Non-belief vs. Christianity: human rights pioneers

Stein · #1 by **Stein** » Jan 28, 2012 7:04 am

spin wrote:

Stein wrote:Since we do have a paper trail for the last 4 or 5 thousand years or so, we can study a few examples in which a growing egalitarianism has been documented from its inception -- not too often but occasionally. That being so, among such examples, it is possible to ascertain if there have been any examples of a brand-new innovative (for-its-time) construct for human rights presented in the context of an equally brand-new (for-its-time) explicit rejection of any notion of the metaphysical, the supernatural or the divine?

The written record is out there of such reforms, relatively rare as they are. Can you think of any such documented cases in which a brand-new innovative (for-its-time) construct for human rights was presented in the context of an equally brand-new (for-its-time) explicit rejection of any notion of the metaphysical, the supernatural or the divine?

If we are interested in reality as compared to theories, we should talk about human rights mostly in context of the past few hundred years. None of these developments feature what should uniquely be considered dependence on the supernatural or the divine.

One would expect notions about human beings within religious societies to be couched in religious terms, but when we look at human "advancements" we will consistently find religious arguments for and against. The religiousness of the discussion must be seen as background noise and can be cancelled out of the discussion, allowing the concrete basis for the proposed change to be seen more clearly.

Stein wrote:The question is quite serious. I've been endeavoring to find such a case for 15 years. Do you know of one?

Try the rights of women or the rights of black Americans. Religion in each case repressed rather than helped. Think about the rights struggle for gay people. Religion fights tooth and nail to prevent such rights.

Within the past few hundred years, the earliest pioneer in the rights of women appears to be Abigail Adams, the earliest pioneer in the rights of black Americans appears to be Francis Daniel Pastorius, and the earliest pioneer in the rights for gay people appears to be Heinrich Hössli. I invite posters here to research for themselves the degree to which any of these three were likewise pioneers in non-belief. They are also invited to investigate if there are any other human rights pioneers in these three areas that are earlier than these three but still later than six hundred and one years ago (within the time frame implied by Spin).

Thank you,

Stein

spin · #2 by **spin** » Jan 28, 2012 8:22 am

The importance of the notions of women's rights is that despite the fact that religions have had centuries to deal with the issue, it was religion that actively denied women rights. A secular society has not been fully achieved as yet, as religions have still great influence on the socio-political fabric of all societies. This means that religion will be suffused through the thought of most people until the most recent times. When a religionist speaks out against some social injustice it is not a reflection of their religion but of their sense of injustice. Most religionists were happy to continue the slavery that they were used to (after all it is condoned by the bible), but a religionist called William Wilberforce led the movement against slavery in Britian. Individual religionists may have had positive views, but being a religionist is a normal state so one cannot claim that it was a facet of being a religionist that was responsible for the views so much as the further development of humanism. If we substract the religion on both sides of a debate we neutralize it as superfluous to the debate. Wilberforce had severe religionist detractors, so we simply remove religion from the equation. Women's rights in the "west" developed in spite of the prevalent religion's anti-women's rights ethos of women being subject to men. That an early supporter of women's rights was a religionist is as significant as if she were tall. A lot of women were tall and a lot of women were religionists, but few were activists for women's rights. Being tall and being a religionist is irrelevant to the issue. The women's movement for most of its active life has been a secular movement fighting religion to gain their rights. Gay rights has been a secular movement fighting the oppression of religion to gain their rights. Religion has been an albatross around the necks of most rights movements.

Stein · #3 by **Stein** » Jan 28, 2012 4:00 pm

spin wrote:The importance of the notions of women's rights is that despite the fact that religions have had centuries to deal with the issue, it was religion that actively denied women rights. A secular society has not been fully achieved as yet, as religions have still great influence on the socio-political fabric of all societies. This means that religion will be suffused through the thought of most people until the most recent times. When a religionist speaks out against some social injustice it is not a reflection of their religion but of their sense of injustice. Most religionists were happy to continue the slavery that they were used to (after all it is condoned by the bible), but a religionist called William Wilberforce led the movement against slavery in Britian. Individual religionists may have had positive views, but being a religionist is a normal state so one cannot claim that it was a facet of being a religionist that was responsible for the views so much as the further development of humanism. If we substract the religion on both sides of a debate we neutralize it as superfluous to the debate. Wilberforce had severe religionist detractors, so we simply remove religion from the equation. Women's rights in the "west" developed in spite of the prevalent religion's anti-women's rights ethos of women being subject to men. That an early supporter of women's rights was a religionist is as significant as if she were tall. A lot of women were tall and a lot of women were religionists, but few were activists for women's rights. Being tall and being a religionist is irrelevant to the issue. The women's movement for most of its active life has been a secular movement fighting religion to gain their rights. Gay rights has been a secular movement fighting the oppression of religion to gain their rights. Religion has been an albatross around the necks of most rights movements.

The antecedents for this thread circled around the question of whether or not there were any groundbreaking pioneers in non-belief who were also groundbreaking pioneers in some area of human rights.

