Talk:Slavery and religion/Archive 1

message: The tone dramatically changes once we reach the 'Islam' section. The levels of condensation directed at Muslims contrasts sharply with the mostly nuetral discussion of Jews and Christians (by that I mean no derogatory comments or remarks made against their religon in general or the practitioners of it). For instance I don't see any 'Christain apologists' however there is more than one mention of an anti-slavery Islmaic point of view being labeled as 'apologist'. This needs one of the 'non-nuetral disclaimers' at the top of the page. It seems the author is trying to prove a point of view (ie- that Abrahamic Religons DO Condone Slavery) instead of discussing the topic intellectually.
Also, WHY AINT EXPERTS being ASKED? Such as Christian Bishops & Cardinals? Or Muslim Shaykhs and Scholars?
Here are some pages to REFER to, that are QUESTIONS answered by SHAYKHS
"Sex with slaves and women's rights" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00002047.aspx
"Is Slavery Allowed in Islam?" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00000674.aspx
"Slavery: How is it that Islam, a religion inspired by God for the good of humanity, allows slavery?" - http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/questions/QA00000711.aspx
:You demonstrate what some people do to change or suppress history.  The fact is muslims had a lot of slaves (25 million +) and had them for a long time (1400 years).  Wikipedia isn't about protecting one's image but is about presenting facts.  By the way, other religions were/are involved in slavery and should be mentioned along with the expansion of all sections.  (Anonymous User) 17 June 2006
::Those links are really usful. Anonymous is right we are here to present the facts with as much historical accuracy and lack of bias as humanly possible. Expect a totally disputed tag if the critisism of islam is noticed.Hypnosadist 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non neutral 

