Talk:Persecutions by Christians

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

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

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

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

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

Structure of the article

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

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

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

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

VFD debate link

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

More History, More Facts, Less POV

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

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

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

Grammatical Concerns

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

Theological debate

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

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

Canadian "persecution"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For certain definitions of history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for certain definitions of sourced information

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

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

articleRfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific problems with contemporary section

No sources or just one website as a source

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

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

U.S. section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beginning of comtemporary section

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

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

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

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

Country descriptions other than U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACTUAL persecution in the USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian response

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

Weasel words

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rmoved Linls

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

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

ZAROVE 02:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

ZAROVE 04:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Im just tryign to reverse the damages relaly.

ZAROVE 20:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)