Talk:Apostasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Apostasy: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Expanding Apostasy in emerging religions (a.k.a NRMs, or New Religion Movements) and cults, in particular the discussion about the reliability (or lack thereof) of apostates' testimonies as presented by scholars of NRMs.
  2. Apostasy in Budhism
  3. elaborate on the apostasy in Roman Catholicism (Catholic encyclopedia can be used as a source)
  4. elaborate on the difference between heresy and apostasy
  5. Desribe the viewpoints and complaints of apostates for each religion. According to the NPOV policy, every article describing a group should present their views.

Atheists and agnostics use the term Deconversion to describe loss of Faith in religion.

I'm atheist, and I have never heard the term "deconversion" in my life. How widespread is this term? Does this sentence have to be a sweeping generalization?

--Egomaniac 22:40, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where is the example of a cult that exists today that has capital punishment for apostasy? I had reverted that remark because of the missing example. Andries 04:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could someone compile a list of nations who have the death penalty for apostasy ?

Contents

[edit] Apostasy in so-called "Hinduism"

There is no apostasy in hinduism. Hinduism is not a defined religion in the first place. Kartheeque 06:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference to abandoning Dharma in the Bhagavad Gita has no relation to the apostacy from Hinduism because the Gita mentions Dharma as a Yogic concept. In the Bhagavad Gita Dharma does not mean any religious dharma or Hindu dharma. The reference is therefore misleading. Dharma in its philosophical meaning is about what makes a person into a human being rather than an animal who is ruled by instincts and nature (Prakrti). Human beings are capable of speeding up their return to God (self realisation), so Krishna urges them to follow their human Dharma. If you discuss this as though you are talking about leaving a religion, you are missing the point entirely. Whether you become a Christian or a Buddhist is of no importance, what matters is whether you live as a human being should do, i.e. whether you follow Dharma.Andriesb 18:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The following shloka is quoted from the Bhagvad Gita:

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।
अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ॥१८-६६॥

sarva-dharmān parityajya, mām ekaḿ śaraṇaḿ vraja

ahaḿ tvāḿ sarva-pāpebhyo, mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

It is written in simple Sanskrit, and there is absolutely no dispute over its meaning. It means the following according to all published translations I know of:

sarva-dharmān — all varieties of dharma; parityajya — abandoning; mām — unto Me; ekam — only; śaraṇam — for surrender; vraja — go; aham — I; tvām — you; sarva — all; pāpebhyaḥ — from sinful reactions; mokṣayiṣyāmi — will deliver; mā — do not; śucaḥ — worry.

"Abandon all varieties of dharmas and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

I would like to know, which source translates it as mentioned in the article. ("abandoning Dharma or to exchange it with anything else would amount to sacrilege, disobedience of God, and as falling from the right path.") deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

There is no concept of an apostate in Hinduism as there is no procedure of conversion to or away from Hinduism. Converts to other religion from Hinduism may adopt other religions but cannot abandon Hinduism.

There appears to be a contradiction here. Could someone please rephrase, and if possible, elaborate on this section? Some sources are needed. Perhaps we should include some of the text from the Bhagavad Gita above. Dforest 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Not True the Conversion to Hinduism is possible with the namakarana samskara rite and/or with other rites. --Antioco79 08:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empirical evidence... where?

"There is empirical evidence that people who have strong religious faith are happier than people who do not have a strong faith."

I would prefer that this line be removed until a link to actual evidence is appended to the entry. As it is, the neutrality of the article is slighly suspect.


There is an abundance of evidence. I read it several times in the newspaper. Andries 15:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


See e.g. for empirical evidence that faith correlates with happiness here http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/content.asp?ID=290 Andries 16:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ===Empirical evidence?===

I agree that the line about the relation between religious faith and happiness should be either removed or else accompanied by some evidence. I have read the article suggested and I could not find evidence to support that line. (I have been able to read only one of the sources mentioned in the article <www.apa.org/releases/needs.html> and it does not mention spirituality as a factor for happiness. I have not been able to read the second source, the link does not work.) Furthermore, I can see the link between the last two sentences in the article, but not so much between the last line and the rest of the article.


Lena


Lena, here is some empirical research http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p001078.html Andries 12:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I just read the article you mentioned, and I didn't see anywhere in the article that directly connects religious faith and happiness. From the conclusion of the article:

"Religious/spiritual commitment may enhance recovery from depression, serious mental or physical illness, and substance abuse; help curtail suicide; and reduce health risks."

The statement is at best arguable -- I certainly wouldn't classify it as empirical. I think it should be removed. gutzalpus 12:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Gutzalpus, well recovery from depression means increasing happiness. Andries 12:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Gutzalpus, what about this from the article "Another study of adolescents found that frequent church-goers with high spiritual support had the lowest scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (Wright et al., 1993). " I want to state that do not have any faith at the moment nor do I want to convert anyone, but evidence is evidence, even if we do not like it. Andries 12:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


If the studies say religious faith helps with depression, or that people with religious faith have lower instances of depression, then that is what should be said in the article (or nothing at all on the subject.) The statement in the wiki article implies that people in general have been found to be happier when they have religious faith. However, the studies that you have given were only done on depressed people, which is a subset of the overall population and we can't infer that the results would apply to everyone.

If the statement is left in the article, it should be made more specific based on what you have shown for these studies. Perhaps something along the lines of:

"There is empirical evidence that people who have strong religious faith are less likely to suffer from depression."

gutzalpus 13:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

gutzalpus, Okay, I agree that this is more accurate, so feel free to change it. One follows from the other. Lack of depression correlates with happiness so what was written was down was and is a proven and documented fact. I have to admit that the assertion that I wrote down in Wikipedia was based on the several news articles over several years that I remembered. My memory or the journalists may have been inaccurate. Andries 13:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andries, thanks for the reference. With respect to the entry itself, I still don't see the need to include that line in an article about Apostasy. I would find it fine in some article referring to religion in a broader sense, where the positive and/or negative effects of religious faith on health could be discussed.

Now, as regards the content of the sentence being discussed, I disagree with the statement as it is phrased: “people who have strong religious faith and regularly attend church services are happier than people who do not”. In the last article you recommended, under “Potencial Harmful Effects”, it can be read:

“Psychiatry still needs more research and clearer hypotheses in differentiating between the supportive use of religion/spirituality in finding hope, meaning, and a sense of being valued and loved versus harmful beliefs that may manipulate or condemn”. That section of the article also mentions some research into harm on mental health done by religious faith. If lack of depression correlates with happiness, then the opposite correlates with unhappiness, and given that the article provides information about both aspects, the statement becomes invalid.

Lena

Lena, I think the confusion comes from that the summary at the end is the conclusion from that particular study. The sentence "Another study of adolescents found that frequent church-goers with high spiritual support had the lowest scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (Wright et al., 1993). " comes from another study. The empirical evidence about faith makes the statement that losing faith (apostasy) can be a difficult experience more plausible but you may be right that it doesn't belong here. The better reference would be Wright but I do not have online access to this research. Andries 15:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Andries, I am curious to read the Wright study. Could you give me the complete reference? Thanks in advance,

Lena


Lena, I would have to become a member of a university library to read the Wright study. Or pay for it on the internet. I moved the assertion to Religion#Religion_and_mental_health. This will likely cause people to disagree and protest and then the article will improved by the process. Andries 08:15, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I moved the "anecdotal evidence line" to a new paragraph since it doesn't really seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph that it was in. Gutzalpus 18:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The study is about church-goers. But the seriously depressed people cannot go anywhere, they just lie on the bed and suffer. When you so the study the church-goers, you can't rech religious but seriously depressed people. The study seems unrelielable. -Hapsiainen 18:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of capital punishment for certain faiths other than Islam

I have removed the assertion that capital punishment is also proscribed for certain other faiths than Islam because I don't know any. If you re-insert it then please mention the names of these religious movements. Andries 05:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree, have removed it after it reappeared. Mike Young 12:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding this article

I will be working during the next weeks on a major expansion to this article.