message: Where is the exegesis? It is not neutral in and of itself just to quote some scripture. It also needs to be interpreted. When one is interpreting one also needs to tell according to which principles. To state that Noah - under divine authority - established slavery and in turn to take that to mean that God would sort of like slavery is not a literal reading of the text. It is a highly biased interpretation, violating the following principles:
# Distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive text. If someone did something it's not to be seen as God's will until some other text clearly says so. This is especially true in Genesis where the author is trying to make a point on how God choses and blesses the ill-deserving.
# Distinguish between what is described as God's perfect will and what He is doing with regret. The bulk of the OT texts can be described like the following: "Bad actions will have bad consequences, so please, please do not do them!" Noah speaking a curse
# Identify the correct genre. A curse is not a governmental decree. Even if Noah curses one of his sons into slavery, that does not mean that he "institutionalises" it. Actually it clearly implicates that slavery must already have been around before the flood, for the curse to make sense.
My next point. Where is the hermeneutics? Having identified a texts original meaning is the first step. The next step is to identify its meaning for the reader. Passages from the OT have always been interpreted by the christians, already within the New Testament, in the light of the alleged fulfillment of prophecy in Christ. All texts therefore have an interpretative history which can not be neglected.
A passage in the OT must be read in the light of Christian interpretative history if it is quoted as an example of what christians once believed. Which is the question at hand in an Encyclopedia. Wheher such a belief is good or bad, or whether it actually makes sense, can be nothing but POV.
Likewise all good hermenutics must take into account exactly what question did the original text try to answer and how that question guides the applicability of a certain text today. No text in the NT tries to answer our specific question, namely what should one think of slavery per se. The texts try to answer questions more like "how should one behave in a hostile world where slavery is an established fact?" This is actually very clear if you read the paying close attention to words like "because", "so that", etc.
Another hermeneutical aspect is whether a text should be considered a temporary measure or if it reflects an eternal value. The christian viewpoint has always been that there are lots of stuff in the OT that is not eternal.
* It might be fulfilled in Christ (like the sacrificial system)
* It might be hygenic rules (like the prohibition to eat certain food)
* It might be rules intended for the Israelitic nation under God only. (Some fringes of Christianity have held the belief that the society in which they live should be transformed into such a nation "under God" as well, but this was not the original (pre-Constantin) view, nor is it the majority view today.)
* Etc.
This is nothing but normal hermeneutics, used all of the time in most questions. To ignore it is highly POV!
My third point. Having used sound exegesis and hermeneutics, one arrives at the third stage: dogmatics and ethics. When one is doing systematic theology, which is what one is doing when is tryng to answer what the christian (or some other religious) view is towards slavery, one needs to look not only at passages in the scripture, but it's general values and other themes that touch upon our subject as well.
If you look at church history this (the general "geist") actually is what has guided most christians through the ages. When christianity arrived for good in my country (Sweden) in the 11th century, it was the driving force to abolish slavery, as indeed it was throughout most of Europe.
What americans need to understand is that history did not start in 1776. Slavery had ceased in most parts of the "christian" world long before your civil war. Even though slavery can have been considered to continue in the form of feudalism, "slavery light", feudalism was not the brainchild of theologians but an inevitable consequence of the need for chivalry. The total abolishment of slavery therefore could not be accomplished except through thorough societal change. (Which makes st Paul's or st Peter's stance all the more understandable. Now this is apologetics, but I am not proposing it be put into an article!)  itpastorn 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the above editor's special pleading (for example, he removes the point that certain passage sanctions slavery, and makes the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved; plenty of endorsers of slavery have agreed.  In the same way, those who support capital punishment don't think that sentencing someone to death is anything but a dreadful punishment). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a matter of being fancy. It is a matter of telling us according to what principles one thinks. What guiding principles? What steps of logic? How do you weigh a particular word?
#Most of the above evades (albeit at great length) the points that I made.  For example, itpastorn deleted the true comment that Paul didn't criticise slavery, replacing it with the evasive point that Paul didn't talk about slavery.  Well, yes, not talking about is not criticising, but it neatly evades the point that someone in a society to which slavery is central should criticise it if they disapprove of it, especially when they're concerned to discuss morality. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mel Etitis's reasoning with one exception.  He is doing exegesis if he is reading and thinking about how to interpret a scripture.  He may not be following any particular school of exegesis or hermeneutics.  In a pluralistic society, he is not required to follow any particular school.  Robert McClenon 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was, I admit, reacting to what I saw as unnecessary sesquipedalianism.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But for the Wikipedia to be NPOV one must at the very least tell which school one should follow or what line of reasoning one has. Mel Etitis simply reverts but does not say how he arrived at his conclusion. Please explain why his "school" is better than mine? Because as it is right now, his school is being allowed to dictate what the article should say. At the very least both interpretations should be presented - in a pluralistic society. Right now he is no more pluralist than I am.--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, what you and I believe that st Paul should discuss is one matter, but the first step must be to acknowledge correctly what he did discuss. From there we can move on to the question of how he did chose his topics. We can find a multide of ethical and dogmatical questions that st Paul did not discuss per se.  What was st Pauls guiding principle when he wrote his letters? What was the guiding principle of the people who collected some of these letters into what we today call the NT? From silence one can argue anything!
--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "When prominent people say nothing about prominent evils, one is entitled to say that they failed to criticise those evils." If you had access to everything Paul said and wrote this would be true. We do not. We have some of his letters, originally written to a specific audience addressing specific questions. On those points all scholars agree. The words I suggested said exactly what we can see in the text - that he does not address the institution of slavery per se. To call this a "failure" is an interpretation and needs to be substantiated. Otherwise it is simply an argument from silence, i.e. no argument at all.--itpastorn 19:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One needs more than quotes 

