God approved the practice and laid down rules for buyers and sellers (Exodus 21:1-11, Leviticus 25:44). Men are at liberty to sell their own daughters (Exodus 21:7). Slaves can be inherited (Leviticus 25:45-6). It is acceptable to beat slaves, since they are property — a master who beats his slave to death is not to be punished as long as the slave stays alive for a day or two, as the loss of the master's property is punishment enough:

Montecresto said:

The big surprise is in your attempt to dismiss the Christian institution of slavery on the merits that Quakers began to oppose it in the latter 1600's. The point being that it doesn't excuse centuries of Christian justification of slavery, particularly of black Africans because they were descendants of a biblically historic criminal

Click to expand...

Agreed - it doesn't. Just as that fact also does not alter the fact that the anti-slavery movement was Christian in origin and early expression.

DA60 said:

Abolishing slavery had NOTHING to do with religion - let alone Christianity. As Montecresto stated, slavery had been used by Christians for many centuries. So giving Christianity ANY credit for slavery abolishment is totally baseless.

'However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)'

'When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)'

Slavery in the Bible

Slavery ended because humanity evolved, both morally and economically, to the point that it just was not worth it any longer.

It had, imo, NOTHING to do with religion or Christianity.

Though I am quite sure once religious types of the time saw the winds of change blowing against slavery, they jumped on the bandwagon by finding a few passages in their Club Manifesto (Bible) to justify their new found abolitionist's bent...and then probably claimed it was 'God's will' or some other nonsense.

Click to expand...

Haha, yeah, like just about everything else the bible is good for, you can both justify or condemn about anything. Those Christians such as the Quakers that opposed slavery, and considered it immoral were using bible scriptures to support their positions while Christians dependent upon it were citing all the scriptures that condoned it. But in the end, your right. It's about human evolution and democracy. Besides, even though both blacks and women were horribly persecuted in early American history, despite the very good constitution that acknowledge that humanity was entirely equal, more and more people were acknowledging the inevitable. President Washington struggled with the contradiction, realising that his wealth came from his slave holdings, never could bring himself to free them, but added it to his will that upon his death, they would be.

Both France and England who had big trade in textiles with southern states, and may well have aided them during the American civil war were prevented by Lincoln's declaration that the war against states rights, was a war against slavery. Which of course by that time was already outlawed in both countries.

cpwill said:

Agreed - it doesn't. Just as that fact also does not alter the fact that the anti-slavery movement was Christian in origin and early expression.

Click to expand...

Ok, well my sides hurting by now. So we can both credit Christians for bringing slavery to America, and then for playing a part in its abolition.

If you’ve got an ugly or uncomfortable historical record that you’d like to have whitewashed, then Christian fundamentalists are the ideologues for you. Here’s their latest bit of doggerel: Christians deserve the credit for abolishing African slavery!
- See more at: Did Christianity Abolish Slavery?

Montecresto said:

Ok, well my sides hurting by now

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that - you bust a rib?

So we can both credit Christians for bringing slavery to America, and then for playing a part in its abolition.

Click to expand...

....Sort of. Christianity pretty clearly defines slave-trading as sinful.



So to the extent that the cross-Atlantic slave trade consisted of actual slave trade (which was the vast majority of it), slavery came to the America's in contradiction to Christianity's teachings. Had someone crossed over with slaves they already had, I agree, they would not have been violating Christian biblical direction.

If you’ve got an ugly or uncomfortable historical record that you’d like to have whitewashed, then Christian fundamentalists are the ideologues for you

Click to expand...

I don't believe in a literal seven day creation and tend to apply textual criticism to the Bible, so no, they're not really thrilled about me. But I am a history nut, and I do see where the anti-slavery movement came from.

Here’s their latest bit of doggerel: Christians deserve the credit for abolishing African slavery!
- See more at: Did Christianity Abolish Slavery?

Click to expand...

