Talk:Religious persecution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Persecuting groups

Shouldn't the Romans be included for their persecution of Christians?72.207.215.86 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Government Persecution

Governments around the world must still be persecuting certain religions these days. I haven't really been able to find much on which governments and what religions. Help anyone?

This website is a good resource: persecution.org 75.21.94.180 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)EMP

AfD of interest

Editors of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by atheism. Your comments there are welcome.-Andrew c 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

I don't think the holocaust belongs in this article, because it was more of an example of racial persecution or genocide than religious persectuion. Hitler's campaign was motivated by racial ideologies, not religious ones. There is, however, a huge history of religious anti-semitism under Christian regimes that could fit well under here (premodern Europe, for example). 199.185.30.205 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It does belong. Although there were many who were persecuted for racial reasons alone, there were a good number that were there soley for the purpose of religious persecutuion (ie, Jehovah's Witnesses).

Suggested merge from History Persecution by Christians

Although the criteria for whether or not persecution is motivated by religion doesn't really fit here, it fits less in the Historical persecution by Christians article. Perhaps this article could be expanded to address the question of whether or not persecution by a religious group is motivated by the religion. johnpseudo 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I differ. We need more content forking. I'd propose that the section is actually forked out to create a separate article altogether. Till then it can be where it is now. Aditya Kabir 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stronly oppose. Which passages of the Bible can be used to support religious persecution and which can be used to support religious toleration is most likely relevant only in a christion context. And the section in debate here is only a list of bible passages and its interpretation. Sometimes only its alleged interpretaion, since sources are missing. -Zara1709 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mormons

The section on Mormons is a flight of fancy. The author should fully cite the sources, or it should be removed entirely.

There, improved it, added references, and wrote it in more professional language. I'm Mormon, though, so could people check it for weasel words I might have left in? Yovinedelcielo 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for this section to be added again? It is a documented part of history.

Balance

Is there a reason for the neglect of the persecution of Christians under totalitarian secular regimes, such as modern China? The prevalence of the religion and the hatred (and atrocities) against it from varied ideologies is dramatically understated in the article as it stands. 63.144.35.143 00:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I currently intend to clean up this article , but it don't know when I will get to it. If you are specifically concerned about the situation in China, please consider contributing to Status of religious freedom in the People's Republic of China or Religion in China. Zara1709 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Country-Specific Issues

Without going into the detail of the current controversy about the situation in India; I wish people would show some common sense and deal with such topics in the appropriate separate article. Obviously the article on "religious persecution" has to deal with the situation worldwide throughout several thousand years. Of course it is acceptable that certain editors are interested specifically in the situation of Christians and Muslim in India or in the situation of Native Americans in the USA. But please, keep it very brief in this article and deal with those issues in their respective articles. Zara1709 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

South Asia

Muslims and Christians are not the only people being persecuted. Hindus are being persecuted as well, as are Buddhists in some places. Pretending every new editor is Hkelkar while engaging in censorship is not making the content more encyclopedic. The edits by OC indicate extreme bias, as if [3]persecution of Hindus does not exist. Stating that religious persecution exists and directing readers to articles with an in depth discussion of the issue seems to be the best and most obvious course of action.Bakaman 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the in the debate on Persecution of Germanic Pagans I think have made clear that I personally considered article names like Persecution of XY, Persecution by XZ to be totally inappropriate. If an editor wants to add material on the situation of Christians and Muslims in India, that is fine, but this belongs to Status of religious freedom in India. And of course there will be other editors who are not interested in the situation of Christians and Muslims, but in the situation of Hindus (to put it this way). Writing an article on a topic that is viewed for such different points of view is one of the challenges of Wikipedia. So, if there aren't any objections I am going to move that section tomorrow. And if necessary I will keep an eye on that article to remind editors there of wp:civil and wp:assume good faith.Zara1709 (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Atheism

Atheists are also persecuted, by members of religions, especially in america and in the muslim world - how about some content pls! 65.125.133.211 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Atheists are presecutors too - please note that Albania was the an officially Atheist state from 1967 to 1991 and during this period Albanian communist regime posecuted thousands of Albanians who wouldn't withdraw from religious practices. Hundreds of clerics were imprisoned, tortured and killed - please see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51536.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.138.67 (talk • contribs)

Religions have often been persecuted by communist regimes. Atheism has no creed, goal, or mission, so although it is true that atheists have been persecutors, it wouldn't make sense to say that they have persecuted others "in the name of atheism". They have persecuted others in the name of communism. johnpseudo 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Muslims were persecuted by the Christians in the Crusades, yet we still have an article about the persecution of Christians. Why is it ok to forgive the historic crimes of Christians in order to write an article, but not atheists? 207.144.222.67 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Queda

Did Al Queda attack the US because the US is too secular???? LOL. Bin Laden clearly stated in several dozen tapes why he has declared war on the US: the US troops in Saudi Arabia and Palestinian issue, or now US troops in Iraq. Yes, it has something to do with Islam, but the relevant PART is foreign troops (or their culture's influence) INSIDE Islamic territory. Bin Laden doesn't really give a crap about whether the US is secular, or whether they worship the sun god. Why didn't Bin Laden attack China instead of the US if his only problem is secularism inside the US or China? OneGuy 15:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, US troops are the central issue, not secularism. Shane King 15:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good argument, although you missed a fundamental point that Al Quaeda follow the teachings of Sayid Qutub who was a vehement Islamist who made a damning report of the US in the 60s which became the foundation for the dogma of Al Quaeda and played a huge part in recruiting terrorists. It's neither one nor the other, but the seeds of Al Quaeda are in the teachings, not just the reaction to occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Persecution In Protestant England

I'm amazed to read that religious persecution in Protestant England limited itself to fines.

