America Was Built on Natural Law

[JakeStarkey]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. As to your other argument, I have proven my position. You just don't accept it. Behavior is not like a light switch. You can't turn it off and on. Nasty habits are hard to break.

You don't even understand what is Natural Law.

 

[Syriusly]

With that I leave Ding to his delusions and lies.

The Founders so much built the Constitution around Natural law that they put guarantees regarding slavery into it, and did not recognize women as the equals of men

And that is my last word on the subject.

Ding can lie on as he will.

 

[ding]

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Now I will answer it for the 4th time.

NO. Trade in slaves did not stop because the Democratic Party expanded slavery.

 

[ding]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

There is no convincing you because you are only here to amuse yourself. It would make no sense at all to explain suffrage to you in terms of natural law since you do not accept natural law in the first place. As to your other argument, I have proven my position. You just don't accept it. Behavior is not like a light switch. You can't turn it off and on. Nasty habits are hard to break.

You don't even understand what is Natural Law.

I'm Ok with you believing that, Jake.

 

[ding]

With that I leave Ding to his delusions and lies.

The Founders so much built the Constitution around Natural law that they put guarantees regarding slavery into it, and did not recognize women as the equals of men

And that is my last word on the subject.

Ding can lie on as he will.

It is about time. Please don't take your beat down out on someone you love.

 

[rightwinger]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished. Then they abolished it at the earliest date possible. You didn't even know about this clause until today. Then in 1789 after the Constitution was ratified they passed the Northwest Ordinance which forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States. You didn't know about this law until today either. So clearly they did take actions to end slavery. Your Party on the other hand was the Party responsible for expanding slavery. Shame on you.

The slave trade was NOT abolished

There were still slave markets after 1809

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

With the Whigs, yes, until 1854.

 

[ding]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished. Then they abolished it at the earliest date possible. You didn't even know about this clause until today. Then in 1789 after the Constitution was ratified they passed the Northwest Ordinance which forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States. You didn't know about this law until today either. So clearly they did take actions to end slavery. Your Party on the other hand was the Party responsible for expanding slavery. Shame on you.

The slave trade was NOT abolished

There were still slave markets after 1809

That is true. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia


The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

 

[ding]

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

With the Whigs, yes, until 1854.

No.

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia

 

[BreezeWood]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia

Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

funny how you claim natural law and ignore your churches role in not preventing slavery world wide except by not allowing enslavement of the enslavers ... winner.

the churches lack of support for women as well, misogynist.

 

[ding]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia

Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

funny how you claim natural law and ignore your churches role in not preventing slavery world wide except by not allowing enslavement of the enslavers ... winner.

the churches lack of support for women as well misogynist.

I don't agree with either one of these. A woman is the mother of my Church and while the Church's history on slavery has been mixed it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

 

[ding]

I am a solid Christian. I am a private business owner with my family who did very well. I am a mainstream Republican and capitalist.

Dingle simply lies. He is no Christian. I have do not have to defend myself to a person like him, no honor and no integrity, and on this Board, no real discussion skills.

Merry Christmas, Dingle. You are a clown, you amuse, and that is good.

And you are the biggest liar here. You are the exact opposite of everything you just wrote.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia

Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

funny how you claim natural law and ignore your churches role in not preventing slavery world wide except by not allowing enslavement of the enslavers ... winner.

the churches lack of support for women as well misogynist.

I don't agree with either one of these. A woman is the mother of my Church and while the Church's history on slavery has been mixed it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

.

it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery

funny also how they never succeeded ... you know perfectly well they failed miserably while embellishing themselves for centuries.

.

 

[ding]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia

Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

funny how you claim natural law and ignore your churches role in not preventing slavery world wide except by not allowing enslavement of the enslavers ... winner.

the churches lack of support for women as well misogynist.

I don't agree with either one of these. A woman is the mother of my Church and while the Church's history on slavery has been mixed it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

.

it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery

funny also how they never succeeded ... you know perfectly well they failed miserably while embellishing themselves for centuries.

.

No. I don't know that. Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the observations that no Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist, and that no pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such, but that they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

 

[rightwinger]

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

Total bullshit
Slavery was a particular southern institution having nothing to do with the Democratic Party
It was driven by an expansion of King Cotton that demanded cheap labor to process it

 

[jillian]

America Was Built on Natural Law
As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

the only law that exists are the laws that are enforced.

but thanks for the musings of a rightwingnut site

 

[rightwinger]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia

Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

funny how you claim natural law and ignore your churches role in not preventing slavery world wide except by not allowing enslavement of the enslavers ... winner.

the churches lack of support for women as well misogynist.

I don't agree with either one of these. A woman is the mother of my Church and while the Church's history on slavery has been mixed it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

The Baptist Church enforced slavery in the South telling slaves the bible says you must serve your master

 

[ding]

America Was Built on Natural Law
As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

the only law that exists are the laws that are enforced.

but thanks for the musings of a rightwingnut site

You are welcome. Normalization of deviance leads to predictable surprises.

 

[ding]

No. I already explained why. By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party,ll

What does any of that have to do with the slavery provision in the Constitution?

• which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It was the answer to your question of why slavery did not end. S

I didn't ask why slavery didn't end.

This is what i asked: If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

I asked why the Founding fathers legitimized slavery in the Constitution if they
a) believed in Natural laws and
b) that Natural law said slavery was illegal and
c) that the Constitution is based upon Natural law.

You asked why slavery didn't end. The reason is the Democratic Party took power and expanded it. You have no shame.

Total bullshit
Slavery was a particular southern institution having nothing to do with the Democratic Party
It was driven by an expansion of King Cotton that demanded cheap labor to process it

Tell that to Frederick Douglas.

 

[ding]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

.

Slavery in medieval Europe - Wikipedia

Church rules suppressed slavery of Christians.

funny how you claim natural law and ignore your churches role in not preventing slavery world wide except by not allowing enslavement of the enslavers ... winner.

the churches lack of support for women as well misogynist.

I don't agree with either one of these. A woman is the mother of my Church and while the Church's history on slavery has been mixed it can be said with confidence that the Church constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

The Baptist Church enforced slavery in the South telling slaves the bible says you must serve your master

Is that so?