Yes, the Church unreservedly condemned slavery everywhere as inhuman and immoral. There are numerous documents as far back as 873 that attest to this fact.

There is no denying that racial slavery surfaced with the Spanish and Portuguese expeditions in the 15th and 16th centuries. Racial slavery was the new phenomenon of capturing native peoples to sell them into slavery. This differed greatly from slavery resulting from capture in war and the idea of servitude.  The Popes in those and succeeding centuries including Eugene IV in 1432, Pius in 1462, Paul III in 1537, and Urban VIII in 1639, Benedict XIV in 1741, Gregory XVI in 1839, and Leo XIII in 1890 all recognized the evil of slavery and didn't hesitate to condemn it. The Popes stood together reinforcing the condemnations issued by their predecessors. 

Pope Eugene protesting the capturing for slavery the natives of the Canary Islands said that if all the slaves were not set free within 15 days of his letter, their masters would "incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto." Pope Paul III was just as stern a century later, condemning all slavery as evil and stating that the "indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, ....nor should they be in any way enslaved."

In 1890, Pope Leo XIII went one step further and started the tradition of collecting monies from Catholics around the world that would be divided among the missions for the express purpose to eliminate slavery in Africa.

Doesn't the Qur'an permit these?

Leauki writes

 "Human rights" is a political invention that nations use to further their agenda and in the case of the UN in an attempt to create a one world global order. Abortion is a sin against the baby in the womb, yet nations say abortion is a "human right". The same thing with "gay marriage".

Where do our rights come from? What is their foundation? Since man didn't make himself he certainly didn't make that which is less than himself, his rights.  The foundation of these rights is ALmighty GOd the Creator and Author of all morality.

Every sin supposes the violation of the rights of another. Rights and duties go together. Every sin against our fellow man is a sin against God. My point is without God man has rights with no assignable title and no real sanction.

DrG posts:

I think it is relevant to understand ancient slavery if we are to ever eradicate it.

We must understand slavery from the Christian viewpoint which teaches that trafficing in human beings (slavery) is a sin against the intrinsic dignity of our fellow man and therefore a sin against God.

A few years ago Barbara Kralis wrote a report about slavery that is worth mentioning. She claims slavery is flourishing in the 21st century  with at least 27 million men, women and children are enslaved. She wrote of the horrific assault on human dignity this way. 

"Despite centuries fighting the scourge, slavery is readily found on the farms of India, the inheritable debt-bondage brick making kilns of Pakistan, and the cocoa plantations of Cote d'Ivoire. It thrives in the rug room sheds of Nepal, the sex slavery brothels of Manila, Thailand, Japan, and the US. Among the water carrier chattel in Mauritania, and in the charcoal making camps of Brazil. In child prostitution in Ecuduar and the child camel jockeying for the wealthy sheikhs across the Mideast. Migrant trafficing exists for sexual labor throughout Canada and into the US and labor in the garment manufacturing sweatshops of Los Angeles, NY and Paris and London. 

She writes, "No government in the world today officially endorses slavery, yet banned worldwide, slavery thrives in every nation becasue of organized crime, corruption, and insatiable greed."

I suppose so, just as the Bible does, both yours and mine.

However, both Bible and Qur'an were written at a time (and in regions) slavery was common and accepted. Hence G-d's law as supposedly written in those works was expressed such that the existing system must be reformed. It is an error to assume that if G-d tells us that slaves must be treated decently it means that G-d permits us to keep slaves. He does not. But perhaps only the Zoroastrians got that message. Only the Persians were civilised enough for G-d to tell them the whole truth about slavery.

I agree with you. "Human rights" as the term is used to day is a political tool. This is why "human rights" are used against some but ignored in other cases. Heck, the UN even fill their "human rights council" with the worst offenders for some reason.

However, human rights do exist and they come from the creator (and lacking faith in one, from each man's ability to defend himself). It was Cyrus the Great who first formulated human rights as a principle. 2500 years he was the UN, except without the genocides and corruption.

That may be so and I agree, but what does that mean? Since different religions believe different things about what G-d wants, rights created by G-d mean as much as rights created by whoever invented those religions.

Personally, I believe in the truth of Judaism for Jews and Zoroastrianism for the rest.

True enough. But who gets to speak for G-d?

How so?  We have eradicated it in the civilized world and most do not even realize the truthfulness of my statement.  Clearly we do not have to try it to condemn it (the oldest argument in the book, and the most specious).  That some barbaric cultures still practice it relies not on understanding past slavery or its relevancy, but on the simple truism of lack of self esteem.

No, you are trying to argue against dead people - which is your right, but like all the race hucksters, serves no useful purpose about the issue today.

Slavery is the most vicious crime and the least talked about.

It doesn't fit into the world view of progressives, not only because it is a crime usually committed by those progressives see as fighters against imperialism but also because it is practices where journalists cannot live in luxury hotels and hence never cover.

And its victims are not valuable allies for whomever acts on their behalf and eradicating slavery is hence an act without reward. Indeed, expect condemnation from the elite when you even address the issue and point the finger at the guilty parties.

"Israelis oppress Palestinians" is legitimate criticism of Israel.