The article on Henry VIII is a lot more accurate in mentioning torture and executions, as do most historical sources. The info in this page comes from a book that only deals with the POST reformation period, which seems a tad dishonest to me. It's like saying that just because a book on 20th century history mentions ONE trial for witch-craft in rural America, there have never been trials for witchcraft, or that there has only ever been one trial and then the charges were dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.64 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

China section

I removed the paragraph on china in the state atheism section as it was completely unsourced. 124.187.132.77 (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent persecution of pantheism, pandeism, and deism

Of late, there is a slate of activity, obviously coordinated, aimed at misrepresenting or humiliating the related disciplines of pantheism, pandeism, and deism

Conservative columnist Ross Douthat's New York Times editorial on the movie Avatar (titled "Heaven and Nature", which is just a naked broadside against Pantheism:

The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message.

....<more of the same snipped>....

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

The similar misrepresentation of Deism in Moralistic therapeutic deism, and conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein attack on Pandeism in the New York Times last year (titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins"), falsely insists that "Pandeists worship trees and brooks." Now think about that, we are talking about editorials carried in the New York Times. Imagine if someone wrote an editorial similarly virulent against a major theistic faith, Judaism maybe, or Mormonism? They'd get their throat handed to them. But throw out scornful and misinformed bigotry against Pantheism and Pandeism (or, probably, Deism) and you get a pat on the back and nationwide publication. It is also persecution, when the media elites conspire to mock and misrepresent the logic-based nonrevelational faiths. Torquemama007 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabethan Persecutions

These statements regarding Elizabeth I are nonsense:

• "More than 300 Roman Catholics were put to death by English governments between 1535 and 1681 for treason, thus for secular [rather] than religious offenses."

• "Mary I had been motivated by a religious zeal to purge heresy from her land, and during her short reign from 1553 to 1558 about 290 Protestants had been burned at the stake for heresy, whereas Elizabeth I of England "acted out of fear for the security of her realm."

Catholics were obliged to attend Protestant services. It was illegal for Catholic priests to say Mass. Priests had to use Priest holes and get sacraments to Catholic in secret. Many martyrs of England and Wales were hung, drawn, and quartered for the "crime" of being Catholic priests. This notion that it was for "security" and "secular" reasons is Anglo-Saxon Protestant nonsense. --ChristianHistory (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I see some problems with the lead, which led me to look back for older versions. It seems to me a better version existed earlier here:

Religious persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group due to their religious affiliation. Often it is the persecution of individuals within a group in the struggle to maintain their religious identity, or the abuse of power by an individual or organization that causes members of a religious group to suffer. Persecution in this case may refer to unwarranted arrest, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified execution, denial of benefits, and denial of civil rights and liberties. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate among other things.

The current version we have is this:

Religious persecution is systematic mistreatment of a religious group or its members. In a secular state, claims of religious persecution are effectively a demand of the fulfilment of Freedom of religion and Religious pluralism. In a non-secular state, they are laments about the intolerance of the state religion and the demand for Religious toleration or disestablishment.

Often it is the alleged persecution of individuals within a group in the attempt to maintain their religious identity, or the exercise of power by an individual or organization that causes members of a religious group to suffer. Persecution in this case may refer to unwarranted arrest, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified execution, denial of benefits, and denial of civil rights and liberties and especially other acts of violence, such as war, torture, and ethnic cleansing‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate among other things.

From other discussions, it appears the attempt in the new lead is to include reference to as many other related articles as possible, but I think this is hurting the clarity and accuracy. Per WP:Lead and other guidelines, it seems we should be trying to give the clearest and most accurate information we can, and then link to other articles through templates, etc. That said, I'd suggest returning to the earlier lead. Mackan79 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, the original version does look better. -- Jeff3000 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not actually care much about this article. I'm not an expert on this, although it seems to me that I know more about this than some of those people who advocated the religious persecution template. [This is not meant to be a personal attack.] (I mean, how can you seriously have an article Historical persecution by Christians an not link Thomas Aquinas? He is the 2nd most important theologian of the catholic church and his views on this topic have been described as Logic of Terror.) But let me explain the obvious problem I see with this article: The people who advocated religious persecution could do so because the lacked the the concepts of freedom of religion or religious tolerance. They actually believed that they were doing the right thing. And now take a look at the articles of the religious persecution series and tell me, if you find this point debated at all. This is why I had to link freedom of religion and religious tolerance at the lead here. And I think that this is justified by: Wikipedia:Lead section. This is also why I made some of the edits to 'your' article, Mackan79 I just can't see why you would not want to have a link to secular state in the lead there. I know, that secular state and the principle of secularity of government are different things, but if we don't look that much into details, they are roughly the same. The important distinction here is the one between the view that religious persecution is justified and the view that it is not. Do we have a secular state with religious freedom and the separation of church and state, or do we have a non-secular state which believes that it has the right to enforce it's religion? I really find it disturbing, that people can bring up all these allegations of religious persecution without debating that distinction at all. -Zara1709 08:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition of religious persecution that I can base on solid literature is like: "Religious persecution means that a state is committed to achieve religious uniformity by coercive measures." However, the book I keep quoting (because it is otherwise really good) could be more definite on the definition.

