Talk:Age of Enlightenment

National variations, subheading German states
From the last pararapgh: "This intellectual elite was favoured by the state, but that might be reversed if the process of the Enlightenment proved politically or socially destabilizing."

This is the past, nothing "might" happen; it either did or didn't. This whole sentence needs reworking because I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Even "could have" could make the sentence better but I think the source needs to be paraphrased differently altogether. 204.15.114.66 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Liberal states
> As a spill-over of the Enlightenment, nonsecular beliefs expressed first by Quakers and then by Protestant evangelicals in Britain and the United States emerged. To these groups, slavery became "repugnant to our religion" and a "crime in the sight of God."

This is just completely wrong. Slavery was condemned by the early Christian church and Paul in the Bible clearly says do not be a slave and asks in philemon for them to free slaves. Europe mostly ended slavery and moved to serfs so it wasn't new to begin with and the idea stemmed from Christianity. What probably was new was the capitalist conceptions of slavery which seemed to tie freedom to economic freedom or the ability to buy slaves. Slavery increased under capitalism and liberal, i.e. individualist, states while slavery was acted against in Christianity for millennia. I think this statement should be corrected. 122.45.15.68 (talk) 05:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm... no! Archaeological evidence shows that Christian churches did own slaves (slaves of that church). So, your claim is wrong.
 * The Sola Scriptura ground for abolitionism is weak. The Sola Scriptura ground for allowing slavery is strong.
 * Also, it is preposterous to speak of what Christians think, same as it is preposterous to speak of what Americans think, or of what the Swedes think.
 * See a collection of quotes at https://web.archive.org/web/20130908135621/http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "it is preposterous to speak of what Christians think" To paraphrase one of my favorite comedians, the proper question would be: "Do Christians think?" That religion has had two millenia of disputes over weird interpretations of the same texts. Dimadick (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then what about the church continually fighting against slavery? You have Anselm specifically petitioning Henry I to stop the slave trade in 1102. How can that be a newly developed idea I it pre-existed the Enlightenment by almost half a millennia?
 * > Anselm also obtained a resolution against the British slave trade.
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury
 * You're can't extrapolate your position to be that the church reconstituted itself against slavery due to the Enlightenment. It's not only extremely inaccurate, it contradicts historical evidence. It stays edited until a proper edit can happen. 1.220.224.228 (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This papal bull was at least a century before the earliest argued date for the Enlightenment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimis_Deus) which clearly prefigures Cartesian rationalism and seeks abolition of all and any indigenous people in America, found or not found, Christian or not.
 * >After 313, when Constantine legalized Christianity within the Roman Empire, Church teachings concerning charity and justice began influencing Roman laws and policies. Pope Callixtus I (bishop of Rome 218–222) was a slave in his youth.[3] Slavery decreased with multiple abolition movements in the late 5th century.
 * from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery
 * It's very clear it didn't become policy after the Enlightenment but preceded it. 1.220.224.228 (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)