Talk:Christian debate on persecution and toleration/Archive 1

Expansion

I'll expand this. Revolución 07:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't bother, the whole "Persecution by..." series is getting thumped in the VfDs. They're not going to make it. Babajobu 13:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That, I think, would be a great pity. Religious intolerance is a very real and important phenomenon, both past and present. You cannot study it properly just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. So the article should be kept and expanded, with a proper and detailed historical section. --Mario 16:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. Persecution occurs daily all over the world. -Usernamefortonyd

I agree completely, but the "how dare you speak ill of my people?!" brigades at the VfDs for the Muslim and Jewish versions of this article are destroying the whole series. Babajobu 20:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the article

do you think this article should be divided by time period or group that was persecuted? Revolución 02:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You forgot the thrid possible division, by sub-group of Christianity doing the persecution. Anyway, I think it should be divided by specific events and ordered chronologically. For example, one section for the Inquisition, one for the Salem Witch Trials, and so on. Each section would have a brief overview - where and when, which Christian sub-group, what was the theological backing, and the most defining moments - and a link to the Wikipage of that event. That's the way I see it making most sense. Ritchy 22 July 2005

I started the section on Rome. I was able to find a great deal of information on the persecution of pagans during the reign of the "Christian Emperors". Revolución 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the theological discussion should be in front in order to clarify which are the religious reasons for and against persecution. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate link

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

More History, More Facts, Less POV

It seems a bit odd that an article called "Historical persecution by Christians" would focus so little on historical events like The Crusades, the Purging, the Witch Trials, Oppression of christians and non-christians alike by the Church of England, the Fascist movement in Italy, modern persecution against homosexuals, and other related material. Why is the article written from a christian POV, focused mainly on biblical teachings, and so absent of objective historical facts and occurrences?

I would suggest that fewer quotes from the Bible be used, as the issue here are not rather or not the bible can be used to support persecution, but rather the history of persecution by christians. --User:LucaviX 01:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've addressed those points, though only sketchily in some cases. Your examples are idiosyncratic. the Church of England has not been especially notorious for persecutions, and I'm not sure why you mention Fascism. Yes, it had links to the Catholic church, but as the government of Italy it was bound to. It was not a specifically "Christian" movement. Paul B 14:37, 21 Aug 25 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no mention of the collusion of Franco's fascist Spain and the Christian Falangists. Murderbike 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

At least in what means Ancient and Medieval history the article is extremely biased and ignorant. Controversial events are given as certain (like Hypathia's death even though the Wiki's own article on Hypathia presents the multiple justifications for her death!), the quoted authorities are obsolete and with today widely admitted bias (e.g. Gibbon is a 18th century historian with anti-Christian discourse in a good Enlightenment fashion), the structure of the article is confusing (the persecution of Ancient Greek religion happened in the Roman Empire!!, Hypathia is a topic of focus both in the persecution of Roman religion and Greek religion), many claims are vague and unsourced ("priests were killed", "Jews were also persecuted [...] later elsewhere in Europe"), the list of conflicts between Christianity and other groups/individuals is not by far representative (it's rather spectacular than exemplifying), and last but not at least Christianity is presented as one large monolith, as a convenient scapegoat for many violent acts in the last two millenia.

Such an article and wide topic should be dealt with more care and seriousness. No serious bibliography at the end of the article, most of the external sites come with obvious agendas (Hindu nationalism, jesusneverexisted.com), and none of them addressed the Ancient and Medieval conflicts in the Christian world.

Generally in the article (and in the other articles on religious persecutions) there's absolutely no insight in why some events happened, what was the context (political, social, identity conflicts, how religion fit on all these), what are the causes, most of them simply paint institutionalized religion as a "bad guy", as an all-times scapegoat, therefore being against the Wikipedia's policy of NPOV.

Many people voted to keep the article, but few actually had to say something about it. I don't intend to rewrite it as it is a huge work, I'll just contest the NPOV and add the consequent tag. Daizus 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical Concerns

In both Historical persecution by Christians and Historical persecution by Jews countless grammatical errors have been found. I have cleaned many of them up, but lack the time to address them all. I request that the founders of these articles conduct proofreading on spell-checked versions, wait 10 minutes before posting, and then reread the content of each paragraph to ensure that proper grammar is used. --Lucavix 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Theological debate

As I put on the Muslim page a while back... there are not verses for and againt persecution for Christians. Those who allow certain forms of what is considered persecution read the Bible as a whole entity that favors persecution and those against it read the Bible as a whole and view it as against that persecution. Having "for" and "against" persecution it silly because that is not how it works... certainly Medieval Catholics emphasized Jews killing Jesus in justification for the Inquisition... however modern Catholics will read those same verses and not interpret them as for persectution. therefore it must be presented in terms of individual theologies and movements... not for and against. gren グレン 17:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the "for" and "against" should be merged? // Liftarn

Canadian "persecution"

I've cut out the following section added by Liftarn, sonce it seems to me to be absurd to consider free speech to be an example of "persecution by Christians".

Although Canada has clear laws against hate speech, intolerant messages can sometimes be aired under the guise of religious teachings. For example, according to data collected by the Wiccan Information Network' and reported by [1], 35 programs aired on Vision TV's Mosaic service in the mid-1990s included messages of religious intolerance. 34 of these programs were paid for by Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian groups, and most frequently targetted followers of non-Christian religions, homosexuals, followers of non-Evangelical Christian religions, political liberals and working mothers. However, it is worth noting that most of Vision TV's Christian programing is paid for by mainstream Christian groups and contains no such messages of hate.

I don't think this is appropriate for the following reasons:

1. Expressing an opinion is not persecution.
2. Are we to list here every country which allows Fundies to express their opinions? Why single out Canada?
3. Are we to say that negative opinions of Christianity expressed by peo-Pagans should be included in 'persecution of Christians'. Perhaps theDa Vinci Code should be listed in Persecution of Christians?

Can we get views on this to reach a consensus? Paul B 16:40 2 Sept 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. This example of persecution is ridiculous, especially considering it is placed alongside US examples of constitutional articles discriminating against non-religious people. If we start considering every minority group expressing a negative opinion of another group as "persecution", we'll never see the end of it. Moreover, considering such benign examples as equal to discriminatory constitutional articles shows a complete lack of judgement. -- Ritchy 2 September 2005.

Persecution is "persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". The question is when it can be considered mistreatment. Is it enough to promote mistreatment or is it persecution only when there is actual mistreatment? Should mistreatment by groups or individuals be included or is it only when the government promotes it? Also it's not really a question of "free speech", rather an abuse of it, ot would be better to call it "hate speech" or "incitement to hatred" because that is what it is. An example given is for instance the statement "that followers of a particular faith group routinely torture and kill babies". // Liftarn

If followers of a particular faith group do in fact kill babies, then it's not hate speech. And that's not an entirely silly comment, since there have been credible claims about some (often nominally Christian) African 'cults'. It's not that easy to distinguish hate from legitimate concerns. If christians genuinely believe that practicing homosexuality is ungodly, should they be considered to be "persecuters" if they express their opinion? We have to have some degree of rubustness here, or everyonew will be complaining of persecution in every culture that allows diversity of opinion to be expressed. You'd get the paradoxical notion that only by debnying the right of free expression do you avoid 'persecutiong' people for their beliefs. However, I don't object to a generic sentence being added that ststes that hellfire condemnations of unbelievers can produce feelings of psychological coersion that some people conmdider to be a form of persecution.Paul B 11:25 9 Sept 2005 (UTC)

well, let's say they don't kill babies. And hiding hate speech behind religion makes it no better (as for instance Christian Identity groups do). Saying that a group will burn in Hell is probably OK. If that group don't even beleive in the existance of Hell they will probably just ignore it. It's interesting to know that 97% of the episides that contained vicious religious intolerance originated from evangelical or fundamentalist Christian programs.[2] Examples of such intolerance was for instance "a call for the U.S. Federal Government to exterminate all followers of a specific faith group". // Liftarn

For certain definitions of history

SlimVirgin recently attempted to delete a swath of this article containing contemporary history about the topic of "Historical persecution by Christians". If anyone was wondering why, it was because she wanted to delete the contemporary history section from the Historical persecution by Jews article, and she needed to delete the equivalent section here so that no one could argue the articles didn't match. SlimVirgin has an editing history that reveals a rather strong pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish pov being inserted into articles. SlimVirgin has defined "history" to mean far enough in the past that the modern state of Isreal is not included. The contemporary section in the Historical persecution by Jews article is still gone. I've attempted to revert it, but SlimVirgin and Jayjg are a tag-team and reverted me. As long as that section remains deleted, SlimVirgin will need to delete the section in the Historical persecution by Christians article to keep things consistent. In case anyone sees it happen again, you'll know why. FuelWagon 23:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, she most likely deleted them to bring the articles in line with both their titles, and with the Historical persecution by Muslims article, and you appear to have been reverted by 6 different editors so far. Please keep in mind that the purpose of the talk page is to discuss article content, not for personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm, so two articles contain contemporary history (Jewish,Christian) and one article does not(Muslim). SlimVirgin deletes both Jewish and Cristian sections of contemporary history to bring them in line with the one Muslim article that didn't have such a section. Uh, yeah. that's followign precedence. Sure. FuelWagon 15:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You know nothing about these issues and you're here only because you're wikistalking me. I therefore assume you may not even have read the section you're defending, but you ought to, because it's absurd. This, for example, is unencyclopedic and almost offensive — along the lines of children in a playground shouting "they've killed more of us than we've killed of them" — without sources of course. (And that's without even going into the business of whether, when a Christian kills a Muslim, or vice versa, they are doing it qua Christian or Muslim, which raises yet another complication).

Since the nineteenth century non-Western Christians have been more likely to be victims of persecution than persecutors. However, some Muslims believe that recent geopolitical conflicts constitute a new "crusade" against Muslim peoples by the Christian west. The number of Muslims killed by other Muslims and the number of Christians killed by Muslims, however, are both about ten times as large as the number of Muslims killed by Christians.

