CKA Forums
https://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/british-columbia-f30/court-to-decide-if-polygamy-laws-conflict-with-rights-charte-t92953-75.html
Page 6 of 7

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Gunnair Gunnair:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

So why is slavery a 'Christian' practise??


Because it was.

A point that not all Christian morality is necessarily good.

Slavery was a firmly entrenched societal/legal practise that existed long before Christianity was introduced into European nations. Slavery existed in differing forms throughout the world that weren't 'Christian'. The slave of a wealthy man was more powerful than supposed free men. There were also indentured servitudes, it was used as a punishment for crime, POWs were enslaved, and it was a form of contract work(people could actually sell themselves for a period of time). So which one are talking about? The only slaves who were made so based on religious doctrine were nuns and monks....and that was done through free will.


Irrespective of it existing outside of countries not Christian (remember this was a point back that the removal of Christian morality means society will spiral downhill) slavery was widely practised by Christian countries (USA, Britain, Spain, Portugal, France) and is referenced in the Bible.

Are you suggesting that religious doctrine played no role in the justification of slavery?

Author:  Lemmy [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Gunnair Gunnair:
Massachusetts was the first slave holding colony.


Of course, it being the first colony of any population. Despite its legality, slavery never took hold in Massachusetts. It did in Virginia though.

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Lemmy Lemmy:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Massachusetts was the first slave holding colony.


Of course, it being the first colony of any population. Despite its legality, slavery never took hold in Massachusetts. It did in Virginia though.


Boston was 10% slaves by the mid 18th century with with an overall percentage of 2.2%.

Sounds like it took hold until the 1780s at least.

Author:  Lemmy [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Slave Population in the Colonies, 1650-1770

Year North South Total
1650 880 720 1,600
1670 1,125 3,410 4,535
1690 3,340 13,389 16,729
1710 8,303 36,563 44,866
1730 17,323 73,698 91,021
1750 30,222 206,198 236,420
1770 48,460 411,362 459,822

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Yep, there was slavery throughout the states.

Sorry, Lemmy, I'm not really seeing your point.

Author:  ShepherdsDog [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

$1:
and is referenced in the Bible.


I thought I pointed out that the slavery that is referenced to in the Bible, is a different sort than the slavery that took place in the modern era. The slaves then, were servants or serfs as opposed to the slavery that existed on the plantations of contemporary times. The Bible also refers to followers of Christ as being slaves to God. Slaves were often skilled labourers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, business managers, soldiers as well as domestics. Wealthy slaves often owned their own slaves and employed free men and women as well.. Important court officials were also slaves. Not the same thing as what you are thinking of.

$1:
Are you suggesting that religious doctrine played no role in the justification of slavery?


To open up a can of worms, some of the Nazis and their related ilk used their personal religious beliefs to justify what was done to the Jews during the holocaust and pogroms. Does that mean all of Christianity bears responsibility for the words and actions of a handful? You forget, or fail to mention, that it was Christian Churches and their interpretation of scripture that was behind the emancipation movement.

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
$1:
and is referenced in the Bible.


I thought I pointed out that the slavery that is referenced to in the Bible, is a different sort than the slavery that took place in the modern era. The slaves then, were servants or serfs as opposed to the slavery that existed on the plantations of contemporary times. The Bible also refers to followers of Christ as being slaves to God. Slaves were often skilled labourers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, business managers, soldiers as well as domestics. Wealthy slaves often owned their own slaves and employed free men and women as well.. Important court officials were also slaves. Not the same thing as what you are thinking of.


The Curse of Ham in Genesis seems to be the common justification by slave owning Christians of the past. I get what you're saying, but the more modern slavery - that of the last four hundred years, was a different beast then what you're speaking of.

Author:  Lemmy [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Gunnair Gunnair:
Yep, there was slavery throughout the states.

Sorry, Lemmy, I'm not really seeing your point.


I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. I was just pointing out that, in the American experience, slavery came from the profit motive of lazy merchants, not anything religious. My point was that the most devout Christian parts of the colonies had the fewest slaves. The very REASON that Massachusetts was settled was for religious freedom. Virginia was settled as a business venture. Religion had little to do with slavery's arrival in the USA.