I think, the reason why I insist so much on an accurate definition is because there are just too many allegations of religious persecution in these articles. It is obviously a difference if I government does execute people for heresy or if a government imprisons people for allegations of terrorism (even if they are allegations of 'islamic terrorism'). The situation of Muslims in the USA is hardly comparable with situation of Catholics in England in the early 17th century, although in both cases there is phobia involved.

I would not consider anything below an atmosphere of fear of being arrested or being killed by a mob religious persecution. Because such an atmosphere as existed often enough during history, and if you call anything less 'persecution' there is no name left for it. Things like exclusion from offices, denial of worship, fines for not attending church, special taxes as for People of the Book in Islamic countries, prohibition of certain rituals, etc. are discrimination (and wrong too, of course), but not prosecution [should say 'persecution']. -Zara1709 13:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the way to resolve this, though, is really by what the various sources say. I'm sure we can all argue about what is persecution and what isn't, but if we go by the WP:Reliable sources, then it's much easier (and I think much more helpful). That would mean if an RS calls something persecution, then we represent that view; if someone else disagrees, we represent that as well.

I'm curious which sources say religious persecution is about achieving uniformity, though. Looking at dictionary.com, "persecution" gives me:

• a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.
• oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion
• punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin

That seems to include a broader definition. Generally speaking, my concern remains trying to in effect explain religious persecution in the lead, rather than simply informing the very basics on what it is. I think the lead should do the latter, which is why I prefer the older version. Mackan79 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't explain religious persecution if you say that it "may refer to unwarranted arrest etc." You can expect the reader to have a broad concept of what is meant by 'persecution', i.e. Pogroms, execution, imprisonment etc. What you have to explain here, with such a grim topic, is why religious persecution has happened. Basically, you have to answer that old question: Why is there so much evil in the world? I probably have read to many theologians that I see this problem, whereas most other people obviously don't see it. However, the general question of the origin of evil can't be answered (that is what Augustine of Hippo would have said). But you can answer the question why there was religious persecution during history: Because the ideas of religious toleration and freedom or religion did only find wide acceptance from the 17century onwards. (in an oversimplified version.) This is probably what John Coffey, to whose work I keep referring, would call a "Whig history of toleration", but even he can reassess that. The definition of religious persecution is also taken from that work (as I though would be obvious from my edits).

What effect would have "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate (convert?) a people because of their religion", if it was successful? Wouldn't it establish a religiously uniformed territory? -So much for that definition. I should have also made clear why to link secular state, religious freedom, religious toleration etc. at the lead. I admit that this could be done better.-Zara1709 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR doesn't allow that, though. You're talking about explaining the crux of what's behind religious persecution in the opening paragraph, as opposed to giving the bare facts on what it is. That doesn't work. You might check out antisemitism; can you imagine if instead of giving the information on what it is, the first paragraph started by trying to give us the fundamental causes? It's also about WP:NPOV; to be neutral, you can't start by giving one theory on what's going on here. You start with the bare essentials, then spread out into various theories and other details below. Mackan79 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead omits the banning of religious practices, temples, artifacts, books, schools and symbols. The extensive 300-year Christian persecution of pagan religions consisted mainly in these forms of oppression. The persecution resulted in the complete obliteration of the intellectual works--religious and scientific--of the pagan world, including the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. By the 10th century, there was hardly a book or library left in Europe--outside Ireland and Islamic Spain. That is why Aquinas had to go to Spain to retrieve a text of Aristotle.

The other gap in Wikipedia's treatment of religious violence is bending over backwards to not finger Christian authorities in "triggering" persecution, as if persecution was something incidental and sporadic in Christian history. It was official and, since Augustine, justified in Christian doctrine. And it perdured for centuries, almost until the 20th century.

Wikipedia cannot afford to be seen as whitewashing Christian complicity in this history of persecution, including maintenance of anti-Semitism and slavery. We Christians want to know in detail the record of this history or we will be doomed to repeat it. Bdubay (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Religious persecution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113084911/http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre8010ie-us-crime-newyork/ to http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre8010ie-us-crime-newyork/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dev-bd.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=241410&cid=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012025532/http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/India/Article1-352523.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/India/India/Article1-352523.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sasnet.lu.se/EASASpapers/19SwapnaBhattacharya.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5mz5WPhzF?url=http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf to http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What about the Muslim conquest of North Africa?