message: "I've reverted... special pleading", says Mel Etitis. So simple to disregard more than ten paragraphs where I talk about the disciplines of exegetics and hermenutics. What has been reverted?
* An interpretation of a narrative text about Noah. Narrative texts, especially in the Genesis, do not claim that the actions of the people automatically should be considered as God's will. on the contrary. Even if Noah "institutionalised" slavery (very much disputed) that can in no way be taken as an indication that this was a good thing to do. One needs corroborating texts to make such a claim. Remove this hermenutical principle and the Bible says absolutely everything.
To prove the point that I am wrong, please state what exegetical and hermeneutical principles you follow in order to substantiate the following: "In this way slavery appears to be not only sanctioned but institutionalized by Noah."
* "The apostle Paul never explicitly addressess the issue of slavery as an institution." Please provide a text where st Paul addresses the institution of slavery, where his topic is if slavery should be abolished in society or not. My claim was that he addressess the topic of how a special group of people should conduct themselves in a society where slavery is everywhere. This is no "special pleading" but a simple fact.
What one should make from the fact that the institution is not addressed is another step, namely in constructing a christian ethic. I am discussing exegetics.
* "In his context however, this principle did not lead to any agitation for the abolishment of slavery per se." is reverted to "Yet, Paul never takes this to the stage of calling for the abolition of slavery." The word yet speaks volumes and is in itself definately more POV than my phrase. My phrase is nothing but a very simple stating of facts. It does not condone st Paul, nor explain why he chose his topic. It simply says he did not argue that slavery as an institution should be dropped (just as he never argues the opposite either).
* "Present-day Christians argue ... And that early christianity did not have a poltical voice, but was often trying to survive in the face of hostility and persecution. They would also argue that as soon as christianity became a more dominant factor in society it mostly have stood for the abolishment of slavery, as is evidenced when it overtook belief in the Æsir gods." In this paragraph we address the issue of how present day christians look at the passages in Scripture and what guiding principles they follow when the claim that Christianity is anti-slavery. That is the topic. To deny the very voicing of these arguments in such a context is offensive. Should it be considered OK if a christian went to the article on ateism and simply removed the arguments that ateists have? Of course not.
Before anyone reverts once again, I would  appreciate some exegetics and some hermeneutics!
Mel Etitis also makes the following claim that I make "the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved" (emphasis added). Nonsense. The topic at hand is how did the biblical authors regard slavery. When something in the bible is considered a curse that is not simply another way of saying that someone had an unpleasant experience. It speaks volumes about how God regards something.
Noah cursed on of his sons. That is in no way a comparable act with issuing a law. When the people of Israel disobey God, they face the possibility of being taken as slaves by other people. That is a consequence of not fulfilling the Covenant with God, something God especially pleads with the people that they should in every way avoid.  itpastorn 16:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a matter of being fancy. It is a matter of telling us according to what principles one thinks. What guiding principles? What steps of logic? How do you weigh a particular word?
#Most of the above evades (albeit at great length) the points that I made.  For example, itpastorn deleted the true comment that Paul didn't criticise slavery, replacing it with the evasive point that Paul didn't talk about slavery.  Well, yes, not talking about is not criticising, but it neatly evades the point that someone in a society to which slavery is central should criticise it if they disapprove of it, especially when they're concerned to discuss morality. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Mel Etitis's reasoning with one exception.  He is doing exegesis if he is reading and thinking about how to interpret a scripture.  He may not be following any particular school of exegesis or hermeneutics.  In a pluralistic society, he is not required to follow any particular school.  Robert McClenon 21:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was, I admit, reacting to what I saw as unnecessary sesquipedalianism.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But for the Wikipedia to be NPOV one must at the very least tell which school one should follow or what line of reasoning one has. Mel Etitis simply reverts but does not say how he arrived at his conclusion. Please explain why his "school" is better than mine? Because as it is right now, his school is being allowed to dictate what the article should say. At the very least both interpretations should be presented - in a pluralistic society. Right now he is no more pluralist than I am.--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, what you and I believe that st Paul should discuss is one matter, but the first step must be to acknowledge correctly what he did discuss. From there we can move on to the question of how he did chose his topics. We can find a multide of ethical and dogmatical questions that st Paul did not discuss per se.  What was st Pauls guiding principle when he wrote his letters? What was the guiding principle of the people who collected some of these letters into what we today call the NT? From silence one can argue anything!
--itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "When prominent people say nothing about prominent evils, one is entitled to say that they failed to criticise those evils." If you had access to everything Paul said and wrote this would be true. We do not. We have some of his letters, originally written to a specific audience addressing specific questions. On those points all scholars agree. The words I suggested said exactly what we can see in the text - that he does not address the institution of slavery per se. To call this a "failure" is an interpretation and needs to be substantiated. Otherwise it is simply an argument from silence, i.e. no argument at all.--itpastorn 19:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exegetics is not "special pleading" 