Putting that question aside (we'll return to that later), it is also the case that it's hardly surprising that certain pioneers in human rights were religionists. At the same time, it is a bit surprising that certain human rights pioneers are also pioneers in some new brand of theism as well. Why go to all the bother of introducing a new theist brand when that makes the pioneer's standing with his peers harder rather than easier?

Going into modern times, you're right that religionists are still a dime a dozen -- although that still doesn't necessarily take away from the oddness of so many human rights pioneers of the more distant past being also new theist brand pioneers as well (thus making their way socially rockier than otherwise). Since the human rights pioneers of modern times -- Abigail Adams, Francis Daniel Praetorius, Heinrich Hössli -- are not theist pioneers (although they may be all theists in general, a veeeeery different and less consequential thing), that theoretically removes the relevance of theism from human rights patterns for our era, if not for all time.

But is it really the case that all three modern trailblazers are not pioneers in any other respect than human rights? Frankly, I'm not so sure about Heinrich Hössli. Could he be a pioneering non-believer? It's not clear -- yet. I've found it hard to pin down just what this gay-rights pioneer's beliefs really were. He is not as amply documented as the other two. I'd be very grateful if someone here could ascertain if Heinrich Hössli was in fact a non-believer, and if his non-belief sprang fully formed from his own reflections or from other figures with whom he was impressed. -- Of course, if he was a believer, all of this is moot. -- If he was a non-believer, and an autonomous one, then we may have right here our atheist counterpart to the theist pioneers who pioneered both in their theist brand and in their human rights innovations. Once we have such an autonomous figure confirmed, then the relevance of personal beliefs to human rights pioneers is canceled altogether and we can look to other factors instead as being central to what makes human rights pioneers tick.

This is why Heinrich Hössli is so central to this study and why I'm grateful that you brought up the question of just what makes the modern human rights pioneers tick -- particularly the first pioneer in gay rights, whoever he was. Heinrich Hössli comes off as quite admirable and courageous in other ways, and it's frustrating that I've been unable to track down the kind of detailed personal information on him that we have for the other two. I'm hoping that others here can supply that.

Thank you,

Stein

spin · #4 by **spin** » Jan 28, 2012 5:59 pm

Given that you have restricted the discussion thus, I should point out that you are not dealing with my post as you claimed to be. The tokenism you underline when you point to concerning people who you are insufficiently knowledgeable about doesn't seem constructive. When you want to discuss that, you might start a new thread. You might consider why women's rights only manifested themselves over the last few hundred years and not hit upon by some deist believing group in say the middle ages. Why this recent period? That should help wean you from your deist/rights theory. So, if you want to deal with the post that set you off let me know.

Stein · #5 by **Stein** » Jan 30, 2012 6:11 pm

spin wrote:Given that you have restricted the discussion thus, I should point out that you are not dealing with my post as you claimed to be.

You initial post actually stressed that I should be more interested in the last few hundred years than in history as a whole. So that restriction is yours, not mine, and I've followed it.

spin wrote:The tokenism you underline when you point to concerning people who you are insufficiently knowledgeable about doesn't seem constructive. When you want to discuss that, you might start a new thread.

I didn't want to rub your nose in all of my newer findings because they mostly duplicate findings I've already made: In fact, Francis Daniel Praetorius cites Jesus's articulation of the Golden Rule as his chief ground for excoriating slavery, and he was himself a devout Quaker, while Abigail Adams was a pronounced Deist who was impatient with the mumbo-jumbo prophecies and miracles of religion. I chose, instead, to concentrate on those aspects where my research might be unsatisfactory and might lead to pertinent doubts: the general bent, skeptical or otherwise, of the shadowy Heinrich Hössli and the possibility that there are earlier pioneers in the post-Renaissance era than Praetorius, Adams and Hössli. I should have known there was no point to being so considerate, knowing the bad faith you typically bring to such discussions, where you are typically more interested in scoring points than in analyzing data.

If you want to follow my paper trail, you're free to do so --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Lou%C3%BFs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Gide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... _Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Brand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Heinrich_Ulrichs

http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/celebration2000/

Search term: Heinrich Hössli

http://www.gaytoday.com/penpoints/082304pp.asp

Search term: Eros; Die Maennerliebe der Griechen

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/homstud.htm

Search term: Johann Matthias Gesner

http://books.google.com/books/about/Ero ... PZAAAAMAAJ

http://homolexis.blogspot.com/2011/03/g ... -gsah.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympe_de_Gouges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of ... s_of_Truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Daniel_Pastorius

http://triptych.brynmawr.edu/cdm4/docum ... &CISOPTR=8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1688_G ... st_Slavery

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/05/ ... t-slavery/

http://books.google.com/books?id=uUMrAA ... ve&f=false

Search term: William Edmundson

http://books.google.com/books?id=uUMrAA ... ve&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of ... s_of_Truth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_de_Condorcet

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... reface.htm

spin wrote: You might consider why women's rights only manifested themselves over the last few hundred years and not hit upon by some deist believing group in say the middle ages. Why this recent period?