And in the next section, examples of supposed persection by Christians include examples that are in fact aimed at protecting the rights of people holding religous beliefs, Christian and otherwise. The other examples, which would appear to bar atheists from holding office, would not be upheld by the Supreme Court, so to include them here without legal context is simply misleading. Below are the ones protecting those who hold religous beliefs of any kind (while not commenting at all on those who do not). Perhaps you can explain how these are examples of "historical persecution by Christians":

Maryland's Bill of Rights: Article 36: "nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.

Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: Article III: "make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."", "...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law"

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

All in all, it's a deeply problematic section, which is why I deleted it, as is the one in the Jewish article, as would be the one in the Muslim article, though thankfully there's no equivalent there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with some of these points then the best approach is to rewrite the section with more accurate information. Add the supreme court context, don't just remove the material that shows attempts to institute restrictions on non-believers. Inadequacies or inaccuracies are not a justification for deleting a section. Would you delete a whole article or a section because it was inadequate or would you try to improve it? Paul B 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that a section that isn't there in the Muslim article would be problematic if it was? How can you know? If it was accurate, it wouldn't be would it? Paul B 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul, to add a section analysing appeal court and Supreme Court decisions would take a lot of work and legal skill. By all means, go ahead if you want the section to remain, but be sure to source everything carefully so that it's not original research. But the section can't stay as it is without that analysis, because it's very misleading, and some of the examples, as I said above, don't even fit what's being claimed of them. Regarding the Muslim article, I can only imagine what people would find to throw into a contemporary "historical persecution by Muslims" section. It would be a POV magnet and a never-ending series of unpleasant revert wars, so I'm glad no such section exists. To say "if it was accurate, it wouldn't be ... [problematic]" indicates you don't keep an eye on the the Islam-related articles, which are subject to regular attacks. It's also impossible to say what "accurate" would mean in this context, which gets me back to the point I made earlier. If someone who happens to be a Muslim attacks someone who happens to be a Christian, are the attacker and attacked in role qua Muslim and Christian, or are these incidental factors, and who's to tell the difference? Sometimes it's clear, but more often than not, it isn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the only reason you want to delete the contemporary history from this article is because you want to delete the contemporary history from the Historical persecution by Jews article, because you're pushing your pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish POV. And I find your argument "it's too difficult to write neutrally, so we should delete it entirely" to be laughable. I've worked on far more difficult and controversial topics than this and it can be done. The thing is that you don't want it done and want to delete it completely. FuelWagon 18:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Having stalked me here, you're now engaged in WP:POINT, a violation of policy. You want to keep the Jewish contemporary section, so you have to keep this one. I suggest you read the disputed section, and comment on the discussion between Paul and myself, or else leave the page alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You want to delete the section critical of modern Isreal in the other article, so you have to delete the section here. You are pushing you own POV, which is a violation of policy. I suggest you stop pushing your POV or leave the page alone. FuelWagon 18:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think it looks like SlimVirgin is pushing a POV and using WP:POINT in doing so. // Liftarn

for certain definitions of sourced information

Ha, this is a good one [3] Apparently, wikipedia policy has been changed to demand multiple independent sources before we can report something. Is this a special rule just for articles critical of Israel? Good for a chuckle anyway... FuelWagon 04:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a special rule to keep some facts some editors don't like out of Wikipedia. They just keep demanding more and better sources until it's impossible to find any. // Liftarn

articleRfC

SlimVirgin deleted the contemporary history sections from both the Historical persecution by Christians [4] (21:10, 30 September 2005)and the Historical persecution by Jews [5] (21:09, 30 September 2005) articles. Both deletions occurred within a minute of each other. She and Jayjg argue that the Historical persecution by Muslims article doesn't have a contemporary section, and use that to justify the deletion of the contemporary sections from both the Christian and Jewish articles. Her argument appears to be claiming that the state constitution of Pennsylvania written 200 years ago, and the state of Israel founded in 1948, are not "historical".

However, looking at other edits that SlimVirgin has made to other articles about Israel, it would appear that SlimVirgin has a strong pro-Israel/pro-Jewish POV and that her intent was to delete criticism of the modern state of Israel, not to improve the article. However, she must delete the sections in both articles to maintain consistency. FuelWagon 19:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be focused on the motives of an editor, not on the contents of this article. What do you want done with it? Do you want the contemporary history section back? Let's focus on the article, not the editors. -Willmcw 20:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And if he wants to retain the section, how does he propose dealing with the many problems in it: the lack of sources, the failure to mention when these various bills of rights were instituted, when those particular sections were last cited in a case, what the current status of the sections is; and also the fact that some of them clearly aren't examples of persecution of anyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the main question of the article RfC is (1) should we keep the "contemporary" content and fix it, or (2) should we delete it? SlimVirgin is saying the content is too problematic and shoudl be deleted. I say she's pushing POV. And yes, the motives of an editor are fair game when POV pushing seems apparent such as this case. FuelWagon 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The perceived motives of the editor are entirely irrelevant. What matters is what's on the page. I've outlined the problems I saw with the material, which is why I removed it. You notably have failed to say a single thing about the content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the contemporary section should be kept and expanded. Sources are already given (there is a link to http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm where the information is from, the full tests are available from http://www.constitution.org/cons/usstcons.htm for those who want to dig deeper.) and I have extended it with more sources. When they were instituted is of little relevance as long as they are current, but it should be possible to find out. Getting informationabout when they were last used is probably tricky, but if someone feels the need to dig up that information it would ofcourse be interesting. You may also want to explain what you mean with "some of them clearly aren't examples of persecution of anyone". // Liftarn

Hi Liftarn, there are number of problems with the section, as I see it, but just to start with these:

History does not mean "in the distant past." History can mean as recently as yesterday. Logophile 13:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Specific problems with contemporary section

No sources or just one website as a source

The first problem is that the entire section as I recall relies on one website as a source, something run by Ontario Consultants for Religious Freedom. Do we know who they are, and whether they're reputable? And even if they are, does it make sense to have an entire section based on one source alone, and a source that appears to be partisan?

I have edited to include other sources. As far as I know the website is reliable. They also give the sources they have used. Considering they seem to be the best source available it is natural that it has been used much. By the way, I see no indication that they are partisan in either way. // Liftarn

U.S. section

Secondly, there are a few examples given that don't seem to me to be examples of anyone persecuting anyone else. For example (only for example, as I think there are others, but the following particularly confused me):

Maryland's Bill of Rights: Article 36: "nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.

Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: Article III: "make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."", "...every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law"

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Could you say how the first and third are examples of historical persecution by Christians (or by anyone)? And of the second, there are two quotes, both lifted out of context, which may or may not matter, but we can't tell. The first quote doesn't seem to support the idea of persecution. I can see that the second quote is dodgy, but I'd like to know what the first part of the sentence said. And of all the sections, we have to know that they're actually in force and haven't been ruled unconstitutional. That's not just an extra piece of information that could be included; I see it as essential if the section is to remain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Maryland's Bill of Rights: Article 36 states that atheists and agnostics are not reliable as witnesses nor jurors. Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights: Article III states that only Christians are protected by the law. Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4 says that atheists and agnostics may be "disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit". As the article now states they are current, but in theory the first ammendment nullifies them just as the text in the article says. Btw, I have also added links to the full texts of the bills/declarations when I found one. // Liftarn

Liftarn, please follow policy and address these issues rather than reinserting the material. I'm challenging this material under Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are both policy. Any editor has the right to remove material that is unsourced or sourced to unknown websites. I'm happy to see the section restored so long as it's sourced properly and well written, but as it stands, it's unencyclopedic and embarrassing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it very strange that you choose those to challenge the content of the article. It's clearly not original research ("Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere"). The information is also easily verifiable (just folow the link). And as I have stated several times now, I have added several additional sources. // Liftarn

Beginning of comtemporary section

The section below is completely unsourced and reads like a personal essay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the nineteenth century non-Western Christians have been more likely to be victims of persecution than persecutors. However, some Muslims believe that recent geopolitical conflicts constitute a new "crusade" against Muslim peoples by the Christian west. The number of Muslims killed by other Muslims and the number of Christians killed by Muslims, however, are both about ten times as large as the number of Muslims killed by Christians.

Agree. It should probably be cut or completley rewritten, but note for instance Tenth Crusade. // Liftarn

Ridiculous. Depite what many believe, the U.S. has clear seperation of church and state. It is the state who went to Iraq, not the church! Yes, there are Christians in Iraq. There are also atheists. And to say that the U.S. Army is persecuting Muslims is, to be frank, just one person's opinion. Others would disagree. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is specious. In addition, what is with the huge cluster of offsite references toward the end of this section? If an editor has that much info, maybe they should consider expanding the paragraph by filling in more explicit info for each ref? If not, perhaps consider reducing the number to the best three. It seems that three refs should satisfy most, if not all, readers/users. The conglomeration makes the paragraph extremely clunky. Phyesalis 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Country descriptions other than U.S.

(1) The section on Canada is entirely unsourced. "Many Neopagans who are open with their religion are the target of economic and physical attacks. They are perhaps the most persecuted religious group on a per-capita basis. Most of them are not open with their religion. Battles fought in courts over child custody by separated or divorced parents where on of the parents belong to a minority religion sometimes results in one of the parents being forbidden to teach his or her religion to their child."