  • Apostasy in Judaism - added
  • Apostasy in Islam - expanded
  • Apostasy in Christianity - linked to Great apostasy; needs summary
  • Apostasy in Hinduism - added
  • Apostasy in Sikihism - TBD
  • Apostasy in Budhism = TBD
  • Apostasy in emerging religions (a.k.a NRMs, or New Religion Movements) and cults - TBD
  • Other subtopics
    • Apostasy by coercion - TBD
    • Apostasy and freedom of religion - TBD
    • Apostasy and the media - TBD

--Zappaz 06:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) /

updated --Zappaz 22:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your subtopics seem a little questionable. A coerced renunciation of religion doesn't seem like it would properly fit under "apostasy", which connotes an actual turning away from religion, as opposed to a forced renunciation, and I'm not sure how "Apostasy and freedom of religion" fits into anything other than "Apostasy by coercion." Are you sure you're not veering into original research? -- Antaeus Feldspar 09:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Coercion (as per apostasy during the Spanish inquisition) and freedom of religion (as a discourse within the context of being able to become an apostate without being thrown to jail or killed) are highly significant to this subject and have are widely studied as such. Before you make an assessment about fitness, you could chose to wait and see if my edits warrant inclusion here or in another article, and if at all. And if you are knowledgeable in the subject, I would appreciate your collaborations. Thanks. --Zappaz 17:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, your first subtopic is "apostasy by coercion". This would make sense if we were talking about "religious conversion by coercion", or "renunciation of faith under coercion", because neither "religious conversion" nor "renunciation of faith" connote a fully willed act on the part of the convert/renunciator. "Apostasy", on the other hand, has strong connotations of an illicit act whose guilt falls upon the apostate -- so to suddenly introduce the concept of apostasy as something that someone else can coerce you to commit is, a) changing the concept of apostasy to make it indistinguishable from religious conversion, b) redundant since the article on religious conversion already covers coerced religious conversions. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Antaeus, most converts to a new religion can also be considered apostates (the other side of the coin of conversion). And yes, most probably both articles will have a lot in common, but still I believe that there is merit in developing this article from this angle. Once this article is developed we can all look at it, and evaluate what to do next. We could attempt a merge, maybe spawning a few pieces out onto their own articles, or we could decide to keep them separate. First things first, this article needs a throrough expansion to become a good article. That is what I am trying to ccomplish. --Zappaz 22:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, sure, go ahead. If you think you have something on the subject, roll it out and we'll all take a look at it. But since your answer above didn't actually answer what I was saying, I'm simply wondering what you can come up with. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trade "wondering" for "patience". It does wonders (pun intended).--Zappaz 00:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus, what is your opinion on the difference between cult and New religious movement, that warrants an edit (sumarized as rv POV )? --Zappaz 01:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because the edit which I reverted endorses one of two presuppositions: it either pre-supposes that "cult" and "new religious movement" are the same thing, or that the reliability of the testimonies of apostates is only an important and controversial issue in the study of apostasy in new religious movements, and that in the study of cults it is not an important issue. Neither pre-supposition meets the burden of NPOV.
As I've explained elsewhere, many of those who study cults view the defining characteristic of the cult as a particular cultic structure; so far from being synonymous with "new religious movement", "cult" in this sense does not even require the organization to be religious or new, nor does being new and religious mean "cult". The edit cannot be justified by a claim that "cult" and "new religious movement" mean the same to everyone.
Neither can it be justified by claiming that the reliability of the testimonies of apostates is unimportant in the study of cults; if anything, it is a more important subject. An important part of the cultic structure (which is, again, the defining characteristic of a cult for a substantial number of scholars) is that members are pressured to believe that truth only comes from those higher up in the organization. Members are told that outsiders don't have the truth because they don't have the experience; then they are told that apostates, who had the experience, still don't have the truth because if they did, they never would have left. The edit cannot be justified by saying that the reliability of apostate testimony is not an issue in the study of cults; if it wasn't, Leo J. Ryan would never have taken his fatal fact-finding trip to Guyana.
So, unless you have an argument to advance on why your edit of "cults and new religious movements" to just "new religious movements" could be considered warranted from an NPOV perspective, then yes, it was a POV edit, and reverting it was the correct thing to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see your point. Fair enough. Actually, my section on apostasy and NRMs will include groups that some scholars may refer to as cults. --Zappaz 22:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What is best?

What is best? one article on Apostasy with subheads for each religion (se proposed TOC above) as we have it now, or adding new sub headings about Apostasy on each one of the articles about religions? A combination of both? What will the readers expect? --Zappaz 16:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Monk

I am surprised about:

  1. The removal of Maria Monk as a notable apostate, by Andries
  2. The comment about Monk not being an apostate by Antaeus

Can you please explain the reasons for these edits? I have researched Monk's story quite a bit, and do not understand the reason for these edits. She was controversial, of course. She may have lied all the way... but the story is most definively applicable, and if true, a clear case of apostasy. --Zappaz 04:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maria Monk was born as a protestant but then pretended having been a Catholic and criticized Catholicism. This is not apostasy according to the definition which is formal renunciation of one's religion. She critized a religion to which she she never adhered. It would have been apostasy if she had criticized protestantism. Andries 09:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, you pointed out the reason yourself: "if true, a clear case of apostasy." But those who investigated Maria Monk's story, including the Protestant investigators like Colonel Stone who would have no reason for bias against her side of the story, came to the conclusion that it wasn't true. To put her in a list where she belongs only if her story is true and omit any mention of the high probability that she "lied all the way"? One might as well include Prester John in a list of world rulers of the 12th century, while omitting any mention of the probability that he never existed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Zappaz