It's not confined to this recent period. I was confined to this recent period in this case because of your parameters. Off the top of my head, without doing any additional research, I can think of the mediaeval Anne of Cleves, of Euripides, of Sappho, of Boudicca, of Hypatia -- plenty of others.

Stein

THWOTH · #6 by **THWOTH** » Jan 30, 2012 8:40 pm

Stein wrote:The antecedents for this thread circled around the question of whether or not there were any groundbreaking pioneers in non-belief who were also groundbreaking pioneers in some area of human rights.

Mary Wollstonecraft. (Wiki)

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote:Most of the evils of life arise from a desire of present enjoyment that outruns itself. The obedience required of women in the marriage state, comes under this description; the mind, naturally weakened by depending on authority, never exerts its own powers, and the obedient wife is thus rendered a weak indolent mother. Or, supposing that this is not always the consequence, a future state of existence is scarcely taken into the reckoning when only negative virtues are cultivated. For in treating of morals, particularly when women are alluded to, writers have too often considered virtue in a very limited sense, and made the foundation of it SOLELY worldly utility; nay, a still more fragile base has been given to this stupendous fabric, and the wayward fluctuating feelings of men have been made the standard of virtue. Yes, virtue as well as religion, has been subjected to the decisions of taste.

...

Supposing women to have been formed only to please, and be subject to man, the conclusion is just, she ought to sacrifice every other consideration to render herself agreeable to him: and let this brutal desire of self-preservation be the grand spring of all her actions, when it is proved to be the iron bed of fate, to fit which, her character should be stretched or contracted, regardless of all moral or physical distinctions. But if, as I think may be demonstrated, the purposes of even this life, viewing the whole, are subverted by practical rules built upon this ignoble base, I may be allowed to doubt whether woman was created for man: and though the cry of irreligion, or even atheism be raised against me, I will simply declare, that were an angel from heaven to tell me that Moses's beautiful, poetical cosmogony, and the account of the fall of man, were literally true, I could not believe what my reason told me was derogatory to the character of the Supreme Being: and, having no fear of the devil before mine eyes, I venture to call this a suggestion of reason, instead of resting my weakness on the broad shoulders of the first seducer of my frail sex.

...

Absolute, uncontroverted authority, it seems, must subsist somewhere: but is not this a direct and exclusive appropriation of reason? The RIGHTS of humanity have been thus confined to the male line from Adam downwards. Rousseau would carry his male aristocracy still further, for he insinuates, that he should not blame those, who contend for leaving woman in a state of the most profound ignorance, if it were not necessary, in order to preserve her chastity, and justify the man's choice in the eyes of the world, to give her a little knowledge of men, and the customs produced by human passions; else she might propagate at home without being rendered less voluptuous and innocent by the exercise of her understanding: excepting, indeed, during the first year of marriage, when she might employ it to dress, like Sophia. "Her dress is extremely modest in appearance, and yet very coquettish in fact: she does not make a display of her charms, she conceals them; but, in concealing them, she knows how to affect your imagination. Every one who sees her, will say, There is a modest and discreet girl; but while you are near her, your eyes and affections wander all over her person, so that you cannot withdraw them; and you would conclude that every part of her dress, simple as it seems, was only put in its proper order to be taken to pieces by the imagination." Is this modesty? Is this a preparation for immortality? Again. What opinion are we to form of a system of education, when the author says of his heroine, "that with her, doing things well is but a SECONDARY concern; her principal concern is to do them NEATLY.

Secondary, in fact, are all her virtues and qualities, for, respecting religion, he makes her parents thus address her, accustomed to submission—"Your husband will instruct you in good time."

...

Even recommending piety he [the preacher] uses the following argument. "Never, perhaps, does a fine woman strike more deeply, than when, composed into pious recollection, and possessed with the noblest considerations, she assumes, without knowing it, superiour dignity and new graces; so that the beauties of holiness seem to radiate about her, and the by-standers are almost induced to fancy her already worshipping amongst her kindred angels!" Why are women to be thus bred up with a desire of conquest? the very epithet, used in this sense, gives me a sickly qualm! Does religion and virtue offer no stronger motives, no brighter reward? Must they always be debased by being made to consider the sex of their companions? Must they be taught always to be pleasing? And when levelling their small artillery at the heart of man, is it necessary to tell them that a little sense is sufficient to render their attention INCREDIBLY SOOTHING? "As a small degree of knowledge entertains in a woman, so from a woman, though for a different reason, a small expression of kindness delights, particularly if she have beauty!" I should have supposed for the same reason.

....

I shall pass over [...] vehement argument in favour of the eternity of future punishments, because I blush to think that a human being should ever argue vehemently in such a cause.

...

What, but the rapacity of the only men who exercised their reason, the priests, secured such vast property to the church, when a man gave his perishable substance to save himself from the dark torments of purgatory; and found it more convenient to indulge his depraved appetites, and pay an exorbitant price for absolution, than listen to the suggestions of reason, and work out his own salvation: in a word, was not the separation of religion from morality the work of the priests?

-- A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
Full text at: www.gutenburg.org

Stein · #7 by **Stein** » Feb 01, 2012 1:33 am

THWOTH wrote:
Stein wrote:The antecedents for this thread circled around the question of whether or not there were any groundbreaking pioneers in non-belief who were also groundbreaking pioneers in some area of human rights.