message: I am opening up this section in order to facilitate a discussion about one of the issues at hand.
The last revert by Mel Etitis has been done without him justifying his actions on the talk page. How can a curse be interpreted as a governmental decree? Study the topic of curses (and blessings) in the Bible, the OT, and the Pentateuch and you will very easily see that they are something else.
On what grounds can one say that this particular action by Noah reflects the will of God? The author never says so. On the contrary, he very often, especially in Genesis, portraits the people as very ill-deserving of the blessings God gives.
Arguments please!  itpastorn 10:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this principle not apply to us both? What scholar says that Noah did institutionalize slavery? Shouldn't such a quote be just as required?--itpastorn 13:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah did not institutionalize slavery 

message: itpastorn writes:  Arguments please!  Yes.  He and Mel Etitis were in a revert war.  Can they both please summarize what points they are trying to make?  
I am inclined to agree with Mel Etitis that he was within reason in deleting a specific interpretation, not on the grounds that it was "special pleading", but on the grounds that it is original research, one editor's exegesis.  If itpastorn wishes to provide an exegesis and a hermeneutic, he should cite the scholar who has published this exegesis.  Robert McClenon 11:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this principle not apply to us both? What scholar says that Noah did institutionalize slavery? Shouldn't such a quote be just as required?--itpastorn 13:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments please 

message: "However I invite those who disagree with the above to quote at least one verse from the Bible that prohibits or even discourages slavery."
This statement is not neutral, but invites discussion.  It is my understanding, and I may be completely wrong, that the NPOV concept is that the encyclopedia itself should identify non-neutral points of view rather than inviting the presentation of other points of view.  I think that is an entirely reasonable statement to make on this discussion page.  Robert McClenon
We're discussing what is what isn't neutral. He's telling you that if you have something that proves it is not neutral, you should discuss it on this page. Xunflash 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confrontational text moved 

message: I think this is largely a question of tone.  Points that have factual basis, are being put in an unneccessarily judgmental way.  Specifically:
Today, the followers of the three Abrahamic religions are against slavery. They also claim that their religions have always been against slavery. [1], [2] However, this claim does not seem to be supported by the scriptures of these religions. In fact the reverse seems to be true. The holy books of the three major Abrahamic religions sanction and legitimize slavery.  It's unfair to say that these books "sanction and legitimize slavery" -- that's a question of interpretation.  Today, they would not be read by the vast majority of people as doing so.  Centuries ago, the same words were read that way.  The whole structure of this paragraph -- "everyone THINKS these religions were ALWAYS good, but they WEREN'T!" -- is leading towards a conclusion.  It would suffice to point out that  there are references in the holy books of these religions that condone or legitimize slavery.
Then, the claim about Peter "clearly endorsing" is ok by me, because, well, he does; the quote proves it.  However, the fourth paragraph of "Slavery in the New Testament" is all speculation/conclusion and should go.  The sentence "The above verses prove this apologetic statement is unsubstantiated" should also go, obviously.  As, similarly should the references to "Muslim apologists."  The sentence about a "bitter joke" also has a totally inappropriate tone.
Religion can bring forth the best in us. Alas, it also can bring the worst. - Obviously opinion and should go also.
So, I think there is a good job here of describing the attitudes towards slavery in these three holy books, but let the facts speak for themselves and don't suffocate us with sharp wording and your own conclusions.  Dcarrano July 9, 2005 02:36 (UTC)
:This article appears to be an essay not an encyclopedia topic. What merits the discussion of "Slavery in abrahamic religion" as a separate article? I am tempted to put this up for VfD. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
::This article was originally a section in a larger article on slavery.  When I tried to edit the section to reduce what I saw as its non-neutrality (anti-religious slant), it was then moved into a separate article.  I would agree either with deleting it or moving it back into slavery.  Robert McClenon 19:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst Islam did not 100% legally abolish slavery, wouldn't it be appropriate to cite  verse 177 in Sura 2 which allows slaves to demand their own freedom and ENCOURAGES the Muslims to give them the money to buy their own freedom? The part about Islam improving condition for slaves 'being a bitter joke' sounds alot like Islamophobic propaganda to me, although it is true that in practice, slavery was quite evident throughout Islamic history. As for the Prophet Muhammad, whilst he did have slaves for some time, and did sell his enemies into slavery, he eventually encouraged widespread freeing of the slaves in conjunction with the afforementioned Koranic verse. I think the reference to Muhammad making a fortune from enslaving people is exaggerated.
It's called "Slavery in abrahamic religion" because there are other articles titled "Slavery in (blank)" (i.e. north america, medieval europe, list goes on an on), though a better title would've been Slavery in Abrahamic Religions during Biblical Times, since it discusses slavery as a widespread practice during the time that wasn't explicitly condemned by abrahamic religion. Someone should expand the bottom section, on how abrahamic religion had a positive effect on the removal of slavery since then to be fair. Xunflash 20:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinning down the problem 