Bromley never made statements about the reliability of apostates unless they are involved in a countermovement. Hence the `atrocity story´ should go either to Christian Counter Movement or to the Anti-cult movement. Personally I think that it should be clear that this is a highly diverse `group ´and making generalizations about them is madness. Andries 07:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What sentence are you referring to?
Andries: ex-members groups are clearly aligned with the ACM, either directly or implicitly. They quote from each other, support each other, inter-link their websites, etc. Maybe you can add a statement about this. --Zappaz 18:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, please provide references for your assertion that apostates of cults are part of the ACM. Times have changed since the internet. Schnabel's dissertation also places Bromley's remarks under ACM. For example, I read this weekend Andre van der Braak's book "Enlightenment Blues. He is an apostate of Andrew Cohen and only refers to typical anti-cult literature once. To be excessively sceptical of his testimony is, I think, unfair and insulting Andries 18:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I refer to the sentence, possibly to more
"Bromley and Shuppe while discussing the role of anecdotal atrocity stories by apostates, proposes that these are likely to paint a caricature of the group, shaped by the apostate's current role rather than his actual experience in the group, and question's their motives and rational.9"
All generalizations that Bromley makes are about apostates associated with the ACM. Andries 18:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I understand the issue of generalizations hurts both apostates and members of NRMs, and it is unfair to both sides. But I think that to make a distinction between the anti-cult movement and apostates of cults is very difficult as their narratives are very much intermingled. I see that distinction to be artificial, and hard to substantiate.
Regarding your request to support with citacion the assertion that apostates are part of the ACM, I would argue that the opposite is the case. Any one visiting the website of ex-members will see that these groups are indeed part of the ACM and one of the most active ones. Also, mainstream ACM websites base much of their theories on apostate testimonies. That is why this issue is so critical and controversial... --Zappaz 18:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I do not agree. ACM is defined as organized opposition to NRMs and cults plus individuals who oppose them as a profession. Yes, of course they link to websites who sympathize with their cause. And to say that the apostates of NRMs are part of ACM because their testimonies are used by them is the same as saying that Bromley, Wilson and Shupe are part of e.g. the Hare Krishna because they are extensively quoted on the Hare Krishna's website. Andries 18:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ACM is defined as organized opposition to NRMs and cults plus individuals who oppose them as a profession.
Who's definition is that? I can see that it is in the opening paragraph of Anti-cult movement, but other sources differ... The term organized is misleading. Check other encyclopedias and you will see what I mean. The term movement is different than organization. It includes individuals, loosely associated groups as well as organizations. --Zappaz 9:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, it is my definition that I inferred from Shupe's and Bromley's 1989 article "Public reaction against NRMs" for which you complimented me. Amazingly Shupe and Bromley did not define the term in their article. The ACM was never a mere loose association of disillusioned former members of a certain cult/NRM but grew out of distraught parents of members of many groups. Andries 20:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, we were both wrong... I have checked two encyclopedias and the definition is not constrained to "organized opposition". I have changed the opening para on Anti-cult movement to reflect this. --Zappaz 20:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
but then almost any generalization is incorrect because this opposition is very diverse. Andries 20:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So what do you propose, that we delete these articles? That would be not possible. Even with the generalizations, that we agree sometimes are disatrous, articles and studies about NRMs, followers, apostates, cults, etc. can and will be written... --Zappaz 02:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At least a fair treatment of both NRMs/cults and their critics. It is against NPOV to have a broad definition of the ACM and then not mention the diversity due to that definition but instead giving a charicature based on a small but vocal subset of the critics. A narrow definiton of the ACM is fine too (and more accurate, I think) but I then suggest creating a new article Opposition to new religious movement and cults (of which the ACM is a part) that shows the diversity of the critics. Andries 06:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that apostates construct narratives with the purpose of discrediting their former groups. In many cases, they just tell their stories which happen to discredit their former groups. Andries 00:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think is the language barrier. There is no difference between "telling their stories" and "constructing narratives". It is the same, just a sociological term. --Zappaz 04:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What I mean is that apostates do not always construct narratives to discredit their former group. There are several reasons why they construct narratives, and sometimes the purpose of discrediting their former group is one of them. Andries 08:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, although most of the times Apostates' stories have jus that purpose. I have added the qualifier "sometimes" to the original sentence. Thanks for pointing this out. --Zappaz 18:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How do you know that this is the case most of the times? If you mention one motivation as occuring sometimes then we should list them all, or at least the most important. Andries 21:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable apostates

I am removing from the list of "notable apostates" all names that have not been referenced. Please note that to be called an apostate, the person has to have professed/practice a religion and then formally renounce it.

--Zappaz 01:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will try but I think you are exaggerating by asking references for people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Marjoe Gortner, and Augustine. Explicit public strong criticism of core issues and doctrines of one's former faith is de facto apostay. A formal statement of resignation and disillusionment is, I think, often not public and hence not verfiable and in the aformentioned case redundant. [User:Andries|Andries]] 06:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect. There is a clear definition of Apostasy in Wikidictionary and in this article. Notable apostates are those that professed a religion in the first place and then went to formaly renounce it. In this context Carl Marx was not and apostate, Carl Jung was not an apostate. etc. --Zappaz 15:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Karl Marx that I did not re-add but Jung practised Christianity as a child as documented because he was the son of a vicar. Andries 15:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is a notable biographical aspect of Jung's life. But to call him an apostate is ridiculous. --Zappaz 16:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is this ridiculous? Jung abandoned and strongly criticized his former faith so that makes him an apostate. Andries 16:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Please provide references and then add to article


Are you saying that Julian the Apostate needs a source to show that he was an apostate? Have you looked at the articles on these people? It appears that you are removing this list without doing any legwork of your own. -Willmcw 02:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry Andries, this is not acceptable. Notable apostates are notable apostates. If yoy want youy can start an article on critics of religion. This article discusses Apostasy. Will: 99% of this article was researched and edited by me. So don't come and tell me abouy legwork. The reason I moved it here is becuase people were adding names 'without' doing research. --Zappaz 15:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I researched every person that I re-added. I agree with Zappaz that people added persons without research. All persons that I re-added practised a religion and then strongly criticized this former religion. Andries 16:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The current list is correct. Martin Luther, Rushdie, Jung, Disraeli, Marx and Nietzsche are not apostates. It is preposterous to label them as such. --Zappaz 16:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree about Disraeli and Marx but disagree with the rest who are de facto apostates,
  • Rushdie was desclared an apostate of Islam by Khomeini and later also openly admitted having abandoned his faith
  • Luther of Roman Catholicism
  • Nietzsche grew up in a strongly Christian family but later strongly critized Chrisitanity
  • ditto for Jung
Andries 17:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andries, but this is a no go... Rushdie is not an apostate. It was declared to be one by his enemies. Calling Jung an apostate is unacceptable, same applies to Nietzche. Luther, well that is definitively strange. Where are you getting these ideas, Andries? I have studied apostasy for years and this is the first time I see these people labeled as such! You will need to provide references, or at least attribuitions (see entry for Luther), that these people have been referred to as apostates. Otherwise this is just your original research --Zappaz 03:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A question for you Andries: What is that is driving you to add these names to a list of notable apostates? Just curious. --Zappaz 03:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I could not find good references for Jung and Nietzsche so I am probably wrong though I do not understand it. Sorry for the inconvenience that I caused. My drive was that I sincerely thought that they fitted the definition. Andries 08:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that it is necesary to find references that somebody has been labelled an apostate if s/he clearly fits the definition. That would be like asking for a reference in an article about numbers that a certain number, for example 165438967354987366 was called a number by somebody. Andries 16:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How does Nietzsche not count as an apostate? According to this bio, he was raised in a religious Lutheran household, was confirmed when he was at least 16, and initially studied theology in college. Later he became a famous atheist. [1] What more does it take to qualify? -Willmcw 08:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the reason for this dispute is that the label of apostate is a somewhat pejorative term given by the majority to someone whose opinions they do not like. Hence I could not find a reference for the fact that the well respected Augustine is an apostate though he clearly is one. I admit that I was wrong about Jung though. Andries 14:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


In Rushdie's own words:

"God, Satan, Paradise, and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith. ..and afterwards, to prove my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham sandwich, and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of the swine. No thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. [...] From that day to this I have thought of myself as a wholly secular person." -- from In God We Trust (1985)[2]

He was a believer, and then he stopped believing. - Mustafaa 08:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Luther was an apostate. He wanted to reform the Catholic Church, not to start a new church. But then he was excommunicated. -Hapsiainen 18:19, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

removed Luther who was, I guess, more a heretic than an apostate. Andries 18:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali an Apostate? She still claims to be moslem, despite her attacks on Islam and Islamic culture... If Luther wasn't one, then why would she be?