Mary Wollstonecraft. (Wiki)

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote:Most of the evils of life arise from a desire of present enjoyment that outruns itself. The obedience required of women in the marriage state, comes under this description; the mind, naturally weakened by depending on authority, never exerts its own powers, and the obedient wife is thus rendered a weak indolent mother. Or, supposing that this is not always the consequence, a future state of existence is scarcely taken into the reckoning when only negative virtues are cultivated. For in treating of morals, particularly when women are alluded to, writers have too often considered virtue in a very limited sense, and made the foundation of it SOLELY worldly utility; nay, a still more fragile base has been given to this stupendous fabric, and the wayward fluctuating feelings of men have been made the standard of virtue. Yes, virtue as well as religion, has been subjected to the decisions of taste.

...

Supposing women to have been formed only to please, and be subject to man, the conclusion is just, she ought to sacrifice every other consideration to render herself agreeable to him: and let this brutal desire of self-preservation be the grand spring of all her actions, when it is proved to be the iron bed of fate, to fit which, her character should be stretched or contracted, regardless of all moral or physical distinctions. But if, as I think may be demonstrated, the purposes of even this life, viewing the whole, are subverted by practical rules built upon this ignoble base, I may be allowed to doubt whether woman was created for man: and though the cry of irreligion, or even atheism be raised against me, I will simply declare, that were an angel from heaven to tell me that Moses's beautiful, poetical cosmogony, and the account of the fall of man, were literally true, I could not believe what my reason told me was derogatory to the character of the Supreme Being: and, having no fear of the devil before mine eyes, I venture to call this a suggestion of reason, instead of resting my weakness on the broad shoulders of the first seducer of my frail sex.

...

Absolute, uncontroverted authority, it seems, must subsist somewhere: but is not this a direct and exclusive appropriation of reason? The RIGHTS of humanity have been thus confined to the male line from Adam downwards. Rousseau would carry his male aristocracy still further, for he insinuates, that he should not blame those, who contend for leaving woman in a state of the most profound ignorance, if it were not necessary, in order to preserve her chastity, and justify the man's choice in the eyes of the world, to give her a little knowledge of men, and the customs produced by human passions; else she might propagate at home without being rendered less voluptuous and innocent by the exercise of her understanding: excepting, indeed, during the first year of marriage, when she might employ it to dress, like Sophia. "Her dress is extremely modest in appearance, and yet very coquettish in fact: she does not make a display of her charms, she conceals them; but, in concealing them, she knows how to affect your imagination. Every one who sees her, will say, There is a modest and discreet girl; but while you are near her, your eyes and affections wander all over her person, so that you cannot withdraw them; and you would conclude that every part of her dress, simple as it seems, was only put in its proper order to be taken to pieces by the imagination." Is this modesty? Is this a preparation for immortality? Again. What opinion are we to form of a system of education, when the author says of his heroine, "that with her, doing things well is but a SECONDARY concern; her principal concern is to do them NEATLY.

Secondary, in fact, are all her virtues and qualities, for, respecting religion, he makes her parents thus address her, accustomed to submission—"Your husband will instruct you in good time."

...

Even recommending piety he [the preacher] uses the following argument. "Never, perhaps, does a fine woman strike more deeply, than when, composed into pious recollection, and possessed with the noblest considerations, she assumes, without knowing it, superiour dignity and new graces; so that the beauties of holiness seem to radiate about her, and the by-standers are almost induced to fancy her already worshipping amongst her kindred angels!" Why are women to be thus bred up with a desire of conquest? the very epithet, used in this sense, gives me a sickly qualm! Does religion and virtue offer no stronger motives, no brighter reward? Must they always be debased by being made to consider the sex of their companions? Must they be taught always to be pleasing? And when levelling their small artillery at the heart of man, is it necessary to tell them that a little sense is sufficient to render their attention INCREDIBLY SOOTHING? "As a small degree of knowledge entertains in a woman, so from a woman, though for a different reason, a small expression of kindness delights, particularly if she have beauty!" I should have supposed for the same reason.

....

I shall pass over [...] vehement argument in favour of the eternity of future punishments, because I blush to think that a human being should ever argue vehemently in such a cause.

...

What, but the rapacity of the only men who exercised their reason, the priests, secured such vast property to the church, when a man gave his perishable substance to save himself from the dark torments of purgatory; and found it more convenient to indulge his depraved appetites, and pay an exorbitant price for absolution, than listen to the suggestions of reason, and work out his own salvation: in a word, was not the separation of religion from morality the work of the priests?