message: The following is a quote from a Wikipedia guideline:
::In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view.
Perhaps, since the remainder of the article was not considered controversial, and since a summary was not left, the splitting of this article was incorrect.  Robert McClenon 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting of this article? 

message: I've just discovered that there is already an article Islam and slavery (there is also a Slavery and Islam currently on VfD as a POV fork. I am thus suggesting that the Islamic material here should be merged there. Could we then move the rest of the material to a Christianity and slavery article as I've pointed out above I think the topic merits an article (unless there is already one out there?). My only problem is what to do with the Hebrew Bible/OT material - does it merit it's own Judaism and slavery page?? This page could then be a fork to all three religions. Any thoughts?? --Doc (?) 12:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this article - a proposal 

message: Thank you to K. for adding the introductory paragraph.  I have now replaced the NPOV banner with a request for cleanup.  Robert McClenon 15:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to RfC: Material has potential for a good article, but as it stands it does not cut it. It needs a thorough cleanup and NPOV'ng. Until that happen the article deserves an NPOV warning. It will be good as proposed above to move the article to Slavery and religion. --ZappaZ  04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: As there is still a lot of POV material as mentioned by ZappaZ above, I'm going to move POV material to the talk page to be worked on. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Material moved from main article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving POV material to talk page 

message: Looking at this page after a break, I see a couple of things:
*There needs to be a Slavery and religion or Religion and slavery article.
*The article focuses on scripture, but the article is about religion. If the title is religion, the sections should be Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Otherwise, the article should be renamed "Slavery in Abrahamic scripture(s)".
*The section on the New Testament needs so much work I don't want to pull it out as there'll be nothing left. I think it should have a NPOV tag.
Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 12:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For those interested, please look at Christian views of slavery and Slavery in antiquity; both of which go into the Bible, Abrahamic religion and slavery. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Good suggestions. Anyone object to renaming this article to Religion and slavery? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be done 

message: Okay, I've moved the article to Religion and slavery, and so it now needs work to adapt it to a structure listing each religion and it's response to slavery, etc. Please help! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New focus: Religion and slavery 

message: IN THE PASSAGE MOSES NAMES A PERSON CANNAN SON OF HAM NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE REREAD THE TEXT ,VEEERRYY CAREFULLY,
No.  Canaan is the son of Ham, and the ancestor of the Canaanites.  The passage is not by Moses.  Moses had not been born.  Canaan was accused of violating the law, but it was clearly the pre-Mosaic law, and not the Mosaic law.  Robert McClenon 03:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CANNAN IS A PERSON. 

message: The first paragraph in the Islamic section is very POV and propagandic:
"Unlike slavery during the colonial era, slavery in Islam was never intended to be based on race and the main source of slaves were prisoners of war. This was influenced by the Greek and Roman models which formed the foundations for the practice of slavery in pre-Islamic society. Islam revised the structure of society in the Arabian peninsula, and this included addressing the institution of slavery."
1. Colonial era slavery is not related to the religious issue. The issue is religious institutions of slavery.
2. Islamic slavery was also prejudiced against Blacks, Zanj Rebellion is one example, and it occurred only a century or so after Muhammad, the practice of Slavery in islamic countries in Africa, Iraq, and elsewhere disproportionally and historically has been towards darker skinned slaves.
3. The Qur'anic verses on slavery are very clear and I find it amazing that in this day and age, for the sake of counterbalancing western imperialsm (which I agree is a worldwide social problem), we then ignore Islamic imperialism which has been just as devastating, especially for women and black people throughout history.
So what i did was take every passage in the Qur'an and in the Bible and compared the two. Considering the Qur'an is based ON THE BIBLE, i find it utterly amazing how Islamic scholars and theologians try to compare it TO the Bible. Of course the Islamic excuse can be used "those verses in the Bible we don't like we will say are the corrupted verses"... but never the less, here are the Qur'anic verses which I find rather fascinatingly worse than any Biblical account. I will agree, they are consistent with colonial type slavery. 
"Believers shouldn't kill believers, unless by mistake. If you kill a believer by mistake, you must set free a believing slave. 4:92" (In other words, even keeping slaves who are Muslim is permitted. Christianity teaches that one should not hold another of the faith as slaves). 
"Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30   (Where in the Bible is adultury with slave girls permitted with Christian believers???")
i can go on and on, but I am not here to inflame. I am offended myself however, and I would like to know why this kind of bias is permitted.  Zaphnathpaaneah 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sections of the islamic section should be moved over to Islam and Slavery which is currently totally one-sided, and then a wikilink to it placed at the top of the section.Hypnosadist 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic section POV 