The elimination of almost all Christians in North Africa during the Muslim conquest of North Africa is not included here. If included, it should, of course, be linked to the article on this topic. Pete unseth (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pete unseth: Hi Pete! Contemporary definitions of religious persecution generally exclude political actions such as war. Persecution is limited to those who would not have died, if they had not been whatevers. Those in a war might have died no matter what, so they are excluded. I know that probably doesn't seem right, because religion is often an aspect of the larger conflicts--as is ethnicity--but that's how the organizations that keep track of these things try to work at separating if something is caused more by religion or by politics or by race. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: description of the effects of religious persecution

The article is missing any discussion of the effects of religious persecution. For example, the persistence of "crypt-" forms of the suppressed belief, immigration/emigration, extinction of religions, demographics, or political development. Example: Pagans persecuted Christians, but forms closer to Christianity got stronger. Later, Christians persecuted pagans, but syncretistically incorporated crypto-Paganism into Christianity (as the crypto-Pagans continued to influence Christianity from the inside). Christians persecuted Jews/Muslims, but then philosophies/movements more similar to these religions developed (such as Protestantism and Deism), as did crypto- forms of belief. In areas where Protestants persecuted Catholics, either polarized states developed side-by-side (when immigration was feasible) or, if it wasn't, crypto-Catholic "Romanizing" influences made the Protestants more like Catholicism. In areas where Catholics persecuted Protestants, the result was either immigration or crypto-Protestantism. Similar effects today can be seen in the "Muslim followers of Jesus" phenomenon within Islam and polarized states like Israel/Gaza and India/Pakistan.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: You know what? This is a good idea for an article. Why don't you begin writing it? It would be a good companion piece to one I just finished: History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance. You might find some ideas there too. Good luck and happy writing and researching! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I just quickly looked through it and found History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance#Forced_conversion which could potentially be incorporated into what I was describing. Do you have any recommendations on sources describing what I explained above, especially those available online? Since writing my post above, I finished a translation of the Censorship of the Bible article from the German, which also touches on this. Because that historical article looks at only a specific topic of religious persecution, it is more obvious than when looking at more broader and general topics like this one. I have no sources which go ahead and make the connections even for the Censorship of the Bible article and wish I had some that were of a more secular and academic POV. I imagine I could can find something of this nature from the Seventh-Day Adventists or JWs, but I think I can do better than that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: If you want me to know you have posted here a ping is suggested. :-) You can't reference a Wikipedia article but you can use any of the references you find in that article that are pertinent. Use Google books and Google scholar for other online research. Use your knowledge for ideas of what to look for. Read a lot! And as it turns out, the idea that Christians persecuted pagans in Antiquity is more myth than fact. Read the anti-paganism section and check out what the sources say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

large proposed addition to section 8.4

I have 7 paragraphs I want to add to the section on persecution of Christians--replacing the sentence that Christians are persecuted in Iran. I understand this topic is controversial, so I am proposing that everyone and anyone who is interested please take a look at the proposed paragraphs and references in my sandbox [4]. Please record objections, questions and responses here where they can all be discussed. If there are no unaddressed objections within a week or so, I will go ahead and post these changes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think 7 paragraphs is too much for this section (or any section with a main article). This should be trimmed down, as much of this info can go in the Persecution of Christians main article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I put those paragraphs in already but I have no problem accommodating your suggestion--or perhaps you would prefer to edit it yourself? I'm fine with that too. However, this is sort of the main article, isn't it? Persecution of Christians is the subset. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess that depends on how you look at it. I think of it as this being an overview of the subject, with each section having a brief summary of the "main" article which is devoted entirely to that subset of the subject (which is the way the article phrases it with the references to "Main articles: Persecution of Christians and History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance" directly under the section headline). But you could equally look at it as this being the "main" article, and each of the subsets being a "child" (which is how WP:DETAIL refers to it: "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article.") Either way, most of the in-depth information should be in those individual articles, and this one should just have a concise summary. The specific wording on the size of the summary is, per WP:PROPERSPLIT, "a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs". Currently the Persecution of Christians is 9 paragraphs and a long block quote. The closest second is Persecution of Hindus, which I also plan to trim down a bit. I do think there are things you have added that definitely merit inclusion, I just think I may be able to find a way to compress it down quite a bit, and the fuller explanations can be added to the Persecution of Christians sub-article (if not already covered there). Thank you for being understanding! AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@AmbivalentUnequivocality: Oh hey no problem! I can see your point, and I have no problem with you going ahead and compressing at will. I will move stuff to Persecution of Christians as you suggest. If they object, I'll just tell them you sent me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@AmbivalentUnequivocality: I don't mean to be a pest, but I can't move anything until I see what's left here so there is no direct duplication of content. Have you changed your mind? Need help? Be ruthless! It's okay! I'm happy to do it if you'd rather not. Let me know! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: No worries, and my apologies! I did not realize my tardiness was holding you back, I will try to get it done tonight. If I don't, feel free to step in. I admit that I tend to focus on source verification and fixing misrepresentation of sources (Statements not actually being supported by the cited sources is what got me into editing) and am not always comfortable with writing prose, so condensing the material was something I felt was a good idea but something that could wait until I had the attention to do it properly. Now that I realize this proclivity is negatively affecting your ability to edit I will move it up the priority list and try to expedite its completion. Sorry again! AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@AmbivalentUnequivocality:. Sorry to be a nag! It's no problem really, and if you need more time I understand. However...maybe we could make a deal... I'll cut the prose here in half and you come help me with references on History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance I completely redid the entire article but didn't check every reference that the previous editor used. When I checked one of them recently, I found a plagiarized sentence from a non-published source written by "Wikipedians" claiming to be from a source that was only listed down in "Literature." I had to remove the entire thing. There may be more like that, particularly in the sections 7,8 and 9 where I did little revising. Having to check every one is tedious for me, and I would be happy for the help and happy to do the rewrite here--if you are feeling in the "deal making" mode! Let me know! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I'll be happy to do the editing here even if you don't feel like helping on the other article. It's no biggy really. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm totally down for that, double checking sources like that seems right up my alley. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see right away the trouble you ran into, it seems a first glance to be a very well cited article but the way that it is cited makes it difficult to verify the citations. I am having trouble finding accessible online versions, but I will see if I can track down a physical copy of Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558-1689 and some of the other major sources there and get to verifying. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

