Slavery, Democracy, and the Jesuits

Though JFK preceded him, Joseph Biden, Jr. is set to become a Catholic president in the United States during a time of unprecedented Catholic power. Remarkably, most Americans do not know the Catholic Church was banned in America's founding colonies, notably New York City:

For most of the colonial period Roman Catholic worship in New York City was clandestine or nonexistent, because the Protestant Dutch and then the English enforced laws prohibiting the organization and maintenance of Roman Catholic churches. (From Encyclopedia of New York City) 

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson warned of the conflicts between Catholicism and republican governance: 

The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is practicable on a large scale of country or population. And we have examples of it in some of our State constitutions, which, if not poisoned by priest-craft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures with other elements; and, with only equal doses of poison, would still be the best. [Emphasis mine] 

I must confess I did not know the "Republican" in Republican Party referred to republican governance, i.e., a republic, because my American teachers and professors glossed over Christian religious differences. Reading Jefferson's words, it is easier to understand a republic is the opposite of a monarchy, and America's founders discriminated against the Catholic Church because they were anti-monarchy (aka anti-papist). Unlike American students today, our founders would have had no problem connecting the structure of the Catholic Church and its doctrine of papal supremacy with European monarchs and Catholic collusion. Once Catholic, monarchs regularly expelled non-Catholics, eventually inducing Germany's Protestant Reformation. Discrimination begets discrimination, and the history of America can be best understood as a country founded on discrimination and its discontents. 

In the most recent Christian Science Monitor Weekly publication, I came across the following tidbit: 

Q: How did the Jesuits, a Roman Catholic religious order, become involved in slavery? 

They began to buy, sell, and hold slaves in South America. When they came to Maryland to start missions in the 17th century, they quickly became slaveholders. Other churches came to be slaveholders, too, but the Jesuits were among the largest slaveholders in Maryland during this period. (William G. Thomas III, author of A Question of Freedom, January 4 & 11, 2021)

Were Catholics and Protestants in America able to set aside their differences by shifting their discrimination towards African slaves rather than against each other? If unity is the goal, perhaps we ought to discuss whether America's chattel slavery and the racism that followed resulted from a transference of religious antipathy into a different-colored bucket. Such historical interpretation would align with our current political climate, where segregation is the norm and Catholics are considered Christians, even though all Christian offshoots, whether Christian Science or Seventh Day Adventist, exist because of splintering within the Protestant Church, which itself exists as a result of anti-Catholicism. 

Will President Biden assist his fellow citizens in reforming history lessons so more Americans can heal from four years of division? I doubt it. The only way American Catholicism could have succeeded so spectacularly is if Biden himself, along with most Christians, lack an understanding of both European and American history. Unfortunately for us, Europeans do not suffer similar educational handicaps, meaning Biden's presidency may come to represent not unity, but the ascension of the European Union. As of today, it appears we are continuing the pattern of modern American political negligence, where leaders focused on the Soviet Union only to see increased Middle Eastern threats, then focused on the Middle East only to see increased Asian threats, and are now focusing on Asia. History, it seems, may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. 

© Matthew Mehdi Rafat (January 2021)

Capitalists of the World, Unite!

It should surprise more people that idealists are attracted to socialism rather than capitalism. Part of the problem is the economists don't know history, the historians don't know law, and the lawyers don't know economics. Put simply, capitalism seeks to synchronize ever-changing supply and demand for labor and resources, whereas socialism focuses on the inevitability of owners exploiting dispersed workers. When condensed in such a way, one immediately sees the need for regulation; and yet, since people have never agreed on the perfect type and amounts of regulation, it may be useful to analyze the topic differently. 

Globalization needs regulation, but everyone is reluctant to demand it for fear that it may discriminate against them. --  Misha Glenny, McMafia (2008) 

1. Economic Systems Should Not Be Discussed without Historical Context

Countries with strong militaries tend to use their navies to steal not just resources, but human labor from weaker countries. The United States, a slave-owning, capitalist country from inception, used slaves to maximize output from cotton, sugar, and tobacco fields in the 1700s and 1800s. 