[edit] Defining apostasy

I think that there is a misunderstanding of what Apostasy is, and that is resulting in confusion about who is a "notable apostate".

See some of the definitions of Apostate/Apostasy:

  1. deserter, apostate, renegade, turncoat, recreant, ratter -- (a disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend etc.) Not faithful to religion or party or cause. Princeton's WordNet search. [3]
  2. From the Greek apo - histanai ("depart from a stand.") A person who was once affiliated with a faith group, but has since "fallen away" and left the group. One group's apostate is generally another group's convert. Very severe penalties exist in some countries of the world against individuals who abandon the state religion in favor of another faith. It can theoretically mean execution in some Islamic countries. The Roman Catholic church stopped burning European apostates at the stake in 1792 CE. Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance [4]
  3. (1) : renunciation of a religious faith (2): abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION - Merriam Webster
  4. apostate:One who is guilty of desertion of one's faith, religion, party, or principles. Theological Dictionary [5]
  5. The falling away from the faith. It is a revolt against the truth of God’s word by a believer. It can also describe a group or church organization that has "fallen away" from the truths of Christianity as revealed in the Bible. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry [6]


So ... to be notable, it is necessary that the person:

  1. had a strong involvement in the religion/belief/liturgy/community
  2. renounced that religion/belief/liturgy/community in a formal manner
  3. became public about his/her renunciaion of the prior religion in such as manner as to attract the label of apostate

With the above in mind, Rushdie is an apostate in the eyes of devote muslims. That does not apply to Marx, Jung or Nietzsche (at least I have yet to come across such a label in regard to these illustrious Germans). --Zappaz 04:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to be arguementative, but apparently Nietzsche was confirmed as a 16-year old into the church, meaning he declared his faith. What more is required? -Willmcw 05:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz, notable can also mean influential. Ambedkar is about the most influential apostate that I can think of. I can not understand the steps you are making from the definitions to the meaning that you give to "notable". From the same defintions, I could also argue that someone is a notable apostate if
  1. s/he has followed a religion and then publicly criticized it in such a way that there can be no doubt that the person does no longer follows the religion
  2. and attracted attention by this criticism or had a notable influence on society with his defection.
Or
  • Has been referred to as an apostate by his critics, though the person may not accept this label.
Besides, as far as I know, the word apostate is quite unusual and somewhat pejorative which means that it is difficult to find a respected person labelled as an apostate even if s/he clearly fits the definition, such as Augustine. Andries 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome, we should clearly define in the article the criteria for inclusion to inform the reader but also to prevent the list becoming a mess again. Andries 09:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica's definition: baptized Christians who leave their faith

Britannica wrote that the term referred to baptized Christians who leave their faith. This explains the mystery to me that Augustine is never or rarely referred to as an apostate though he clearly fits the definition. Andries 06:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. It again makes me wonder why Nietzsche is not a clear candidate. While I think that if there is a list he may belong on it, I'm also wondering why we need a list at all. -Willmcw 06:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think the list of notable apostates is very informative and hence belongs here although I hope that the controversy about the list will stop. British psychiater Storr writes that both Nietzsche and Jung are apostates in his book Feet of clay : a study of gurus. He may be wrong about Jung though. Andries 08:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I may agree with Will on this one. Maybe the best course of action is to delete this list. Regarding Britannica's definition of Apostasy, they have a very narrow definition. Merriam-Webster does not have that narrow approach to the term. I will modify the addition by Andries to make it more accurate. --Zappaz 21:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy In Islam

The hadith were quoted before Qur'an. Just... so POV.... needs fixing. gren 17:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] evolution?

It seems odd to describe evolutionism is a common sign of apostasy. I know many religious folk (primarily Catholic and Baptist) who do not adhere to a literalist interpretation of the bible. Certainly this in the normal teaching in Catholicism. In any case, seeing as creationism isn't a central tenant of christianity any more than belief in Papal Infallibility, but rather is a particular aspect of particular denominations, I propose removing it. Felix the Cassowary 16:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I for one would have to disagree. Creationism *IS* central. Rossnixon
Catholism is such an important Christian group, that the definition for not accepting evolution theory has to be removed. Also not all Protestant churches teach literal Creationism. You can still believe that God created everything and used evolution as a tool to form a religious lifeform, for example. -Hapsiainen 12:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
If Christians do not believe in a literal creation, they may as well stop calling themselves Christians. Having death, disease and suffering before sin destroys the whole basis of the Gospel. All biblical doctrines of theology are based in the history in Genesis 1-11. If Genesis 1-11 is not history it can’t be trusted and there is no foundation for Christian doctrine. -RossNixon 2:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Creationism as a definition of true Chritianity is only shared by some protestant groups. We can't follow only their wishes although they would say that they are the only true Christians. I set theological details aside, because they could trigger a flame war. But there are people that believe there is still the foundation. -Hapsiainen 14:38, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations against cults section by Andries

In WP, we can describe the controversy. But to use WP to air grievances of apostates is not within policy and not NPOV. The individuals making these allegations are not notable to be quoted: being an ex-follower does not make a person notable enough to quote in WP. Good for a tabloid, not good for WP. --Zappaz 16:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

well, may be you are right but I would have appreciated this comment before I had created the list. It took me hours to find references and attributions that you demanded. Andries 17:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
So, now it is my fault? I did not know that you comply to my "demands". Does not look that way, by the way you are acting... --Zappaz

[edit] Apostasy in NRM's

I think the section on NRM's has become too large and I want to merge most of it into the page for Opposition to NRM's where it really belongs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_cults_and_new_religious_movements ). Andriesb 23:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that this article contains the gist of Bromley's and Shupe's work on the subject but a selective quote that suits people who want to discredit the tesimonies of apostates. I think they write more about interpretations of facts and the influence of society on this interpretation. They generally do not doubt the facts in the testimonies of apostates. I have not read enough by Bromley and Shupe to be sure though. Andries 05:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Given your situation, it will be a very hard read for you, Andries. Regarding your proposal about mering the section on NRMs, I disagree. It belongs here. Thanks. Also note that I am expanding this section now with some more material. We may need to split it to its won article later on. --Zappaz 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
please note, that Andriesb is another Dutch or Flemish speaking contributor but not me. I am Andries. Andries 18:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High-profile accusation of apostasy

Purported al-Zarqawi tape denounces Shiites, calls Iraqi government 'apostate' Interesting reminder about the uses of the accusation of apostasy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Apostate in Arabic, it is a very bad word to use against a fellow Muslim. --Zappaz 01:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing POVs about the reliability of apostates are uninformative