YOU AmbivalentUnequivocality are my new best friend! Thank you so so so much! I will begin the rewrite here tonight! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

AmbivalentUnequivocality Done! Hope it suits. It's definitely shorter than the Hindus now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of minorities in Islamic lands

I object to including this. I don't think this particular article is the right place for it, and if we are going to include it for Islam, we have to include it for every other religion as well. There are none that don't persecute as well as are persecuted. In fact, Christians are actually harassed mostly in Christian-majority countries, just as Muslims are mostly harassed in Muslim countries. Hindus persecute Christians, and Buddhists are militantly persecuting both Christians and Muslims all over Southeast Asia and Indonesia. The Jews are accused of discrimination in Israel. There are countries that genuinely work at inter-faith toleration, but there are no religions that can be singled out as being more or less tolerant than others--at least not in practice. It's wrong and unfair and implies a non-neutral POV to imply otherwise. This should be removed, and if no one objects, with good reasons in the next week, I'm going to be BOLD! and take it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Samaritans should also go. Persecution by the Jews--which also includes persecution of Christians--is in another article already. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like someone did it! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Status of Atheism in Jewish scripture

Religious persecution#Persecutions of atheists claims atheism was punishable by death in ancient Greece and ancient Israel,. However, the cited text refrs only to worshipping other gods, not to denying the existence of gods. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Persecution of sects within the same religion

Historically there has been a lot of persecution among different sects of the same religion, within, e.g., Chrtianity, Islam, Judaism. While there is a Religious persecution#Persecution for heresy and blasphemy section, I don't believe that the topic fits naturally there. I suggest expanding the Persecution of foo sections to include persecution of one foo sect by another foo sect, e.g., Catholic versus Lutheran, Sunni versus Shia. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This is applicable to the question below on State atheism. If we could gain consensus on one, we could answer the other, so it would help if you went and put in your two cents there. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

It's time to update the chart with current numbers. They have changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

State atheism

This section should either be removed or the entire idea should be expanded.

So far this article is exclusively about the persecuted rather than persecutors, so this section has no place here; it's off topic. However, several people have requested including the persecutors here as well. If we expand the article to include persecutors, it will double the length of the article as every religion and 144 countries will have to be mentioned. I think that means a separate article for that is required.

Therefore, removing this section on state atheism, since it's about persecutors, and adding a sentence at the top of this article that explains it is exclusively about the persecuted and not the persecutors is needed. But we need consensus on this: keep and expand persecutors here, or delete 'state atheism' and add sentence at top? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Or split the article into persecution and persecutors, and make the new article a stub.

Would persecution by members of a different branch of the same religion fit into the old article, the new article, or both? I see it as belonging in the persecution article, but a case could be made either way. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are good questions. I hope we get some opinions on them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Come on people! Atheism should not be the only 'persecution of...' with a "we were bad" section! That's non-neutral at best, and really biased at worst. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Modern day revert

This dif [5] indicates Sjö (talk · contribs) put a Failed verification tag on my recent additions for using old books to reference the modern day. I am wondering if Sjö would be more comfortable with the word 'era' instead of 'day' or what exactly the problem is, because the modern era (or day) began in the 1500s and lasted into the twentieth century. As we are now in the postmodern era, it seems like old books are the only references possible.

A failed verification tag should only be used if the source does not support what is contained in the article. That is not the case here. This was a mistake, so I undid it. If that's a problem, please say so here so it can be discussed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Modern day" means that something exists today [6] so my tag was appropriate. I don't think "era" is much better, since "modern era" is used about different periods and the meaning will not be obvious for most readers. If you mean "until the twentieth century" it would be much clearer if you wrote exactly that. Sjö (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It does exist today, in increasing numbers, but the point is that "Modern" has a specific historical, sociological and anthropological meaning. Merriam-Webster is one of two definitions in a list of a dozen--I stopped looking after that--that limits its definition to 'existing today'. Other definitions included "since the middle ages" and "recent times" and "relating to the period following the middle ages" as well as 'present day'. This was an interesting little exercise, since I got different results for "modern", "modern day", and "modern era". It reminded me why I never use online definitions in Wikipedia. I get definitions from the sources.

If I wanted to limit it to what exists today, I would use "contemporary" instead, as that generally covers only what is in living memory. A couple of the online definitions equated contemporary and modern, and that's a mistake for those writing an encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia [7], the modern era began in the 15th century and lasted into the twentieth.

The point here is that "old books" are valid references for "modern", and the tag was therefore in error.

I will be happy to add in the "twentieth century," but I think perhaps I will clarify that it does still exist today in the 21st, as I have several "new" references that say that. I will of course add those as well. Thank you for your input. In the end, this will improve the encyclopedia, and that's what matters. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I left a couple of the 'old books' in, but removed three of the others as they were geographically and chronologically more limited than the others. I hope you like the changes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem: terrorism is generally political

I have a problem with this statement in the lead: As it stands now, the overwhelming majority of victims in terror attacks are Muslims. Does persecution include acts of terrorism? I think that's debatable.