-- A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
Full text at: www.gutenburg.org

Thanks for this quote. No question that Mary Wollstonecraft is a thoroughly authentic pioneer in the history of women's rights. But don't forget, I'm looking for an explicit atheist as well, and Mary Wollstonecraft is a believer, although of an unorthodox brand --

"I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see
not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should
differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if
virtue has only one eternal standard? I must, therefore, if I
reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain, that they have the
same simple direction, as that there is a God." -- Mary Wollstonecraft (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3420/pg3420.txt)

As I've said, I still look forward to citations of other earlier pioneers in both women's rights and African-Americans' rights. But I wish I could ascertain more about Heinrich Hössli, the gay rights pioneer, because there is the possibility he may be more like the explicit -- and pioneering -- atheist I'm looking for. Please, might anyone here know of any early pioneer in gay rights, women's rights, or African-Americans' rights who is an explicit atheist, and might Heinrich Hössli be the one?

Thank you,

Stein

THWOTH · #8 by **THWOTH** » Feb 01, 2012 2:09 am

Stein wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
Stein wrote:The antecedents for this thread circled around the question of whether or not there were any groundbreaking pioneers in non-belief who were also groundbreaking pioneers in some area of human rights.

Mary Wollstonecraft. (Wiki)

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote:<snip>

-- A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
Full text at: www.gutenburg.org

Thanks for this quote. No question that Mary Wollstonecraft is a thoroughly authentic pioneer in the history of women's rights. But don't forget, I'm looking for an explicit atheist as well, and Mary Wollstonecraft is a believer, although of an unorthodox brand --

: I think you need to read the whole thing. What was her unorthodox brand of believing?

Stein wrote:"I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see
not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should
differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if
virtue has only one eternal standard? I must, therefore, if I
reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain, that they have the
same simple direction, as that there is a God." -- Mary Wollstonecraft (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3420/pg3420.txt)

What was the god God that Mary Wollstonecraft believed in, and how did she characterise that entity?

Stein · #9 by **Stein** » Feb 01, 2012 3:47 am

THWOTH wrote:
Stein wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
Stein wrote:The antecedents for this thread circled around the question of whether or not there were any groundbreaking pioneers in non-belief who were also groundbreaking pioneers in some area of human rights.

Mary Wollstonecraft. (Wiki)

Mary Wollstonecraft wrote:<snip>

-- A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792)
Full text at: www.gutenburg.org

Thanks for this quote. No question that Mary Wollstonecraft is a thoroughly authentic pioneer in the history of women's rights. But don't forget, I'm looking for an explicit atheist as well, and Mary Wollstonecraft is a believer, although of an unorthodox brand --

: I think you need to read the whole thing. What was her unorthodox brand of believing?

Stein wrote:"I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see
not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should
differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if
virtue has only one eternal standard? I must, therefore, if I
reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain, that they have the
same simple direction, as that there is a God." -- Mary Wollstonecraft (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3420/pg3420.txt)

What was the god God that Mary Wollstonecraft believed in, and how did she characterise that entity?

She was a Deist, like Abigail A. There's no mystery to it. This is not very fruitful. I don't see why more posters are not pursuing figures like Hoessli, whose gay rights' work does not appear to involve -- so far -- appeals to a God in any way that the Abigails and the MWs always proactively do. Those two not only subscribe to a form of belief, they actually appeal to it in making their women's rights arguments! So they are really a waste of time in this context, because they do nothing to counter the patterns I've shown. They do nothing to confirm them either because their form of belief is not original to them, despite their being in a minority. But Hoessli may actually counter the patterns I've shown in a big way, and it bewilders me that no one here has been curious enough to follow up and find out more about him. He well might be the biggest challenge of all to my argument. Why aren't posters more interested in him?!

Stein

Stein · **#10** by **Stein** » Feb 02, 2012 7:40 pm

Stein wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
Stein wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
Mary Wollstonecraft. (Wiki)

Thanks for this quote. No question that Mary Wollstonecraft is a thoroughly authentic pioneer in the history of women's rights. But don't forget, I'm looking for an explicit atheist as well, and Mary Wollstonecraft is a believer, although of an unorthodox brand --

: I think you need to read the whole thing. What was her unorthodox brand of believing?

Stein wrote:"I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see
not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should
differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if
virtue has only one eternal standard? I must, therefore, if I
reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain, that they have the
same simple direction, as that there is a God." -- Mary Wollstonecraft (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3420/pg3420.txt)

What was the god God that Mary Wollstonecraft believed in, and how did she characterise that entity?

She was a Deist, like Abigail A. There's no mystery to it. This is not very fruitful. I don't see why more posters are not pursuing figures like Hoessli, whose gay rights' work does not appear to involve -- so far -- appeals to a God in any way that the Abigails and the MWs always proactively do. Those two not only subscribe to a form of belief, they actually appeal to it in making their women's rights arguments! So they are really a waste of time in this context, because they do nothing to counter the patterns I've shown. They do nothing to confirm them either because their form of belief is not original to them, despite their being in a minority. But Hoessli may actually counter the patterns I've shown in a big way, and it bewilders me that no one here has been curious enough to follow up and find out more about him. He well might be the biggest challenge of all to my argument. Why aren't posters more interested in him?!

Stein

And apparently, there is an even earlier figure but in the same Enlightenment period -- Thomas Cannon's Ancient and Modern Pederasty Investigated and Exemplify'd. This comes from 1749. Again, Cannon is an obscure figure, but much of this tract survives thanks to court records of the time. Would certainly like to know where the extensive sections that survive are now available. It might or might not give an indication as to Cannon's beliefs or non-belief. Surprised no one here seems curious.