I think that the current version presents an uninformative view of the matter. What is the reader to think when he is presented with strongly opposing POVs? Instead, the article should focus on the societal influences on apostates, instead of presenting opposing POVs about their reliability. (Apart from that, it will be clear that I think that generalizations about such a diverse group of people are crazy and highly insulting, comparable to statements by scholars that e.g. American people can't be trusted.) Andries 13:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not insulting to me.The reliability (or lack thereof) of apostate testimony is a field of study in the domain of new religious movement. I do not see the reason for censoring it from Wikipedia. On the contrary. If a notable enough group of people believe that American people can't be trusted, or that people in an NRM are brainwashed, then NPOV calls for making that statement and attribute it to these scholars. Why should it be diffrerent in the case of apostates? ≈ jossi ≈ 16:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Right, okay then we should also add to Jewish people that they are unreliable to Muslims who are a notable group. Andries 16:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes. That is right. Many muslims believe Jews are evil (duh?). ≈ jossi ≈ 20:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
The thing is that the article is now uninformative because of the opposing POVs. Instead the article should contain facts. Andries 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Fact: most scholars that study New Religious Movements (with the exception of a few), believe that the testimony of ex-members is not to be trusted for reasons a, b, c, d, and e as described in the article. Even anti-cultists such as Mark Dunlop (ex-FWBO) thinks that way! How can you say that information is not informative? It is actually the most informative in this article for anyone studying apostasy in NRMs. FYI, WP needs to include facts as well as notable POVs if properly attributed. Otherwise, If we follow your logic, most of the stuff on Criticism of Prem Rawat should be deleted, because these are not facts, just the abhorrent POV of a group of apostates who's testimony is not worth the pixels used to display them. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's summarize it by saying that some scholars believe that is reliable and others think it is not. I think you and Zappaz misunderstand Bromley's work.Andries 20:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz and you misunderstood Mark Dunlop: Dunlop does not say that apostates are unreliable, he complains that some scholars thinks so. He is himself an apostate. Andries 20:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I have read many article by Dutch NRM scholars and only one says so i.e. Richard Singelenberg so I do not think that they form the majority. Andries 21:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you remove Dunlop becase it is not notable, then please help me delete Michael Dettmers (who make outrageous and disparraging comments about Prem Rawat) in the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. With the same measurement, Dettmers is also not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:40, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dettmers is one of the few direct wittnesses of Rawat's private behavior . That is different than just a private a website (Mark Dunlop's) writing about a very general subject. Andries 21:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I know Prem Rawat personally, and I can assure you that Dettmers statements are a figment of a sick imagination. Would you then quote me in that article? ≈ jossi ≈ 01:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Zappaz has a habit of adding non-notable non-reputable sources to article if they support his POV. This is one of them. And in this case the source does not even support his POV, he misunderstood Mark Dunlop's essay. Andries 22:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't think so. Dunlop's words are pretty unambiguous. You claim POV, only because it is against yours. At least be honest about it.

[sic[] If an ex-member claims that they were subjected to brainwashing or mind-control techniques, not only is this again unprovable, but it is tantamount to admitting that they are a gullible and easily led person whose opinions, consequently, can't be worth much. If an ex-member suffers from any mental disorientation or evident psychiatric symptoms, this is likely to further diminish their credibility as a reliable informant. [...]In general, the public credibility of critical ex-cultists seems to be somewhere in between that of Estate Agents and flying saucer abductees. [7] ≈ jossi ≈ 01:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

When you read his whole essay then it is clear that it is just one big complaint against cults and that they are uinfairly insensitive for criticism, including testimonies by apostates. Andries 03:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Jossi and Zappaz, I have read many postings by Mark Dunlop about cults and I know how he thinks and by this selective quote you completely misrepresent his essay. You almost make it into the oppposite of what he meant to write. Andries 03:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to offer me your apologies when you finally understand his essay? Andries 03:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Here is what he says elsewhere in the essay
"Non-falsifiable - a cult belief system can never be shown to be invalid or wrong. This is partly why critics have low credibility, and why it can be difficult to warn people of the dangers of a cult."
Andries 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what you complaint is. If you want to quote from this in other articles dealing with cults, please do so. The section is about apostates of NRMs. He is an apostate and the sentence is about apostates and the lack of acceptance of their testimony. Leave it as is without adding your own commentary. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Quotes should present the gist of the author's argument about the subject and not out of context quotes to support a certain POV. What Mark Dunlop means is that he considers it crazy and unfair that he and other apostates have little credibility but I read this nowhere in the quote that Zappaz inserted. Andries 05:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Anyway I have little problem with Dunlop's text as it currently stands. Thanks. Though I still consider Dunlop's complaints about the lack of credibility of apostates not notable. Andries 05:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proper quoting

The 'quote' that you deleted, Antaeus, is just a condensed version of the summary of the article, just below the quote you added. I have added it again. (Also added some of the text that you chose to remove from the same quote). ≈ jossi ≈ 05:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide rationale for deleting the summary of Dunlop's article. If you think my summary is not good (it is based on Dunlop's summary, and added after Andries asked for it), please try and re-write it. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, then I'm happy to explain this part, since it may help you at some point to be a better Wikipedia contributor: when you put quote marks around a series of words and present it as the words that a person spoke or wrote, it needs to be their words, not a paraphrasing thereof, or a "condensed version of the summary" thereof. Especially if you are going to append the notation [sic], which is necessary less often than people think: it notes that what may appear to be a typo or some other alteration on the part of the reproducer is in fact reproduced faithfully. To append it to a simple quotation that does not present the appearance of typo or other transcription mistake is unnecessary; to append it to a "quotation" that is in fact not a faithful reproduction is simply doubling the offense.
The only exceptions to the rule that what is presented as a quote must in fact be the verbatim words of the person quoted without alteration are interpolation and ellipsis. Interpolation is used when the context in which the quote appears makes certain portions of the meaning clear which are not clear from only the quote itself -- most frequently used to replace a pronoun or unclear noun with its referent, such as converting Roger Ebert's "Battlefield Earth was written in 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The film contains no evidence of Scientology or any other system of thought; it is shapeless and senseless, without a compelling plot or characters we care for in the slightest." to "[The film ''Battlefield Earth''] contains no evidence of Scientology or any other system of thought; it is shapeless and senseless, without a compelling plot or characters we care for in the slightest." Single brackets go around the interpolated section to make clear that interpolation has taken place.
Ellipsis is used when portions of the quote can safely be omitted without changing the meaning of the quote. For instance, when the complete quote is "Additionally, dissatisfied members or other critics have great difficulty in disproving ad-hominem arguments, such as that they just have a personal axe to grind, that they are trying to find a scapegoat to excuse their own failure or deficiency, or that they are simply being subjective and emotional", three examples have been given of ad-hominem arguments used to attack ex-members and whistleblowers: the phrase "such as" makes it perfectly clear that these are only three examples out of a list that could potentially be longer. Thus, if one wished to shorten the quote, one could keep one of the examples, and replace the other two with ellipses.
As with interpolation, one inserts formatting into the quote to indicate that an alteration has taken place, even if the person quoting believes it is a benign alteration which does not misrepresent the person quoted (in the case of ellipsis, it is '...', which may be unfortunate since that punctuation is increasingly popular in on-line writing to indicate a "trailing-off".) This is considered a matter of basic honesty, since one person might think that he has not changed the basic meaning of a quote by omitting or substituting words when in fact he has altered its meaning considerably (for instance, by changing the words someone wrote about a certain group's "public credibility" to make it appear the person was talking about that group's actual credibility.) By using the correct formatting, one notifies others "I have made alterations to this quote; I consider them minor and non-material, but if you suspect you might disagree, this is where you should look for differences between the person's original words and my representation of them." And of course, one should not present as an unaltered quote what is not, in fact, a person's own unaltered words [8] , and in particular one should not append "[sic]" to pre-emptively assure readers that one's transcription was 100% faithful to even the mistakes and infelicities of the original writer's words. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. FYI, the paragraph I added was not in quotes. The only thing in quotes was "expose cults". So I have added [sic] to that. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
What does the "[sic]" add? I usually see that when the original quote contains a spelling or grammar mistake that is retained. -Willmcw 23:37, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I actually explained that above, but Jossi apparently didn't get as far as the third sentence of the explanation he thanked me for. The "[sic]" indicates that what may appear to be a mistake on the part of the transcriber is in fact part of the original material -- Jossi seems to think it means the opposite, that it allows you to put your own paraphrasing in quotes as if it were a quote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just because of this: "expos[e] cults" rather that this "expose cults" you made such a racket? Mond Dieu!  :) ≈ jossi ≈ 03:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
You see, that's a very good example. If I were to quote you saying "Mond Dieu!" I would add a [sic] so that people won't think I added the "d" at the end of "Mon" myself. That is the correct usage of the "[sic]" notation. Which, of course, has to be kept in mind in evaluating "rackets": it might be not worth a fuss if someone puts their own variation on another person's words into quotes, sloppily and falsely implying that it is an exact quote, when it is not. But to add the "[sic]" to it, and not just imply but state outright that it is an exact transcription, when it is not? Not on, old chap, not on. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the section on cults and NRMs