Author:  ShepherdsDog [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

To use the 'Curse of Ham' to justify modern slavery was incorrect, even from a biblical standpoint. The descendants of Ham are Somali, Copts and Ethiopian peoples. When labelling races was the big craze in the 19th century, all sorts of biblical and pseudo scientific stuff was used.

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Lemmy Lemmy:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Yep, there was slavery throughout the states.

Sorry, Lemmy, I'm not really seeing your point.


I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. I was just pointing out that, in the American experience, slavery came from the profit motive of lazy merchants, not anything religious. My point was that the most devout Christian parts of the colonies had the fewest slaves. The very REASON that Massachusetts was settled was for religious freedom. Virginia was settled as a business venture. Religion had little to do with slavery's arrival in the USA.


Gotcha. That being said, Christianity was used as a justification for slavery in the US.

$1:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
To use the 'Curse of Ham' to justify modern slavery was incorrect, even from a biblical standpoint. The descendants of Ham are Somali, Copts and Ethiopians peoples.


Yeah, kinda the point. They were black.

Author:  romanP [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Lemmy Lemmy:
romanP romanP:
Do we really have to hash this out? Sex with children is already illegal under statutory rape law, and has nothing to do with anything that should be called polygamy.

You're totally missing the point. I'm not talking about sex with children. Young women in these cults are basically forced into arranged marriages.


The law doesn't support marriage by coercion, as far as I know. The only reason that creeps like the guy from Bountiful can get away with what he does is because polygamy is currently such a legal grey area. As someone else pointed out, these abuses would be a lot less likely to happen without consequence if the law clearly defined polygamous marriage as a legal union between more than two consenting adults.

$1:
They're coveted as young teens by the cult elders and brainwashed over years into polygamous marriages.


I don't even call that polygamy. It has nothing to do with polyamoury, which only functions with adult understanding, consent and communication. What you're talking about is coercion, child abuse and rape, and has nothing to do with anything that should be called polygamy.

$1:
Do you know how many agencies there are in the USA that exist solely to rescue young women from these types of cults? HUNDREDS. That's a business I don't think we want to import into Canada. Sex with children isn't the issue. It's culturally entrenched sexual exploitation of women of all ages.


Why shouldn't we have agencies like that in Canada? It's a lot better than not having them!

$1:
romanP romanP:
Real polygamy is something that happens between three or more consenting adults, without coercion.

And I've already declared that I support the right to enter into that sort of marriage. The trouble is that that's Fantasy Land. The reality is that most polygamous relationships are of the cult-variety that I've described above.


There are no polyamorous relationships in cults. There is only rape and abuse. Real polyamoury only happens with a great deal of respect, trust and communication, and that is not possible when one is being coerced, raped and harassed. Polyamoury is not a fantasy, and requires consent. I know many people who are polyamorous and who do not belong to any cult, are not being raped, harassed, or coerced, and have respectful, loving relationships with their partners. Some of those people even find that they have no choice but to exercise something of a legal loophole that allows them to be married while having multiple partners they also consider to be a part of their union.

Author:  ShepherdsDog [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

The Hamitic people were actually labelled a sub group of the 'white race', like trhe arabs. Dark skin but caucasian features.

Author:  Lemmy [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

Gunnair Gunnair:
Gotcha. That being said, Christianity was used as a justification for slavery in the US.

$1:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America


Oh yeah, of course they used Christianity as a justification. People have been using religious texts to justify their madness througout the ages. But the REASON for slavery in the USA was money. And it's funny that you picked Davis for your quote. He believed emancipation would come, but not until the black man was trained. Davis' personal justification for slavery was his perceived biological superiority of the white over the black. Davis believed that niggers would evolve into gentlemen, with the white man's help and guidance. Davis was Darwinian evolutionist...not particularly typical of a 19th century Christian.

Author:  Gunnair [ Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Court to decide if polygamy laws conflict with rights charte

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
The Hamitic people were actually labelled a sub group of the 'white race', like trhe arabs. Dark skin but caucasian features.


That may be, but the Curse of Ham, with the myth that people descended from Ham were blacks, is one of the justifications Christians employed for slavery.

Page 6 of 7 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©