Stein

amkerman · **#11** by **amkerman** » Feb 02, 2012 8:12 pm

@Stein

I would guess no one seems curious because they likely have already reached a conclusion the disapprove of; namely, I would surmise, that human rights pioneers, by and large throughout history, have held theistic beliefs in some sense.

I am personally not interested in contributing to this thread because I don't think it makes a difference whether or not pioneers in human rights were or were not also pioneers in non-belief to anything beyond bragging rights and I honestly cannot see the point in the research beyond expanding academic knowledge.

I am, however, very interested to see if anyone helps in furthering your discoveries and research, and to reap the fruits of your labors. From the looks of it, your research seems quite impressive.

So basically I'm just here to learn, but I'm unmotivated to do any of the legwork on this particular topic to find out the answers for myself. If people want to disagree with your proposal (or what I have taken to be your proposal), that most human rights pioneers throughout history have been religious, I eagerly await it. Then I will judge your evidence and the evidece of whoever disagrees with it., and your respective arguments. Then I will incorperate what I learn from everyone and leave; slipping silently back to threads I personally find more interesting from whence I came... :cheers:

THWOTH · **#12** by **THWOTH** » Feb 02, 2012 8:40 pm

Stein,

Yes, Wollstonecraft was a Deist. But you point I believe was that Christian belief was a necessary antecedent to calls for human rights, or, at the least, that a Christian ethic informed the moral argument in favour of equal rights.

Wollstonecraft was not a Christian, and in fact took great care in outlining her objections to the traditional misrepresentation feminine virtue, the limitations, and the oppression of women rooted in Christianity without alienating her audience - which was an educated minority which was almost entirely male. He thesis was that morality and ethics where a wholly human concern and a matter for reason and rationality. In eschewing the dogmas and doctrines of the prevailing Christian culture she reasoned her argument and did not rely on the assumed or self-declared moral authority of men, or of the clergy.

Her view on God was rather unique for the time, but somewhat like Spinoza equated God with an ulitmate state of natural perfection and not as a personified and interfering entity. In this regard godliness was akin to a state of rational wisdom and it predicated her moral arguments for equal rights for women and the uneducated poor.

I don't think you can claim that Wollstonecraft's ideas were inspired by Christianity, led naturally from a Christian beliefs, or was dependent on faith for moral support (pun alert!). She was not a 'believer' in the tradition sense, and reproducing an oft quoted passage without the necessary context and implying that the matter is settled is more than a tad partial imo. Wollstonecraft's whole point was that she was that equality could be wholly justified on reasonable and reasoned grounds, and God was an metaphorical, abstract notion of perfection and rational wisdom which she considered to be the highest virtue any human could (and indeed should) aspire to.

So, she reasoned in spite of the God of Abraham and not because of him.

:cool:

Stein · **#13** by **Stein** » Feb 02, 2012 9:48 pm

THWOTH wrote:Stein,

Yes, Wollstonecraft was a Deist. But you point I believe was that Christian belief was a necessary antecedent to calls for human rights, or, at the least, that a Christian ethic informed the moral argument in favour of equal rights.

Wollstonecraft was not a Christian, and in fact took great care in outlining her objections to the traditional misrepresentation feminine virtue, the limitations, and the oppression of women rooted in Christianity without alienating her audience - which was an educated minority which was almost entirely male. He thesis was that morality and ethics where a wholly human concern and a matter for reason and rationality. In eschewing the dogmas and doctrines of the prevailing Christian culture she reasoned her argument and did not rely on the assumed or self-declared moral authority of men, or of the clergy.

Her view on God was rather unique for the time, but somewhat like Spinoza equated God with an ulitmate state of natural perfection and not as a personified and interfering entity. In this regard godliness was akin to a state of rational wisdom and it predicated her moral arguments for equal rights for women and the uneducated poor.

I don't think you can claim that Wollstonecraft's ideas were inspired by Christianity, led naturally from a Christian beliefs, or was dependent on faith for moral support (pun alert!). She was not a 'believer' in the tradition sense, and reproducing an oft quoted passage without the necessary context and implying that the matter is settled is more than a tad partial imo. Wollstonecraft's whole point was that she was that equality could be wholly justified on reasonable and reasoned grounds, and God was an metaphorical, abstract notion of perfection and rational wisdom which she considered to be the highest virtue any human could (and indeed should) aspire to.

So, she reasoned in spite of the God of Abraham and not because of him.

That such human rights pioneers would often be separate from any Christian supports is hardly news to me, since I've already cited elsewhere on this board various human rights pioneers who have no connection to Christian beliefs at all. So you're going after a straw man here. I've also explicitly remarked elsewhere on this board that Religion too is separate and purely incidental to the human rights pioneers of history. I hope I don't have to continue to say all this umpteen times either.

I'm concentrating on counter-cultural forms of Theism only, very different from Religion and very different from Christianity. So it's not "cool" of you to distort what I'm saying. Quite the contrary. It reeks of deliberate distortion. Very un-cool, in fact.

While I'm pleased to see that posters are finally responding to my last two postings, I'm disappointed that there are still no takers on attempts to amplify or debunk my findings. The fact is, I'm drilling into the foundations of human rights innovation constantly. I'm never off it. I never assume that I've found out "everything". Spin gave certain parameters as to what we should look for. I've been scrupulous in maintaining those parameters: early-modern pioneers in gay rights, women's rights and African-American rights. So far, I've traced gay rights back to Thomas Cannon, 1749 and African-American rights back to Francis Daniel Praetorius, 1688. With respect to gay rights, I didn't rest after finding out about Heinrich Hoessli, or I'd have never found Thomas Cannon. A British writer, Cannon wrote his 1749 defense of gay rights before the first English tract to promulgate atheism, Matthew Turner's in 1782. So Cannon is not a promulgator in non-belief.

As for the field of women's rights, Wollstonecraft remains arguably a Cartesian of sorts, with a smattering of Spinozan pantheism as well...................And apparently, she's not the first during the Enlightenment. That may be François Poullain de la Barre, whose 1673 tract argued that both sexes had precisely the same capacities and should be given equal opportunities. Poullain De la Barre too is pretty much a Cartesian in his beliefs.

Although it appears that none of the three figures that Spin asked for -- who have now been provisionally identified as Poulain de la Barre, Praetorius, & Cannon -- were non-believers, I'm still drilling and I may still find someone who is a non-believer. This exercise isn't over. In defining the early-modern era, I will also have to determine which year is my cut-off point. I've been provisionally cutting off at 1501, but Spin may prefer that we cut off at a more recent date instead. I just don't know.

Stein

THWOTH · **#14** by **THWOTH** » Feb 02, 2012 10:48 pm

I guess I just think that Wollstonecraft is a pioneer of non-belief within the context of her era, manipulating religious ideas as a means of imbuing her thesis with a kind of cultural authority and acceptability.

Sir Francis Bacon did much the same in his discourse on utopia 'New Atlantis' (Wiki), in which he proposed certain secular ideals for a 'well-governed' state (and I would suggest that notions of human rights and civil equality are predicated on the secular principle and can only really work within a secular context) while seeking to redirect the prevailing obligation of philosophical endeavour from a quest to understand God's, His creation, and our place in it, to a pursuit for an understanding of what humans could make of and for themselves.

Would Bacon count as one of your pioneers of non-belief, particularly when one considers his contribution to what came to be known as The Scientific Method' in Novum Organum (Wiki).

Stein · **#15** by **Stein** » Feb 03, 2012 4:42 am

THWOTH wrote:I guess I just think that Wollstonecraft is a pioneer of non-belief within the context of her era, manipulating religious ideas as a means of imbuing her thesis with a kind of cultural authority and acceptability.

Sir Francis Bacon did much the same in his discourse on utopia 'New Atlantis' (Wiki), in which he proposed certain secular ideals for a 'well-governed' state (and I would suggest that notions of human rights and civil equality are predicated on the secular principle and can only really work within a secular context) while seeking to redirect the prevailing obligation of philosophical endeavour from a quest to understand God's, His creation, and our place in it, to a pursuit for an understanding of what humans could make of and for themselves.

Would Bacon count as one of your pioneers of non-belief, particularly when one considers his contribution to what came to be known as The Scientific Method' in Novum Organum (Wiki).

No. A pioneer in non-belief is someone who says "Non Credo" / "I don't believe". For goodness' sake, Bacon actually said [paraphrase] "A little learning inclines one to atheism, but greater learning brings one back to belief"! When I look for an atheist, I look for ......... well ........ an atheist. And the (frankly) knee-jerk response that I sometimes get -- that one can't expect atheists until today's era -- is belied by Brhaspati (7th century b.c.e.), Critias (5th century b.c.e.), Knutzen (17th century c.e.), Meslier (18th century c.e.), and so on. Such figures already exist throughout history; we don't have to shoehorn other figures in order to have such a list. -- And the real atheists make it clear they know the risks they run by promulgating atheism, yet they do it anyway.

In my assembling all these human rights pioneers who seem to have this yen for cobbling together counter-cultural notions of theism, I'm dealing often with figures ready to risk their necks. And real atheists through history have also risked their necks. Yes, it's often dangerous to promulgate atheism, just as it's often dangerious to fight for human rights. It comes with the territory. We're dealing with figures of incredibly admirable courage in this survey. That's why they are worth any amount of scholarly travail in studying them. We owe them everything. If not for them, we'd still be living out our lives in the same way people lived under Lugalanda in ancient Sumeria!

Sincerely,

Stein

spin · **#16** by **spin** » Feb 04, 2012 12:00 pm

Stein's insistence on his fallacious argument is at least entertaining here on a freethought forum. While it is probably obvious to most of us that religions are conservative institutions that have retarded rights in nearly all contexts the beliefs are found, Stein is peddling the notion that it was the deist who is responsible for rights advancements. It doesn't matter that deists have been the staunchest antagonists of women's rights, of black rights, of gay rights, there have been advocates of these rights who have been deists, so deism is responsible for all significant rights advancements. It doesn't matter if a person can wear two hats and be both a deist and a social thinker and it is as a social thinker that the person works for a rights issue. In Stein's thinking as the person is a deist that is what counts. It doesn't matter that in any age before this one the population was functionally all deist. You would expect with Stein's logic that that should make a very progressive society, but in fact most rights have improved specifically ober the last few hundred years with both women's rights and gay rights being consistently secular movements that happily accepted deists. Late 19th century women's historians noted that women lost rights through the christian centuries.

And for fuck's sake, Stein, Anne of Cleves was not mediaeval, nor were any of those people you mentioned (Hypatia, et al.) advocates of women's rights. And spelling: Lugalanda should hopefully be Lugalbanda. You need to argue that your deists were acting specifically as deists to get your little theory to fly. As is it's a jumble of names held together by poppycock.

proudfootz · **#17** by **proudfootz** » Feb 04, 2012 4:47 pm

Seeing as we're mostly familiar with a culture (Western Civilization let's call it) which has been the virtual prisoner of an aggressive theocratic system that has displayed over the centuries a regrettable propensity to persecute and kill anyone whose ideas about gods they believe in weren't in line with some 'orthodoxy' or other, let alone those who reject the whole premise, it's hardly surprising we find few non-believers represented at all in our history.

Non-believers were struggling for human rights just by proclaiming their non-belief - even though it was almost guaranteed to lead to some kind of persecution and was sometimes a one-way ticket to as horrible a death as human ingenuity could devise.

Stein · **#18** by **Stein** » Feb 04, 2012 9:46 pm

spin wrote:You would expect with Stein's logic that that should make a very progressive society, but in fact most rights have improved specifically ober the last few hundred years with both women's rights and gay rights being consistently secular movements that happily accepted deists

But apparently, these movements didn't start out as a result of opposers to belief (somewhat to my surprise, by the way). And what we're looking for is a counter to my chief argument that the most innovative introducers of new counter-cultural social ethics have also been counter-cultural introducers of counter-cultural takes on theism. We haven't found such a counter here. In addition, nothing in the paper trail for the start of these three movements supports my contention either, of course, since none of these pioneers -- Poulain de la Barre, Praetorius, & Cannon -- are also pioneers in some counter-cultural take on theism.

Since none of these contradict or affirm my contention, I will have to look in some other direction for a possible counter to my provisional supposition instead. Still, this was a fruitful vein of research, and I'm grateful to Spin for the suggestion.

Cheers,

Stein

spin · **#19** by **spin** » Feb 04, 2012 10:53 pm

Stein wrote:
spin wrote:You would expect with Stein's logic that that should make a very progressive society, but in fact most rights have improved specifically ober the last few hundred years with both women's rights and gay rights being consistently secular movements that happily accepted deists

But apparently, these movements didn't start out as a result of opposers to belief (somewhat to my surprise, by the way). And what we're looking for is a counter to my chief argument that the most innovative introducers of new counter-cultural social ethics have also been counter-cultural introducers of counter-cultural takes on theism. We haven't found such a counter here. In addition, nothing in the paper trail for the start of these three movements supports my contention either, of course, since none of these pioneers -- Poulain de la Barre, Praetorius, & Cannon -- are also pioneers in some counter-cultural take on theism.

Do stop rambling on with names. You've misspelt "Pastorius" more than once in this thread.

When deism was the only going thing, why didn't women get their rights? It is obvious that the gaining of women's rights is not a facet of deism at all. Whether some dude or other talked about this or that it's irrelevant. Women started getting rights only late in the 19th century. Deism was not at all responsible, though it was a great hindrance. Charlotte Stopes (mother of Marie) wrote a book called British Freewomen which chronicled the continuing loss of rights by women in Britain up to the 19th century. What did deism do about this decline? Nothing constructive. When Marie Stopes fought for the right of women to control their own bodies and reproductive systems, deism was a fierce opponent and still is regarding her memory. Deism has been an albatross around the necks of women. Those deists who supported women rights did so not because of deism, but despite it.

Stein wrote:Since none of these contradict or affirm my contention, I will have to look in some other direction for a possible counter to my provisional supposition instead. Still, this was a fruitful vein of research, and I'm grateful to Spin for the suggestion.

Cheers,

Stein

Clive Durdle · **#20** by **Clive Durdle** » Feb 04, 2012 11:12 pm

I am very puzzled. Tom Payne?

French revolutionary thinkers?

When discussing the history of ideas it is critical to understand the gestalt, the context. The first problem is actually the publication of the Bible in English - I strongly recommend Christopher Hill World Turned Upside Down.

The Quakers, Levellers, Ranters - when Adam delved and Eve Span, who was then the gentleman? - were definitely causing the walls of religion to crumble, but people were still being burnt and hung drawn and quartered - so stating no gods would lead to heresy charges. Deism was a logical next step - a prime mover to make sense of a Newtonian world with Harrison watches.

And I haven't even mentioned the Greek and Roman atheists!