Following NPOV guidelines the article should first start with a definition and then describe the POV of the group that is treated. Hence I think that the POV and the complaints of the apostates should be treated first and not the criticism of some scholars of them. I will change the order back again. Andries 07:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section deals with apostasy in new religious movements and not with complaints by apostates. You moved these complaints from the Oppostion to cults and new reigious movements (Don't know why). Putting their complaints first in this section is putting the cart befoer the horse. Explain what an paostate of NRM is, what scholars that studied them say about them and then list their complaints. Not the other way around. This section should get the same treatment as on the other sections in the article, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ 15:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Jossi, every group of people should start with a definition first and followed by their POV and complaints as per the NPOV policy. The normally accepted practice of describing a group is first to give a definition, then to describe their POV, and then criticism. In this case the group described are apostates so their complaints and allegations should be mentioned first. Even the most unpopular in the public mind of all NRMs Scientology starts with their beliefs and practices, seen from their POV. I do not see any good reason to deviate from this normal order in this article. Andries 19:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. I understand. I re-ordered it again based on your input. I think that it reads much better now. Let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I asked a question about this in Wikipedia:Village pump see [9] Andries 13:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy in Christianity

Apostasy, as departing from the teachings of Jesus and His apostles as written in the bible. --Svnutn 13:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Reverted to remove my edits. Great Apostasy addresses my issues. --Svnutn 13:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I removed a paragraph that is not contained in the reference

I have read all the articles by Carter and Bromley in the book and it does not contain the following statement

In studies by Lewis Carter and David Bromley, it is presented that the onus of pathology experienced by former members of new religions movements shifted from these groups to the coercive activities of the anti-cult movement. As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. These studies also point out that the lack of any widespread need for psychological help by former members of new religions has in itself become the strongest evidence refuting early sweeping condemnations of new religions as causes of psychological trauma.

Bromley, David G. (Ed.) The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religiuos Movements and Carter, Lewis, F. Lewis, Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practices Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-275-95508-7 Andries 21:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you read both articles? The text is not a quote but a summary of some of their findings as presented by Melton in his article Brainwashing and the Cults: The Rise and Fall of a Theory. --Zappaz 15:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostate as perjorative

The synonyms of apostate mostly seem to be perjorative terms.

  • A person who has defected: defector, deserter, recreant, renegade, runagate, tergiversator, turncoat. Informal rat.[10]

The positive version of the word is probably "convert", which focuses on the religion that the person has moved towards rather than the one that they have moved away from. The Catholic Church calls apostasy a sin.[11] Other religions also condemn it. I believe that in some modern Islamic societies apostates have received death sentences. So it is hard to see how the term is not perjorative. -Willmcw 00:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about a pejorative, i.e. Disapproving, disparaging, insulting. When I read scholars refering to defectors of religion as apostates, I do not see these scholars using a pejorative, but a distinction. --Zappaz 17:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Scholars are not the only people to use the term. The Catholic Church, a large body that includes some scholars, obviously considers it to be perjorative, just as any sin-related appelation is perjorative. -Willmcw 20:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion explanation

I have deleted this paragraph, added by anon:

However, apostasy is complicated in Judaism. A joke goes as follows: "What do you call a Jew who doesn't [sic]belive in God?" Answer: "A Jew." The joke demonstrates the belief held by some Jewish theologians that a rejection of the central premise of the religion -- the existence of a deity -- does not make one heretical or apostate.

Reasons:

  1. However, apostasy is complicated in Judaism. - not attributed, this is the editor's opinion.
  2. The joke demonstrates the belief held by some Jewish theologians . Weasel word, "some". Yo need to specify who are these theologians for NPOV.
  3. that a rejection of the central premise of the religion -- the existence of a deity -- does not make one heretical or apostate. This is the editor's assessment of what the joke "demonstrates". That is original research. Read Atheism#Judaism for a proper quotiing of that joke.

Antaeus, if you have anything to say, please avoid verbosity and keep to the point. Thanks. --Zappaz 29 June 2005 04:52 (UTC)

Oooh, nice and insulting. I'm impressed, you managed a personal attack right from the get-go. -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)
there is some truth in the joke: one remains a Jew even one has rejected Judaism, in contrast to other religions, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This should be made clear to the readers but not in the form of a joke, of course. Andries 29 June 2005 06:40 (UTC)
Your are mistaken: Judaism has many facets, and we Jews have very different ways to indicate our Judaism. For example, I consider myself a Jew, but not from a religious POV, but from a cultural POV. Only if a religious Jew rejects Judaism as his/her religion, he/she can be considered an apostate of Judaism. There is another aspect: even if I don't consider myself a Jew, but I was born Jew, bigots and antisemites will always consider me a Jew... and that is not a joke. See below the introduction to the Jew article:

The word Jew (Hebrew: יהודי) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes. This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group; for a consideration of the religion, please refer to Judaism.

See also Who is a Jew? ≈ jossi ≈ June 29, 2005 09:54 (UTC)
That's OK, we like you even if you are an apostate. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw June 29, 2005 10:07 (UTC)
AKA kofeir...--DLand 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Wink aside, I cannot be considered an apostate as I have not renounced my religion. ≈ jossi ≈ June 29, 2005 14:30 (UTC)
Depersonalizing it, hasn't someone who has adopted a new religion implictly renounced the old one? -Willmcw June 29, 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Here, for everyone to examine, is the current content of Atheism#Judaism, to which Zappaz admonished us to look for the "correct" quoting of the joke. I am going to assume that Zappaz is not nit-picking over the misspelling of "believe", and I would like to believe that he would not nit-pick over the "Q." and "A." present in one and missing from the other, but the problem is that the two are then exactly the same. What difference are you seeing, Zappaz? Please explain it, avoiding verbosity and keeping to the point.

In general, formulations of Jewish principles of faith require a belief in God (represented by Judaism's paramount prayer, the Shema). In many modern movements in Judaism, rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism. Within these movements it is often recognized that it is possible for a Jew to strictly practise Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or atheist, giving rise to the riddle: "Q: What do you call a Jew who doesn't believe in God? A: A Jew." It is also worth noting that Reconstructionism does not require any belief in a deity, and that certain popular Reform prayer books such as Gates of Prayer offer some services without mention of God.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook [12][13], first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, held that atheists were not actually denying God: rather, they were denying one of man's many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion burn away false images of god, thus in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism.