America was founded on the double standard. That's our history. We were founded on a very basic double standard: slaveowners who wanted to be free. -- George Carlin

Even aside from anecdotal evidence, we know slavery in the West was handled differently than slavery and indentured servitude elsewhere in the world because few African or Muslim-majority countries have anyone who resembles Shaquille O'Neal or wrestler Mijaín López--indicating some slaveowners selected or bred people for certain traits while others didn't. Given that the Arabs had armies in the Middle East and Africa, were savvy traders, and the Prophet Muhammad's first wife was an affluent businesswoman, was capitalism or religion the difference in the way workers were treated? 

The natural state of human beings according to the Quran is freedom, and all believers are equal in the eyes of God. The Quran repeatedly urges believers to treat their slaves [indentured servants] humanely; to feed, clothe, and educate them; and to free them... Children of a free man are born free, and... the mother of a free man's child becomes an um walid, who cannot be sold. -- Martin Klein, Historical Dictionary of Slavery and Abolition (2014), pp. 307

If we say the former, the Europeans--who invented the first international debt trading markets in Venice and Belgium and the first publicly traded corporation (The Dutch East India Company) in the Netherlands--were as capitalistic as the Americans. So why has Europe become more "socialist" than the United States? Any reasonable answer must include the French Revolution (led by military commander Napoleon) and/or post-WWII agreements, whereby the United States drove global economic growth through military alliances and investment, allowing other countries to spend higher percentages of their budgets on social programs. Was Europe's acceptance of higher social spending the outcome of a non-European country's military victory or a specific economic structure? Whatever your answer, you must admit history, both distant and near, deserves a role in the discussion. 

2. History Shows Military Strength Trumped All Other Considerations, including Economics

At the same time, since many voyages capturing slaves and other resources were funded by companies issuing shares in joint stock companies in exchange for profits (minus royalty's cut), one could argue widespread inequality--both racial and economic--caused by European and American slavery would not have been possible without capitalism. After all, the more people who profit from immorality, the easier it becomes to mistreat labor. Indeed, at one point, the British East India Company had a larger military than the Queen of England's, which is consistent with the Exchequer's funding through imports of (stolen) gold and silver, plus fees on other items, rendering homeland defense subservient to military adventurism. (Defense is a cost most countries try to minimize unless they are empires, in which case they maximize it in hopes of being the first empire in history to avoid certain collapse.) 

If we continue pursuing the "capitalism equals inequality" argument or "more government equals more equality," we may agree America's pernicious treatment of slaves stemmed from a desire to maximize the profit motive; however, we must also admit the country's lack of morality would have allowed its military to go to Africa and coerce or mislead local leaders into selling their human capital under any economic system. Such conversations, with or without government approval, must have involved false promises of work and wealth or threats of genocide, followed by shiny gifts to helpless leaders to give the appearance of congeniality, then a transfer of resources. Remember: there were no videocameras or journalists to document human rights abuses, and almost all English-speaking philosophers and academics of the day believed in the inherent inferiority of non-whites. 

Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville [Kentucky] are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No, I am not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slavemasters of the darker people the world over. -- USA boxer and conscientious objector Muhammad Ali 

So was it capitalism, racism, Christianity, immorality, and/or military power that most contributed to the lack of fair wages for Africans in the United States? A clue to the best answer involves answering another question: had an arms-length transaction and voluntary departures occurred between white naval officers, African tribal leaders, and individual Africans, would we consider such transactions acceptable even if workers were exploited? Persons convinced they would answer a certain way may want to examine the skin color or guess the immigration status of the next worker they see in the back of a restaurant or agricultural field. 

3. Why Trade at All When You Can Steal? 

By now, Machiavellian types must be wondering why anyone bothers signing trade agreements. If you have the stronger military, why not steal what you need? In fact, this is exactly what has happened for most of human history, which explains our current cultural malaise--and misplaced economic priorities. 

The reason Canada is called Canada is because the Quebecois beat back American invaders. Cuba is socialist and not capitalist because a Spaniard from noble lineage succeeded in repelling American-sponsored troops. The reason the Ottoman Empire is now called Turkey is because it fought on the wrong side of WWI. You think socialist Sweden was really neutral in WWII? The so-called "neutral" Swedes allowed the Nazis to use their rail systems to transport troops and materiel. Too often, economic experts fail to realize a country's success hinges on which side of the most recent war they chose and geographic accident rather than particular economic preferences. It's as if experts think WWI ended one thousand years ago instead of approximately one hundred years ago. 

