Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Neo-Scholastic]

All of which has nothing to do with Aquinas since he in no way defended slavery as practiced during his time. The original objection was that Scholastic philosophy did not support the concept of inherent natural rights - the same divinely provided natural rights to which the American Founding Fathers referred. I have adequately demonstrated that objection to be false. It should surprise no one that people throughout the ages do not always live up to the ideals they espouse. Failure of someone to practice an idea does not make the idea false.

Aquinas defended slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. He held that slavery could be consistent with natural law if it is imposed by positive law as punishment for crimes, and if such slavery did not violate the slave's rights to food, sleep, marriage (or celibacy), raising of their children, and religious worship (and anything else that pertains to natural law). Aquinas asserted that the children of a slave mother were rightly enslaved even though they themselves had not committed personal sin. He further argued that anyone who persuades a slave to escape is guilty of theft, because, while the slave is not himself property (a person cannot be property), his master has a right to the labor of that slave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...as_Aquinas

which, of course, is bullshit; my point stands -- morality evolves.  No one, except for a handful of cranks, thinks this way any more.

Funny how you completely neglected to consider this part that preceded the part you quoted...

"Aquinas explicitly rejected the notion that slavery is justified by natural law, since he held that all men are equal by nature.[53] For Aquinas, slavery only arises through positive law. Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all "rational creatures" are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, "thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion." Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for "one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end."

Context is everything which is something people don't find in Wikipedia searches. You might want to consider the issue from multiple sources. I suggest the following:

https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-...1612191290
https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Ancient-N...+near+east
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel-In...stitutions
https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Systems-Gre...1258157500