Please explain the differences you see between these two paragraphs you yourself cited and the anon-contributed paragraph you keep deleting as "clearly original research and POV". -- Antaeus Feldspar 29 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

[edit] Fair summaries of post cult trauma here

Analogous to the discussion of cult, the summary of post cult trauma should be fair and not contain selective quotes that support a POV and omitting others that contradict it. This justifies my deletion of Melton's long quote. Andries 20:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. The Melton text is 100% relevant to this article, and has nothing to do with fairness. It is relevant, sourced, attributed, and referenced, period. Reverted. --ZappaZ 21:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not dispute what you write but the summary should be fair, which it is not if you include the long quote. I am still waiting for an explanation from you about my objection. Andries
Your obejction is noted, but not valid. The text from Melton is highly relevant to this article as it deals with Apostates and Apostasy. The fact that there is an article on so called "post-cult trauma", has no bearing on this article and the need to present the subject of Apostasy covering all POVs. This has 'nothing to do with "fairness" as you put it. Reverted. --ZappaZ 23:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
There are a lot of other relevant, sourced, attributed opinions on post cult trauma that can be inserted here. To insert just that one of Melton, instead of giving a fair summary, is against NPOV guidelines. Andries 06:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Then write a nice short summary of Post-cult trauma, describing the controversy and diverse opinions on the subhect and add a wikilink to that article. That could work. --ZappaZ 15:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy in international law: Freedom of Religion

Apostasy is defined as the act of recanting one's religion or belief. Someone who converts to atheism, agnosticism, another religion or any other system of belief from a given religion NECESSARILY committs apostasy. Therefore, by any reasonable standard, freedom of religion ipso facto entails the right of apostasy.

The sources you cite do not use the term "apostasy", so I have left the text without the editorializing and the added emphasis. Let the facts speak for themselves. Thanks. --ZappaZ 20:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I agree with this approach (I posted the int'l law versions). I am not totally happy with "the UNCHR considers" which I feel is too weak, but would rather have something like "has determined". This would reflect that any interpretation that sees apostasy as not being covered by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ist both legally and logically unconvincing. Maybe we can address this in the future. Thank you though, for your editing (especially my first version was indeed not quite to the point)!

[edit] Apostates in NRMs

Complete overwork of the section:

  • more neutral wording (e.g. "testimonies include" instead of "testimonies of allegations include" which infers that testimonies are not correct - later on contrasting views by scholars on the value of such testimonies are presented in detail)
  • References referred to by author and year (Harvard standard) - the footnotes did not work anymore. Links moved to reference section.
  • Subsection on testimonies as this is much more than the rest of the section
  • Statements of scholars sorted by date (most neutral could think of)

--Irmgard 11:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Restoredd the fact that these are allegations and not facts.
That's precisely what the controversy is about - I tried to formulated it more clearly --Irmgard 18:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Edited out "openly" from the sentence as apostates specifically those individuals that leave new religious movements and become public opponents against their former faith to distinguish them from other former members who do not speak openlyagainst their former faith, while others contest such a distinction., as it assumes that all leavers do so in criticism of their former faith.
  • Changed the title of the apostate testimonies to reflect its contents: the discussion by scholars about the reliability of their testimony.
≈ jossi ≈ 15:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sufyan Al Thawri and apostacy

The position of Sufyan Al Thawri about apostacy is wrongfully stated in the article. This is not what he said. the writer completely misunderstood what Sufyan said.

Please feel free to correct it.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Augustine_of_Hippo

Why was Augustine removed? He was an apostate of Manicheanism. -Willmcw 01:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

See for the discussion about Augustine of Hippo between Andries and Mark McConn User_talk:Andries#Apostasy and User_talk:Mkmcconn#why_did_you_remove_Augustine_of_Hippo_from_the_list_of_apostates.3F. I personally consider Mark McConn knowledgeable and reasonable about the subject of Christianiaty. I have to admit that Mark McConn is right in one respect: Augustine is very rarely considered an apostate, though I continue to think that the he clearly fit the sociological definition. (There are even more narrow sociological definitions by the way). Andries 06:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologize to User:Willmcw for overlooking the question. If there is some sense in which Augustine can be seen as an apostate, perhaps he can be described as "apostasized from Manichaeism to convert to Catholic Christianity". However, I'm still unclear about whether Manichaeism has an idea of "standing", along the lines of a community of trust and obligation (analogous to the Jewish and Christian concept of "covenant"), which I would think should be basic to any idea of apostasy. I really don't know the answer to that question (as I mentioned to Andries). Otherwise, "apostasy" becomes a rather overblown word for "change of opinion". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Many new religious movements have no sense of orthodoxy and have teachings widely divergent from Christianity, but its critical former members are called apostates by sociologists. Andries 07:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that one of the reasons why Augustine is rarely called an apostate is that the word apostate had and has a negative connotation in daily and religious usage and Augustine is generally very much respected by Christian (I think including Protestants). Andries 07:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but I don't think that a psychological explanation works. I understand what people mean by a Sikh, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or Jewish apostate convert to the Christian church. Evangelicals also often speak of apostates, who join the Catholic Church, or Eastern Orthodoxy; even if they otherwise regard these as Christian churches. I can barely understand what it would mean to "fall away from Hinduism", or to "be cut off from Buddhism", or to "depart from Unitarian Universalism". And I don't understand at all what it would mean to be an "apostate from paganism", or to "betray animism", or even to say one "lost his Scientology". To me it sounds made up. The difference, as I mentioned above, is a sense of profound communal obligation which must be overthrown in order to leave: a covenant, a standing, a communion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Sociologist do make up definitions and terms, that is true. It is my impression that Scientologists do have a "profound communal obligation", based on what I see here in the neighboorhood where I live, close to a Scientology center and what my former Scientology colleague told me. I have more doubts about Hinduism and Buddhism than about Scientology, also voiced by user:Andriesb here about Hinduism, not to be confused with me, user:Andries.
I suggest removing Augustine of Hippo from the list and replace it with the sentence.
"This list excludes people, like Augustine of Hippo, who fit the relatively recent sociological definition of apostate ("critical former member"), but whose apostasy pre-dates it. "
The "only" problem is that I don't know whether the relatively recent sociological definition dates from 18th, 19th or 20th century. Andries 08:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Christianity - distinction between apostasy and heresy

There are two theological points listed as signs of apostasy which have in history as well (or more often) been signs not of apostasy but of heresy. Apostasy is not the denial of single doctrines - it is a complete denial of Christianity (which sure includes denial of central teachings). If denial of the deity of the holy spirit is the only "symptom" it's not apostasy but a case of heresy, this should be made clear. --Irmgard 12:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bromley and Shupe

"As a result of this study, the treatment (coerced or voluntary) of former members as people in need of psychological assistance largely ceased. "

This sentence in the middle of the para seems to be an evaluation of the study, not from the study itself. What is the reference for that? --Irmgard 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

When we addd that text we did not have the benefit of the ref/note templates. I will have to go back and find it. And will do so, believe you me. :) --ZappaZ 14:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melton

Abbreviated as it is a repetition of Carter and Bromley already stated above --Irmgard 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not a repetition, as it covers other aspects. Please check and restore any useful text that is not duplicated. Thanks. --ZappaZ 14:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noted apostates