In fact, by 1932, borrowing by military allies had left the United States with over 40% of the world's gold reserves plus billions of dollars in outstanding European loans. Please read the last sentence again. The allies--the side that won, which also happened to be called the Allies--ended up owing billions of dollars, giving them incentives to maximize the losers' reparations/debt. 

Look closely, and everywhere you look, military and political leaders have erred on the side of expansion or compromise at any cost. Under such historical precedent, economic systems, whether socialist-leaning or capitalist-leaning, have logically prioritized military spending and R&D. 

The Malaysians are observing the agreements they have signed without trying to retaliate in other directions, such as water... which will lead to war. -- Singaporean founder LEE Kuan Yew (July 26, 2013) 

4. Diplomacy Has Failed, but We're Talking about Capitalism

Quick, name three genocides or civilian massacres the United Nations averted. You can probably cite a conflict the U.N. shortened. You might even be able to name peace agreements the U.N. negotiated post-war or post-bombings. Overall, however, diplomatic efforts have been oddly ineffective in reducing weapons sales and military spending.

We find it repulsive that the Western countries that more loudly make rhetorical speeches about human rights are the ones that manufacture most weapons that have killed more than 20 million people in the developing world since WWII. -- Nobel Peace Prize laureate José Ramos-Horta (1996) 

Today, no one talks seriously about nuclear disarmament because the only weapon preventing a larger power from invading a smaller power is a nuclear one. Such is the result of a world where economic futures are subordinate to threats of foreign invasion, coups d'état, sanctions, and/or onerous tariffs. And still, when people argue capitalism is the problem, they don't seem to realize diplomacy has failed. 

In some of these situations, the UN is almost absent, for instance in the South China Sea dispute, because China doesn’t want to internationalize the tension by allowing the UN special envoys to be present there... The UN can be present and can act only if the parties involved seek help, otherwise it cannot force itself into those situations. Another issue, Kashmir, is on the UN agenda since Day One but the UN has mostly a residual and symbolic presence, hence it is tolerated by India. There is not much more that the UN can do, at least at this stage. India is far too powerful, and they reject UN involvement to avoid internationalizing the issue and India is not keen to allow the UN to take part in any discussion regarding the status of Kashmir. -- José Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, 2019 interview 

Conclusion

As Western voters divide themselves politically over increasingly meaningless economic terms, the really interesting developments are technological. In some countries, governments have maintained relevance by providing education, healthcare, social services, and public transportation, only to be challenged by less costly private actors, including religious entities responsible for large voter turnout. These governments are in disarray because they have privatized technological development or delegated to allies exempt from domestic regulation to such an extent, private corporations now host military and other confidential data, a similar situation as Britain's outsourcing of important affairs to the British East India Company--which it had to eventually dissolve and bail out. Meanwhile, governments elsewhere have maintained power by controlling or approving technological advances, especially in security, but have not invested adequately in creative enterprises or social services, thereby neglecting social cohesion.

Allow me a prediction: the future will not be about capitalism or socialism, but who controls the technology and under what terms. That's the discussion we ought to be having, and sadly, it's a discussion most voters are totally unqualified to have--which explains why people prefer to discuss the "isms" du jour. 


© Matthew Rafat (April 2020)


Bonus I: I didn't properly explain the link between slavery, immigration, and capitalism, so let me try again. If USA was not trying to maximize profit and output from its cotton and tobacco fields in the 1800s, it would not have needed to import labor. The importation of slaves is immigration in a sense, and in this case, immoral not because of capitalism--i.e., the desire to maximize profits--but because of the way the labor was treated and paid. 

Note that capitalist USA in the 1900s was able to attract immigrants voluntarily, even though labor conditions were similarly exploitative, because immigrants believed their first and second generations would be better off. Such progression was a function of automatic citizenship rather than a specific kind of economic system, but the demand for immigrants would not have been as high had companies not been able to maximize output under a globalized system of trade. In short, suboptimal diversity is often a function of the lack of investment and need for excess labor (immigration), which is the result of the absence of conditions favorable to the maximization and expectation of profit. 

Bonus II: After I wrote this article, I began to wonder: why didn't USA manufacturing and plantation owners in the 1700s and 1800s hire more laborers from Mexico rather than enslaving Africans? I suspect the French, who had set up shop in Mexico, would have stopped them; and conditions in Mexico must have been pleasant enough not to drive residents to uproot themselves. If my guesses are correct, I would be interested in knowing the relative value of Mexican currency (Spanish dollar and Mexican centavo/peso) to the US dollar in the 1700s and 1800s, though such an analysis might be impossible because the US dollar only came into existence as an agreed-upon monetary unit between 1785-1792.