(2) The section on Greece is sourced only to religioustolerance.org. "In Greece the Greek Orthodox church is given priviledged status and only Greek Orthodox church, Roman Catholic, some Protestant churches, Judaism and Islam are recognized religions.[1] The Muslim minority is often percecuted.[2]"

(3) Section on Mexico sourced only to religious tolerance.org "According to a Human Rights Practices report by the U.S. State Department note that "some local officials infringe on religious freedom, especially in the south". There is conflict between Catholic/Mayan syncretists and Protestant evangelicals in the Chiapas region. [3]"

(4) Section on Uzbekistan sourced onlu to religious tolerance.org, and it's not even explained what's meant by "imprisoned for their faith." "Even if Uzbekistan have improved their level of religious freedom over 200 individuals remain imprisoned for their faith. [9]"

The above are the problems that need to be resolved before the section can be reinserted. And the other U.S. bills of rights not mentioned above need to be sourced properly, and mention should be made of whether they're regarded as still in force, constitutional, and enforceable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that says the source given is unreliable in any way? You can't just invent new rules that says that several sources are needed. // Liftarn

Okay, then one source, but not an unidentified website. Also, could you address the point I've made twice above that some of the bills of rights quoted aren't even about persecution by Christians? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The bills are such clear examples of persecution that no explanation should be necessary and I have also explained it earlier. If you had bothered to check you would have noticed that I have added several other sources except for what you incorrectly call "an unidentified website". I'm Ok with removal of Uzbekistan since it's unclear if it's an actual case of persecution by Christians. Section on Mexico has several sources. Greece also has several sources. Canada has a source so it's not unsourced, however it may have to be dropped since it's not clear it's actually Christians who do the persecution even if it's highly likley. There are however better examples. // Liftarn

Another editor has just pointed out to me that this website has been discussed elsewhere and rejected as dodgy. It's run by a retired engineer, a nurse, a researcher in urban planning, an IT systems manager, and an unemployed waitress. There's no way this can count as a credible source for Wikipedia in the area of religion or theology. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are policy. I'm going to remove everthing that relies on this website. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

So an unnamed editor pointed it out in a discussion in an unnamed place. Sorry, that's not good enough. I also fail to see why the profession of the peeople behind the site is of any relevance. I'm revering your deletions based on your failure to give a sensible motivation. // Liftarn

I provided that information to SlimVirgin and it was discussed previously on Talk:Common Era, where the debate centred not so much on whether it was a good source, but on whether it was so poor a reference that it should not even be mentioned as an external link. Opinions were divided on the matter. What SlimVirgin states is broadly correct, although really it is the retired engineer, who freely admits to having no academic training whatsoever in this area, who really runs the site, with almost all articles being written by him. His Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is just him and his four friends. This information should be available on the religioustolerance.org website if you look for it (that's where I got it from when engaging in the Talk:Common Era debate. This makes the religioustolerance.org entirely unsuitable as a reliable source.

I have only ever looked into one article on the website in any detail (it was the one defending his usage of common era date notation), and the conclusions to that article contradicted the sources he had quoted - which further emphasises why we shouldn't rely on it. Of course, the information in the article that was referenced to religioustolerance.org may, for all I know, still be true (and I don't personally wish to get involved in that debate) - but if it is true an alternative reliable source should be available and it is that alternative source that we should reference, jguk 18:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell what religioustolerance.org does is assembling information from other sources and presenting it so the information from there is available elsewhere, but it may need a bit more digging and some links have expired. But the major problem is that SlimVirgin deletes an entire section even if religioustolerance.org is just one of many sources. For instane notice the section on Canada [6] There SlimVirgin deleted the entire section even if it has another source as well (it would be easy to dig up several more sources, but the problem is they are quite overwhelming (for instance containing the full text of the debate)). The only text that exclusivley relies on religioustolerance.org is the first section about the persecution of Neopagans. // Liftarn

ACTUAL persecution in the USA

Since the Bill of Rights invalidates the various state constitutions' requirements of theism, are there any actual instances of contemporary persecution that ought to be mentioned? KHM03 17:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So, if a state constitution forbids someone who denies the existence of "the almighty god" from running for political office, how exactly does that not qualify as "actual" persecution? If the federal bill of rights overrides that requirement, then the requirement is no longer active, but this is the "historical" persecution article, and reporting a state constitution containing persecution is still history, even if a federal bill of rights somehow overrides that persecution at a later date. In short, it was actual persecution when the state constitution in question was ratified and that's what this article is reporting on. FuelWagon 22:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if a footnote could be provided to cite and explain any judicial tradition that eventually interpreted the Bill of Rights as over-riding the federalist principle.

Under the Bill of Rights, states at one time had establishment religions (state support of a Christian denomination) which all of the states voluntarily eliminated early in the 19th century, and not under Constitutional challenge.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Accordingly religious tests and mandatory prescribed oaths survived at the state and local levels well into the 20th century. What has changed? When did it change? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

But if no one is being denied rights, then where is the persecution? Who exactly is experiencing persecution? KHM03 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a persecution of words, even if it's not a persecution of deed. It basicly says that they would like to persecute non-Christians if not the federal bill stopped them. And as said above, it was indeed valid when it was written and why has it been kept? // Liftarn

My guess is it was left for historical reasons. But it's meaningless, and there's no persecution from it. So...is there no persecution by Christians in the USA? Is that the best we can come up with? KHM03 23:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is an ultimately numbing use of the words, that "discrimination" has become a synonym for "persecution". It turns everybody into supposed victims. Christians too, often claim to be "persecuted" when what they mean is that their beliefs are denied expression, or are used against them to deny their fitness for office. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Christians often claim that they are persecuted when they no longer can persecute other religions freely. // Liftarn

I agree that the U.S. examples are silly. This is overall a very silly article, but the contemporary section is the worst. I've removed the references to religioustolerance.org, which is run inter alia by a retired engineer, a nurse, and an unemployed waitress. On their shoulders rested Wikipedia's entire case for contemporary "historical" persecution by Christians. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

They are far from silly. Persecution is "persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". So according to you it would not be persecution if a government put up benches with a sign saying "Whites only" and then say that it's OK because it's not enforcable. And as I said, the professions hardly matter and as I now have stated numerous time there are several other sources in the article. // Liftarn

Well, no, the professions matter a great deal. We wouldn't use a theologian as a source on how to build a bridge, and for the same reason, we don't use a retired engineer for an article on religion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, since religioustolerance.org no longer is used as a source it's a moot point. // Liftarn

Since Jews and Muslims believe in God, the religious tests in state constitutions cannot be seen as Christian persecution against non-Christians. 76.202.131.197 07:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can, they only happen to (by accident rather than by design) also include the other Abrahamic religions. // Liftarn

Christian response

Arcan, I would prefer it if Christian responses be kept direct, specific to the allegation, and (ideally) sourced. The reason is that many things listed on the page do not appear to me to be "persecution" from a Christian perspective at all. Pluralism is not Christianity; and Christian offenses against the tenets of pluralism are not considered sins, except by Christian pluralists. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words

Is someone going to try to fix those weasel words? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess you refer to the section under "Cited by persecutors". It should be done, but how? I have given it a try, but there are some trickier sections I haven't managed to fix yet. // Liftarn

Recent edits

This is not a well-written or well-researched article, and some recent edits are making it worse. Perceived unfairness in Canada is not the same as persecution by Christians. There is no persecution by the Canadian government qua Christians; it is a secular government. If we're going to claim such persecution exists, it has to be unambiguous and very well-sourced. Similarly with some of the other examples: just because atheists or Wiccans feel they're being unfairly treated does not mean they're being (a) persecuted by anyone, or (b) persecuted by Christians. Please don't keep putting these sections back in, unless excellent sources are found, and then please stick closely to what the sources say without elaborating and turning it into a personal essay.

I also removed the sentence about "this is an example of affirming the consequent," because it seemed not to be, but even if it was, I didn't see the relevance of mentioning it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is about persecution by Christians, not just christian goverments. // Liftarn

Well, SlimVirgin, since your purpose here is simply to delete the contemporary history in this article so that you can delete the contemporary history from the Jewish Persecution article, your arguments are rather hollow. HOwever, just to make clear that your "does not mean they're being ... persecuted by Christians" argment is empty, I've answered a couple of specifics below:

"How is this persecution by Christians per se, rather than religious people versus atheists?: During the Cold War, the United States often characterized its opponents as Godless Communists"

we can certainly find some self-declared christians who used the phrase "Godless communists", therefore it belongs in this article, at the very least. If some people who used the phrase were Jewish or Muslim, then we can add "godless communist" to those articles as well as examples of persecution by those faiths.

And considering the demographics (and since the phrase wasn't "G-dless communists" or "communist infidels") we can be quite certain that it was the christian god the phrase refered to. // Liftarn

"How is this persecution by Christians as such?: Senator Jesse Helms (R, NC) introduced a bill in Congress in 1986 to remove tax exempt status from existing Wiccan groups and prevent any new groups from being recognized."

Since "Christian Coalition of America" [7] seem to honor Jesse Helms as a fellow christian, and since "Media Research" [8] says "Helms, ... revere traditional Christian values", it seems safe to say that Helms is Christian. Therefore, a christian legislating a bill that would discriminate against wiccans would seem to qualify for this article. FuelWagon 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That is original research! You are extrapolating what may not be there! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Did it pass? What persecution resulted from the new law? KHM03 17:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It was thrown out since it was not considered a budget issue. Two other attempts was made, one was dropped following the failure of Helms it was whitdrawn. The Robert S. Walker bill (HR 3389) was tabled and quietly ignored until the congress closed. I have added some more text and sources to make it clearer. // Liftarn

We've been through these arguments at Christianity and Criticisms of Christianity. It's misleading to group modern issues of tax and discrimination with the torture chambers of the middle ages. I'm not denying that there is such a thing as persecution by Christians in modern times, but this article is called Historical persecution by Christians, not Modern discrimination by Christians. And the article says, near the beginning,

This persecution has included unwarranted arrest, war, inquisition, imprisonment, beating, rape, torture, execution or ethnic cleansing. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate non-Christians.

Throwing wiccans into prison for refusing to attend Christian services would qualify as "persecution by Christians"; removing tax-exempt status does not. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. KHM03 11:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. While removing the tax-exempt status for some non-Christian religions may not be as bad as rape and torture it's still a form of persecution. That the article (atleast now) also covers modern history. Just out of curiosity. When, in your oppinion, did history end? // Liftarn 13:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What was the reason they wanted to lift the tax-exempt status? What is the background to this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not only "not as bad", how is it a crime of any kind if some groups are not recognized as religions qualifying for tax-exempt status? In fact, I'm sure you can find numerous christian groups that fail this test, on various grounds. Some of them exist for no other purpose than to avoid taxation. Some "charities" also lose their tax-exempt status, because they fail to meet the required definition. Failure to implement anarchy is not "persecution". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not the question of "some groups" but an entire religion. Let's say the tables were turned. What would you say about a law that made all Christian groups lose their tax-exempt status? // Liftarn

The question above is probably not directed at me, but anyway, I wouldn't call it persecution. Persecution was what Nero did to Christians. And I believe it does happen in some places that Catholic charities lose their tax-exempt status for refusing to compromise on abortion or contraception, for example. While they might find that annoying and inconvenient and unfair, the leaders of such charities do not consider that their treatment is the same as being thrown to the lions or set on fire. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Your example is flawed. As I said above what we're talking about it like making all Christian groups lose their tax-exempt status, not just a select few based on theirs views on this or that. // Liftarn

And that's discriminatory, and that's a bad thing. But that isn't persecution. Where's the rape? The torture? The murder? The systematic violent brutalization of children? You've proven discrimination; now what about actual persecution? KHM03 12:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

See Persecution that defines it as "persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". Denying members of a certain religion the benefits members of other religions enjoy do qualify as religious persecution. // Liftarn 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware that Christian groups have tax-exempt status in America... is this the case? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears they do, if they don't get involved in political activities. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if this should be added, but...