While there is truth in this statement concerning Muslim victims, it is at best a partial truth, since they are often victims of other Muslims because of the internecine rivalry within Islam. And it is an incomplete truth as there is evidence that, worldwide, Christians are the most persecuted. As it stands, it is incomplete and misleading information at best, and simply incorrect at worst.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Some acts of religious persecution are terrorist acts, but not all, just as not all terrorist acts are acts of religious persecution. Stepping over that particularly thorny issue completely, still leaves us asking, is it wise for Wikipedia to be reaching conclusions on who suffers most? I think that sentence should be removed. If you agree, you can stop reading my wall of text, and just post below so we can have consensus on this.

Let's say there are those who want to leave the statement as it stands. Wouldn't that require, then, for the sake of accuracy and neutrality, adding that Paul Vallely has said that Christians suffer numerically more than any other faith group or any group without faith in the world? Doesn't it mean we should add that a report released by the UK's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, prepared by the Bishop of Truro in July 2019, and a report on restriction of religious freedom by the PEW organization, both have the number of countries where Christians suffer because of their faith as 144 countries--the highest of any? (Muslims suffer in 142).

(And would we not need to add PEW's caution: that the report "does not attempt to estimate the number of victims in each country... and it does not speak to the intensity of harassment..."? France, who restricts the wearing of the hijab, is counted as a persecuting country equally with Nigeria and Pakistan where, according to the Global Security organization, Christians have been killed for their faith.)

The Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte—the International Society for Human Rights—in Frankfurt, Germany is a non-governmental organization with 30,000 members from 38 countries who monitor human rights. In September 2009, then chairman Martin Lessenthin, issued a report estimating that 80% of acts of religious persecution around the world are aimed at Christians. According to the World Evangelical Alliance, over 200 million Christians are denied fundamental human rights solely because of their faith.

Then, of course, I could get started on the Jews.

However, there is no need to add any of this–as though it's some kind of competition–if the sentence is simply removed. This is not a competition, no one wins in this, so any claims of who suffers most are out of place in my view. Everyone suffers. Whoever added that sentence, please, remove it voluntarily.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

If nothing happens, eventually I will remove it myself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to add instead. I wrote most of what's in the section on Muslim persecution, and I think it's important to include it, even if it's not exactly copacetic to swerve off into terrorism. So perhaps I should simply add to what's there that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world, and that Jews and Hindus are the most likely to live in countries that persecute them. Those additions would balance the claim about Muslims. Removing the claim is more neutral, and more Wikipedia, but if that isn't supported by consensus, some balance, and greater accuracy, at the very least, should be maintained.

So please, everyone here--Rfc--addition or removal? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@94.215.203.146: Thank you for getting that  Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no unified position on tolerance before the modern era

Religious persecution#Sociological view makes the overly broad claim Before the modern era, religious intolerance and even persecution were not seen as evils, but were instead, seen as necessary and good for the preservation of identity and truth, and for all that people believed depended upon those truths. Certainly there were many centuries of severe intolerance in most of Europe, but there were also tolerant pre-modern civilizations, e.g., the Persian Empire under Cyrus and Darius, the Macedonian empire under Alexander. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chatul: Thanx for catching that, I think you're right, it's too broad. We can fix that together I'm sure--but it will involve some additional definition I'm thinking.

I put this discussion under definitions because there are differing definitions of tolerance/toleration: in (The Limits of Tolerance: Enlightenment Values and Religious Fanaticism (Religion, Culture, and Public Life), by Denis Lacorne, at [[8]]) he says on page 1: "There are numerous examples of religious tolerance ... But generally speaking these are not examples of tolerance in the modern sense of the term..." In "RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY", Peter Garnsey addresses the idea of tolerant Greeks and Romans and finds that our modern definition does not apply to those ancient societies. He says on page 4 concerning the Greeks that "there never was an open-door policy, and at least in some periods strict limits were set to the willingness of any given community to receive and assimilate foreign gods and rituals." and on page 5 "is the language of toleration appropriately applied to the religious climate of classical Athens? I do not think so. The Athenians actively defended their gods against, as they put it, impiety (asebeia)."

On tolerance of the Jews in Roman empire he says on page 8 that, "Roman-style polytheism was disposed to expand and absorb or at least neutralize other gods, not to tolerate them. ... documents regularly acknowledge that the Romans are extending privileged treatment to the Jews because of services rendered. And that is all. No further motivation or justification is offered. There is an absolute lack of any apologia for religious pluralism or religious freedom. ... Nor does anything of the kind surface in pagan literature as a whole. It is particularly noteworthy that the philosophical sceptics were barren of ideas in this area," (page 11).

On page 16 of "How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West", By Perez Zagorin, he says: "Religious intolerance and persecution were not seen as evils" but it is specifically referring to the Christian Middle ages, so that needs to be specified. On page 3 of "The nature of tolerance and the social circumstances in which it emerges" by Marjoka van Doorn, found here: [[9]] she says "tolerance is not by definition good..." so that's where that came from.

"The Formation of a Persecuting Society Authority and Deviance in Western Europe 950-1250," By Robert I. Moore is also where part of this came from originally. I am away from home and don't have access to the book that I own, and this particular quote isn't showing up in the preview on googlebooks, so I can't give page numbers for that right now. But maybe it doesn't matter since the sentence is stated too broadly, and needs to be narrowed down to its more specific meanings and applications.