Bonus III: Why bother with cross-continent trade? Well,  Indonesian cinnamon tastes better than cinnamon grown elsewhere; Iranian dates are juicier than Tunisian dates; and apparently cocaine from the Colombian jungle is the most potent. Why? Growing conditions in some places are more favorable to certain crops than others. Without investors and globalized trade, either fewer people would be exposed to the same variety of items and experiences, or such exposure would be limited based on the whims of not-always competent governments. 

Similarly, talent, like growing conditions, is not equally distributed. For example, MIT is considered to have the world's best technical minds (Harvey Mudd College and Caltech may disagree, but I digress). According to MIT in 2011, "over 40% of our graduate students, over 70% of our postdocs, and about 40% of our faculty were born outside the U.S." How can the United States steal so many talented people? Why aren't these great minds working at universities back home? Part of the answer is the inequality of the US dollar, which has been stronger than other currencies, making it easier to buy products and immigrants from overseas. Economists use the term "attract" rather than "buy" when discussing immigrant labor, but if you want to be hard-nosed, there's really no difference. In other words, the same currency that allows a country to exploit others in trade negotiations also allows it to steal their talent voluntarily--increasing opportunities, innovation, and quality of life for immigrants as well as everyone else. Equality may be a laudable goal, but most people go where they are treated or exposed to better--i.e., unequal--circumstances. Thus, if you are pro-diversity and pro-immigration, you want more inequality, not less--in your favor. 

Finally, trade begets trade. A container ship returning only gold and silver will not be able to utilize space--or afford shipping fees--as well as another ship also transporting spices, clothing, handmade jewelry, and other products. If there is a complaint, the complaint once again involves inequitable treatment of workers, not globalized trade.

Bonus IV: I originally wanted to end this article with the following exchange from a Hollywood movie, but I ran out of patience. Perhaps the dialogue below will stand on its own. From Sabrina (1954): 

Linus Larrabee: What’s money got to do with it? If making money were all there were to business, it'd hardly be worthwhile going to the office. Money is a by-product. 

David: What’s the main objective? Power? [Capitalism?] 

Linus: Agh! That’s become a dirty word. 

Davis: Well then, what’s the urge? You’re going into plastics now. What will that prove?

Linus: Prove? Nothing much. A new product has been found, something of use to the world. So, a new industry moves into an undeveloped area. Factories go up, machines are brought in, a harbor is dug and you’re in business. It’s purely coincidental of course that people who've never seen a dime before suddenly have a dollar. And barefooted kids wear shoes and have their teeth fixed and their faces washed. What’s wrong with a kind of an urge that gives people libraries, hospitals, baseball diamonds and movies on a Saturday night?

Travel Lessons: History and Relationships

People ask what I've learned in my travels. Two areas stand out: history and personal relationships. 

In Santo Domingo, I learned Christopher Columbus was an Italian whose voyages were funded by Spain to promote economic trade, including the slave trade. Colombus aka Colombo aka Cristobal Colon was buried in the Dominican Republic but his remains were later moved to Spain. 

His voyages helped Catholic Spain map shipping routes that would allow the Spanish to take gold, silver, and other commodities back to Europe and establish European influence—including the horrific transatlantic slave trade—in the Americas. From what I gather, Catholic Spain exported African slaves to the Caribbean initially to mine gold and silver. Later, governments, even when independent from European influence, could not wean their economies away from manual labor intensive industries and adapted the slave trade to cocoa/cacao, coffee, sugar, and tobacco. The American South was, in effect, colonized by Catholic Spain, who gave the Americas the Spanish word "Negro," thus reducing an entire group of people into a color. 

Colon Park, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

In Mexico City, I learned about artist Diego Rivera, featured on Mexico's 500 peso note, and his antipathy towards the Catholic Church and Hernan Cortes, who wiped out or subjugated much of Mexico's indigenous population. Columbus's voyages created new shipping routes and seafaring maps allowing Cortes to go further, and he succeeded, extending the European slave trade to Mexico to exploit Mexico's vast natural resources, especially gold and silver. I gather no one in Cortes' military thought of themselves as exploiting anything or anyone--they were paid to discover new lands and new resources to spread Spain's influence worldwide, and if they didn't do it, surely someone else eventually would. 