"Arabs enslave Africans" is racism.

By whom?  The perpetrators?  or those refusing to cover the issue?  Or (IMHO) both?

Regarding slavery, we can't equate the Qur'an with the Jewish and New Testament Scriptures.

First for the simple reason there is only one revealed truth....only one absolute truth.

Second, because what the Qur'an permits is vastly different from the Scripture regarding the treatment of slaves. 

From the Old to the New Testament, we see a clear moral development regarding the intrinsic dignity of the human person being taught...that all men, no matter their station in life, are equal before Almighty God. 

Which is basically what you said in post 13:

And this is the genius of Christian liberty that St.Paul taught..."For all you have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free man; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Christian principles as taught in Sacred Scriptures antagonize slavery and employing them in the culture was the way that the evil of slavery was at first mitigated then eradicated in the past and the only way it will be eradicated today.

Lula posts:

DRG posts:

Perhaps we should define "the civilized world". Did you not read post 18 and the quote from Barbara Kralis?

I first learned about Simon Deng when my freshman son was given a writing assignment and chose to write about the plight of the Nuba people in the Sudan. It was quite an eye-opener. Everyone knows about all the diseases and having no clean water, but we learned that Christians and tribal Africans have been persecuted, starved and the women and children raped and enslaved by Islamists for years. He didn't know that modern slavery existed and I didn't know it existed to that degree. Needless to say, our family has been giving to Bishop Gassis Sudan Relief Fund ever since. 

Very good!

I myself give to organisations helping the Muslim tribes of the west. (They are closely related to the tribes in the south.)

The plain fact is that the world has ignored what the Islamists have been doing for decades.

longer than decades!

However this is not surprising....for we are talking about "the world" here. "The world" is not interested to address the evils of "the world" if you get my drift. 

Ok, what is your definition?  And I think Kralis is just blowing smoke up our proverbial arse.  it exists, but 27 million?  Unless, China or Indonesia is practicing it widespread (and under the radar scope), that figure is bull hockey.  It is a problem.  In the US?  In Europe? In China?  South America?  North America? 

Ok, so where?  Answer that question, and unless you are a cultural egalitarian, you have answered your own challenge above.

This statement of Kralis fits my definition of slavery. 

"Despite centuries fighting the scourge, slavery is readily found on the farms of India, the inheritable debt-bondage brick making kilns of Pakistan, and the cocoa plantations of Cote d'Ivoire. It thrives in the rug room sheds of Nepal, the sex slavery brothels of Manila, Thailand, Japan, and the US. Among the water carrier chattel in Mauritania, and in the charcoal making camps of Brazil. In child prostitution in Ecuador and the child camel jockeying for the wealthy sheikhs across the Mideast. Migrant trafficking exists for sexual labor throughout Canada and into the US and labor in the garment manufacturing sweatshops of Los Angeles, NY and Paris and London. She writes, "No government in the world today officially endorses slavery, yet banned worldwide, slavery thrives in every nation because of organized crime, corruption, and insatiable greed."

To this add those taken into slavery by Islamists.

Doc, I won't quibble with you over the number, however, if you check out "modern slavery" on the web, you'll find it agrees with her figure of 27 million.

Here's a sample:

http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=375

Ending Slavery | Slavery 101 [Film] | Modern Slavery | Slavery In History
Modern Slavery Download Top 10 Facts About Modern Day Slavery

DG, on a business trip last year to Japan, I was required by my employer to take human trafficking awareness, prior to the trip. They wanted to be sure one could recognize it and stay away. If caught in an establishment during a raid where someone is being forced to work, one is guilty of contributing to it, even if they say they were unaware. Apparently it is a big problem there, so you can imagine how it is in less industrialized countries, especially in the sex business.

I still think there is a difference between slavery as described above in the picture and real slavery.

forced to work without pay under threat of violence and unable to walk away

That's a possible definition, but it's not really slavery.

For example, being forced to work with pay under threat of violence without a choice is not much different either. (And no, I am not referring to so-called "wage slavery" here. Wage slavery is a left-wing concept that dilutes the meaning of slavery even more.)

Slavery as I meant it is the concept that human beings can be owned by other human beings, that human beings are not free by default or not free forever.

While forced labour and human trafficking a horrible crimes, they are crimes and acknowledges as such by the perpetrators. The criminals in question do recognise a right to be free, they just ignore it. This makes a huge difference. It means that there is no automatic support in society for the crime.

But slavery in Mauritania and Sudan (and even to some extent in Iraq) is accepted by society, not only in those countries but world-wide because the regimes in question are independent countries with the right to do whatever they want in their territories. (Many a time did I wish that Sudan's leaders were Jewish so that the UN would take a much closer look at everything they do.)

Technically, the world does not accept as legitimate what those countries do, but the world does insist that it would be illegal to stop them. But a right that is illegal to enforce is not a right at all. And hence African slaves in those countries remain rightless.

Indentured servitude is an entirely different story. It's not right to mix it in with slavery at all. Indentured servants live horrible lives but they have (technically) chosen their fate, they do get paid, violence is used only to enforce the "contract", and they do get to leave after a number of years. And most importantly, their children do not inherit their status.