Just cruising by (didn't read the whole talk page, so if this is addressed elsewhere, i'm sorry). What about persecution of the native people / american indians in north / south america by the european settlers (predominately christian)? I'm sure there were many reasons why they were persecuted, but i'm also fairly sure religion was part of it too. I also think that maybe such an article for "Native American persecution" should be added if there is sufficient reason (considering that there are various articles for specific persecutions of other peoples). I don't mean to seem lazy, but I don't know too much about this topic myself so i don't think i'm the one to add it (plus, considering how much controversy is in this article, i don't want to add something someone's just going to delete and say is unnecessary later anyway). Just a thought. thnx

Rmoved Linls

The linskl section is terible. Firts off, I had to rmeove two links. The oen ot he Malleus Mallifactgorum served no purpose whatsoever in this article. The pothe rlink was less a study in CHristain persecution and just anothr "Christaisn suck, they killed the oh so great Pagans" site, with obviosu Bias.

At the same time, serious Hisotrical sites DO exist and ARE NOT linked. Ill try this week to find them, and place them in, but can soemone ehelp by adding real links?Thanks.

ZAROVE 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I thrice reverted. Please dont just revert back. SOem infor was litelrlay wrong. ( Esp. After soem peopel decidd to trash CHristainity.)

No, Im nto here just as a vlaieant zealot her eot defend the faith.

I am however concerned withthe free wheeling of it. IE, false arguments.

Try reaidng my verison and actulaly seeing what it says, before blidnly reverting . OK?

ZAROVE 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your grammar and spelling is absolutely atrocious. No way that belongs in an encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand it if you dyslexic or otherwise disabled, and would not want that to prevent you from editing wikipedia. However, could you please try harder to run your edits through spell check, or have another editor help out with your copy editing before you add it to the main article. Basic spelling mistakes are clearly not encyclopedic, and I believe other editors would take you more seriously if we didn't have to translate and fix all of your edits before making them 'normal'. On another note, I'll see if I can't find any better links.--Andrew c 14:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying, btu earlier Ihad a few Christainity-based articles to sift through. See, some trolls cameon, and decided to slant WIkipedia in the Anti-CHristian direction. ( Im not usually interested in CHristianity based articles, ironicllay...)

So, I got a bit carried away on fixing the articles by rmeovign superfluous, false, or otherwise biased entries. Its the same set of trolls one ach article,and they ar eonly interested in Christ-related entries, and makign themselves appear to be contributors on other articles otherthns one contested one.

Im just tryign to reverse the damages relaly.

ZAROVE 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism by User:Maintenance

There has been some serious vandalism by Maintenance who has deleted the content of the Historical persecution by Christians article and replaced it with content from this article, then renamed it as persecution of Christians - leading to the absurd merger suggestion between articles that are supposed to refer to opposed concepts/events (though of course there always was some overlap because much persecution of Christians has been by other Christians). Ideally we should have identical titles for these articles - both "historial Persecution...", or both just "Persecution...". I have tried to reverse things, but have, sadly created a bit of a mess myself by cutting-and-pasting, leading to some pretty chsaotic redirects and loss of edit histories. Paul B 16:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

revert back any recent edits (but remember what they were)

then undo what you did, in reverse order,

then undo what they did, in reverse order

then put back in the recent edits

- that should fix it Clinkophonist 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler?

Under the "Cited by persecutors" heading it currently says

(citation added, Kramer and Sprenger refrerence; for Hitler citation I offer tentatively: The Holocaust.) Hitler was anti-Christian as says the article "Nazism" in Encarta and the lengthy French biography "La montée d'Hitler" by a specialist of international policy.

It looks messy and I dont understand what it's refering to. I've commented the section out until someone can explain what it's doing there and have it cleaned up. // Liftarn 08:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler? wasn't he Roman Catholic? I don't think his actions were motivated by his religious opinions, but by Germanic cultural ones. Nor do I think very many people would argue that he was motivated by his religion to persecute those that he did. This article isn't really "..persecution by people that happened to be Christian.." but "..persecution due to Christianity" Otherwise we could list all famous murderers who happened to be Christian, all psychopaths, etc. And McCarthy. Clinkophonist 20:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't Christian, even if he called himself one. --KCMODevin 11:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

KCMODevin, you do not decide the relion that people have. christian sects have varied degrees of beliefs, many of which call each other cults. this is not a neutral pov. anyways, onto my point. hitler was obviously anti-semetic, from what i have read, hitler was indeed NOT a christian, however tried to hush the issue in order to gain popular favour. he had the common sense to know that if someone devotes their life to what he might dub "colourful imagination" (i.e Christianity) he POSSIBLY would lose their support. 71.52.182.244 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Now this is a sticky wicket. Perhaps we could break persecutions down first by origin, first "Persecutions by Organized Churches" for things like heresy (of which the Bible is not the primary source BTW), then by "Persecutions by Christians Adherents", and then have a section titled something like, "Persecutions in the Name of Christianity" or "Political Persecutions in the Name of Christianity"? Then each section could be broken down by chronology. Hitler is extremely problematic. There is argument to support the assertion that he was a Christian, an atheist and a Deist of sorts. Normally, I would say to go with the one the person self-identified as, but there is also argument for the fact that Hitler used Christianity as a blind. I wouldn't feel comfortable stating anything about what he believed. His personal beliefs were subjective and, given all the conflicting info about them, an illegitimate area of speculation. Cases like Hitler should have ample space to allow for divergent factual evidence, IMO. Phyesalis 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

scare quotes

Why is the word christian in quotes several times?

Whitewashing attempt? // Liftarn

Other forms of persecution

The types of persecution listed here are rather limited to persecution of other religions. What about cases where Christians have in the past used the Bible to excuse racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry? I would imagine it wouldn't be a large area in here, mainly just linking to other articles, but I can't see why it is not in here at all. -Erolos 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have they used it in an official position as Christians the group, or as a significantly large set of Christians, or do you mean individual people who happen to be Christian and happen to have cited the Bible to excuse bigotry? The latter does not really belong in this article any more than ...persecution by Christians would include mention of Hannibal Lector briefly citing the Bible. Clinkophonist 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking of something like Christian Identity? // Liftarn

"Scripture"

The article currently contains the text "In the Old Testament, which Christians consider inspired Scripture".

As the Old Testament is itself part of Scripture, the sentence is nonsensical.

Furthermore, it's too weak. The Old Testament undoubtedly influenced Jesus and the writers of the Gospels.

I suggest ditching "which Christians consider inspired Scripture".

Any comment before I do something foolish? --Dweller 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

I think the Colonialism section should be expanded and divided into subcategories by region:

-the Americas (North and South)... should be a huge secton -Asia (with particular emphasis on India) -Africa

Maybe a an "expansion" template should be added. I don't know if their is one.

Your thoughts? comment by user Kitrus

Certainly not in this article as the colonalism you suggest , is not Christian based. For instance the early settlers of the US were seeking freedom of religion rather than religious colonialism.--CltFn 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Consider the Catholic invasion of Central and South America. The Catholic Church and its priests played a major role in the colonization of those areas, a role that is arguably in existence today. British Christians also played a significant role in the orientalizing of Indian culture and Hinduism. using their white Western Christian identity as a justification for their imperialsim, an imperialism almost inextricable for its w/w/C identity. My understanding of Western European imperialism is that the degradation/wiping out of indigenous religons is central to the process. I think there are cases to be made for this. Maybe under the "Political/Persecution in the Name of Christianity" category that I've suggested? Thoughts? Phyesalis 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Phyesalis, you say you're not sure about this. I'm very sure about this. The Church (Catholic, Mormon, etc.) was integral to the colonizing missions of Europe. By ignoring this, you ignore a large and important aspect of Colonial subjugation. Christianity was used, in many instances, to justify Imperial violence and Colonial institutions like slavery. Also, since we don't have "in the name of" for various Islam-related articles, it wouldn't be fair or neutral to do it for Christianity-related articles.

What we do need to add to the article is the the creation of Christian schools in Africa and Latin America and the subsequent brainwashing of indegenous children; Sanctioning of slavery by the Church in the early periods of British settlement of America; Mormon clashes with Native Peoples in the early West; and a huge section on the Spanish Catholic Church's creation of economic dependancy, and oftentimes forced conversion of Amerindian tribes.

Any other suggestions would be welcome.--Kitrus 05:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Church was integral to imperial goals of wiping out indigenous religions and general subjugation. I'm not sure where you think I'm trying to ignore anything (I often start with "I'm not sure" when entering a group debate - I might not have a good understanding at the beginning). Is that Kitrus, or was the paragraph above Kitrus unsigned? What I'm not sure of is how to go about including it in the article. Besides, can't we just do the same thing for the Muslim article, go over and add the section, thus making them the same? And can someone point me to where I can find more info about these articles needing to be reciprocal? I'm not sure I understand the details. Thank you. Phyesalis 06:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Theological Debate of Persecution

currently reads: "Christian theology derives its sources from the teachings and actions of Jesus as codified in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament and several other sources depending on the Christian denomination. This makes the Bible, especially the canonical Gospels, the primary source in order to classify persecution by Christians as either religiously motivated persecution or ethnic persecution. Some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, give weight to oral tradition." and then goes on to list the cited examples. This needs major work. First its used as a sub-title covering; the layout implies that all the cited persecutions fall under the aegis of "Theological Debate of Persecution" when the article is about the historical persecution. Is this a problem with the wording of the title, is it not sufficiently differentiated from the rest of the article body? Also, what's the deal with "This makes the Bible, especially the canonical Gospels, the primary source in order to classify persecutions by Christians..." This is a specious assertion lacking any citation, reliable or otherwise. I suggest deleting that line and doing something about the layout implications. Phyesalis 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Hebrews and Pagans

'the Hebrew people coexisted with Pagans who not only believed in many gods, but often practiced "sorcery."'

I... I... what? This seems like utter nonsense. If you can't find a citation, I think it's better removed from this article.

Serious Clarification Needed

Saying "Christians have persecuted Jews" is a universal positive statement, and that is not the kind that belongs in Wikipedia. The article, and all articles of this nature, should refer to specific groups and/or individuals.

MVMosin 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed and original reserach concerning northern Europe

We have a citation that says "Neither Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter (v. Padberg, 1998) nor Europas Norden im Mittelalter (Kaufhold, 2001) use the term 'religious persecution' to describe the violence that occurred between Christian and Pagan fractions during that period.". I believe that this is original research. We are using an argument from silence to support something. An examination of two German texts for the word "religious persecution" (or the German equivalent) does not mean the sentence is sourced. We need a citation that explicitly says this or else we fall into original research.-Andrew c 00:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The books I quoted are not two random German books I just picked. They are the basic history books in German on this topic.

Lutz von Padberg and Martin Kaufhold are Professors for history at German Universities. The only reason I did not use an English history book on this topic was, that I coundn't get one here.

What is to be meant by religious persecution is ill-defined and vastly overstretched. The whole 'religious persecution' series suffers from suffers from this error. From reading the article it seems as if someone has listed a series of cases in which Christians have killed other people to use it as a charge against Christianity.

Now, if a Christian missionary is killed in early medieval Germany by a group a bandits (who happen to be Pagans), would you describe that as religious persecution by Pagans? And if fractions of Christian and Pagan Chieftains fight for the crown in, say, Norway, and both sides kill members of the other side - is this a religious or a political conflict?

If you want to find a serious historian who bluntly speaks of religious persecution here, good luck. I would suspect there is none. You know that religion and politics were not separated until the secularization, not several hundred years later.

You have noticed that I was rather careful with the wording. If you find a scholar who discusses in depth whether one can speak of religious persecution here, this would be really helpful. But I would be seriously offended if you demand that I have an overview of the whole literature on a field to be allowed to edited Wikipedia. Unlike some other editors I at least try to base the facts on serious literature. (It still says, that the Temple at Uppsala was 'probably' destroyed by Christians, without reference. Haven't found that in the literature yet.) -Zara1709 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is some English literature, taken from the Bibliography in the book by v. Padberg:

• Atlas of Medieval Europe, MacKay /Ditchburn, 1997
• The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity 200-1000 Ad(Making of Europe), Peter Brown, 1997

-Zara1709 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying that you don't speak The Truth. And I'm not saying you need to review all of the literature. I am saying, the current citation is unacceptable for wikipedia standards. The statement is not attributed to any source. It is an argument from silence, saying "this information isn't found in source X and source Y, therefore I can draw these conclusions". Unfornuately, that is original research, which is forbidden here at wikipedia. While you may be right, the current statement is not verifiable. You see what I'm saying? We just need a direct citation for the claim. What I personally think may be a better idea, is instead of adding this unsourced commentary as a rebuttle to the topic sentence, we should simply just fact tag the disputed sentence in the first place, and cut out the commentary. If we cannot find a citation for the initial claim, then we don't need to have a rebuttle. -Andrew c 14:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just meet a professors for church history at my university on my way home from the library. We had a short talk, and I mentioned that I'm bothered by the question, if the Christianization of Europe could be understood as religious perseuction. He said: "That is nonsense!" (in German, of course) The only case in which on could debate this question are the saxon wars. There was a debate on that in Germany in the 1930s.

Concerning the question of original research, I have real difficulties to understand your problem. Let me quote from Europas Norden im Mittelalter:

"Wenn wir annehmen, daß im Hintergrund der Auseindersetzung um die Einführung des Christentums ein Kampf um die Ansprüche der auf die Königsmacht in Norwegen stand, können wir die Gewaltätigkeit, mit der König Olav Tryggvason in den Jahren vor der Jahrtausenwende die Bekehrung seiner Landsleute vorantrieb, besser verstehen." (p.83)

which translates as:

"If we assume, that the battle about the pretensions on the crown of the King (Königsmacht) formed the background of the struggle about the Introduction of Christianity in Norway, we can understand the violence of King Olav Tryggvason when he promoted the conversion of his fellow Norwegians (Landsleute) in the years before the turn of the millennium better."

You will notice that Kaufhold merely suggests how to explain the violence that took place. (If we assume, that ... then we can understand better.) Here he refuses a 'religious persecution explanation' only indirectly. The whole book (as far a I remember) does not mention if such an explanation has ever been suggested or why it would be wrong (what would really be useful here). However, he does not hold that view himself. Similarly in the other history book I mentioned.

I didn't really put in that much thought when I wrote those two sentences. Reliable, basic literature does not use the term 'religious persecution' here, but it isn't that specific about other explanations. Hm, paraphrase this as: 'could better be explained as...' Of course, more details would be nice, but I thought I could add them later. Just prevent the readers from some of the false (or at least dubious) allegations.

I can understand your concern here, but on the other hand literature on this topic is not hard to find. And I'd like to doubt that I'm the only one who considers this matter important enough to waste some time reading books on it. -Zara1709 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of opinion in introduction

The introduction flatly asserts that Christianity's history of persection should not constitute an indictement of Christianity. This assertion is supported by a quoted opinion from Hannah Arendt. However, this is hardly a neutral statement. One could just as easily argue that the prevalence of persecutorial conduct by Christians over the past two millenia is indica that their religion is somehow flawed. For a more neutral POV, the this assertion should be removed.

Whether there was a "prevalence of persecutorial conduct by Christians over the past two millenia" is actually the question. Augustine of Hippo did advocate 'mild forms' of persecution, but not murder. Thomas Aquinas on the other hand did advocate the murder of heretics. Many such distinctions have to go into the article. Sometimes Christianity was a persecution religion, sometimes it was not. If you want to put the charge of religious persecution against Christians, you can only charge individual Christians, and those who followed their orders. You can not possibly argue that Christians who opposed religious persecution of religions are guilty of religious persecution, but such would be the indictment of all Christianity. The assertion Christianity is good is as false as the assertion that Christianity is evil. Of course there should be an article on religious persecution by Christians, and this prohibits any general assertion about Christianity. I think that statement by Hannah Arendt expresses this quite clearly. If this is POV, I will insist that it is the only POV under which one can treat the topic adequately. -Zara1709 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I cannot understand why Arendt's analysis is the only rubric underwhich we can examine the historical fact that Christians qua Christians have engaged in persectorial acts throughout the history of their religion. I again request that this non-neutral POV be removed as it is unhelpful. --Wombattery 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt is a renowned historian and most likely knew more about the history of Christianity than we both will ever now. Of course, there are people who argue that the violence in Christian history is the result of the violent nature of Christianity. However, from the historical facts that I know I could never agree with that thesis. I can't understand how anyone who adheres to the historical facts, and does not only use the ones that fit in his world-view, could seriously argue an indictment of all Christianity. However, since that POV obviously exists, and it is highly relevant here, I can't deny that it should be mentioned in the article. If you know a good or acceptable quote for that, please add it. The only way to achieve a NPOV here is to add both POVs, since the topic is to controversial. Both sides would need to be mentioned in the article. Arendt's statement expresses my POV quite good, and I don't thing that I could accept the article if it doesn't mention the controversy. -Zara1709 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully continue to disagree with your position. First of all, despite Hannah Arendt's pre-eminence as a moral philosopher (not a historian of Christianity), her statement is still an assertion of her subjective opinion, not a statement of verifiable fact. Arendt's authoritative position does not obviate the bias of her assertion. Secondly, and more fundamentally, I believe that your position that the "only way to achieve a NPOV here is to add both [biased] POVs" is incorrect. It seems to me that the simplest way to achieve NPOV anywhere is to eschew the presentation of biased assertion as neutral facts altogether. It does make sense to discuss controversies regarding persecution by Christians where assertions of opinion are properly identified as such. However, I cannot see how allowing a multiplicity of such opinion statements to fester can possibly serve to promote NPOV.--Wombattery 13:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "One should also think of the ethical, political and even existential consequences of such an indictment." should absolutely be taken out, Wikipedia is not here to tell people what they should "think of". Murderbike 18:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Christians have constantly persecuted non-Christians ????

The article goes on to list persecutions from the time of Constantine to Cromwell. That is roughly from 300 AD to 1750 AD and is thus hardly 'constant' by any means. More acurately, one could claim that for approximately 13 centuries there were continual persecutions by some Christians.

The whole tenor of this article is exagerated, overly broad and without a doubt lacking a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk • contribs)

True, before 300 AD there was little persecution by Christians. // Liftarn

I thought I would give up editing this article, because I didn't see any point in it. But this is just going too far... -Zara1709 14:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Christians and Germanic Pagans

I just found out that Liftarn had reverted the Persecution of Germanic Pagans again. I find this rather annoying. Either you have a historian that speaks of Persecution of Germanic Pagans, and than you can tell me who that is, or you don't have one. Since I don't know anyone that speaks of religious persecution of Germanic pagans, and I by now have a reasonable overview about this, I though I stop working on Nazi occultism for a while and try to find out how those historians explain the violence that did occur. I still need some time with this, so don't give me an edit war about this, while I'm working on it. I feel quite angry. There is a huge difference between the sentences "Charlemagne is known for his violence against the pagan Saxons", and "Christians have persecuted Germanic Pagans". The latter is judgement of very large groups, and as such quite incorrect, because you would only have to find a single one Christian that opposed it. That was the reason I brought in Hannah Arendt in previously. Of course one has to debate the violent history of Christianity, but you have to name the persons responsible. -Zara1709 06:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Paul Barlow: I knew that the quote from the Odinic Rite article was historically irrelevant. However, in the discussion about Persecution of Germanic Pagans it became obvious that there is an elemental confusion about what should be understood as Religious Persecution, much like in the main article on this, too. Therefore I added a quote from the Odnic Rite Site to make clear, in what sense one must not speak of religious persecution here. Currently, I have resolved this by quoting the Odinic Rite indirectly: "Allegations that there was a systematic elimination of anyone who was pagan are definitely wrong." That there was a 'Persecution of Germanic Pagans' in this sense is not only POV and not supported by the fact according to the history books; From my work on Varg Vikernes I would also say that such an ideology of the persecution of Germanic Pagans lies behind his church arsons. -Zara1709 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"systematic elimination of anyone who was pagan"

Zara1709 seems to think that this sentence "Allegations that there was a systematic elimination of anyone who was pagan are definitely wrong." is important to include in the article. I have removed the sentence twice. Here's my rationale.

"Allegations that there was a systematic elimination of anyone who was pagan."

Who is making these allegations? Where is the reliable source that says that these allegations are wrong?

This sentence is taking an "edit summary war" and putting it in the article. This is highly unencyclopedic. If you can cite a reliable source who makes these allegations, then put it in the article. If you can find a reliable source that can refute these allegations, then put that in the article. Until then, it's all original research and does not belong in the article.

--Richard 08:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These allegations are made in the article of the Odinic Rite: ODINISM and CHRISTIANITY; Of course, they are not reliably, but I needed a quote to show in what sense there was no persecution of Germanic pagans, since there seems to be an elemental confusion what should be understood by this. I don't have a a source that I could quote directly, but as I already indicated in the article, something like a persecution of Germanic pagans is not in any of the history books I have read; and I think I have read enough to be able to say that quite firmly. I don't know if you have checked the edit histories and the talk pages of both this article and Persecution of Germanic Pagans, but this has been going on for months now and I have become rather sick of it. -Zara1709 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You say your statement is true because it has not been proved false. Well, it don't work that way so it's best to leave it out until you find a source. // Liftarn

Zara is right. We have pranced around with this long enough. Enough with the editorializing. It is your responsibility to present academic discussions of this "persecution". odinic-rite.org obviously doesn't count as a source, we don't want whiny neopagan propaganda, we want academic opinion. I present no objection that "persecution by Christians" took place in the 13th to 17th centuries. Persecution of Roman religion is already dodgy, and the Early Middle Ages section was a joke. dab (𒁳) 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Evils of Christianization: A Pagan Perspective on European History

You will see that I added the .pdf that is contradictory to my view to the literature. That author concludes: "I believe that if this 21st century experiment in pluralism and tolerance is to succeed, the history of Europe needs to be re-written to include the perspectives of the non-Christian peoples of the European past, and to examine the processes by which ancient Pagan religions were wiped off the European map." I have exactly the opposite opinion. If 17st-21st century experiment in pluralism and tolerance is to succeed, we should emphasise the violence that occurred 1000 or 1250 years ago less. I find myself here as the proponent of mainstream theory. As I said, the textbooks I read (I'm having am exam about this in 1 1/2 weeks) don't use the term religious persecution. (Although Padberg somewhere mentions that the saxon wars have been described as religious warfare.) Now in the opinion of Strismka, whose opinion is contradictory to these textbooks, the history of Europe needs to be re-written. I think I can take this as acknowledgment that the current history of Europe does not speak of religious persecution when speaking about this theme, why else should be demand this? -Zara1709 13:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious war is certainly a type of religious persecution. I don't think you can draw such conclusions. // Liftarn

Before I started working on this, I wrote: "I still need some time with this, so don't give me an edit war about this, while I'm working on it." I can't work on this with your style of discussion. Now I have good reasons to assume that there was no religious persecution during the early middle ages in Europe. In April I wrote on this very same discussion page: "I just meet [met] a professors for church history at my university on my way home from the library. We had a short talk, and I mentioned that I'm bothered by the question, if the Christianization of Europe could be understood as religious persecution. He said: "That is nonsense!" (in German, of course) The only case in which on could debate this question are the Saxon wars. There was a debate on that in Germany in the 1930s." I will ask the other professor for church history on this as soon as I have the opportunity. In it's previous and again current state, this article is not only tendentious, it also significantly decreases the scientific credibility of Wikipedia. -Zara1709 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the complete quote from Padberg 1998, 183:

"Aber eines ist unübersehbar: Die Mission verlief weitgehend friedlich. Die Menschen haben das Christentum meistens freiwillig angenommen, sie hätten sich also auch anders entscheiden können."

"But one thing is highly visible: The mission proceeded to a large extend peaceful. The people have adopted Christianity most often voluntarily, they could have thus decided differently, too." The Saxon wars and some other instances are an exception. -Zara1709 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The conversion of the Germanic peoples was largely voluntary. There were exceptions. Since for better or worse, this is the "persecution by Christians" article, we can mention the Saxons. That's it. Mention the Saxons, and be done. Misrepresenting the entire process of Christianization as "persecution" is fringy nonsense. Hilarious claims by "Odinic Rite" have no place here (they are slightly confused religionists, not historians). Most of the "Early Middle Ages" section has no place here, since it is about politics, not religious persecution. Cobbling together a case for "persecution" out of historians' discussion of the period is original synthesis. I propose that we should exclusively allow sources that are (a) clearly academic and (b) unambiguously use the term persecution. What Liftarn is doing instead is classical propaganda, spinning and cherry-picking until the text appears to make a case that is not made in its individual sources. That's against policy, and not what Wikipedia is for. No, religious war is not "a form of religious persecution", that's nonsense. It's a form of religious violence, yes, but persecution means that one group in power is giving a hard time to another, powerless group, not a clashing of two ideologies or cultures on equal footing. If you want to discuss Christianization, do it at Christianization, ffs, don't present a contorted argument why it should be considered "persecution". Frankly, I find this postmodernist cavalier attitude towards the term tasteless wrt those that did in fact suffer persecution. "A Pagan Perspective on European History" can be presented at Germanic neopaganism, but it doesn't qualify as a respectable source on an article discussing history. What all this romanticist "noble pagan" vein is missing is the immense prestige of Christianity in the EMA as the religion of the Roman Empire. Paganism simply could not compete with the splendour of Rome. To be sure, much paganism survived in the form of folk Christianity, but that's precisely because the conversion was voluntary. People were free to take such pagan beliefs as they wanted with them and incorporate them into the new faith. An excellent case in point is judicial combat: opposed by the church from earliest times, this was a thoroughly Germanic pagan practice. And it persisted until the Reformation. The church simply was in no position to prohibit this pagan custom. dab (𒁳) 07:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I should probably add that Padberg (1998) has quite a few pages on the violence that occurred and on their reasons. I had the idea, that I could summarize this here. He notes several times how it is impossible to distinguish between politics and religion for this time (sacred role of the king, Temples=Power centres, etc.). If one leaves all these points out however, someone like the author of "The Evils of Christianization" can make the Saxon wars appear like religious persecution. And also, since for some people the fallaciousness of the material on some neopagan homepages is not obvious, I considered it appropriate to debunk them. However, it seems that this did not work... -Zara1709 09:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for debunking "The Burning Times"-type neopaganism. But that should be done on articles about neopaganism, not here. dab (𒁳) 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. there goes the entire Persecution of early Christians by the Romans article since the persecution was mainly due to political reasons and they were given the chance to follow the laws. Nice strawman about the burning times by the way. // Liftarn

Liftarn, be definite then. Do you adhere to the POV some Neopagans that there was a persecution of Pagans, like Thousand years of Oppression, killing of Countless thousands of pagan folk, or similar? -Zara1709 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There was indeed opression (includeing fullblown wars), but the number of persons affected was probably quite small. For the most part it was peacefull, but that's not really the issue here. For instance Wikipedia don't mention how many Jews Hitler didn't kill. As for exactly a 1000 years that's debatable, but as a rough number for the time without religious freedom it's OKish. // Liftarn

The "issue" is, dear Liftarn, that our "persecution" articles are plastered with cleanup templates because of people like you, insisting on pushing unlettered pie-in-the-sky dramatisations and spin-doctoring. I don't know what you are trying to achieve, and I don't care. These articles should be ruthlessly mucked out until only academic discussions remain. Nice Godwin, btw. dab (𒁳) 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think the article should mention the persecution instead of trying to whitewash it. // Liftarn

Please don't be disingenuous. You know very well that it has been brought to Talk, since you are contributing to the very discussion. Individual editors don't have to explain every edit if the explanation is already in place. No-obe is suggesting that no mention be made, and most of the deletion was of Zara's prolix attempts to disprove "Odenic" claims. Paul B 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A look at the diff[9] shows that much material was removed. I do agree that they essay style and personal remarks should be removed. // Liftarn

My Prolix Previous attempt

Paul B is correct, most of the deletion is my work; Since this is my stuff, I think I can revert it. I still thing there should be slightly more on this then in the version that I am going to restore, but in such an atmosphere I can't write anything good, anyway. -Zara1709 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) I would very much prefer it, if I could get some time to sort this out the facts about this. -Zara1709 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you don't WP:OWN the article. // Liftarn

Of course, no one 'owns' an article at Wikipedia. But before someone twists my writing into the opposite of my original intention, I rather not have it in an article. Of course, the contributions are preserved in the edit history and I expect that I will continue to work on this in a few days, weeks, or even months, depending on how long it takes for me to relax after this controversy. If you want to help, you could stop with the reverts. -Zara1709 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that you have added the other sentences that were from this article back into the Persecution of Germanic Pagans:

"During the Christianization of Scandinavia Pagan priests were killed, temples torn down and the followers persecuted and killed.

In 1087 king Inge I of Sweden, who earlier had been forced away, traveled with his housecarls through Småland and Östergötland, riding both day and night, until he arrived in Sweden. Having arrived at Old Uppsala, he surrounded the hall of Blot-Sweyn, and set the hall on fire. When the king ran out, he was immediately slain. This is probably the date of the destruction of the Temple at Uppsala.

In for instance Gutalagen from the 1220s there is listed a fine for the crime of blóting."

The last sentence can still be found exactly in the Christianization of Scandinavia article. You will notice however, that the website that is given as source is defunct. According to my textbooks, there is no evidence, that the temple of Uppsala was destroyed at all. Sentences 2&3 describe a conflict between to fractions about the crown of Sweden, one happened to be pagan, the other happened to be Christian. That is mentioned in Christianization of Scandinavia, too. The first sentence is an overly broad statement, and not attributed to a reliable source. -Zara1709 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting since the law was in effect until 1645 and thus is was still in use way after the suposed end of Christianization. // Liftarn

I did write that the link to the reference for the fine for bloting is defunct? -Zara1709 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's in Gutalagen, paragraph 4: "Thet ier nu thy nest et blotir iru mannum mier firj buthni Oc fyrnsca all thaun sum haithnu fylgir Engin ma haita a huathci a hult etha hauga. etha hathin guth huatki avi etha stafgartha ÖTha en nequar verthr at thi sandr oc laithas hanum so vitni a hand et hann hafi haizl nequara tha mith mati etha mith dryckiu senni sum ai fylgir cristnum sithi tha ir hann sacr at thrim marcum vithr kirchiu menn En thair syct vinna. Thitta aigu allir sykia saman Oc allir aigu at hafa prestr oc kirchia oc kirchiumenn ÖTha en venzl ir hanum a hendi tha standi hann firi meth siex manna aithj Tha en kirchiu menn vinna ai syct oc cumbr thet upp firi things menn tha veris hann en mith siex manna aithi Etha byti III marcr thingi Tha en thet upp cumbr firi landa alla tha byti tolf marcr landi en hann ai vindr mith tolf manna aithi firi standith". Links are abundant. // Liftarn

Liftarn, believe me, if I could read Swedish I would see if I could get an Swedish history textbook on this. But a fine for animal sacrifices does not constitute religious persecution. Several years ago there was a debate about how Moslem who sacrifice a calf for whatever religious reason violates a law regulating the butcher trade in Germany, where I live. You can't possibly call that religious persecution, since then the laws against murder (that coincidentally also prohibit human sacrifices) would be persecution of Satanist. [This is not meant to be offensive against Satanist. 99,998% of Satanists don't practice human sacrifices.] As I previously said several times, there seems to be an elemental confusion about what is to be understood as religious persecution. If you like, try to find some textbook definition. -Zara1709 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's actually in Middle Age Gutnish, but it shouldn't be that hard to find an English (or German) translation. Having a fine on performing a religious ceremony is certainly a form of religious persecution. I'm not 100% on it, but I think thee marks was quite a lot of money in those days. Modern day regulations on how an animal is butchered is irrelevant. If you follow the laws for animal handling it is perfectly legal to perform a Muslim slaughter. The laws are written in a religious nautral way. If the laws would say that Ḏabīḥah is illegal just because it's not Christian then that would be a form of religious persecution. // Liftarn

And I thought the Satanist example would make this obvious. Unless you mention the context, it is not clear, whether a law that prohibits certain religious practices is religious persecution. I mean, what are you going to do about the Eagle feather law. If you would allow anyone the possession of eagle feathers, because it might possibly be religious persecution if you don't , then that would obviously lead to the persecution of eagles. The problem with this fine for bloting is, that I don't know the context and I haven't found it debated in one of my textbooks. You might find this debated in a Swedish textbook, but I could neither read it nor do I have access to it. -Zara1709 07:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If there was a law saying that possession of eagle feathers is OK unless you are a Christian then that would be religious persecution. The Gutnish law is quite clear on that is about religion and not animal welfare or something: "blot it is for everyone strictly forbidden and all old customs that follows with paganism. No may call upon groves or mounds or heathen gods, sanctuaries or stafgaards." // Liftarn

Do you want to continue this tomorrow, better at Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia? First, I also have other things to do than edit Wikipedia and secondly, I would need some time to read the literature again. -Zara1709 08:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued debate on persecution

guys, much of the text I removed I did not object to on grounds of content, but because it was counterpunching against a position that wasn't even properly sourced. Why are we having this discussion? WP:RS says it all. Since this article is explicitly about persecution, and not about the Christianization of Scandinavia in general, just give us some peer-reviewed debate on what qualifies as persecution and what doesn't there may well be controversy, but it needs to be peer reviewed controversy. This focus on "persecution" makes things needlessly difficult. Not a wise choice of title. Much of the material here belongs merged into Christianization and its sub-articles. As it stands, the purpose of this article seems to be mainly to rehash material treated neutrally elsewhere and give it a political edge. The best solution would be to cut the historical sections down to WP:SS, and let this article focus on "Theological debate of persecution". dab (𒁳) 09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you support the same for all the "Persecution by..." and "Persecution of..." articles? // Liftarn

support what? I am not denying the existence of historical perescution of non-Christians by Christians. It is you who wants to go beyond the article's scope and discuss Christianization in general. If we can focus on actual religious persecution here, this article will be fine. That is, injury done to a religious minority by either the establishment (church or state) or by mobs, explicitly on grounds of the minority's religious creed. The mere fact that the Roman Empire decided to abolish its former state cult is not "religious persecution of pagans", it's a political decision of state ceremony. The 5th century laws against private practitioners of pagan rites, otoh, do amount to persecution of pagans. dab (𒁳) 08:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (and it's 13th century btw). I have no interest in dicussing christianization in general (are you thinking of Zara1709 perhaps?). // Liftarn

As far as I know pagan worship had ceased in Sweden before 1200. A law against pagan worship in a time when there weren't any pagans can't possibly be any more persecution of pagans then a law against pagan worship on the moon. But I asked you to take this to Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia. And of course I would help to overthrow the whole religious persecution series, although one should first discuss this in detail. I would not agree to merge this one with Christianization.

But as I previously indicated in the debate on the deletion of the religious persecution template (see: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 2), with this current style of controversy I do myself the favour of working on Nazi occultism and similar articles instead. -Zara1709 09:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Either the law is actually older (probably as oral tradition) or you are incorrect. There are some evidence of Paganism well into the 19th century (for instance Trollkyrka) as well as simmilar traditions like putting out oatmeal for the tomte. In Latvia is was common to go to church on Sundays and continuing your traditional religion during rest of the week. // Liftarn

I don't know what 13th century laws you may be talking about, but I was referring to the various 5th century laws against pagan rituals in the late Roman Empire. It doesn't seem very intelligent to "correct" me with and it's 13th century btw when you are in fact just changing the topic. But then I am afraid this discussion didn't strike me as very intelligent from the beginning. dab (𒁳) 10:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Gutalagen all the time. I don't know where you got roman laws from. // Liftarn

There is a long way to go, these "persecution" articles are a sad mess. The "religious persecution series" never was a good idea. Of course there is such a thing as religious persecution, but what we see here is really the attempt to write the history of religion as a history of persecutions. That's a pov magnet, and encourages factions to list grievances instead of working on a coherent account of historical developments. There are, certainly, incidences of clear persecution which deserve their own articles. But what we have here is an unlettered and thoughtless scheme of creating "persecution of X by Y" template articles informed by crude combinatorics rather than historical background knowledge. These articles all need expert attention, but unsurprisingly experts can't be bothered to invest their time if they are just shouted at by lobbyists of various convictions for their pains. All the more, these articles need strict application of WP:RS: if no academic source discussing "persecution" can be shown, remove it. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It don't have to be academit. Any reliable source should do. // Liftarn

yes, but it would be ever so much easier to deal with an editor who can actually evaluate reliable sources. Never mind, we'll get there in the end, it's just more complicated that it would need to be. dab (𒁳) 13:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Alleged OR in contemporary section

I removed a large quantity of original research from the contemporary section, but I see that it has been reinserted by User:Liftarn with a request that it be discussed here first.

OK. Can you justify to me in any way that the content in question is not OR. I believe the only way to do this would be to find sources that describe each of these instances as religious persecution... otherwise, I can only conclude that the assertion that they are (by fact of being on this page) is purely original research. (Note that I am not saying that it is wrong - in many cases I agree with the determination - but Wikipedia's policy is clear: No original research. JulesH 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering everything is sourced it is not WP:OR since it's not "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.". Persecution is systematic mistreatment. And both sources in the Greece section say it's dicrimination so that's OK. The rest I don't I have time for. Why not use the {{or}} tag where you see fit? // Liftarn

Blanking sections with multiple reliable citation as "OR" is not okay. If you think it's WP:SYN OR, then you need to discuss it here before removing, as the burden of proof is on you to show that the citations are inappropriate. Being bold doesn't mean recklessly removing verified content. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note: The problem of the "Contemporary" section is not that it would be original research (although that might be an issue, too). The problem is probably even more grave. That section not only confused persecution and discrimination, at least that difference should have cleared through the "Persection of Germanic Pagans" controversy. There is a huge difference between the burning to the stake for allegations of witchcraft as in the middle ages and not being allowed a pentagram to be engraved on you tombstone if you are a wiccian on a federal U.S. cemetery. That section also makes it seem as if there hadn't been a significant change in western culture in the last 400 years. Modern England e.g. is definitely less (Protestant) Christian than 1600 England, fortunately for the Catholics. Unless England starts the executions of Jesuits for treason again or someone revives the Spanish Inquisition, don't give me the phrase: "Contemporary Religious persecution by Christians". Of course, just because people in societies that once were Christian have stopped killing each other because of their religion, this does not mean that they get along perfectly harmonious. But deal with that in the context of religion in modern societies. That section should be split up and moved to the articles on religion in the respective nations. Zara1709 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources for the content I removed describes the actions as persecution. Persecution is a stronger word than discrimination, and to include the items in a page on persecution we would need to have a source that states that it is persecution. To blindly equate the two is the very definition of original research. The citations are clearly inappropriate because they don't say the same thing as the article does. And the section of WP:V you refer to clearly states that the burden of proof is on those wishing to retain the material, not those wishing to remove it.

I don't use the {{or}} tag because I believe misleading information should be removed, not tagged. A lot of this information is stuff I consider to be POV-pushing and inappropriate content for this article. The information is not verifiable, because (1) the sources used for much of it are inappropriate primary sources that require expert interpretation (e.g., legal documents that must be interpreted with light to relevant case law) and (2) the sources don't describe it as persecution, which is a clear and unsourced implication made by its presence on this page. So, yes, unless somebody comes up with a good reason why this content is not OR, I will remove it. And it certainly appears to be to me.

It may not be "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, [or] statements", but I see no evidence that it is neither an "unpublished [...] theory", an "unpublished analysis" or a "novel narrative". JulesH 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Are there any sources that describe these incidents as persecution? I've looked, but cannot find any myself. There is one source (International Religious Freedom (2000): Report to Congress by the Department of State, ISBN 0756712297) which could be useful. It strongly implies (although it does not state explicitly) that religious persecution in favour of Christian denominations is (or at least was at the time) occuring in Serbia (in favour of the Serbian Orthodox Church) and Belarus (in favour of the Belarussian Orthodox Church). There are some countries explicitly described as engaging in persecution, however none of these are predominantly Christian countries.

Is this source enough to justify sections on these countries? I'm not convinced, but I wouldn't argue against it. Are the present sources enough to justify large quantities of the current sections? No. So unless something happens to these soon, I will remove them. JulesH 21:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That source definitely supports a section on Nicaragua, as well as the two possible sections I listed above. JulesH 22:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The fact that there is a section detailing contemporary persecution by Christians means this article should be under simply "Persecution by Christians". --MKHH 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support per Historical_persecution_by_Christians#Contemporary--victor falk 17:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Check the edit history, this has already beend debated: see this diff If this article is moved anywhere, then to Christian debate on religious persecution. And don't bring in the Contemporary section, that is a piece of junk. Zara1709 17:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Contemporary section is already "in", and I didn't "bring" it. I'm not proposing a change to the article, I'm proposing that we name this artice to reflect it's already present content. The fact is the article as is is describing contemporary as well as historical persecution by Christians. If you have a problem with the article as is then that's something for you to discuss seperately. --MKHH 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you have renamed the section to "20th Century". Unfortunately it's still kinda pushing it to refer to something happening in 1999 as purely historical. --MKHH 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, it would count as an extremely severe case of recentism (:... The thing is this article doesn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Summary style to be split into "persecution of christians (historical)" and "persecution of christians (modern)".--victor falk 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't yet taken the look at the edit history to see why this article was renamed "Historical Persecution by Christians" from "Persecution by Christians" in the first place. But here is a hint: Check the discussion pages and the edit wars concerning Talk:Persecution of Germanic Pagans and Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans, among other. I started to sort out that subsection on the United States now. Regardless if that section is titled "Contemporary" or "20th Century", the case from Vietnam is completly unreferred and the case from Serbia has nothing to do with religion, but rather with ethnicity. I am about to work that distinction into the religious persecution article, but I need two weeks or so for that. If you take the time to look at the various discussion pages, you will see why I have no patience whatsoever with this topic anymore. This article has been listed for deletion TWICE, and although I think the topic is notable I would really appreciate it if people could refer to history books instead of neopagan websites. Zara1709 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support there is no need for inclusion of "historical" Modern persecution should be included as well. Yahel Guhan 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus failed

Ok, I removed the move tag and delisted it from wp:requested moves, for being bold. If you still don't understand this and if you want to oppose it, just write something here and I will see if I can find the patience to explain it further. Zara1709 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge 'United States' into 'Separation of church and state in the United States'

Actually I had hoped that I would get the time to read up a little on this topic before I continue to work on this, but since 1) no one else has done much on it, 2) the religious persecution articles that were not deleted still badly need to be improved and 3) people start to bring in a "contemporary persecution by Christians" again I just have to do something and I start by actually moving this section to the article it belongs. (And then I wil deal with it.) I have made enough bad jokes about this topic at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans, but here is another one: Would you please go outside and see if the Inquisition is still there, because I couldn't find it the last time I looked.

Religious persecution by Christians, as in 'Jesuit persecution in Great Britain' has not happened for centuries now. And even if some neopagans have lost their jobs because of their religion (which I am inclined to doubt, but I haven't checked the reliability of the source yet) anything below murder or imprisonment is not religious persecution. Religious discrimination fits such petty things much better (as I you ever could force a convinced beliefer to abandon his faith by taking away his job). Zara1709 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to "Christian debate on persecution and toleration"

Since we had the 3rd afd by now, I would like to move the article to a neutral term. Otolemur crassicaudatus appears to be of the opinion that articles "Persecution by XY" are inappropriate. I agree, only that I would add that "Persecution of XY" articles are also inappropriate. Of course, adherents of one religion are going to be concerned about possible persecution against their religion. If they concentrate on themselves as victims ("Persecution of XY") articles NPOV issues are already difficult, but if the the focus on the (alleged) perpetrators NPOV issues are regularly going to erupt in afds. To get this clear. wp:NPOV does not mean that there shouldn't be articles on religious persecution or that editors would have to accept the (alleged) view of religion XY that adherents of other religions ought to be persecuted. The neutral point of view mandates that editors take a stand against religious persecution as such, and not purely against persecution of religion XY by religion YZ or purely against persecution of religion YZ by religion XY. Zara1709 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

I knew that moving this article was "bad form" when I did it. But, for wp:be bold, it was allowed. After all it wasn't reckless: If we actually get a discussion on this and get consensus here to move it back or to move it somewhere else, that wouldn't be a lot of effort. (It should be only one or two clicks for an administrator.) And please, take a look at the discussion ans tell me if you see any sign of "good form" there.

So, to actually have a debate on the name change, here are some specific arguments. First, the claim that this article would only debate unrelated events has some substance. Nevertheless, I applies similarly to most "persecution of XY" articles, too. One could deal with that if one would rename this article "Historical cases of persecution by Christians". Aside from the problem that some people might object to the word "historical" here, there is then also the problem that religious persecution, religious violence, religious discrimination and religious warfare are difficult to separate. The crusades e.g. were not persecution, but warfare. After all, the Muslims could defend themselves quite well - they won; an article name: "Historical cases of persecution, violence, discrimination and warfare by Christians" would be rather too long. On the other hand, if you want to have an article on persecution by Christians, you have to deal with its reasons. Quite soon you are faced with the point that the most important Christians theologians advocated religious persecution (to various extends). And there was a historical continuity in the debate on persecution and toleration! Only problem here is that people don't appear to know about this stuff. Anyway, one can write an article on this debate, and it wouldn't be a problem to encompass the cases of religious persecution by Christians within that article. And, most importantly, the name "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is neutral. It doesn't imply that Christianity was a "persecuting religion", but it does neither imply that Christianity was always a tolerant religion. Zara1709 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea to have an article as you suggest that gives an overview of how outlooks have changed over time. Issues like why Christianity did not consider it persecution when they did to non-Christians what they themselves regarded as persecution when done to them needs to be explained along with other important matters not currently touched upon in the present article. The present article though is more structured towards an overview of persecution by Christians down through the ages and I think we should divide the pages and apply suitable emphasis appropriate for each topic. GoldenMeadows (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Christian did consider it persecution what the did to heretics and other Christians (Paganism might be a different issue) - they did consider persecution as legitimate! Probably we could have two article on this, one: Christian debate on Persecution and Toleration and one: Historical cases of persecution by Christians; my current idea, however, is to expand the the "Historical Overview" section towards a comprehensive overview "Historical Persecution by Christians" and devote the rest of the article to the debate on Persecution and Toleration. If you are of the opinion that we should have a separate article on persecution by Christians, take a look at the three afds and tell me if you considered it possible to keep such an article - you are bound to get an afd every half year. For now, it should be difficult enough to tread the topic correctly in one article; there is going to be a lot of rearranging and moving content to other articles here, I hope that you don't mind. Zara1709 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that traditionally persecution was considered to be unlawful coercion. When Christians used coercion, especially against other Christians who did not conform to the relevant orthodoxy, then it was considered legitimate and therefore not persecution. They believed they were obeying Gods will in these acts. In the case of actions against non-Christians it becomes a bit more fuzzy in that whilst coercion might never have been official policy there were instances carried out by Christian leaders. There is of course ample evidence of widespread suppression if not forced conversion. The point I was trying to make is that the article should present both sides of the case. The article currently named Persecution of religion in ancient Rome mentioned this right at the beginning of the article in the summer of last year but it seems to have disappeared during a long break from working on it. Even the title has been changed, without seeking agreement, from its orginal purpose which was dealing with the suppression of the old religions to the present all inclusive one. I think is very hard to do without being superficial in the treatment all the groups involved --including Jews and Christians -- the article length becomes far too long otherwise. This is the main reason I suggested the split of this article and to avoid any suggestion that persecutions by Christians is being buried. Ramsay MacMullen touches on what seems the strange absence of the word "persecution" and the description of Christian aggression even in modern accounts of the period. My own preference in these matters is to present the case using scholarly references of what actually happened and not to whitewash. GoldenMeadows (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I read this thread my knee-jerk reaction is that some are working with some very POV assumptions. One assumes that orthodoxy has the right to declare another group heretical; however, that is not the place of Wikipedia. The persecutor seldom is given license to define his actions. For example, slave owners are not looked upon as benevolent owners of the ignorant black man that stupidly allowed himself to be captured. Persecution is not debatable; when a group attempts to subjugate or exterminate another group because of their (in this case) religious beliefs that is persecution. This is not rocket science and orthodoxy is not recognized by anyone but the orthodox as having the God-given right to define "truth". This is not a debate among anyone but the orthodox. Just because we see ourselves as being "right" when we burn someone at the stake does not suddenly make it an acceptable action. Am I missing something here or is someone trying to whitewash the ugly side of Christianity and humanity in general? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have used scare quotes around "orthodoxy" to make my point clear? Please be assured I don't hold to any orthodoxy in this matter. I think its possible to simply present the outline of why people in the past did what they did. It's not to justify their acts but failing to at least mention the theological/philosophical basis of their actions leaves an article unbalanced. How can I learn from the past if hide myself from it? Of course there is no attempt to justify it but to recognise that they were people of their time as we all are of ours and whilst those actions are repugnant we don't then fall in to trap of demonising them, let the facts speak for themselves. GoldenMeadows (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

With that clarification, I would say that we have an identical understanding of how to discuss the topic. The facts are the behavior, which is not covered. However, we also explain under what premise the actions were taken. It is strange how often supposedly religious individuals perceive evil actions as justified. This dark side of organized religion is repeated throughout history and the lesson has yet to be learned. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)