Mexico City's Palace of Fine Arts

The collision between Spain's military values and Mexico's farming values--explained well in Mexico City's Museum of Anthropology--generated much bloodshed and conflict. Pre-Cortes, the indigenous population depended on corn/maize to survive. Without advanced farming equipment, they were often dependent on Nature's vicissitudes, which explains much of their culture (human sacrifices, animals as gods, etc.). 

Growing up in California, I had assumed Mexicans always spoke Spanish, but of course the language is not indigenous to Mexico. The similarities between English, Spanish, and French--all European languages--as well as their differences once exported to faraway countries make sense once history is taken into account. So, too, does modern Mexico City, where many of the residents in upper-class neighborhoods look/are white. 

All over the world, once a foreign language is imported into a country by a militarily-advanced opponent, the language usually becomes the official language of the government, which then promotes civilian employment--and export of natural resources--favoring the militarily-advanced country. Lawyers and diplomats operating in the host country's language are also able to draft contracts with trade terms favoring their employer, such as the "most favored nation status" clause, which assisted the growth of the U.S. economy post-WWII. We now understand why educated people in Tunisia speak French, not Arabic; why educated Filipinos speak English, not Spanish; and so on. 

In any case, the aforementioned linguistic policy/practice tends to create internal social strife by generating inequality between government employees and their allies--buffeted by new money and often new currency--and groups outside their orbit. This economic shift also creates cultural and therefore communication gaps between the blue collar workforce and a new intellectual elite where only one of the aforementioned groups is immediately exposed to Shakespeare, the Bible, or whichever conduit is used to promote the values of the now entrenched country. As one might suspect from studying Diego Rivera, the blue collar workforce often feels excluded from the capitalist or white collar sector, which dominates military and banking decision-making. From this lesson, we can begin to understand the catalysts behind Mao's Revolution in China, formally called the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. We can also see how governments that promulgate certain values lose credibility if such values are applied inconsistently to all residing groups. 

One of my gaps in understanding history is trying to figure out from where Spain bought and/or captured slaves. A European Africa Company modeled on the East India Companies in Holland and Britain failed. If Arab merchants were trading slaves in ways that knowingly led to their exploitation rather than integration into the more affluent employers’ families (such as a nanny taking care of her employer’s children and a de facto part of the family), they were violating the Prophet Muhammad’s express and clear edicts. And indeed, the Saharan slave trade occurred primarily from the 16th century onward--after the Portuguese took over the Strait of Malacca from the Arabs, signaling Islam's decline in SE Asia and the world. Even now, the Strait of Malacca is vital to world trade, as evidenced by tiny Singapore's trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund. 

As for the Swahili coast slave trade, "Because of the lack of explicit evidence, [some experts] even question the existence of the slave trade on the Swahili coast before the Omani settlement on the coast in the eighteenth century... Nevertheless, most of the historians of the Swahili world have generally adopted a prudent position, admitting the existence of the slave trade, but maintaining that before the end of the eighteenth century, it remained a minor part of the coastal trade compared to the trade in ivory or gold." (Interestingly, Dibba, Oman was the site of one of the great battles of the Ridda Wars, where Adz troops refused to swear allegiance to the descendants of the prophet Mohammad (PBUH); today, most Omanis practice Ibadi Islam, aka Ibāḍiyya, a unique version of Islam.) 

History rarely provides clarity, but in this case, we know after Malacca fell to the Portuguese in 1511, Islamic influence waned worldwide. Thus, it is not coincidental if greater European influence in Africa post-1511 led to a higher--and more brutal--slave trade where chattel slavery flourished, whereas Islam mitigated the practice and never based it on color. (See, for example, Tippu Tip aka Tippu Tib aka  Hamad bin Muhammad bin Juma bin Rajab el Murjebi aka  حمد بن محمد بن جمعة بن رجب بن محمد بن سعيد المرجبي‎, an Afro-Arab slave trader, ivory trader, plantation owner, and governor.) African Muslims were not allowed to be enslaved, and as Islam spread in Africa from 600 AD, it slowly replaced tribal practices, which included slavery and slave trading. 