I am out of town visiting so I am hoping you are willing to help rewrite this. Thanx again, Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I got no response, I have replaced it myself. I removed the overly broad statement and replaced it with specifics and have removed the tag accordingly. Thank you again for your input. I think it improved the section. I hope you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done (unsigned)

@Jenhawk777:The revised text still doesn't address, e.g., the Persian Empire under Cyrus and Darius, the Macedonian empire under Alexander, whiich I believe did match the modern sense of tolerance. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chatul: Okay, find a decent source that says that, and put it in. If the sources don't agree, then that's what we should say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Which, if any, of these qualifies as an RS?

• https://brewminate.com/cyrus-the-great-and-religious-tolerance-in-achaemenid-persia/
  https://tavaana.org/en/en/content/cyrus-great-and-religious-tolerance
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/zoroastrian/history/persia_1.shtml
• https://smarthistory.org/persian-art-an-introduction/
• https://www.timemaps.com/encyclopedia/persian-empire-culture-society/

I need to check some dead trees, but if possible I'd like to use a RS that's available online. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Chatul Dude! Dead trees? The first four are blogs, so that's a no-no. You might slip the BBC article in but it's technically a blog and not a published peer reviewed article. The Time maps is from another encyclopedia, which we generally don't like to use, but you could probably get away with it. I'm afraid I think doing so would be more sloppy work to replace my sloppy work however, therefore I am not in favor of any of these.

It shouldn't be hard to find a reference to Persia as tolerant before the Sassanids started extreme persecution and killed thousands. What will be hard to find will be any reference that says they were tolerant 'according to the contemporary definition' since my source says, not. That will require a book or an article or some published study of tolerance in history using Persian philosophy or Persian documents of some kind that actually discuss the concept of tolerance. Try Google scholar and Google books. I will help. I'm thinking occasional practices of tolerance can be seen as part of the "pre-history" of modern tolerance and should be included here. The prevalence and common acceptance of persecution should be highlighted against awareness of tolerance as a value in some places--if that's what the sources say.

Here is a ref that says tolerance developed after the time of the crusades partly as a result of them.. Tracing tolerance as a concept before the 1400s is generally seen as not possible in all the sources I have seen so far, because its history begins with the Reformation and the subsequent Enlightenment period. However, there is evidence of similar ideals in pre-modern Christian thought (and other religious thought and philosophy) that can be seen as the long and somewhat torturous "prehistory" of tolerance, and that's what we should look for.

I will start tomorrow--I am finishing up something else tonight.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chatul: I apologize, I got sidetracked on another page. I will come back to this tomorrow, I promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chatul: Well so much for my promises! And it isn't looking as if I will be doing any better in the immediate future as I am involved in two article reviews. How about if we just say something along the lines of, "Except for a few notable exceptions such as the Persian empire during the period of, what was it, 1 - 300 or so? - tolerance was rare before the Reformation and Enlightenment periods." ? Surely there's a source or two that says that! I'm being a bad example! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I added Persia as an exception, is that okay with you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

The #Statistics section has a column for probability but not for number persecuted. Is there a WP:RS that has estimates of the numbers of Christians and Moslems persecuted. There seem to be recurrent dispute as to which is persecuted more. Also, should any comparisons include, e.g., Catholic vs Protestant vs Greek Orthodox, Sunni vs Shiite? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The PEW report on "How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World" found here[[10]] is the only report I know of that makes any attempt to do a total or such a comparison. Perhaps someone else knows of another. The level of detail you mention would quickly overwhelm this article which is already too long.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

New Tag

There is a new tag that the section on persecution of Christians needs a total rewrite - one of my specialties. :-) But before tackling this, first I would like some input on what prompted the placing of said tag. There must have been something specific, something general, some ideas for improvement, something that could help focus this. Please comment everyone on how you think this could or should be improved.

My first observation would be that it's too long and it kind of rambles. It has no chronological order, or any other particular structure that I can see. Is it historical? Yes. Is it contemporary? Yes to that too. It's both, and it's neither with any sufficiency. Perhaps we could resolve that and agree on an approach. Thoughts? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If you rewrite it, there are a few things that should be changed

1. There should be a subsection on persecution of Christians by Christians.
2. The descriptions of persecution of Christians in specific countries, e.g., India should be separated from discussions of persecution of Christians in general, or at least have clear transitional text. For instant, "state" is confusing without prior mention of the country within which the state is located.
3. There should be a clear distinction between persecution of Christian on a religious groups and persecution of ethnic groups who were predominantly Christian. For instance, were the Armenian or Greek Muslims, and did the Ottomans treat them any better than Armenian and Greek Christians? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul I am waffling back and forth on point #1. On the one hand, you will note that I have already objected above ^^^ that state atheism is the only section that has a "persecutor" section in it. That is not npov. Either every section should have comments on how it has persecuted, as well as been persecuted, including Christianity, or none of them should, and it should all be in another article instead. Every religion has persecuted others. That's fact. So, if we add it to Christianity, NPOV means we have to add it for everyone.

Which brings up the other hand... This article is already overly long. All of its content on specific religions should be shortened to no more than a paragraph or two, in summary style, as they each have their own individual articles already. We shouldn't be talking about anything that will make this article longer.

Point #2 State means country. The online dictionary says "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." The US is the United States, because each state originally thought of itself as an independent territory.

As to the discussion being separated, I am leaning toward removing the specifics entirely in favor of a shorter summary for all the individual religions. What are the main points that should and could be included in one or two paragraphs? That's the approach we need imo. What do you think of that idea?