message: This section was added in a massive chunk and reads and smells like a cut/paste job from an outside source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_slavery&diff=42861285&oldid=42503158
However, I haven't been able to track down this source yet, if it exists. The user who made it is long gone. Anyone else? - Merzbow 00:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright vio? 

message: This article appears to have a lot of original research and original synthesis of ideas, as well as large chunks of possible POV problems. I wasn't able to read through it all in one sitting, which (for Wikipedia) makes it a bit too long. I strongly suggest that this entire article is overhauled as it desperately needs it. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is hopeless in its current form. People keep throwing in more unsourced material and it's not worth the flak to revert it because it's all in the same poor state anyways. - Merzbow 05:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this rate, I've nominated it for deletion. It's become too convoluted, unsourced, and originally researched. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of this article 

message: AfD closure comment: "Keep and stub" means to remove all the uncited content. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD closure

message: I was curious as to whether this topic had been addressed, particularly considering the practice of female trafficking across the border between Canada and the US. Is this an issue worth discussing?SCmurky 05:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes if you have notable and verifiable sources for it, put it in. Hypnosadist 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery in Fundementalist Church of Latter Day Saints

message: Stubbed as per the consensus on this article's Afd  here, and per CrazyRussian's suggestion to me here. - Merzbow 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the christian stuff out of the history and pasted it into Christianity and Slavery. In addition, I have cut out some of the more egregious POV/OR, and am starting to cite what is left. Any help would be appreciated. - Francis Tyers · 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: [about Judaism/Christianity and Slavery]  I think the article on slavery and religion misrepresents the entire picture on religion and slavery by leaving out critical verses. 
Exodus called for death to those who engaged in stealing a man and selling but I did not see this in the article. But, this verse limits who can become a slave and effects the vary nature of slavery in Judaism.
The new testament in Timothy list manstealing on a list of sins.  This again brings into question who could become a slave. Royboy111 06:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubbed 

message: Would it be possible to find a citation for the interpretation offered that this verse calls for slaves to leave their masters/owners?(RookZERO 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but better than citing a single interpretation is to give the actual text. What do you think of the change I made? Sad mouse 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.(RookZERO 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Corinthians 7:21

message: Hey all, I know there are many problems here, so I'll be concise.  The Christianity section has some flat out mistakes, and some other shortcomings (in my opinion) as well.  First, the cited letter Philemon is only directed to the slaveowner and not to the slave, so Paul never tells the slave to "love his master"--that's not even in there.  Also, the passage in 1 Corinithians cited as telling slaves they should not accept their slavery is a relatively poor translation (NIV) and seems to be saying (and is explicitly translated this way in other, more literal translations) the exact opposite, that slaves should remain in the position in which they were called.  My personal suggestions would be some content on how Jesus talks about slavery and on how every instruction of New Testament writers towards slaves to obey their earthly masters is on the foundation of obedience and reverence to God and Christ, explicitly stated in the text of all of the writer's references.  I edited that part of the article earlier today, but apparently it didn't stay too long.  If anyone knows why it got changed back, I'd love to know.  Thanks. Dap716 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section appears to have degenerated by people relying on modern interpretations of slavery in Christianity. The original text and position was far less favourable, encouraging slaves to be happy in their position of slavery. You might disagree with this position, but for the majority of Christian history this was the official position. I'll try a quick clean up. Sad mouse 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity section 

message: Origen (circa 185-c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race [Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur].” Homilies on Genesis 16.1
“Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II
St. Jerome: “Chus in Hebrew means Ethiopian, that is, black and dark, one who has a soul as black as his body.” (The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, Homily 3, 28).
 