"If you read... there's stuff in there about genocide, about slavery, about the breeding of human beings which, if you're of African descent in this [Western] hemisphere, that's your legacy, you were bred into existence. Usually raped, but it was a breeding project of form." -- Junot Diaz (2012)

And so, the slave trade and the reasons for its transatlantic expansion help us to understand Islam, its conflict with Christian Europe, and why Arab merchants and their successors despised Prophet Muhammad and his deliberate regulations against slavery, going so far as to attempt to assassinate him numerous times. (This Islamic conflict between slaveholders and anti-slavery advocates occurred much earlier--over a thousand years before America's Civil War--showing that history does indeed repeat itself.) 

Virginia has a long history to confront. Our nation's experience with slavery began there... in Jamestown in 1619... It was the unfreedom of 40% of Virginia's population that made the liberty of the rest imaginable as well as materially possible. The economic viability of both the colony and the new nation depended on slave labor. -- Drew Gilpin Faust (The Atlantic, "Carry Me Back," August 2019) 

The attempts on the Prophet Muhammad's life forced him to flee from his birthplace, Mecca, to Medina, where he realized the Arab Establishment and their hired mercenaries would not stop trying to kill him, forcing him to take defensive measures. Even after Prophet Muhammad’s death, Arab rulers killed one of his grandsons, Husayn aka Hussein, indicating continuing power struggles within the Arab community. From this lesson, we can begin to understand the reasons for the modern-day power struggle in the Middle East between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. 

Until I traveled, I disliked history immensely. I suppose I intuitively realized the way it was taught was a waste of time. I earned top marks in my history classes, but the more I travel, the more I'm angered at America's governmental-academic complex, which seems to teach nothing well--while charging exorbitant tuition or taking state funding from other community-building projects. 

As for personal relationships, that's a story for another time... 

[To be continued?] 

© Matthew Rafat (2018)

Is Christianity the Key to Civilization?

[Update: Arnold Kling corrects me, pointing out that he "was explaining what I think conservatives believe, not what I believe." Mr. Kling's blog post now states, "Again, these are what I think of as conservative beliefs, not what I believe." My post below has changed to reflect Mr. Kling's correction.]

Arnold Kling summarizes what conservatives believe, saying, "Christianity is the key to civilization and, dare one say it, the most progressive force in history." For his full post, see here.

Commenter Tom Hickey dismantles the so-called conservative argument handily:

There are several inconsistencies with this picture.

1. It seems obvious that instead of going downhill, human progress is improving with technological advancement that has vastly improved life for 99% of the the people in developed societies. Christendom was feudal. These "lost virtues" are basically a variation of the romantic ideal of the "noble savage" and the lost "Golden Age."

2. Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization. Christianity has been and continues to be the enemy of science. As technology enabled leisure for universal education, life became more rational and intelligent, allowing for the establishment of democratic societies. The Enlightenment thinking that lead to democracy was not based in Christian values as much a rational thought that revolted against imposition of ideology. The founding Fathers were not "Christians" in the sense that many use this term today, and many were Deists.

3. Free markets have often led to the "social degradation" that conservatives decry, and many conservatives think that restrictions in the form of censorship could have prevented this loosening of social norms. It can reasonably be argued that the pursuit of profit has led to the pushing of the envelope of social norms, not "social degradation" pushing business. This is the old, "the devil made me do it," excuse.

Finally, caricaturing liberalism/progressivism as believing that wisdom resides with progressive elites is setting up a straw man. That is just ideological bias that fails to grasp what liberalism is about, not a reasoned statement of genuine issues. Liberalism/Progressivism is broadly based on J. S. Mill's On Liberty and Utilitarianism.

I added the following comments:

If Christianity is the key to civilization, then what about the Persian Empire, which was non-Christian? Plenty of evidence shows that great civilizations may be non-Christian--see Incas, Angkor, etc.

Moreover, assuming that violent oppression and unnecessary/excessive killings of civilians and innocent persons is not progressive, your thesis fails. If, for example, Christianity was the most progressive force in history, then why did an overwhelming number of American Christians tolerate the peculiar institution of slavery? [Could it because Christ himself never took an express stand against slavery?] Why did an overwhelming number of American Christians deem non-whites inferior and less deserving of equal legal protection for numerous decades? Why did American Christians, with the backing of state governments, use police dogs and fire hoses on non-violent civil rights protesters? If we agree that Southerners are more Christian than non-Southerners, then the last 100 years seem to rebut the idea that Christianity and civilized society go hand in hand; after all, fewer places in American have been more Christian and less progressive than the South.

Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th century killings and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In fact, Christian-led governments and their soldiers have caused the most violent losses of human life over the past hundred years. See, for example, Washington's America and the Native Americans; Lincoln's America and the Civil War; Hitler's Germany; Nixon's America and Vietnam/"Operation Menu"; Truman's America and Hiroshima; Bush I's America and Iraq; Bush II's America and Iraq/Afghanistan. This violent historical record doesn't mean Christianity is wrong or inherently evil--it just means that people in power tend to oppress others who are different, regardless of religion.

Some people may argue that the aforementioned Christian-led killings were made with good intentions, but try your progressive religious argument on the millions of innocent African (slaves), Native American, Jewish, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Iraqi, and Afghan civilians who have been murdered by Christian-led governments.

In the end, I suppose it depends on your particular viewpoint. If you're an American Christian in the year 2009, America is a progressive place. As a result, I can understand why some American Christians would associate progressiveness with Christianity. However, as the death tolls above indicate, no religion can call itself progressive or truly peaceful--whoever is in power at any particular time kills whomever they consider to be "the other." Religious differences are one way of inventing "otherness" and superiority, which allows our conscience to avoid responsibility for the deaths we cause.

Being from Silicon Valley, I may be biased, but I agree with Tom Hickey: "Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization." Assuming all religions may incorporate and contribute to technological advances, then associating any particular religion with progress is a subjective, historically-myopic, and divisive exercise.

[More here on religious assimilation.]

Burke A. has an excellent response to my comment:

I don't think conservatives believe that civilizations didn't exist before Christianity. Just that the enlightenment and our current American civilization is a product of that values system. Christians were/are not a more moral people, in fact the Christian ideology is a refutation of that very idea. Christianity didn't somehow support slavery because some Christians were apologists for it. Slavery is a human institution far older than Christianity, and most of the fervent abolitionists were zealous Christians.

Nor is it Christianity reflexively anti-science. Unless you think that there should be no restrictions on what a scientist can do, regardless of the effects on other people. Sure the Religious Right opposes things like embryonic stem cell research, but they certainly aren't opposed to all kinds of science. They just disagree with the moral judgments that certain scientists are making. And frankly, scientists are no more qualified to make those judgments than religious zealots, because Science is equipped to ask how, not why, or whether something is moral. It's outside the domain of science's expertise.

Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th Century wars and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In the past hundred years, evidence shows that majority-Christian civilizations were the most violent of all. In fact, the one entity that has caused the most loss in human life over the past century has been Christian governments and their soldiers...

What about Mao's China, and the bloody wars of tribal humans? I'd say that Christians were no more or less violent than other cultures--we are just more aware of the violence of nominally Christian populations, because that culture is dominant in the Western world and that is the history we study. I also think you are making an error of attribution if you assume that Christianity is the cause of the violence. Just as you attribute the blame of slavery to Christianity. Did Christians practice slavery? Sure, but they were the first people to offer opposition to the institution and eventually make it illegal. To paraphrase, Christianity is the worst belief system on earth, except for all others.

My response to Burke A. is below:

If we eliminate wartime deaths, then you are correct--Mao and Stalin, both non-Christians, caused the most deaths in the 20th century (we'll go ahead and equate being bombed to death with being starved to death, even though part of me doesn't feel right about that comparison).

As for slavery, however, didn't the Islamic Prophet Mohammad condemn slavery on the basis of color/ethnicity centuries before most Christians accepted that such slavery was morally wrong? See, for example, the story of Bilal ibn Rabah.

Also, compared to Judaism and Islam, wasn't Christianity late in condemning slavery on the basis of color or ethnicity? [Jesus Christ does not condemn slavery anywhere in the written record, nor does the New Testament.] For most of its history, Christian America seemed to have few qualms about mistreating/raping slaves or treating persons more harshly because of the color of their skin. In contrast, it appears that Islamic societies tolerated slavery but required better treatment of slaves. Of course, without a written historical record from slaves themselves, it's anyone's guess how they were actually treated, but evidence is clear that Islamic law and culture frowned upon harsh treatment of slaves.

According to Prof. Jonathan Brockopp, for example, "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time." [See also work by Professor Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah aka Salman al-Ouda.]