Point #3 I have been through this argument before, and I lost. It is generally impossible to locate and prove such a distinction, as motivations of genocides and persecution are pretty much always multiple and mixed, (political, ethnic, economic, religious, ideological, geographic, and more), therefore attempting to define religious persecution as something definitively separated from other motivations is usually impossible. Yet that is what we already do here anyway - just not consistently - our definition fluctuates from broad to narrow to suit. Go figure. If you could source and write a section on a clear definition of religious persecution, that would be amazingly stupendously wonderful, but I don't think anyone has formulated one yet. We just go by "we know it when we see it". That makes everything here problematic including your just and astute comment. But it won't matter without a sourced definition that delineates what you want.

I appreciate that you have responded with something, responded at all, and I don't like to be negative. Perhaps others will chime in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On my point number two, both India and the US use state to refer to a legal subdivision of the country, regardless of the historical origin of the term. I listed point 2 because of an edit that referred to regions of India as states without first giving the context as India. I'm okay with not using the term at all.

I like the idea of short country-specifc and religion-specific sections with {{main}} hatnotes pointing to the details.

On point number three, are there figures for, e.g., Armenians of different religions killed by the Ottomans? As for sourced definitions, I strongly suspect that I would be more likely to turn up several conflicting definition than one agreed upon by all of the sources. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul You're right, state is used here both ways. Hmm, not using the term might very well be the best choice. Someone would need to go through the entire article and make that change. Someone who is not me.

Okay we have a consensus of two!! Perhaps more will respond.

I don't know about figures for Armenians, but you right again about the rest. Because I lost the RFC which included a definition - I said there wasn't a single one, there were only multiple common usages - I started doing more extensive research to find if there were any official statements in any field anywhere that would qualify as an official definition. I have been through nearly a hundred sources since that RFC, and while I have found multiple "this is how we worked" statements, I still haven't found a definition that is not also contradicted by others elsewhere. I may have to write an article on the definition all by itself, just because there are so many versions of what qualifies as real RP, it would take a whole article to give them each a mention.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Christianity, the most persecuted religion in the world

An IP has added a section about Christianity, from which I have removed a substantial amount of information. I have removed the claim that Muslim apostasy leads to persecution, including death, because it doesn't only concern Christian conversions. I also removed the statement regarding religious persecution in North Korea due to their general anticlerical policies as, again, this concerns every religious affiliation and not just Christianity. I also added templates for citations for the claims that "Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world" and "Many Muslim countries persecute Christians according to Sharia law and the Quran." I'm unsure whether this latter claim refers to nations in which the majority population are Muslims or explicitly Islamic states; this should be clarified when sources are added. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@MisterDub: This article refers to Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity as the most persecuted religion. The Christianity is referenced from the "Danish National Research Database" which is just a research database and not a source. The other 4 sources are fox news, and christian affiliated organizations. Strawgate (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@MisterDub: I have proposed, below, an addition on that subject that I want others to participate in before I post it. It's currently in my sandbox[11]. Please read and comment and criticize here so others can participate as well.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@MisterDub: Hi! I put those paragraphs in and AmbivalentUnequivocality wants to compress them. Perhaps you would appreciate the opportunity to do that in cooperation with them. I look forward to seeing what you all do with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

The part after (grammatical errors to be reviewed) is completely unacceptable and should be deleted as soon as possible. There is definitely no use for the "information" from such an obviously uninformed and illiterate person.

---

Question for Librarian. What is the source of Sadducees tolerating some level of participation in public cults? Just wondering? Danny 01:03 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

My encyclopaediac and occasionally fallible memory.

A little googling has only turned up this: http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:FN8HW2bR7RAC:wps.ablongman.com/long_kishlansky_cw_5/0,5908,268622-,00.html+Imperial-rome+jews&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

the librarian

Okay, I don't think the statement is entirely accurate, but I will try to find some sources to back up an alternative position. Essentially, accommodation is not the same as adaptation of religious ritual. Will check it out tomorrow. Thanks. Danny 01:35 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

-Accomodation might have been what I meant. It's perhaps a matter of perspective: I'm sure the Pharisees would see the Sadducees as adopting foreign traditions whereas the Sadducees would see it as accomodation. the librarian

---

It is a good try but what should be added is the discussion about cults & new religious movements e.g. Falun Gong that feel or are persecuted or are stigmatized. What about the intolerance of Muslims against Hindus Andries

Merge with Persecution

Why single out religious persecution? as mentioned by a person below, there are numerous examples of persecution against atheism. Why not just call it what it is - Persecution plain and simple??

By this page even existing, it validates the claims by ignorant individuals that religious persecution is somehow a different a special kind of persecution when in fact it is the same as every other kind of persecution.

Come on guys, lets get some NPOV going.

Monotheism

The article mentions monotheism but says nothing about millions of people killed and tortured in China or USSR. Nothing about Hindu extremists inside India either. The burning of Muslims in India? The burning of a Christian missionary (including his two sons) in India? How about pagans persecuting Christians earlier on (Christians eaten by lions or crap)? Nothing? OneGuy 16:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A good place (and public domain) material for this article would be http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/index.htm

And not to just focus on monotheism, see the section on India

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27947.htm

OneGuy 13:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turkey

Shouldn't the ongoing fight between secularists and Islamists be included?