She also credited Christianity as the reason why women “were no longer considered like cattle” and “slaves were treated better”
That may be so*. But since then, we’ve gone further, to women being equal to men and slavery being fundamentally inacceptible.
And I will not deny that, in many cases, people arrived at these positions from Christian/Biblical moral principles… taking these further in defiance of mainstream Christianity and indeed other parts of the Bible. The Bible does not actually provide any well-defined non-contradictory moral code, and thus, anyone who builds one’s morality on the Bible inevitably, if usually not consciously, cherrypicks and interprets things according to one’s own agenda - and historically, those who used Christianity to argue for oppression have been very successful.
Certainly, Christianity included steps in the right direction. But secular moral philosophy does not deny that - instead we disentangle those parts from those aspects that are not oppressive, as well as the religious superstition, and combine and enhance it with both the wise parts of other traditions as well as our own original ethical reasoning, and thus transcend into something even better.
Meanwhile, you represent the worst aspects and interpretations of Christianity, and where wives and slaves were treated better after Christianisation**, it was in spite of your spiritual successors.
* But I doubt it, especially with this universality - a lot of pagan cultures, while certainly not up to modern equality standards, gave women more status and rights than contemporary Christian cultures or even their own christianised descendants, annd trans-Atlantic slavery was quite possibly the cruellest system of slavery, in particular to ancient Rome or the old Islamic world where at least certain types of slaves could wield considerable power and status and/or had pretty good chances to earn back their freedom with their (liberated or post-liberation, at least) descendants being able to advance with little stigma…
** an elephant in my room reminds me that, even if a social shift does occur with Christianisation (or any other conversion of a poeple), one should be careful to not commit the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. There could be any number of reasons not intrinsic to the new religion - influence from aspects of a conqueror’s culture not rooted in the religion, social changes due to new political realities such as internecine tribes being bound into a unified kingdom, life-changing technological advances… and perhaps particular relevant, especially to Meso-America, a shift may not come from the merits of the new religion, buz rather from the downfall of the old religion itself, as unpopular customs become obsolete with the end of the traditional institutions that enforced them.
PS:
Pool argued that the man performing the gesture mattered and not the gesture itself. Walsh said that “no one really believes that Elon Musk is a Nazi,”
Yes, how could anyone get the idea that the messianic megalomaniac who grew up in Apartheid South Africa, tolerates racial discrimination by his managers, who spends ever more of his time complementing the brainfarts of reactionary and eugenicist pseudo-intellectuals of his hate site, closely allies with a German far-right party that resents how Germany is committed to not sweep the atrocities of the Nazi era down the memory hole, and now made a gesture that for the last ninety-two years has been synonymous with the Nazis, could possibly be a Nazi?