St. Ennodius (474-521): “Keep your chastity constant. Don’t let the body of a black girl soil yours, nor lie with her for her Hell-black face.” Epistulae 7.21
John Philoponus, Greek Christian philosopher (6th century): “The Scythians and Ethiopians are distinguished from each other by black and white color, or by long and snubbed nose, or by slave and master, by ruler and ruled,” and again, “The Ethiopian and Scythian. . .one is black, the other white; similarly slave and master.” A. Sanda, Oposcula Monophysitica Johannes Philoponi (Beirut, 1930), pp. 66,96 (Sanda’s Latin translation).
Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139.
Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” Patrologiae cursus completes…series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43)
Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22.
Gomes Eannes de Zurara (official royal chronicler of Portugal, 1453): “These blacks were Moors like the others, though their slaves, in accordance with ancient custom, which I believe to have been because of the curse which, after the Deluge, Noah laid upon his son Cain [read: Cham], cursing him in this way: that his race should be subject to all the other races of the world.” C.R. Beazley and E. Prestage, The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea in the Hakluyt 1st series, no. 95 (London, 1896), 1:54.
Francisco de la Cruz (Dominican, 1575): “The blacks are justly captives by just sentence of God for the sins of their fathers, and that in sign thereof God gave them that color.” Bartolomé de Las Casas in History (DeKalb, Ill., 1971), p. 417.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Christian Church Fathers were 'White Supremacists'

message: Italicised sections are my own personal opinions and should be omitted, the rest is fully referenced and sourced as appropriate.
In this section I am outlining some sections that I wish to see removed and reasons why and also additional detail that needs to be added. 
Firstly in the Religion and Slavery section I think the following on Christianity should be added:
----
Christianity
"[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 1,2
Sources:
1. Dunbar Rowland quoting Jefferson Davis, in "Jefferson Davis," Volume 1, Page 286
2.Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66. Available at: http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~hoemann/jdinaug.html
The Christian church's main justification of the concept of slavery was based on the "curse of Ham" which appears in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in Genesis 9:25-27.
"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem."
"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." 1
But in ancient times, cursing a whole race into slavery was considered acceptable because it was in the Bible. The American slave owner felt that he was carrying out God's plan by buying and using slaves.
Christians at the time believed that Canaan had settled in Africa and that his descendents had become black.
Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry, the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) does not record his opinion of it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Bible. It was accepted as a natural part of life by almost all Christians until the 19th century CE.
Anabaptists started to criticize slavery in the late 17th century. They were joined by Quakers and Mennonites. It was only when John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of the Methodist movement, became concerned about slavery that the small protest became a mass movement for the abolition of slavery.
Slavery is still advocated in North America by some Reconstructionist Christians and a few racist fringe groups within the Christian Identity movement.
Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
1.Anthony Pagden, "The Slave Trade, Review of Hugh Thomas' Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade," The New Republic, 1997-DEC-22, as quoted in Ref. 21.
----
Quotations from the Bible
Correct and absolute references to the Bible on the use and proliferation of slavery.
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them."1
"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."2
Sources:
1.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-5&version=31;
2.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:9&version=31
----
Judaism
Slavery was sanctioned and carefully regulated by many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) largely in the Pentateuch - its first 5 books. Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus' ministry, he is not recorded as having expressed any opinion on it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). The authors appeared to accept slavery as a natural condition -- as a universal institution that was not particularly immoral.
Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
----
Islam
Many times throughout the Quran and Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad it states quite clearly that slavery is wrong, that it is an injustice upon man, and except for absolute extreme circumstances, only during times of war, but as a general rule it does not nor has condoned slavery, in fact very much the opposite. Now whatever the individual, religious, secular, corrupt, good, bad or otherwise has done, the sin is on them and not on the religion.
"And what will explain to thee the path that is steep? (It is:) freeing the bondman;"
Quran, 90:12-13.
A direct reference to freeing of a slave which is the path of righteousness.
"The offerings given for the sake of God are [meant] only for the poor and the needy, and those who are in charge thereof, and those whose hearts are to be won over, and for the freeing of human beings from bondage, and [for] those who are over burdened with debts, and [for every struggle] in God's cause, and [for] the wayfarer: [this is] an ordinance from God - and God is all-knowing, wise."
Quran: 9:60
Again a direct reference by God to free those who are in bondage, bodily and economically. There are many exact references in the Quran to the above one which mention the freeing of slaves, but that alone should suffice. In fact out of the three Abrahamic religions only the Quran survives today with any direct mention of freeing slaves directly, as an act of righteousness and yet it is the one that is arguably most condemned for slavery when it quite clearly condemns it.
Speech of the second Caliph of the Islam Khalifate, companion of the Prophet, Umar:
Caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said in a famous khutbah (speech or sermon) of his, “When did you make the people as slaves or servants of you while Allah, the Almighty, created them free!”
On reference to the Mamelukes of Egypt:
"Furthermore, Muslims were encouraged to manumit slaves as an act of worship. And if all that is not enough to demonstrate the differences between slavery in Islam and elsewhere, remember that the Mamelukes who ruled Egypt for nearly 300 years were slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state."1
Sources:
1.Ahmad ibn Naqib Al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, pp. 458-59
----
Now I'm not saying that the Bible, Torah or Quran or their fundamental religious beliefs advocated slavery, because mostly those who used the religious sources to claim such beliefs did so with a warped understanding of what they were reading. But nevertheless time and time again, I come across articles and complete rubbish that is so biased against Islam, simple misunderstandings that a quick google search could put straight that it boggles the mind. Yes there is a propaganda war out there, and the western nations and many people are obligingly obedient when it comes to misinformation passed off as truth, but a certain balance in proceedings would be nice.
So before you slam another religion for that which you could lambast at your own read from your own Book and understand:
‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)"
89.167.221.3 (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wanted EDITS and Additional Material needing to be added