Ah. An atheist advocacy blog. :roll:


And a very poorly argued one. You admit that slavery is ubiquitous and then shift immediately to claiming that Christianity instituted the practice? Someone has timeline issues.

cpwill said:

I'm sorry to hear that - you bust a rib?



....Sort of. Christianity pretty clearly defines slave-trading as sinful.

1 Timothy 1: 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.​

So to the extent that the cross-Atlantic slave trade consisted of actual slave trade (which was the vast majority of it), slavery came to the America's in contradiction to Christianity's teachings. Had someone crossed over with slaves they already had, I agree, they would not have been violating Christian biblical direction.



I don't believe in a literal seven day creation and tend to apply textual criticism to the Bible, so no, they're not really thrilled about me. But I am a history nut, and I do see where the anti-slavery movement came from.



Ah. An atheist advocacy blog. :roll:


And a very poorly argued one. You admit that slavery is ubiquitous and then shift immediately to claiming that Christianity instituted the practice? Someone has timeline issues.

Click to expand...

No, just laughing. Instituted it in North America, important distinction you ignored.

According to Robert Dabney (1820-1898), the Southern Presbyterian, in his book ‘A Defense of Virgina and the South’ The Pilgrim Fathers saw themselves as God’s chosen people and were therefore at liberty to treat the native Indians as God had allowed Israel to treat its pagan neighbours, ‘the pious ‘Puritan Fathers’ found it convenient to assume that they were God’s chosen Israel and the pagans about them were Amalek and Amorites. They hence deduced their righteous title to exterminate or enslave the Indians.... The Promptitude with which the ‘Puritan Fathers’ embarked in this business [the African slave trade] may be comprehended, when it is stated that the Desire [the first slave ship to Africa] sailed upon her voyage in June 1637 [only 17 years after the Pilgrim Fathers landed]....the commerce of New England was born of the slave trade. p33.

Montecresto said:

No, just laughing. Instituted it in North America, important distinction you ignored.

Click to expand...

:shrug: well then he is incorrect there as well. Native Americans also practiced slavery.


If you are going to say "well he meant instituted the African slave trade", I'm going to point out that it had been going on for centuries before the Europeans got involved. If he's wants to say "the translntic trade of African slaves to North America", then okay, but that's (again) not really different than what had already been going on for centuries.


Europeans got involved - and I agree, it was contrary to the tenets of the New Testament when they did so and they shouldn't have. And they were amazingly brutal, and treated their slaves (generally) in ways that completely contradicted the Christian teachings to serve your slaves and treat them as your equal and your brother. But he is trying to impute more origination on them than can be historically defended.

cpwill said:

:shrug: well then he is incorrect there as well. Native Americans also practiced slavery.


If you are going to say "well he meant instituted the African slave trade", I'm going to point out that it had been going on for centuries before the Europeans got involved. If he's wants to say "the translntic trade of African slaves to North America", then okay, but that's (again) not really different than what had already been going on for centuries.


Europeans got involved - and I agree, it was contrary to the tenets of the New Testament when they did so and they shouldn't have. And they were amazingly brutal, and treated their slaves (generally) in ways that completely contradicted the Christian teachings to serve your slaves and treat them as your equal and your brother. But he is trying to impute more origination on them than can be historically defended.

Click to expand...

Lol. Christian fingerprints are all over slavery.

Historically, slavery was not just an Old Testament phenomenon. Slavery was practiced in every ancient Western culture: Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and Israelite. Slavery was an integral part of ancient commerce, taxation, and temple religion.[4]

In the book of Genesis, Noah condemns Ham and his descendents to perpetual servitude: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers" (Gn 9:25). T. David Curp notes that this episode has been used to justify racialized slavery, since "Christians and even some Muslims eventually identified Ham's descendents as black Africans".[5] Anthony Pagden argued that "This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black. Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an unassailable argument—rooted in whatever the most persuasive contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or natural science—why one part of the human race should live in perpetual indebtedness to another."[6]

Christian views on slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia