Talk:Christianity/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Persecution

Oh dear, I think the persecution section needs another rework desperately. I know this is always hard to get balanced, but what we have here definitely is not. The action of the KKK are cited as 'persecution by Christians' as though the KKK was somehow representitive of the Christian faith (Wikipedia would never get away with saying the Al Quaeda is an example of "Muslim persecution of Christians"). Homosexuals are 'persecuted by Christians' as though a disagreement over what is morally allowed constitutes opression. Please can we tone down the rhetoric here, and maybe restrict discussion of persecution to cases where the opression is serious. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This diatribe on persecution has gotten out of hand. Can we get back to thinking in terms of an encyclopedic article??? Jim Ellis 13:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The section needs to be cut in half at least, making mention of (and providing links to) subjects such as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. We don't want to deny this part of Christian history, but we also don't want to overplay it. KHM03 14:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I trimmed quite a bit of extraneous material, making things more concise and keeping up key links to articles which examine persecution in more detail. Removed, for instance, KKK stuff, which didn't really belong, as well as stuff which went a bit overboard and NPOV. KHM03 15:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Good job, KHM03, on your latest edit. I wholeheartedly concur. Jim Ellis 16:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Big improvement. Thanks for doing it! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 17:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but on the issue of homosexuality? Are they not actively persecuted by Christians? The issue isn't whether or not Christians could argue that it is immoral, but whether or not they seek to deny equal legal rights to homosexual couples, and further more whether or not other forms of persecution against them occur (which they do). Why attempt to only show christians as the Victims of persecution and attempt to whitewash persecution by Christians? Jews, Homosexuals, Pagans, and atheist have all been persecuted, and are still persecuted today. Maybe your particular denomination doesn't persecute, but some denominations proclaiming to be christian do. The "God Hates Fags" slogan is direct proof of such persecution. This isn't about whether or not a group founds it's persecution on doctrine, but whether or not said group persecutes. I suspect that there may be an active attempt to hide, cover up, or whitewash persecution by Christians simply because they might wish to be seen as Victims and not as Persecutors themselves. The encyclopedia should not be in the business of showing favoritism towards christians, ignoring persecution by christians and only portraying them as victims. user:LucaviX

You're excused. "God Hates Fags"??? Nope. The association of a tiny lunatic fringe with the views of the entire group is a common propaganda device. Pollinator 07:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not this fringe is a Christian one. No one is attempting to blanketly associate all christians with such a group (at least not to my knowledge) however it is an example of a much more wide spread problem. Persecution against homosexuals does occur, whether or not scripture is used to justify persecution is another matter. Maybe it should be noted that some denominations persecute and some do not? In any case one should not attempt to hide the fact that persecution by christians against homosexuals exist, because it does and it is a very real problem for homosexuals in the United States. Whether or not those persecuting justify it by saying that homosexuality is immoral is irrelevant. I suggest moderation, and not sectarian bias. We should report the historical and present day persecution against and by christians, or remove the section entirely as opposed to showing favoritism towards christians or non-christians. I somewhat suspect there may be an active attempt to omit certain things simply because they may reflect badly on Christianity, in much the same way the Vatican at one time tried to whitewash the Crusades.--Lucavix 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Homosexuals are 'persecuted by Christians' as though a disagreement over what is morally allowed constitutes opression." This statement is untrue. Persecution against homosexuals, by christians, often comes in the form of attempting to deny them equal legal rights and representation, and in other forms. It's easy for many heterosexuals like myself to ignore or fail to understand the full extent of such persecution, but I'm sure were we the victims of the same persecution no one here would be have any objection to reporting it. I should note though that no one (to my knowledge) is claiming that the accusation that homosexuality is immoral constitutes persecution in and of itself. --Lucavix 08:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Reinserted a revised segment regarding persecution by some christians against minorities in the West, particularly in the United States. I was sure not to blanketly associate all Christians with such Bias. I was also sure to use an exact example of persecution against Atheist. I also changed the words "equal rights" to "equal legal rights," a minor tweak. I find it important not to leave things out, but also not to over-play things. To do either would smack of bias and thus POV.--Lucavix 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with that edit. First, a statement by George Bush is not evidence of persecution against athesists. If that's all the more athesists have been persecuted, then they ought to count themselves lucky. Discrimination and persecution are not synonymous. Also, George Bush (or any US president) is not representative of Christianity...in America or anywhere else.

Also, while the Church is certainly struggling over homosexuality, to suggest that those who openly condone violence against gays are in any way representative of Christianity is not only offensive, but inaccurate (and POV). Some denominations, in fact, notably the UCC and the Disciples of Christ, are among the most ardent pro-gay groups in America. If George Bush can be an example of an anti-atheist Christian, then why not use Bill Clinton as a pro-gay Christian? Neither one is representative of Christianity...and yet your edit selectively chooses one as evidence, ignoring the other.

I will likely eliminate the paragraph later for POV reasons, but we ought to allow others to weigh in on this as well. KHM03 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok KHMO3, first of all I can't fit a huge list of quotes into an article, but your claim that persecution against Atheist (which you can't even properly spell) doesn't exist is kind of laughable. If a statement by a self proclaimed christian president saying that Atheist aren't even citizens and that they can't be patriots because this is one nation under god isn't persecution against atheist, I don't guess anything can be. And persecution against atheist does exist. I am an atheist, and I have been threatened with bodily harm, my property has been vandalized, I have been told that this is a christian country and I should just get out, and told that "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion" and I'm not even that outspoken. By the way, this isn't about politics, this is about the worldly fact that persecution against minorities still exist in some sects of christianity. You're not going to get mention of the fact that Homosexuals in particular suffer persecution in America just because your Christian bias lets you justify persecution. The worldly fact that such persecution does not go away just because you don't like it or want to ignore it, so if you take the paragraph out, as opposed to contributing by editing it, well you are doing so from a fairly obvious POV, as someone who wants to disassociate yourself from such persecution by whitewashing it and pretending it doesn't happen. When you have people out there stalking and threatening homosexuals for example, and these people go to church and have a Jesus fish on their car, don't you sit there and lie to me and try to tell me that it isn't a case of Christian persecution. If you have any objections state them, but as I told a German who wanted to pretend the Holocaust never happened, the facts don't change just because you don't like them and in an article dealing with persecution by and against christians is not going to have modern persecution by christians against minorities left out just because you don't like it. --Lucavix 12:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Watch your tone.

I'm not the one violating the rules so that I can disassociate myself with mainstream discrimination, nor was I the one who strong armed an article out and threatened to just "delete the whole thing" because I didn't like something in it. Maybe you should watch your tone. Ok, maybe I got a little personal, I apologize, but from my perspective you're choosing to hide or ignore something that's obvious because you have a christian Bias, I have a problem when people try to make their religion out to be a victim and deny obvious persecutions by their religion, it's dishonest.

I'm not denying that gays are persecuted;

Then why remove the whole Paragraph?

I'm saying that it isn't necessarily representative of Christianity.

So I guess all that anti-homosexual rhetoric by many christian leaders, telling people to go out and vote down laws designed to give homosexuals the same legal rights (Like the right to Marry by a Justice of the Peace, Minority Protection from hate Crimes) as everyone else isn't evidence either. I suppose that the fact that some denominations teach that homosexuals are vile and sinful people that are worthy of being put to death (like some protestant sects) the same way they used to teach that Jews are Christ killers has no impact either. I suppose the local lesbians who had to file a restraining order against several members of the local protestant church just did it to be funny.

Is Ted Bundy a representative?

Who said that? No, but the fact that the vast majority of Christians, when polled, show that they are against allowing homosexuals the right to marry, and the fact that homosexuals have been picketed out of the teaching profession by christian groups has a lot to do with it.

To suggest that "God hates fags" is in any way Christian is a HUGE POV move.

Well, first of all the group is a christian group, and a lot of christians (I'm not saying you, but a lot) believe that. You can't take away the fact that people who believe that are still Christians, though you may use the No True Christian fallacy, but you know what, take that part out if you don't like it, don't try to whitewash the entire article.

And as far as atheists (I can spell the word, but sometimes type faster than I can proof read...thanks for the kind words), you've simply got to have more evidence than George Bush once said something strange. That's not persecution. If atheists have been deliberately excluded or harmed by Christians, then cite hard evidence. Otherwise, it's just unsupported POV nonsense. KHM03 12:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess when I had my car keyed up and my American Atheist bumper sticker ripped off it was just some guy I cut off in traffic. By the way, isn't it funny that when a Christian president says atheist aren't true Americans Christians don't take that as persecution. I would bet a great deal that if this were a mostly Islamic country, and he had said that Christians weren't true Americans, you'd see it as persecution then. Isn't it persecution when heads of government in China insult Christians? How is this any Different? But please if you want I can go to any atheist or gay site and get a list of christians who do all sorts of things. Heck even Benny Hinn, a famous religious leader, has openly persecuted atheist and homosexuals. By the way after the 9/11 attacks, guess who Pat Robertson was blaming. Just Guess. Oh wait, I guess that's just coincidence I mean a famous leader of the Christian Coalition (a group which boast a million or more members) who blamed 9/11 on Homosexuals and Atheist can't be counted to represent "Some Christians" --Lucavix 12:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed mention of the group behind the God Hates Fags movement and replaced it with a more lengthy and space consuming link showing Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's remarks and noting that they have a large following, certainly enough for it to be said that they represent some christians in america. Now, if you want that the page should be flooded with incomprehensible quotes and links of specific examples of persecution in various forms of slurrs, defamation, and descrimination against homosexuals and atheist then I can do so. I'd really hate to have to do that, because we both know full and well that persecution against atheist and homosexuals, by christians, does occure in the United States of America. I'll just hold the option of providing so much text information that it will make my eyes bleed to look at it (again) for now. --Lucavix 14:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't persecution when leaders in China insult Christians. I have no doubt the Chinese Christians would be overjoyed if the only "persecution" they received were insults, as they would then be able to meet, organize themselves, and proselytize freely, without being imprisoned or deported or having their property confiscated. Persecution is getting deprived of life, liberty or property because of your religious beliefs or practices, or being told by the government how you can or must practice your religion (or the government's favorite religion). If you're an atheist, you'll know you're being persecuted when you're fined or imprisoned for not attending church, or when you can't access some public benefit without a baptismal record, or when your religious views or symbols are completely banned from public forums. But insults? Please. And as for Pat Robertson blaming 9/11 on homosexuals and atheists, sure he probably represents a few self-styled Christians, but I recall many Christian leaders actively denouncing his remarks. Many if not most Christians denounce, not homosexuals, but sexually immoral behaviour in general, of whatever orientation, along with other sorts of immoral behaviour. See the difference and Pat Robertson's remarks? Wesley 04:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wesley, say what you will but I disagree. I know that there are other forms of persecution in China, but I consider public defamation by political leaders an example of political persecution. You seem to have mistakenly concluded that I was suggesting that it was the only example. I have no doubt that if a political leader publicly defamed black people or Jews it would be called persecution, so there seems to be a double standard. I think it's funny though that you're trying to whitewash persecution by Christians, especially against homosexuals. Are you saying that denying them equal legal rights just because they're homosexual isn't persecution? I guess it isn't persecution until someone is trying to deny your rights is it? Anyway, I'm going to ignore your "No True Christian" fallacy and your attempt to say that persecution against homosexuals doesn't exist. user:LucaviX

Suggested Change: Mention of persecution by christian isn't getting taken out, but the paragraphs mentioning it can be changed. Because it takes up so much space to list quotes, I suggest the following change from what the paragraph currently reads.

"Some Christians in the United States, even today, have actively persecuted minorities such as Atheists, Pagans, and Homosexuals. Atheists are far less persecuted in the west today than they were in the mid-19th century but they still suffer some forms of persecution in America. Homosexuals are also still persecuted, more so by some denominations than others. Some Christians in the west strongly oppose allowing homosexuals equal legal rights, such as the right to marry, the right to adopt children, the right to employment in positions of authority (such as the teaching profession), and minority protection from hate crimes. It is only fair to note however that while some Christian churches actively encourage persecution, there are others who actively discourage it. Persecution by Christians is by no means all or nothing though, members of a church may actively persecute for religious reasons while other members of the same church may actively discourage persecution."

user:LucaviX

You have to love this quote: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." -Jerry Falwell

What I really love about this quote is that I've heard christians in my local community use it. I live very close to a protestant church, a church with a very large following. As a psychiatrist I sometimes visit such churches, just to get peoples take on things. Doing so I've encountered a variety of, let's call them states of mind, that if diagnosed I'm sure would be considered psychological disorders. Leaving that though, as it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, I must state simply this. Just because a particular church or denomination doesn't make such bold, dangerous claims does not make such claims uncommon. There are many individual churches out there who espouse such hateful and poisonous rhetoric, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that there are people inspired by such rhetoric to stalk people, vandalize peoples property, threaten people, and in some documented cases even kill people. In my community I live less than a half a mile from a lesbian couple who has had to file numerous restraining orders against people who have stalked them and even threatened them. user:LucaviX

If you have an atheist friend who believes in some deity, but maybe not the Judeo-Christian God, they're not a very good atheist, are they?

Note: Atheism is not a religion. The term atheist is a purely descriptive word (like black), denoting the absence of belief in any and all deities. As a descriptive term, the word Atheist can not be accurately applied to someone who does believe in a deity. I know, it's semantics, but Atheist is a well defined term and shouldn't be applied to someone who is a theist. Note that Atheism is derived from A-Theos, meaning Not a Theist. Since anyone who believes in a deity is a theist, the application of word Atheist to someone who believes in a deity is at best a mismurmer.

Ultimately, name one atheist who believes in a god, and I'll name you a theist.

They deny a central doctrine of atheist "faith".

You are very mistaken. There is no Atheist faith.

Likewise, those who hatefully persecute homosexuals aren't exactly the best examples of "Christians"

Rather you like it or not they are numerous enough to be mentioned, and unlike atheism, christianity is a religion. And unlike atheist, christian denotes belief that Jesus is the messiah, not the absence of belief in any god or gods.

as they openly violate a central tenet of the Christian faith.

Take this up with them. They use the bible to justify their persecution. Their tenets may be different from yours as well, as there is no universal tenet of christianity other than to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

I think that has been our point all along...not that it doesn't exist, but that these aren't the best examples to lift up.

As examples of Christian Persecution it is both fitting and appropriate to mention that Christians in the United States of America by and large actively oppose allowing homosexuals equal legal rights and representation under the law.

Also, I urge you to reconsider (when you have time) the differences between "persecution" and "discrimination".

The two go hand in hand. When Christians intrude on a homosexual's right to privacy and deny him or her equal legal representation, that becomes persecution. It's easy for someone in a majority to minimize persecution and the impact thereof, but like I've stated before, were you on the other end, a Christian in China, you would not be making the arguments you are making.

Both are wrong, but one is far more dangerous and painful than the other. That's why I urge the strike of the atheist sentence in your proposed edit. KHM03 11:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have been persecuted, and I know of other atheist who have been persecuted. I have been threatened, I have been assaulted, and I have had my property vandalized during my lifetime, simply because I do not hide the fact that I am an Atheist. However, it may be easy for you, likely sitting there in a majority, likely having no real idea what it's like to be persecuted against, to tell me that it's not a problem. user:LucaviX

About a decade ago I used to visit http://www.infidels.org a popular Atheist site that deals with things such as persecution. The problem is that the police don't count it as a hate crime when someone's car gets keyed up for having an Atheist America bumpersticker or when a 63 year old man is shot after saying "I won't believe in Jesus until Gabriel blows his horn." As such, like with homosexuals, the results of persecution become minimized. Rather than being murdered for being an Atheist, suddenly it simply becomes a random act of murder. Rather than vandalism against a person for having an Atheist bumpersticker, it's simply vandalism. I'd imagine that if the government passed hate crime legislation, and religiously motivated crimes against atheist were recognized as religiously motivated hate crimes, suddenly you'd notice that persecution was and is a real problem. user:LucaviX

LucaviX - a few responses...

I made no claim that atheism is a religion, though I believe personally that it is a faith...faith that there is no deity. But that's another discussion best taken elsewhere at another time, with all due respect.
You wrote, "...there is no universal tenet of christianity other than to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior." That is not entirely correct. That is certainly crucial, but there is far more to Christianity and to being a Christian than simply acceptance of a savior. It's simple, but not quite that simple. So the one who persecutes another person (as we are talking about here) is not necessarily a legitimate representative of Christianity, any more than someone who believes there might be a god is a legitimate representative of atheism; one can't violate a central tenet of the faith and still be lifted up as a legitimate example. Fair to both sides?
Opposing the acquisition of certain legal privileges by a certain group is also not persecution. Would that this were true! Persecution involves violence, pain, and death. That's not what you're referring to (I think...forgive me if I'm incorrect).
Persecution is different than discrimination...we cannot change that. Are homosexuals generally discriminated against by American Christians? Yes. Are they persecuted? No...except by a small minority who are not representative of Christianity, as, again, they violate imortant tenets of the faith.
I regret that you have felt persecuted by any Christians. As far as I am able (and obviously I have no direct authority to speak for all of Christendom), I apologize. I pray it doesn't happen again. But there's no big "anti-atheist" movement among American Christians. There are a few fringe lunatics who engage in violence and true hate, but they are not representative of all Christians.
At any rate, I agree with the bulk of your proposed edit...minus the sentence I previously mentioned.

KHM03 12:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"I made no claim that atheism is a religion, though I believe personally that it is a faith...faith that there is no deity. But that's another discussion best taken elsewhere at another time, with all due respect."

Sorry, but I don't have faith that there is no deity I simply do not believe in one. Atheism is not a faith, it's a state of non-belief.

"You wrote, "...there is no universal tenet of christianity other than to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior." That is not entirely correct. That is certainly crucial, but there is far more to Christianity and to being a Christian than simply acceptance of a savior. It's simple, but not quite that simple. So the one persecutes another person (as we are talking about here) is not necessarily a legitimate representative of Christianity, any more than someone who believes there might be a god is a legitimate representative of atheism; one can't violate a central tenet of the faith and still be lifted up as a legitimate example. Fair to both sides?"

As I said before, take this up with other christian denominations that disagree with you. You are not the authority on who is and is not a christian. Please cease use of the No True Christian fallacy. Also, if someone believes there might be a god but they simply do not believe in any god or gods, that person can still be considered an atheist, though an atheist agnostic.

Also, please note that what you consider a central tenet of your faith may not be a central tenet of the christian faith in some denominations. Such is a matter of personal belief and opinion, not worldly definition.

"Opposing the acquisition of certain legal privileges by a certain group is also not persecution."

Opposing allowing Homosexuals equal legal rights and representation however, is.

"Would that this were true! Persecution involves violence, pain, and death. That's not what you're referring to (I think...forgive me if I'm incorrect)."

Persecution does not exclusively involve violence, pain, and death. However, such forms of persecution are not uncommon enough to be omitted from a segment called "Christian Persecution." Christians should not simply be presented as the victims of persecution when many are the proponents of persecution as well. The use of the word proponent should also be noted. Many Christians may not actively be the ones persecuting, but support, inspire, and/or sanction persecution. It should also be noted that I omit mention of the worst examples of religious persecution (such as abortion clinic bombings) because I consider them unproductive and misleading.

"Persecution is different than discrimination...we cannot change that."

However, descrimination and persecution still go hand in hand.

"Are homosexuals generally discriminated against by American Christians? Yes. Are they persecuted? No...except by a small minority who are not representative of Christianity, as, again, they violate imortant tenets of the faith."

You again attempt to minimize persecution. For one, it is not for you to say rather or not they are going against the tenets of their christian faith. You have no authority to decide what the tenets of the Christian faith are, save one that is universally accepted. The use of the No True Christian is unproductive to any argument, as it could be levied against you or any other Christian as well.

By the way, the problem is common enough to note, and is very appropiate for a section regarding Christian Persecution. It it won't be removed because persecution is at times inspired by christianity and biblical doctrin. There is a fundamental difference in how christians who advocate persecution read the bible, as opposed to how those who do not read it. I have made reasonable concessions but it is unfair and unreasonable to suggest that mention of very real persecution by christians be omitted from a section ment to deal with such things.

"I regret that you have felt persecuted by any Christians. As far as I am able (and obviously I have no direct authority to speak for all of Christendom), I apologize. I pray it doesn't happen again. But there's no big "anti-atheist" movement among American Christians. There are a few fringe lunatics who engage in violence and true hate, but they are not representative of all Christians."

I never suggested that there was a big movement, simply that individual christians and individual churches are common enough that mention of such persecution is warrented. Futhermore, my admendments to the paragraph in question were to prevent such an assumption from being made. No one is suggesting that such people are representitive of all christians. Irregardless, such people call themselves christians, proclaim belief in Jesus as their Savior, and use biblical text as inspiration for their persecution. As such, such people can be considered christians. There is an environment of descrimination against homosexuals and atheist propogated by some churches and denominations, this environment inspires acts of persecution. Such things should not be minimized any more than mention of the fact that North Korea is an Atheist Police State should be removed.

"At any rate, I agree with the bulk of your proposed edit...minus the sentence I previously mentioned."

Since persecution exist and is a common enough problem, especially for those who are in fact persecuted I must contend that mention of persecution be included and that the results of persecution and descrimination not be minimized to pander to any religious group. I take this position in regards to all forms of discrimination and persecution, and it should be noted that were this a thread about the history of descrimination and persecution against Women in Japan (particularly against feminist) I would be just as opposed to attempts to whitewash or minimize the persecution, which is what I believe is taking place here. --Lucavix 13:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's no whitewash. There is a concise mention of the major points and then a link to more appropriate articles where the issue of persecution can be discussed in greater detail; I urge you to read & edit those articles as you see fit.

I would suggest you go ahead and make whatever edits on this page that you see fit to make, and then I (or another user) will follow up and make appropriate changes as we see fit. KHM03 13:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an attempt to omit mention of persecution against minorities by christians today, persecution which does occur and should not be left out of a segment dealing with Christianity and Persecution. I have been very careful to make it clear that it is not a universal problem and that not all christians, or even most christians, conduct and act as proponents of persecution. I think I have been very reasonable in this, and very objective. I see no logical reason that mention of modern day persecution by christians (and again I note not by all christians) should be omitted. Any attempt to omit such information could suggest a sectarian motive to portray christianity in a positive light. --Lucavix 13:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Artificial

To whoever is inserting statements that Christianity is an 'artificial' religion: Please discuss changes like this on this talk page. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, such a statement has no place in the article. I suspect some sectarian originalism may be at work. --Lucavix 15:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Persecution & NPOV

It seems to me that this section on Persecution blurs any distinction between bias, prejudice, discrimination, and persecution. It overstates the situation to the point of being non-neutral POV. We had virtual concensus from DJ Clayworth , KHM03, Ann Heneghan, and myself just a few days ago, but this seems to be of no consequence to Lucavix who is clearly on a crusade. I think this section deserves a POV warning banner. Jim Ellis 13:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's OK with me, Jim, but how will we achieve a resolution? My first choice would be to return to the state of the section prior to Lucavix's POV edits, but I can live with a modified version of his most recent proposal. Would that be an acceptable resolution for you, or ought we return it to its previous state? KHM03 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Ellis, and I have put the banner on it. I'm rather busy at the moment, so I can't contribute to a lengthy discussion, but one problem is that the account of violence committed by Christians is twice as long as the account of violence committed against them. (And if I'm not mistaken, earlier edits by LucaviX brought it up to THREE times.) Another problem is that discrimination, ridicule, verbal abuse, etc. simply do not add up to "persecution" in the sense in which the word is used when we talk about persecution in the history of the Church — virgin martyrs having a lighted torch applied to their sides, children being thrown to the lions because they refused to worship Roman gods, men having their limbs chopped off, etc. President Bush's remarks may have been offensive, but when placed beside Nero's actions, they seem rather mild.

Removing examples that are not equal in weight to the examples of atrocities committed against the early Christians is not an attempt to whitewash Christianity; it is simply an understanding that the two do not balance. If the Spanish Inquisition balances the Roman persecutions, then it should be included. However, if examples of saying nasty things and not giving someone a job are included, then what about the nasty things said in this century to people because they are Christians? What about the nuns who are spat at on the bus because they are dressed in their habits? What about priests who are approached by strangers who say, "How many children have you molested today?" What about lay people who have pro-life bumper stickers ripped off their cars? I am not suggesting that such things should go in the article; it would make a very bad article. I am pointing out that LucaviX's examples do not provide balance. The Inquisition provides balance for the throwing-to-the-lions bit. LucaviX's examples would provide balance to the examples I have written in this paragraph — examples which I do not intend to insert into the article.

LucaviX, I am sorry that you have been the victim of harrassment and abuse. But the article does not become "neutral" when examples of religious bigotry such as job discrimination and intolerant sermons are given as if they are the equivalent to a fifteenth-century torture chamber. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 14:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Ann. I think it's also worth saying here that persecution of gays is far from unique to Christians. In western societies and in this century I would guess threre's as much from elsewhere. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately something that I had recently written on this segment seems to have been negated by someone else's edits, so I will attempt to restate my point.

Dear Jim Ellis: On mention of the KKK and other such instances, I have agreed whole heartedly and attempted to neutralize what may have been bias. However, there seems to be a bias in the other direction as well. I am not on a crusade, rather I am attempting to maintain a standard of objectivity and fairness, and it is clear that numerous instances of persecutions by christians, or at the very least self proclaimed christians, does occur. I am not attempting to blur the line between Bias, Prejudice, Discrimination, and persecution, however it could be argued that all of these things coexist, and all of the former are necessary for the latter to exist. I have been very careful to make it clear that instances of persecution are not representative of the christian community as a whole, but that persecution does exist. In a segment about Christian Persecution I maintain that it is fitting and appropriate to mention persecution by christians. --Lucavix 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann Heneghan, my intention is to include examples of modern day persecution by christians in the segment entitled Christianity and persecution. I find it both fitting and appropriate to denote that persecution by christians is not simply a problem that only existed in the past, but is in fact a problem that exist today. I must state that no attempt on my part has been made to equivocate modern persecution to the use of fifteenth-century torture chamber. However persecution in the form of threats, harassment, and the denial of equal legal representation, in particularly in the case of homosexuals, does exist today. That such things are forms of persecution is not contested, but rather minimized. I contend that because such persecution is a persistent problem in the modern world it should be noted, but I also suggest that my amended version also be considered so that it is made clear that the problem of persecution is not an universal one. In the revised version I proposed I am careful to make it clear that no blanket accusation can be made. --Lucavix 15:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"I agree, Ann. I think it's also worth saying here that persecution of gays is far from unique to Christians. In western societies and in this century I would guess threre's as much from elsewhere. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

A very reasonable suggestion, I agree completely! --Lucavix 15:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, KHM03, my post above this got caught in an edit conflict, but I had saved it anyway. I'd rather return the article to its previous state. That's not to say that I would dismiss all of LucaviX's concerns, but I think they should be discussed on the talk page first. It may be true that atheists are persecuted, but unless there's a reliable source, (e.g. A study in 2003, carried out by XXX and published in YYY showed that 48 percent of atheists had been fined, beaten, and imprisoned in the United States for refusing to attend a Christian church service,) it doesn't really belong. Discrimination against atheists could be mentioned in one sentence, if it's seen as relevant to a section on persecution; it should not be equated with persecution. And I think LucaviX is forgetting that there is also such a thing as modern discrimination against Christians. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

What does everyone else think...Lucavix, DJ Clayworth, Jim Ellis? KHM03 15:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I cut a big chunk of Lucavix's most recent edit, which I felt was "over the top". It is still NPOV, however, as both the "disputed" tag and (more importantly) the links to articles which specifically deal with persecution remain. KHM03 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The new and improved paragraph: It went a bit longer than I intended but I have attempted to maintain a level of fairness and objectivity. I object to the claim that mentioning persecution by christians violates the WP:NPOV policy though, I would suggest that attempting to remove mentions of modern day persecution instead suggest sectarian bias and a desire to show Christianity entirely in a positive light.

"Some Christians in the United States, even today, have actively persecuted minorities such as Atheists, Pagans, and Homosexuals. Most modern forms of persecution are in no way on the level of the persecution that took place during the Inquisitions or the Crusades, but instead take place on an individual bases. Atheists are far less persecuted in the west today than they were in the mid-19th century but they still suffer some forms of persecution in America. Homosexuals are also still persecuted, more so by some christian denominations than others. Some Christians in the west strongly oppose allowing homosexuals equal legal rights, such as the right to marry, the right to adopt children, the right to employment in positions of authority (such as the teaching profession), and minority protection from hate crimes. Persecution against homosexuals and other minorities may be conducted by people inspired by their own interpretations of the Bible, and may often take the forms of harassment, invasion of privacy, stalking, legal discrimination, or violence. It is only fair to note however that while some Christian Churches actively encourage persecution, there are others who actively discourage it. Persecution by Christians is by no means all or nothing, members of a church may persecute others for religious reasons while other members of the same church may actively discourage persecution altogether. It should also be noted, in all fairness, that not all persecution against minorities is religiously motivated. In some countries minorities are persecuted in predominately secular societies for example, and such persecution may be based on racial ideology, ethnocentrism, political ideology, or simply personal bias."

I hope that this is satisfactory and that no one will allow their religious points of view to predominate their response. --Lucavix 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, have no desire to portray Christianity in a completely positive light. That's why we mention horrors such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, etc., and why we maintain links to articles which explore persecution of and by Christians in further detail. Your suggestion seems far too POV to me to keep it; I restored the other version after your most recent revert. My suggestion is that you convince us here before changing it again. Just a suggestion. KHM03 15:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with KHM03's latest edit. In this form I would also support removal of POV warning Banner. Jim Ellis 15:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ann Heneghan, I know that there is such a thing as modern persecution against Christians, some of the amendments I made was to note modern persecution against Christians in the Middle East and Africa. Mention of targeted assassinations, particularly in Africa, had been left out and I thought it very important to mention that there are Christians that are being targeted for assassination in some parts of the world. I have never suggested that persecution against christians does not exist either, quite the opposite in fact. There is a great deal of persecution and poisonous rhetoric in China for example, that I feel is worth an entire article of it's own.

I truly hope my attempts to include the fact that persecution by Christians exist is not mistakenly perceived by anyone as an attack on Christianity. I've encountered such a problem before with some of my Islamic friends when trying to mention persecution of Jews and Christians in the middle east, particularly Blood Libel accusations. Sadly the entire discussion seems to have been edited off of the talk page and my concerns were ignored.--Lucavix 15:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear KHM03, I again object to the accusation of POV, as I have attempted to maintain a standard of objectivity and I have been very careful not to make blanket claims. Might you note any one, specific concern, quoted from my paragraph, that you consider POV?

Also, I must state again, that my concern is that there is an attempt to only note past forms of persecution, and ignore modern forms of persecution. I believe that there is a tendency to ignore present day problems because certain individuals would prefer to think that persecution by christians is only a problem in the past. Because it exist as a real and persistent problem today, I find it very important, in order to maintain a standard of fairness and objectivity, to note that modern forms of persecution exist. --Lucavix 15:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggested change:

"Some Christians in the United States, even today, have actively persecuted minorities such as Atheists, Pagans, and Homosexuals. Homosexuals are often discriminated against and even persecuted by some Christian individuals and sects. However not all Christians discriminate or persecute, quite the opposite. Though religiously motivated discrimination and subsequent persecution is a very real problem in the modern world, there are many Christians who actively oppose discrimination and even more who oppose persecution altogether. Some Christian groups may even be composed entirely of minorities discriminated against by other groups."

I pretty much like the new paragraph, I just thought I'd throw this out as a suggested revision. --Lucavix 15:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be worthy of noting, for reasons of fairness, that though many Christians who commit persecution often justify their persecution with biblical text, even more oppose persecution based on biblical text and in particular the direct teachings of Jesus. --Lucavix 16:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and edit the article and, since no one seems to object at the moment (particularly to KHM03's changes which, given a minor grammatical tweak and some mark up links may be more ideal) remove the npov tag, but if there's any reason to object feel free to revert it and voice any objections. Please note that my primary interest is maintaining a standard of objectivity and fairness and I do not wish to be perceived as strong arming anything in, or out for that matter. I'm content so long as mention of any modern day form of persecution is left in. I just have to be at work soon so I'm in a hurry to get things done. --Lucavix 16:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No sorry, I object - I just haven't had a chance to reply in the hour and a half since you posted the suggestion. The trouble is much the same as before - you are equating some relatively mild arguments over what is and isn't moral, and maybe a little job discrimination, with the torture chambers and wholesale slaughter of the past. If we talk about persecution initially in terms of burning to death, and then say "Christians today still persecute gays and other religions", well the casual reader draws the obvious conclusion. Which would of course be wrong. I think we have to find a word other than 'persecution' for whatever it is that is happening.

The other thing that really has to be said is that for almost all of the Twentieth century any discrimination that gays and pagan religions were feeling was coming from society as a whole, not just the Christian bits. It seems hypocritical to blame one religion for something that was generally true. DJ Clayworth 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth stated The trouble is much the same as before - you are equating some relatively mild arguments over what is and isn't moral, and maybe a little job discrimination, with the torture chambers and wholesale slaughter of the past. If we talk about persecution initially in terms of burning to death, and then say "Christians today still persecute gays and other religions", well the casual reader draws the obvious conclusion. Which would of course be wrong. I think we have to find a word other than 'persecution' for whatever it is that is happening.

This entire statement is categorically untrue. Never once have I equated persecution as it exist today, often in the form of individual cases of harassment, stalking, and sometimes violence, to the many clearly widespread atrocities that occurred between the rise of Constantine and the Witch Trials in the United States. In fact I worded it, very carefully, to make it clear that such persecution is not a mainstream problem, and have made numerous concessions and attempted very adamantly to remove any and all POV.

I suggest that you note the following from my former (and not current) suggested revision. "Most modern forms of persecution are in no way on the level of the persecution that took place during the Inquisitions or the Crusades, but instead take place on an individual bases." Unfortunately I had failed to list my current suggested revision, which I based entirely on the initial revision made by KHM03. I thought I had but I was mistaken. Anyway the full, current suggested revision is listed twice below.

Maybe your problem is with how it's worded. I recognize that wording it to say "Even today" when directly followed by very extreme examples of persecution may be misleading, though due to the lack of specific mention of this (When you make blanket accusations of POV without giving specific examples it's counter productive by the way) I failed to notice it before. Rather than being an obstructionist could you please suggest a revision that you would find acceptable, without attempting to remove mention of the fact that said persecution does indeed exist and without attempting to minimize such persecution? Also, can you give more direct examples of what you perceive (though I contend mistakenly) as POV, preferably in the form of exact quotes, in the future, rather than simply making ambiguous accusations of POV? Also, please note that if there does exist any POV that I am unaware of, it is not my personal POV. I resurrected and revised a paragraph that someone else had attempted to remove. The initial paragraph carried clear POV, and it was my initial desire to Neutralize and Regulate the paragraph, to maintain a standard of fairness and objectivity, because some of the points the initial inserter of the paragraph attempted to make were indeed valid.

DJ Clayworth stated The other thing that really has to be said is that for almost all of the Twentieth century any discrimination that gays and pagan religions were feeling was coming from society as a whole, not just the Christian bits.

In the United States of America decimation against Pagans, Atheist, and Homosexuals comes almost exclusively from Christians. In fact I can only think of a single instance that it does not, and that includes skin heads. The influence of Christianity in such discrimination should not be minimized.

DJ Clayworth said It seems hypocritical to blame one religion for something that was generally true.

Firstly, your accusation that I have done this is misguided. No one is claiming that only Christians persecute or discriminate, but the topic of discussion is Christianity and persecution. That means we are not here to list example of persecution or discrimination against non-christians by non-christians. We are only here to list examples of persecution, historical and modern, by and against christians. I notice that you haven't objected to my mention of the persecution Christians suffered for the first three hundred years in ancient Rome, nor have you objected to my mention that Christians are often the victims of Targeted Assassination in the Middle east and Africa (Especially Africa) but you seem to rile in revulsion when I mention the fact that Some Christians, and Some Christian sects in the United States actively persecute minorities, particularly Atheist, Pagans, and Homosexuals.

Persecution against such minorities does exist, and it is a problem. Maybe it isn't a problem for you per say, but it's a huge problem for people who are stalked, assaulted, threatened, and have their property vandalized. You should not try to minimize such religiously motivated persecution as simply a societal problem either. I contend that doing so is very disingenuous on your part. The fact is that the vast majority of people who conduct persecution against these groups are the same people with Jesus Fish bumper stickers.

Lastly, I state again, I have been very careful to make it clear that such persecution is not representative of the christian community as a whole. Rather than making blanket accusations of POV I challenge you to provide exact quotes, and then detail in a non-sectarian way exactly what makes them POV. I suggest that you may well contain a certain level of POV bias yourself, and that you may be allowing it to spill over into your accusations and objections. --LucaviX 23:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the current revision I suggest, I have actively been trying to work with the community and, in the face of (what I percieve as) fierce obstructionism I might add, to neutralize any and all POV from the article. I continue to contend that it is important to note that persecution by Christians, or more appropriately by some individual Christians, and individual sects, does exist today. I repeat that my primary concern is that persecution is being presented as if it were a problem of the past that no longer exist today, and I contend that persecution by Christians does exist today. I should also note that the entire segment regarding early persecution by the Romans was inserted by myself, and so was much of the information regarding modern day persecution against christians in China, as well as mention of the problem (and far from uncommon problem) of targeted assassinations (which is today a HUGE problem in Africa and I encourage that someone, anyone with the time start an article on it, I promise I would attempt to contribute a lot to it. I come from a Catholic Family, my grandfather was targeted for assassination over there during a mission, and before that he was literally tortured and humiliated, but I know I can't fit this personal account into the article).

The article revision I suggest, with the words "Even today" removed due to recognition of an unintentional association with an above paragraph:

Some Christians in the United States today, have actively persecuted minorities such as Atheists, Pagans, and Homosexuals. Such minorities are sometimes discriminated against and even persecuted by some Christian individuals and sects. However not all Christians discriminate or persecute. Though religiously motivated discrimination and subsequent persecution is a very real problem in the modern world, there are many Christians who actively oppose discrimination and even more who oppose persecution altogether. Some Christian groups may even be composed entirely of minorities who are sometimes discriminated against by other groups.

It's important to mention that in today's world more Christians actively oppose persecution than condone it. While some Christian individuals and sects may use Biblical text to support and condone persecution, many more Christians use Biblical text to advocate peace, fairness, and tolerance. Many of the Christian opponents of religious persecution are inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus.

Please note my clear and active attempt to provide a counterweight, and my efforts to prevent associating Christians in general with persecution. I think I am being very reasonable, and that there is an element of POV and obstructionism being levied against my suggestions. --User:LucaviX:LucaviX 00:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

User:LucaviX:LucaviX wrote that he "cannot think of one instance of persecution of gays that does not involve Christians, and that includes skinheads". Well pardon me for stating the obvious, but if you are really saying that all the skinheads, punks, and general lowlifes who ever beat up a gay person were practising Christians then you had better come up with some pretty convincing evidence. Seriously, here in Canada at least there have been many attacks on gays by skinheads and Asian youths, and no evidence whatsoever that they were Christians. There have also been cases of high school kids beating up their gay classmates, and again absolutely no evidence that they were Christians.

On the subject of more organised discrimination, for the first half of this century the main complaints of the homosexual community were laws making gay sex illegal. These laws were passed by various legislators, but you certainly can't say that the lawmakers were exclusively Christian.

You are right in saying that Christians may have been involved with some of the general discrimination carried out by society. However I think it's unreasonable to mention Christians in this context unless they discriminated against people to a greater extent than the rest of society. Otherwise we have to include articles for every single social or ethnic group about how they have carried out discrimination. "Blacks and persecution", "Bhuddists and persecution", "Rotarians and persecution", "Little league hockey coaches and persecution".

Seriously this whole thing could probably be avoided if we were just more specific. Let's be specific about what Christians believe and do, instead of just saying "they persecute people". DJ Clayworth 13:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, allow me to reword that, I typed it way wrong. I can only think one one instance of persecution against homosexuals that DOESN'T involve christians, and that one involves Skinhead. I'm not in any way trying to associate Skinheads with christians. The fact is, however, that real persecution happens, by christians, and it's not a nonexistent problem that should be minimized.

On the subject of more organised discrimination, for the first half of this century the main complaints of the homosexual community were laws making gay sex illegal. These laws were passed by various legislators, but you certainly can't say that the lawmakers were exclusively Christian.

I'm not talking about then, I'm talking about today. Though the point is valid, a lot of the anti-Sodomy laws came out of the misguided Eugenics in the United States movement, and most of the proponents of this were ethnocentric secularist.

You are right in saying that Christians may have been involved with some of the general discrimination carried out by society. However I think it's unreasonable to mention Christians in this context unless they discriminated against people to a greater extent than the rest of society. Otherwise we have to include articles for every single social or ethnic group about how they have carried out discrimination. "Blacks and persecution", "Bhuddists and persecution", "Rotarians and persecution", "Little league hockey coaches and persecution".

Well the truth is there aren't any real examples of Buddhist persecution, other than the obvious sexism that long predominated buddhist tradition. The fact of the matter is however that the ones who persecute against Atheist, Homosexuals, and Pagans, By and large do so for religious reasons. Again I'm not talking about discrimination, and I'm not only talking about homosexuals, I'm talking about the larger problem of persecution, not from society as a whole, but from christian sects that I have in my revisions noted are out of the mainstream. Of course, it may be easy to ignore Calvinist and other sects. Please note my use of the words some Christian individuals and sects.

I protest that you are simply being defensive of christianity, and that I am not attacking christianity. You constantly allege that I am broadly associating christians as a whole to such things, well the use of the term individuals and sects was purposely chosen to avoid this.

Seriously this whole thing could probably be avoided if we were just more specific. Let's be specific about what Christians believe and do, instead of just saying "they persecute people".

Firstly, the topic in question is Christianity and persecution and not "What Christians Believe and Practice." Secondly, there is no single monolithic "what christians believe in practice" as, the only belief held by all denominations is that the God of Abraham exist and Jesus is the Messiah. Some christian individuals and sects also practice or actively encourage forms of persecution against minorities such as stalking, vandalism, and violence. Rather or not they are good examples of christians should not matter, because they are out there and it is a real problem for minorities in America. Why don't we take removing mention of christian individuals and sects as persecuting homosexuals, atheist, and pagans off the table. Let's instead focus more on how we can include mention of the problem in a way that we can agree on. --LucaviX

"Only one instance that doesn't involve Christians" - I hope you mean "only one kind of instance", since there are many more than one instance of gays being beaten up. But even that statement doesn't hold water. Like I said, kids are beaten up at school for being gay (or even thought of as that) but that involves neither skinheads nor Christians.

Once again I have to object to laying at the feet of Christians injustices that were perpetrated by society as a whole. If you are really talking only about the last ten years or so then you really need to find another word than 'persecution', or we appear to equate some verbal disagreement with the killing and torute of earlier years. If you go back to the time when there was actual legal discrimination then you should only mention it when it was done by Christians specifically rather than society at large. DJ Clayworth 16:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth have you read my most recent suggested revision? Firstly, the problem is with persecution by individual christians and christian sects. Such persecution exist, and must remain in the article to maintain a standard of fairness and objectivity. Secondly on your your statement "or we appear to equate some verbal disagreement with the killing and torute of earlier years" this is untrue. No such equation has been made. Deliberate steps have been conducted to prevent such an equation from being made. I challenge you to provide an exact quote from my most recent revision and explain how it suggest what you allege it suggest. Are you suggesting individual instances of stalking, violence, and vandalism by Christians motivated by their Doctrine to persecute against homosexuals is in fact something other than persecution?

What's this really about? I doubt that this is really about any non-sectarian objection to the facts being presented. I suspect that there may be a misconception here, a mistaken belief that an attack on Christianity is taking place. Maybe I'm just overanalyzing things as a Psychiatrist, but if I'm right I can assure you that were this topic "Atheist persecution" I'd be squeezing persecution that takes place in North Korea and China in there. LucaviX LucaviX

My point has been that all this is too much for a concise overview; it belongs on the appropriate articles, and to stretch this out too much as if it were among the most important aspects of Christianity is POV. KHM03 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you consider inclusion of counterweights POV. Doesn't POV mean Point of View? If I'm not mistaken in this, then I wonder, what exactly did you object to as POV? Voicing concerns about the length of a paragraph is fair, just as fair as providing a passing mention of persecution by christians in the modern world. How about we not use the POV complaint again without giving specific examples? It's no more than obstructionism to say "POV" and then not giving an actual example of what one considers POV. It's also rather non-constructive to build up a straw man argument to rip down. LucaviX

Attempts to engage in edit wars

Unless a point by point objection is given to my amendments to the article, including exact quotation, and reverts continue absent of objection, the party conducting said reverts will be reported for conducting abuse. --LucaviX 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

LucaviX - Ann Heneghan, Jim Ellis, DJ Clayworth, and I have all objected to your edit(s). I understand that you don't agree with the consensus on this one, but why declare an edit war? And why threaten me with something? That won't bear fruit for anyone, certainly not for the accuracy of this article.

The truth is that wiki policy doesn't require us to give you "exact quotation" (not sure exactly what it is you're looking for, to be honest). Read the above texts...lots of objections to your ideas, which the objectors feel are too POV. Please work with the community and abide by the consensus. KHM03 21:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

LucaviX - Ann Heneghan, Jim Ellis, DJ Clayworth, and I have all objected to your edit(s).

The 'elite' have spoken. Hah, what a bunch of dictators (just callin' it like I see it ;) ). Personally, I agree whole-heartedly with LucaviX. Persecution(perhaps better labeled 'discrimination,' but left in the "Christianity and persecution" section) by Christians perpetrated against homosexuals is common from what I've seen in my area. Three pro-Christians vs. One Atheist. Good luck LucaviX. ;-p --bing (September 07, 2005)

HTML Text converted to Talk Page and removed from article.

KHMO3 stated Restored the agreed upon passage; please note, LucaviX, that a third revert would place you in violation of the 3RR rule on wikipedia; please seek consensus on the talk page before reverting again and abide by the communty's decision

Objection Made: By LucaviX No objections to my proposed revisions have been given, before, during, or after the revisions were made. In the absence of any objection, when due time has been given for an objection to be made, there is typically an assumption of consensus by default.

Concession: By LucaviX My proposed revision will be held for one week, or until it is discussed, by three or more peers, and an agreement on it's structure can be made.

Edit Made: Reasons Given; By LucaviX The grammar used was poor and no reason was given for that which has been edited out. That which has been edited out has been left out but should be discussed on the discussion page. Edits have been made to add markups and correct grammatical errors. The word Homosexuals changed to Such minorities so as to prevent misleading people into thinking that only homosexuals suffer persecution.

Notation Made: By LucaviX, 3RR rules apply to all parties involved, including yourself.

Request Made: By LucaviX Please do not revert again without giving point by point reasons, with exact quotes, on the talk page. Reverting without discussing reasons may result in an abuse report. Also, please let us not include any more lengthy discussion in HTML format.

LucaviX - Hard to follow some of that; suffice to say that four users have objected to your edits...see the above sections of the talk page. Please respect the consensus and continue to voice objections here. Thanks...KHM03 22:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

LucaviX - Ann Heneghan, Jim Ellis, DJ Clayworth, and I have all objected to your edit(s).

This statement is false. No objection to the revised version has been Given. If I am wrong, quote such an objection.

I understand that you don't agree with the consensus on this one, but why declare an edit war?

Firstly, I did agree with the consensus, as I have stated in a previous discussion. Secondly, I am not the one who has waged an edit war. It is you who has made reverts without giving a reason, and in the absence of any objection to the current revision I have suggested, constant reverts against my revised paragraph(s) can be considered an edit war, which violates Wikipedia policy.

And why threaten me with something? That won't bear fruit for anyone, certainly not for the accuracy of this article.

I did not threaten you, but I will report percieved abuse of wikipedia policy if it continues without discussion and/or mention of motivation.

The truth is that wiki policy doesn't require us to give you "exact quotation" (not sure exactly what it is you're looking for, to be honest).

I never suggested that it did, but I request exact quotation from my revision, of any sentence or phrase that you object to, and reasons for said objection. The reason of my request is to minimize ambiguity.

Read the above texts...lots of objections to your ideas, which the objectors feel are too POV.

Firstly, no exact example has been given, only an ambiguous accusation of POV. Secondly, no objection to the revised version of your amendments have been given, all objections were to a prior version of a paragraph that someone else had written, that was taken out, that I attempted to put back in and revise to remove POV.

Please work with the community and abide by the consensus.

I have abided by the consensus that had been made. However no objections to my most recent proposed revisions have been given. I have attempted to work with the community and make active contributions. I request that you try not to be an obstructionist but rather attempt to add to or edit my contributions, to remove any perceived POV.--Lucavix 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

KHM03 Posits: LucaviX - Hard to follow some of that; suffice to say that four users have objected to your edits...

This statement only applies to the paragraph as it existed prior to my most recent suggestion revisions, based upon your revisions, which I somewhat suspect that you have not yet read. --Lucavix 22:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The revisions I have suggested are as follows:

Some Christians in the United States, even today, have actively persecuted minorities such as Atheists, Pagans, and Homosexuals. Such minorities are sometimes discriminated against and even persecuted by some Christian individuals and sects. However not all Christians discriminate or persecute. Though religiously motivated discrimination and subsequent persecution is a very real problem in the modern world, there are many Christians who actively oppose discrimination and even more who oppose persecution altogether. Some Christian groups may even be composed entirely of minorities who are sometimes discriminated against by other groups.

It's important to mention that in today's world more Christians actively oppose persecution than condone it. While some Christian individuals and sects may use Biblical text to support and condone persecution, many more Christians use Biblical text to advocate peace, fairness, and tolerance. Many of the Christian opponents of religious persecution are inspired by the life and teachings of Jesus.

If any objection to the above exist, let it be stated, with exact quotations of that which one objects to. It is important to quote the parts that you object to, if any, in order to minimize ambiguity and maximize the productivity of the discussion. --Lucavix 22:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I object still, and for the following reasons. Persecution is way too strong a term for what goes on on Western countries today. To use it is really an insult to people who have suffered torture, death and imprisonment for their beliefs. Also the section should mention discrimination against Christians in the same way. Christians are still restricted from practicing their religion in public places, are subject to ridicule for their beliefs, and have been attacked by opponents (Yes, this is in the US). You seem to be trying to make the situation seem much worse than it is by using the same langauge that we use in the sections above when we are talking about torture and death. Why not be more specific about what goes on, and how much of it goes on? DJ Clayworth 17:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth Stated I object still, and for the following reasons. Persecution is way too strong a term for what goes on on Western countries today.

Are you saying that various individual instances of stalking, harassment, vandalism, and violence against people for religiously motivated reasons isn't persecution? I guess you want us to remove any and all mention of persecution against christians in China, since it seems to exist on the same level.

DJ Clayworth Stated To use it is really an insult to people who have suffered torture, death and imprisonment for their beliefs.

This statement is false. No one is insulting those who have suffered in the past. However persecution doesn't only take the most extreme and systematic of forms. Still as far as being killed for their beliefs goes, it's not as if that's simply a problem of the past, though much rarer it does still happen today.

DJ Clayworth Stated Also the section should mention discrimination against Christians in the same way.

It does.

DJ Clayworth Stated Christians are still restricted from practicing their religion in public places, are subject to ridicule for their beliefs, and have been attacked by opponents (Yes, this is in the US).

Firstly, in the United States, no one to my knowledge is preventing Christians from carrying out religious practices in public, I suspect that your statement is false. Now if you're attempting to complain that Christians are not allowed to obstruct traffic in order to conduct their religious practices, or that Christians are not allowed to break other laws, or that Christians don't receive special treatment in Public Schools (Equal rights are not Special Rights, Muslims and Pagans aren't allowed to have their prayers represented in schools or read over the intercoms and they aren't yelling discrimination about it), how does this even begin to compare with disallowing someone the right to have a legal, secular Marriage? How does ridicule even begin to compare to being stalked and threatened? And how does your argument amount to any more than hypocrisy on your part, given some of your previous statements?

DJ Clayworth Stated You seem to be trying to make the situation seem much worse than it is by using the same langauge that we use in the sections above when we are talking about torture and death.

At this point I can only say that you're barking at shadows. Firstly I have not suggested such language in the article, you are building a straw man argument. Secondly if I wanted to make things seem worse I'd mention the actions of certain calvinist sects, and go back to the early fascist Black Coats in Italy. But no, all I want is to represent the fact that persecution by christians still exist today. I have also used words like individuals and sects to be fair, and even in one suggested amendment suggested that it be stated that most modern persecution was nowhere near being "on the same level" as what was mentioned in the above paragraphs. You seem to have deliberately ignored all of this.

DJ Clayworth Stated Why not be more specific about what goes on, and how much of it goes on?

Because then people whine about the length of a paragraph being too long and allege that more attention is being given to persecution by Christians than Against, even in the majority of the paragraph in fact reflects positively on Christianity. LucaviX

I don't think it's unreasonable to complain that the same word is used to describe in one case torture, imprisonment and death; and in the other what amounts to a disagreement over morality and a few harsh words. There are plenty of other words that better describe the current situation than persecution. The violence you mention is exactly how you describe it: individual and sporadic, and I have still to see any evidence that more than a tiny fraction of it is carried out by Christians. Is there not as much individual and sporadic violence against Christians? I'm not intimately familiar with the situation in the US, but there's been a lot of coverage of people forbidden from praying in high schools, prevented from talking about religion. If two charitable organisations are performing exactly the same services, the secular one would be eligible for government funding and the religious one would not. I've certainly heard cases where prominent atheists describe Christian belief as "a form of insanity". Would that count as 'persecution' by the standards we seem to be trying to use here?

However, I should say that, as I write below, I'm happy with the current wording in the article, so maybe we are closer on this than we thought. DJ Clayworth 13:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: Expanded section of Persecution Against Christians in China and Africa.

While I know that direct violence is rather uncommon as a form of persecution in China, (or alternately, it may be common but under reported) many Christians, particularly in the political spectrum, have alleged that Chinese Legal Authorities often discriminate against Christians. Such allegations often include claims that Legal Authorities issue greater fines and harsher sentences to Christians than they do to non-Christians. I'm not sure how these allegations could (or if they should) be fit in, but I think it may be a good idea to start a discussion on the issue. Since I currently lack any direct source (I've heard the allegations several times but I do not remember the sources) maybe discussion could prove fruitful.

I'm most interested, however, in providing specific examples of persecution against Christians in Africa (Especially regions like Sudan). I know there are separate articles to the persecution problem in the Middle East, but persecution in Africa doesn't seem to be discussed much. I have heard first hand accounts, both through my profession and from personal Christian friends, and I have my own personal account (which I make passing mention of above), but it's hard to get official accounts because of search limitations. I would like to get a discussion going about persecution in Africa, and hopefully get some links and information that may potentially help start an article on the issue.

Anyway, if anyone has anything, and I mean anything, they would like to say to get a conversation started, or any suggestions or sources they may be able to provide, that would be great. --Lucavix 00:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with writing more about this subject, which you are right, doesn't seem to be covered much. Why don't we write it at Persecution of Christians? We could write much more there without crowding the article too much. DJ Clayworth 14:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Monotheistic?

Isn't it POV to call Christianity monotheistic? Muslims consider it polytheism, and many critics of trinitarian theology have said the same thing. Since no one these days seems to dispute that Christians worship both the God of Abraham and Jesus, calling it monotheism implies that you accept that Christian assertion that these are somehow the same entity.67.66.159.249 22:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, most secularist and Atheist like myself consider it Monotheism, though some would suggest that it has polytheistic concepts (such as angels). However even with these concepts it's only polytheism if there is more than one god, and since angels and the like aren't seen as gods then the shoe fits, and we call Christianity mono-theistic. Rather or not someone considers it otherwise for sectarian reasons, as many Muslims sometimes do, should have no weight on the wordly definition applied to it. LucaviX

I don't think you grasp the point at issue.67.66.159.249 23:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You have the idea of POV turned on its head. Some non-Christians and non-trinitarians do not agree, but in trinitarian Christianity God is one being. Trinitarian Christianity is by definition a monotheistic religion; others might disagree, but that's their point of view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Just because some people claim Scientology is a cult, doesn't mean we say it is a cult. Other examples are available. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Revisions Required.

In need of revision:

"Christians in Western countries are sometimes accused of persecution and discrimination today, although alleged offences are minor compared with the torture and death of persecutions elsewhere. The campaigns of some Christians against homsexual rights gives rise to allegations of discrimination. Christian disagreements with other religions are sometimes seen as persecution by those disagreed with, and campaigns by a small minority of Christians for the setting up of Christian states are seen as dangerous by those of different faiths. Christians see the restrictions placed on religious activity in the public sphere as a form of discrimination. For example in the US atheist organisations may receive government funding, while Christian organisations may not, even if doing the same work."

It should be noted that the government is prevented from giving funding to any Religious organization, not simply Christian ones. It should also be noted that in the United States Religious organizations receive Tax Exemption, "Atheist" organizations do not. Also, I'm not actually aware of any Atheist organizations in the united states that are not privately funded, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Finally it should be noted that a Secular organization does not constitute an Atheist organization.

Beyond that, I have a mild concern with grammatical errors and misspellings. --Lucavix 23:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision made: Many misspelled words corrected. Various markups added. Information added. Grammatical errors corrected. Minor tweaks made to regulate what may have been unintentionally misleading information.

Revised version reads:

Christians in Western countries are sometimes accused of persecution and discrimination today, although alleged offences are minor compared with the torture and death as forms of persecution elsewhere. The campaigns of some Christians against allowing homosexuals equal legal rights, and rare individual instances of religiously motivated violence and vandalism sometimes fuel these allegations. Christian disagreements with other religions are also sometimes seen as persecution by those disagreed with, particularly when the rhetoric reaches what some perceive as threatening. Campaigns by a small minority of Christians for the setting up of Christian states are sometimes seen as a dangerous form of separatism, particularly by those of different faiths. Some Christians see alleged restrictions placed on some forms religious activity in the public sphere as a form of discrimination. In the United States many secular organizations may receive government funding, but not tax exempt status, while religious organizations may not receive government funding but do receive tax exemption.

There were many reasons for the revision.

Noted that the controversy around homosexuals has to do primarily with legal rights.

Made note of rare individual instances of religiously motivated violence and vandalism. Please note use of the terms rare and individual before giving any potential defensive response.

Made note that disagreements are seen as persecution particularly when the rhetoric reaches what some perceive as threatening as opposed to simply suggesting that any disagreement is perceived as persecution.

Noted that calls for Christian states by a small minority are often seen as a dangerous form of separatism and added particularly by those of different faiths so as to not mislead people into thinking only those of different faiths view it as such (calls for recession are seen as such by many, including many Christians).

Added that some forms of religious activity are not allowed in the public sphere, to prevent misleading people into thinking all religious activity is restricted.

Also added that in the United States many secular organizations may receive government funding in particular changing the word atheist to secular as to not mislead people into mistakenly confusing secularity with atheism. It should be noted that many Christians are also political secularist

Added the word many as not to mislead people into thinking that all secular organizations receive Government funding (most are privately funded, especially Atheist groups like American Atheist which to my knowledge are all privately funded).

Added that secular organizations may not receive tax exempt status.

Changed Christian organizations may not to religious organizations may not receive government funding but do receive tax exemption because it was misleading and gave the incorrect suggestion that only Christian religious organizations could not receive government funding. No religious organization, Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or otherwise may receive government funding.

Also made note that such religious organizations receive Tax Exemption, while Secular Groups do not.

I hope the above revisions are accepted in good faith and not misconstrued. --Lucavix 00:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with those revisions. Thanks: good work.

I wonder if we could genralise the passage to include the rest of the world, without making it much bigger? DJ Clayworth 13:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What's this about "In the United States many secular organizations may receive government funding, but not tax exempt status"? There are thousands of secular non-profit organizations that are tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), including, interestingly enough, the Council for Secular Humanism and American Atheists. JHCC (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know this. If this is true, then it is very interesting. I would suspect that such organizations are also privately funded however. LucaviX

problems with article

I am a white male in the USA. With that being said I think the article is too USA/Europe oriented. I will add some footnotes perhaps in the future so readers can learn more about what is happening in Asia and other places. If anyone wants to do it now here are some sources:

How Christianity is Growing Around the World By Charles Colson http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp

Christianity Today, Charasmatic christian growth in the world http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1998/nov16/8td28a.html

The Coming Underground Church in Europe By Wendy Griffith http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/021206a.asp

ken 18:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Criticisms and responses

Does anyone else think the criticisms and responses sections have got too large. This is an encyclopedia, but these sections are starting to read like a debating society. Surely we don't need anyone to tell us that not everybody believes in Christianity, and therefore they disagree with it; nor do we need to say that Christians think the critics are wrong. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And, it would be helpful, instead of speaking for Christians, if editors anxious to answer critics would cite some concise rebuttal. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't taken in the content, but these sections are shorter than the section on "persecutions," so be happy they are not any longer. :-) Jim Ellis 22:43, August 26, 2005

(UTC)

I am the person who created the responses to the criticisms of Christianity. I think "the moral objection", intolerance, and Christians are wishful thinkers/dreamers/ignorant objections are the most common objections. I don't see more objections and associated responses. If they do occur, I think some limits might be imposed judiciously. However, Christianity is the largest worldview and Christians have to expect some flack since among other reasons we are the biggest target. Lastly, I do think it would be reprehensible if Christians were not allowed to give responses to criticisms. Sincerely, the gentleman who offered the responses to criticisms

I expect that if there are criticisms, they should be answered. But for the answer to be credible, it can't be original with us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I do think it is helpful to clear the air and allow criticisms of Christianity and responses to the critics. Setting aside the issue of whether the charges against Christianity are valid, the common criticisms leveled at Christianity are not going to stop being charged in the public forum. I think it is a public service to offer the common criticisms and to offer responses to the critics. I think this is one of the advantages of Wikipedia over other reference sources. Sincerely, the gentleman who offered the responses to the critics of Christianity

addendum to mark, regarding the criticisms of Christianity and the responses

Mark, we both know that I personally like you and we agree on much. With that being said, I do think I used sources to respond to critics. For example, if Voltaire criticizes Christianity for being intolerant it should be pointed out via a quote that Voltaire tried to crush Christianity and was not a very good expert on Christianity. By the way, I do think that some of my responses to the criticisms of Christianity could be incorporated in main article -especially material in the source material (footnotes). sincerely, the gentleman who responded to the critics of Christianity.

I'm more concerned about the answers that aren't attributed; and, I'm only saying this as an observation of what seems to work best for keeping sections like this from growing into an argumentative mess. Sections like this one should be designed to grow into a separate article; and the best way to do this is to be sure that whatever goes into this section has a solid citation supporting it. For example, this statement is true enough:

In addition, in regards to Richard Dawkins stating that Christianity has sought to limit rational inquiry it should be pointed out that Richard Dawkins is a biologist and not a historian of science or a historian of religion.

Even if it's true that Dawkins is a biologist and not an historian of science or religion, it's not a good argument against what he's saying as a biologist. If the argument could be attributed to someone, I'd feel obliged to keep it. However, since it's not attributed, my impulse is to improve upon it - but if I try to do that, it would be original with me. The better course would be to delete it; and yet, in that case Dawkins' remark is left without any rejoinder at all. That's why I'm recommending that if answers are given, they should be directly traceable to someone besides the editors of Wikipedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

An additional problem for me is that the criticism attributed to Dawkins is a well known criticism (certainly not unique to him) of religion in general (a la Freud, Marx, et al). It seems to me that this isn't a specific critique of Christianity as much as of religion; should it be here, or elsewhere? KHM03 21:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms and Responses to Criticism

In regards to criticisms, it seems to have an anti-christian slant (I was too concerned with other things to notice until recently). I have no objection to providing mention of actual criticism but it seems POV in a sense to include criticisms without counterpoints. As for the "bombing of abortion clinics" being cited, this really troubles me. I had this removed from Christianity and Persecution from fear that it would misleading (the acts of one and only one man in United States history should not be used as a criticism of Christianity), and since then a special interview on MSNBC showed that the Abortion Clinic Bomber was motivated as much by racism as anything, due to the misguided belief that white women were being influenced to have more abortions or some nonsense.

Also, Responses to Criticism seems to have a clear pro-christian slant. I can see giving a rebuttal of an accusation but to say that Christianity hasn't had a role in various atrocities lacks a historical perspective itself. Also, it noted that "Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, and vehement secular critics of Christianity were never martyred" but the fact is that historically many people have been killed for their non-christian beliefs (or even supposed beliefs). The Salem Witch Trials are a famous example, but heck various individual instances have occurred since then.

On the Criticism side, I see no problem with a valid criticism on the basis of History or (in the case of Jewish Criticism) actual religious doctrine, but I don't think that so and so saying that Doubting Thomas discourages rational inquiry quite counts. On the response to criticism side, I see no problem with addressing the criticisms head on, but attempting to give Christianity credit for things like the Scientific Revolution is disingenuous. It could be argued equally that Darwin's theory of the origin of species was compiled in Christian areas, but Christianity can take no credit for it (in fact many are even today opposed to the science of Evolution that his theory began). --Lucavix 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "criticisms" and "persecution" are somewhat connected, unless we (the community) agree to keep them separate. It really isn't appropo to list certain things as both examples of persecution and criticism (although, surely, something like the Inquisition is legitimately both).

I propose that in the criticisms section, we make mention of the persecution-style stuff but add (For more, see the section below) or something like that. In my view, the most important criticisms have been of that kind, but we don't want overkill here. In the criticisms section, then, we can stick to theological criticisms by non-Christians, such as Freud, Marx, ~~Calvinists~~, Jewish theologians, Muslims, etc.

Just a suggestion; I defer to the community. KHM03 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

to: mark, re: dawkins and the criticisms of christianity and the responses

Here is the Dawkins passage:

"Some critics, such as Richard Dawkins argue that Christianity has sought to suppress rational enquiry and hence the quest for truth. He cites the story of Doubting Thomas from the Bible and argues that the Bible actively discourages believers from making rational enquiries about their faith. Dawkins has said that he is against the religion "because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.""

Now Dawkins must rely on Bible exegesis for his first argument which relies on the Thomas passage. It is fair to say that Dawkins is not a theologian and thus his Bible exegetical skills are open to question and to offer commentary by a noted Bible expert in Matthew Henry.

In regards to Dawkins second comment that religion "teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" that is a broad claim that is the purview of a historian/philosopher/sociologist and Dawkins is a biologist and does not have the broader expertise of a historian, philosopher or sociologist. Also, it is not wrong to offer how Christianity has positively influenced science using a source which offers factual info which I did. sincerely, the gentleman who offered the responses to the critics of christianity

To be frank, it's more than just a "broad claim", it's more evidence of what an unreasoning fanatical bigot Dawkins is. But regardless, my concern here is to be careful in the way that we approach this section, to lay a good precedent, so that as it grows into an article of its own (as it probably should, if such an article doesn't already exist), it should offer the most representative arguments on both sides (and in that regard, I'm more concerned about the side I represent than I am about the other side). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that the section doesn't get too large, distracting from the point of the article. Also, we can surely use more respected critics of Christianity than Dawkins...like Freud, for example. KHM03 22:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Who does Richard Dawkins really represent other than his own biased self? I'm not sure he's even worthy of noting in either article. --65.240.164.114 23:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

to:Lucavix, re: salem witch trials and examples of Christian tolerance, criticisms to christianity and responses

I see no problem with giving the Salem witch trial info. On the other hand, examples of Christian tolerance should be given to. It is a fact, that in the West there is not one modern example of a Salmon Rushdie incident/fatwa. It is also a fact that in the West there has not been one secular critic martyr. These are the facts. It would be unbalanced to just give the Salem info or other info without the counter balancing info.

However the fact remains that Christians have killed people for their beliefs, and the suggestion that specific individuals have not been martyred doesn't mean that others haven't --Lucavix 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

to:Lucavix, Christian tolerance regarding the Bertrand russell, voltaire lack of martydom or secular critic martyrdom, criticisms of Christianity and responses, made sentence more diplomatic

I made the passage more diplomatic.

It now reads:

"While admitting that some Christians have acted towards its critics inappropriately, Christians can point to incidences of Christianity exhibiting tolerance. Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, and vehement secular critics of Christianity were never martyred in the West and there appears to be no evidence that they were threatened to the degree that Salmon Rushdie was."

sincerely, the gentleman who made responses to christianity's critics

I'm uncomfortable with the "Martyr" remarks. What does Rushdie have to do with it? I see no reason to defend Christianity by insulting Islam. KHM03 22:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

to: KHM03

My point in saying that the vehement secular critics of Christianity in the West were not martyred is that it is a example of Christian tolerance. I see no problem with giving such examples. Why must the critics of Christianity be given all the examples and the Christians be given no examples? I have no problem with you being uncomfortable with the secular critics lack of martyrdom. However, consider this. I did modify the passage to make it more diplomatic. Also, just stating you are uncomfortable is insufficient reason to delete it. Being uncomfortable with something does not make it unjustified or wrong. For example, a WWII Allied soldier may feel uncomfortable shooting opposing soldiers supporting Hitler but that does not make it wrong or unjustified.

Lastly, I am not bashing Islam by mentioning Rushdie. I am just saying there is no "Western" Rushie in the West which has many Christians. sincerely, the gentleman who provided a response to Christian criticisms.

To anonymous user:

I'm a pacifist, so I think shooting anyone...even a nasty Nazi...is wrong and unjustified...but I understand your analogy.

I'm uncomfortable with the passage because I think not only can we improve it, but the Rushdie/Islam thing strikes me as counter-productive and completely unnecessary. There are no Muslim critiques of Christianity in the article...why criticize Islam? It doesn't belong, and someone could make an honest claim of POV, which is a violation of wiki policy.

I think we can do better. KHM03 00:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

To: ALL, statement added regarding Christianity/tolerance

I added this sentence:

Also, some Christians argue that Christianity had a role in the growth of tolerance in the West. [1]

Please learn to sign your posts LucaviX

Also, it could be suggested that Christianity has been used to justify much intolerance. As such it should not simply be painted in a positive light. --Lucavix 23:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A surprise comment from the gentleman who created the Christian response to the critics of Christianity?

Someone wrote:

"Who does Richard Dawkins really represent other than his own biased self? I'm not sure he's even worthy of noting in either article. --65.240.164.114 23:13, 27 August 2005"

I think Dawkins should remain. Dawkins represents the current materialism/atheistic point of view. To exclude Dawkins would be intolerant. It is better to leave Dawkins in and give a response.

sincerely, the gentleman who created the response to the critics of Christianity section

To anonymous user:

I think we can do better than Dawkins; Freud is far better known and respected, as is Marx. Or others. Yes, Dawkins is "current", but so what? The article doesn't require that. It wouldn't necessarily be "intolerant" or POV if it were written properly. KHM03 00:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

to lucavix: response to your last post, re: point and counterpoint, Chistian tolerance issue

You wrote:

"Also, it could be suggested that Christianity has been used to justify much intolerance. As such it should not simply be painted in a positive light. --Lucavix 23:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)"

I have no problems with people making this suggestion. On the other hand, the arguments for Christian tolerance should also be given.

sincerely, the gentleman who created the response to the critics of Christianity section

Please stop creating subsections for each response. --Lucavix 23:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that both Criticisms of Christianity and Christian Response to Criticisms be removed until they can be revised, discussed on talk pages, and merged into a single article. --Lucavix 23:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Unknown User posited I think Dawkins should remain. Dawkins represents the current materialism/atheistic point of view. To exclude Dawkins would be intolerant. It is better to leave Dawkins in and give a response.

I have various problems with this. One is that Dawkins is known for the book The Selfish Gene and his comments as an atheist consist mostly of opinion, not critical observations and material scrutiny. Secondly, your suggestion that he can somehow represent the "materialism/atheistic" POV suggest that POV is valid criticism. There is a WP:NPOV policy here, which is why I suggest taking it out. Thirdly, there is no actual "atheistic" point of view, such is a mismurmer as Atheism denotes only the absence of belief in any god or gods, any beliefs or points of view derived from that develops on an individual bases (not all atheist are materialist by the way, many Buddhist are atheist, likewise some atheist belief in magic and ghosts).--Lucavix 23:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

to the Christians:

I think you have to recognize the fact that there are going to be vehement criticisms of Christianity from the secular camp. Christians should respond to them. What I saw before was a "roll over" and let critics say whatever they want attitude. Is that what Justin Martyr did? Did Justin Martyr not make responses to critics?

Signed, the gentleman who created the response to Criticisms of Christianity

re: Lucavix's suggestion

I think the "culture war" between secularist and Christians is because each side disagrees with each other so vehemently. Better to let each side give their best shot and leave it at that.

Signed, the gentleman who created the response to Criticisms of Christianity

Well, I disagree a great deal. What you have just done however is denoted a POV and a questionable motive. I understand your desire to defend Christianity, but the article does not exist either to defend or criticize Christianity. We should be in the business of presenting worldly information as best we can without bias in either direction. That said, Secular is not a negative term, nor does it stand in opposition to religion, after all many religious men have been secular in their sciences and politics. --LucaviX 00:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: Dear User with IP Number 128.205.191.59. Please register and properly sign your posts. --LucaviX 00:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

PSS: The use of http://www.jubilee-centre.org as a source may be a bad idea. http://www.jubilee-centre.org has a clear and stated agenda, and is not an objective site. --LucaviX 00:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

LucaviX made this suggestion a while back, and it got lost in the shuffle...

"I suggest that both Criticisms of Christianity and Christian Response to Criticisms be removed until they can be revised, discussed on talk pages, and merged into a single article."

I agree...let's make an article called Criticisms of Christianity and put all this there, and perfect it. I say in addition we allow LucaviX to get it started. KHM03 01:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you envision this article being Arguments against Christianity - which can only include anti-Christian arguments, and their Christian answers? or do you mean literally, Criticisms of Christianity - which could include many Christian criticisms? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at an article that would present "anti-Christian" (not the best term, probably) perspectives as to how and why Christianity is wrong...not as much from a persecution standpoint (there's already an article for that), but theologically, etc. KHM03 10:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the idea of presenting either a "pro-christian" or an "anti-christian" article. If someone else wants to start one more power to them, but I want no part of it. I would suggest though, that if a criticism article be written, it be balanced, even in it's name. My main problem with the Criticisms shown on the article is that they're not only bad criticisms (IMO) but they are in reality the criticisms of select individuals based primarily on personal opinion. My main problem in response to criticisms here is that they not only aren't very good responses (IMO) but they link to various pro-christian sources, including one with a clear, stated agenda, and they tend to use words like secular inappropriately. LucaviX 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We have articles like Arguments against the existence of God, Mormonism and Christianity, and Great Apostasy. Each is a different type of model for what an article like this could look like. It doesn't have to look like a brawl (Arguments against the existence of God is very tame and aloof); although it may, if that's the most informative way of presenting the information (as the Great Apostasy article does).

In my opinion, by the way, pro-christian sources are the only really credible source of pro-christian arguments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Up for Removal

"While admitting that some Christians have acted towards its critics inappropriately, Christians can point to incidences of Christianity exhibiting tolerance. Individuals such as Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, and other vehement secular critics of Christianity were never martyred in the West and they appear to not have been threatened to the degree that Salmon Rushdie was." Also, some Christians argue that Christianity had a role in the growth of tolerance in the West. [2] In modern times, Christians point out that prosecutions for blasphemy have been rare in nations such as the United States which is a fairly religious country with many Christians.[3] In addition, when critics cite Voltaire in order to criticize Christianity, Christians can point out that Voltaire was not a reliable expert on Christianity or religion. Voltaire wrote, "I will go through the forest of the Scriptures and girdle all the trees, so that in a hundred years Christianity will be but a vanishing memory." However, Geisler and Nix have pointed out that in "only 50 years after his death the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles." (Geisler and Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, Chicago, Moody Press, 1963). In addition, according to Guiness World Records "The world's best-selling and most widely distributed book is the Bible, with an estimated 2.5 billion copies sold since 1815." [4]

In regards to the charge that Christianity sets out to limit rational inquiry, some Christians point out that the Scientific Revolution occured in Christianized Europe and that many of the great scientists in history were Christians. [5] In addition, in regards to Richard Dawkins stating that Christianity has sought to limit rational inquiry it should be pointed out that Richard Dawkins is a biologist and not a historian of science or a historian of religion. Also, in regards to Richard Dawkins citing the story of Doubting Thomas from the Bible and argueing that the Bible actively discourages believers from making rational enquiries about their faith it should be recognized that Richard Dawkins in not considered an expert in Bible exegesis which some scholars say must recognize the principle of confirming the limits of Bible passages in terms of how they are applied. [6]. Matthew Henry offers different Bible commentary on the Bible verse in question.[7]

Some critics of Christianity argue that Christian morality has been detrimental to mankind. Christians argue that Christianity and Christian morals have greatly benefited mankind in many cases and history shows this matter. [8] [9][10][11] Christians argue that while some Christians have acted badly, one must use the principle of total evidence and not merely dwell on the bad acts of certain Christians without taking due consideration of the good acts done by Christians. In addition, nowhere does Jesus or his apostles advocate starting spurious wars or terrorism so Christians see the complaint that Christianity is responsible for such acts as being invalid. Also, Christians see some secular critics of Christianity who accuse Christianity as causing bloodshed as being inconsistent as they are often silent about Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and Kim II Sung. [12][13] [14]

Some Christians have pointed out that some scholars who reject Christianity are ill informed. For example, scholar Jitendra Mohanty participated in a discussion forum with an atheist scholar and two Christian scholars. Jitendra Mohanty was asked about the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Mohanty said that he had not only never examined the evidence, but also that he didn't want to. [15]"

Reason: Most of the Above was not objective. Questionable and biased sources linked to the section. Misuse of various words. Mentions people like Joseph Stalin and suggest that Secular (I have a big problem with the use of the term secular as if it stands in opposition to religion, also not all critics are secular) critics remain silent about his actions (his actions are irrelevant to rather or not christianity has inspired bloodshed, also many secular people have criticized his actions).

This entire segment is rife with POV. It's also too large and contains loaded arguments. I suggest that it be removed. I also suggest that Criticisms of Christianity be removed. LucaviX

"Critics of Christianity have included philosophers, journalists, scientists and other people from all walks of life. Some have argued that Christianity can be an intolerant religion. Bertrand Russell argued that "The puritanism of Christianity has played havoc with the moderation that an enlightened and tolerant critical spirit would have produced." Voltaire said that "Of all religions, Christianity is without a doubt the one that should inspire tolerance most, although, up to now, the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men."

Some critics, such as Richard Dawkins argue that Christianity has sought to suppress rational enquiry and hence the quest for truth. He cites the story of Doubting Thomas from the Bible and argues that the Bible actively discourages believers from making rational enquiries about their faith. Dawkins has said that he is against the religion "because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

Some critics have argued that the Bible's insistence on absolute right and wrong have led misguided people to fight wars such as the Crusades, to commit terrorism such as the bombings of abortion clinics, to murder, and to commit countless atrocities such as the Inquisitions, the Witch Trials, and the Purgings all on the basis of that religion. George Monbiot has also argued that Christian fundamentalists are driving the United States's current foreign policy, to the detriment of all concerned.[16]"

Reasons: The above listed opinions and points of view as valid criticism. Opinion and points of view do not meet the criteria for objective criticism. The above also lists the bombing of abortion clinics as a criticism. The ACB bomber was, according to an MSNBC report, motivated mostly by ethnocentric delusions. The above also quotes questionable sources. The above also gives rather weak "criticisms." LucaviX

Earlier suggestion

LucaviX made this suggestion a while back, and it got lost in the shuffle...

"I suggest that both Criticisms of Christianity and Christian Response to Criticisms be removed until they can be revised, discussed on talk pages, and merged into a single article."

I agree...let's make an article called Criticisms of Christianity and put all this there, and perfect it. I say in addition we allow LucaviX to get it started. KHM03 01:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you envision this article being Arguments against Christianity - which can only include anti-Christian arguments, and their Christian answers? or do you mean literally, Criticisms of Christianity - which could include many Christian criticisms? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at an article that would present "anti-Christian" (not the best term, probably) perspectives as to how and why Christianity is wrong...not as much from a persecution standpoint (there's already an article for that), but theologically, etc. KHM03 10:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the idea of presenting either a "pro-christian" or an "anti-christian" article. If someone else wants to start one more power to them, but I want no part of it. I would suggest though, that if a criticism article be written, it be balanced, even in it's name. My main problem with the Criticisms shown on the article is that they're not only bad criticisms (IMO) but they are in reality the criticisms of select individuals based primarily on personal opinion. My main problem in response to criticisms here is that they not only aren't very good responses (IMO) but they link to various pro-christian sources, including one with a clear, stated agenda, and they tend to use words like secular inappropriately. LucaviX 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

We have articles like Arguments against the existence of God, Mormonism and Christianity, and Great Apostasy. Each is a different type of model for what an article like this could look like. It doesn't have to look like a brawl (Arguments against the existence of God is very tame and aloof); although it may, if that's the most informative way of presenting the information (as the Great Apostasy article does).

In my opinion, by the way, pro-christian sources are the only really credible source of pro-christian arguments. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

re: bias complaint and technical issues

The response to critics of Christian got messed up in regards to links working and content being displayed. I reverted to an earlier version. I did implement some of the internal comments though.

Secondly, I see a problem with not allowing Christian sources to be used. It is the truthfulness or the falsity of content that should be the issue. I also see the complaint being used by an individual who wants the best examples of Christian tolerance to be excluded while the best examples of Christian intolerance be included. I think both should be included.

signed, the gentleman who created the response to Christian critics

TO: Lucivix

You wrote:

"Also, most of your sources are not only of a clear christian bias, but include pure (and often debunked) propaganda on issues such as Abortion and Homosexuality. Sources like http://www.godward.org/ http://www.firstthings.com/ and http://www.str.org/ are unacceptable you don't see others using sources like http://www.americanatheist.com do you? LucaviX"

I am not going to get into a abortion or homosexuality debate. This is an article about Christianity. Please keep your comments to germaine issues and keep complaints focused on the actual articles I cited.

signed, the gentleman who created the response to Christian critics

I am not going to get into a abortion or homosexuality debate. This is an article about Christianity. Please keep your comments to germaine issues and keep complaints focused on the actual articles I cited.

First of all I did not attempt to start a debate on these issues. You utterly failed to even recognize the point I was making. One problem I had was with your clearly biased sources, and I cited examples of such bias. Like I said, you don't see people using sources like http://www.americanatheist.org do you? One last thing... Subscribe and Properly Sign your posts. LucaviX

Secondly, I see a problem with not allowing Christian sources to be used. It is the truthfulness or the falsity of content that should be the issue.

I agree, get a christian source that isn't clearly biased and we'll look at the information it offers.

I also see the complaint being used by an individual who wants the best examples of Christian tolerance to be excluded while the best examples of Christian intolerance be included. I think both should be included.

If you mean me, I'm all for giving the best examples of both, but such examples must both be historical and show a clear link to Christianity. Also, if one large group of Christians shows tolerance while another large group of Christians show intolerance, you can darn well bet both groups are going to be mentioned. That is to say if you cited the Civil Rights Movement and the influence of the church's Martin Luther King spoke in as an example of Christian Tolerance, one may be inclined to list some of the white church's of the time vehemently opposed to the movement.

Now if you wanted to name examples like some of the great missionary work where some Christians are literally rebuilding communities in some parts of the world, that would be wonderful, especially if specific examples could be given. However if you decide to try and say the scientific revolution came from Christian areas one may be inclined to make the historical note that the Heliocentric Theory was violently suppressed and most of our scientific advancement began at a time of increasing secularization and the rediscovery of ancient pagan knowledge. In fact much of what we call science began in the Hellenistic period, when the first gear wheel devices were invented, but many centuries of scientific knowledge was lost with the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

If you try to credit christianity with morality one will be inclined to note that many non-Christian civilizations have developed many of the same morals that act as a foundation for law, some of which predate Christianity. Now if you think in all this I must somehow be a vehement critic of Christianity, then I can assure you that you are greatly mistaken. My concern is with objectivity and worldly truth, and this holds true in regards to non-Christian religions and nonreligious groups as well. LucaviX

request of the Christian community

I think the Christian community was shirking its responsibility here in that the "criticisms to Christianity section" was never responded to. Also, it seems like the "Christianity" section multiplied the bad acts of Christians but was silent on its charity, acts of tolerance, and how it positively affected societies.

Also, I have no problem with a "criticism of Christianity section". I just believe there should be the opportunity to respond to it. In short, in regards to the facts let the chips fall where they may.

I hope you do not have a problem with Christians being assertive yet not aggressive. I do not see a problem with pointing out inadequacies/hypocrisy/inconsistencies the criticisms of Christianity.

Could some Christians please comment on this matter?

Signed, the gentleman who created the section "Christian responses to the criticisms of Christianity"

A concise criticism section with brief responses could be worthwhile. I objected not to the sections' perspective but to the way it was all done...very POV and very sloppy. We can do better, can't we? KHM03 23:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, we weren't "shirking our duty"; this is an NPOV encyclopedia. We are here because we believe that the Truth can speak for itself, even when presented in an NPOV fashion. Let the critics do their thing; that doesn't affect Truth. We can be fair to all sides and still faithful. The goodness of Christianity (which is, of course, Jesus Christ himself) will still be revealed when we are fair, and not necessarily polemic.

PS - There are a lot of bad things for which we Christians have to answer to God and humankind. KHM03 23:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I know that when people write blasphemous, ignorant, harsh or just negative things about Christianity, it seems to require an immediate answer. But, sometimes the best (and ironically, most assertively Christian answer), at least immediately, is no answer. In the case of these criticisms, for example, it is much too accommodating to the critic to answer him directly, in a defensive way. It would be better to develop sections on the intellectual history of Christianity, and the development of Christian works of charity and liberation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)