message: The references in the text to Augustine are badly out of date in light of a letter by Augustine on the topic of slavery rediscovered in 1975 which shows that Augustine actually opposed the enslavement of his parishioners by "Galatian" slave raiders.  Please see my discussion topic: "The Divjak letters shed new light on Augustine and slavery," at--Talk:Catholic_Church_and_slavery. Ajschorschiii (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Augustine and slavery badly out of date 

message: Somebody has cut out the overview. I intend to re-add it if nobody has any reasonable objection to it. I will record it here also to save having to go and look through the history of prior edits if I don't get back here for a while also.</br>
"The issue of religion and slavery is an area of historical research into the relationship between the world's religions and the practice of slavery."Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: I have reformed the article from scratch to remove POV. Still stub-like, since I have not included most religions. Sad mouse 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and add a bit on the Baha'i teachings and slavery, it will not be a great contribution, but if we all do our bit it will be a decent article before long. Keep up the good work. Daniel De Mol (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: This article is misleading, giving the implication that slavery was a continuous part of Christian Europe from its inception until almost the 20th century.  In truth slavery as a form of institution was removed by Roman Christianity and largely stayed that way until it reared its ugly head again in a racial form around 1500. 76.93.155.137 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: @Kautilya3: I agree that the post-Vedic part needs some more encyclopedic summary. I suggest you add the views of alternate scholars on Arthashastra, as well a paragraph that summarizes the recent scholarly debate on slavery in their Dharmashastras. If you don't have access to the latter or the time, I am fine if you want to invite some other wiki editor to help. I respect you, am happy to help from the sidelines, to collaboratively improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words! I have ordered a couple of books that cover slavery in ancient India, one by Chanana and another of Uma Chakravarti. I will get back to this after I have glanced through them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your time. If you can read French, you may want to read Yvonne Bongert (1963), Réflexions sur le problème de l'esclavage dans l'Inde ancienne : à propos de quelques ouvrages récents, too. Beautifully written. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I can't read French unfortunately. But, if you can, please feel free to add text from it and I will be happy to learn! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding post-Vedic part