This section contains a potpourri of names, some of which are defectors, others that are accused of apostasy, and others that are not acussed of apostasy but that were excommunicated. In addition, the all encompassing criteria is to close to original research for comfort. I am removing this section. If editors want to re-add such a section, please provide a suitable criteria that stays within the boundaries of the article's subject and that does is not original research. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

They all fit at least one of the defintions and the case of Maria Monk who does not fit any of the definitions has been explained. And suitable criteria had been provided. I do not see original research in this. Andries 21:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
With regards to the potpourri, I agree, but so what? They all fit at least one of the definitions. We can write that Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated because of his writings and opinions that strongly contradicted traditional Judaism. And please into account that defectors can be apostates too when the religious meaning of the word is used. Andries 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Including an apostate alongside a defector, alongside an excommunicated person, in a list that does nor differentiate one from the other, and that does not provide references to support the assertions of being any of these, is original research, POV and factual innacuracy. (These lists, in my experience, are very problematic and very difficult to NPOV. That doesn't mean that it is not possible to achieve NPOV, only that the list was unsuitable for inclusion in its current state, so it I have removed it.) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not constructive to remove clear undisputed cases of apostates like Julian the Apostate and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, just because there is no watertight criteria for the list. Watertight, exhaustive, and completely consistent criteria will probably never be achieved because of the existence of several somewhat different definitions. Please dicuss (and possibly remove) the persons that you find doubtful, but your removal of the complete list deprives the reader of valuable content from this article. I propose the list to include notable former members (both silent and critical) of the Abrahamic religions, notable critical former members of purported new religious movements and purported cults and to exclude notable former members of Hinduism and Buddhism, like Ambedkar, because the concept of apostasy is traditionally mainly used for the Abrahamic religions, an opinion also voiced by users user:Mkmconn and user:Andriesb. Andries 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
One safe way to have such a list is to stay within the confines of what the article describes as an apostate from a sociological perspective: (1) a person that formally renounces his religion, and (2) that criticizes his former religion. I see that you refer to "former-member", but please note that the concept of apostasy refers to only those persons that fit both aspects (renunciation and criticism). I have re-added the list in his entirety, with the hope you could help in removing these that do not fit. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think that a much safer approach would be to use definitions that are not so esoteric, that incorporate a more thorough sociology into the "sociological perspective". The problem is that the definition is not correct in the contexts where the word or idea of apostasy is most important. Apostates do not have to leave; the worst apostates are those who stay. It is not criticism that makes an apostate; the most dangerous are those who flatter and deceive. Apostates are traitors to the religious cause. If you keep this analogy in mind, you can understand why these vapid and barely meaningful criteria can be perceived as beside the point. A traitor is not 1. a person who formally renounces his citizenship, and 2. criticizes his former homeland. That describes only some traitors and, some who are not traitors. A list of traitors based on superficial criteria would run into the same problems that this list would have. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Jossi, apostates are not only critical former members. That is meaning of the term recently coined by sociologists. In daily usage, in case of Abrahamic religions, they are just former members (silent and critical). Andries 10:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that these is solution: Listing noted apostates under each religion. That way we can apply the more appropriate use of the term in respect to that religion. If we add a name,, we also need some context about the person and his/her apostasy. Another possibility is to delete the list all together. My point was, and still is, that having a list in which we mix them all in an strange pile is POV, not encyclopedic and unfair to these persons.≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is right, Jossifresco; it is often the case that apostates from one faith are heroes in another. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi and Mkmconn that refractoring the apostates is a good idea, but where do we put people, like the Tanner who are ex-Mormons? There is no section in Morminism in this article. Also were do we put the skeptic Basava Premanand who is a critic both of his former guru who founded a cult and Hinduism in general? Andries 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I would not object to this specific case to be placed both under Hinduism and NRMs. Tanner could go under Christianity, with a short explanation about his situation ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Baruch Spinoza is not considered an apostate in Judaism. He was excommunicated (that is not the same). Please provide a reference in which he is called an apostate. In fact we need a reference for each of the people in the list, in which a notable source labels him/her as such. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that excommunication is not the same as apostasy, but in this case the excommunication was a result of publishing a philosophy that greatly contradicted traditional Judaism, in other words, a result of apostasy. Here is an opinion-article dated 10-Nov. 2004 from The Telegraph, UK by By Daniel Johnson that labels both Baruch Spinoza, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rusdie as apostates.
[14]"In the 17th century, Holland was the only country in Europe where a Jewish apostate, Spinoza, could publish philosophical works challenging the very basis of revealed religion."Andries 12:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) by Björn Christensson "The Jews thought of their son as a traitor to his people; the Christians cursed him as a very Satan among philosophers, an Antichrist who sought to rob the world of all meaning, mercy, and hope. Even the heretics condemned him."
Israel Prize Awarded to Prof. Yehuda Bauer by Dalia Ofer "Spinoza was an apostate"
Andries 17:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent research. Please add these ase refs/notes to his entry. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)\

Jossi what other persons do you have doubts about? Can we now remove the factual accuracy warning? Andries 08:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about my doubts. This is about providing references for these people in which a notable source labels them as apostates. Once that is done. you can remove the tag. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Whatever is done we should explicitly state how the list was created and include a sentence, like "This list only mentions people who have been labelled an apostate and excludes people who fit the definition of "critical former member" or other definitions but who have not been labelled as apostate by a notable source. " Andries 16:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, Andries. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

[edit] "some of the critics"

Please provide attribution and source to "some of the critics" for NPOV and to avoid weasel words:

Some of the critics complain about ad hominem attacks on them by their former organizations or by apologists of their former faith. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will deweasel them, but the directly preceding sentence should be attributed too "Some of the groups being criticized, in turn, claim being the target of religious intolerance, or hate by these critics." Andries 20:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That statement is now attributed. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Can someone provide a source for this statement? Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Former members of NRMs often see the use of "apostate" as an attempt to discredit them and their statements.
I did not write this, but I have read quite a lot of examples of this and I hence strongly believe it is true. Andries 08:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example I think by Miguel Martinez, a critical former member of New Acropolis [15] Andries 09:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
How about "Since the former member says he intends to denounce the "atrocities" of the group, according to the scholars we have in mind, this would be a case of "apostasy," that is, a case in which the person who has left the group starts a war against it for personal reasons or interests, or because he/she belongs to an "anti-cult" movement."[16]? Tanaats 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction II

The article says that there is no apostacy in Hinduism but then later, there is a list of Hindu apostates.....? (Reahad 21:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "Ex-Christians"

Forum postings are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. See WP:V and WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unles sources are provided for these sections tagged with {{unreferenced}} withn a reasonable period of time, that material will be deleted from this article, in accordance with Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy vs. Spiritual desertion

Spiritual desertion, an all-but abandoned article, describes a concept that seems similar if not equivalent to apostasy. Since there are no links to that article, I am seeking opinions on whether it would be appropriate to redirect it here. -choster 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to merge the article, here and then place a redirect on the other article which links to this article. --StreetScholar 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usually make allegations?

I am a bit uncomfortable with "Apostates of new religious movements usually make a number of allegations against their former affiliation and their leaders, including failed...". The use of "usually" cannot be supported since by far the most apostates just go off and lick their wounds in silence. And as an apostate (whose opinions are therefore automatically suspect! :) ) I also find the term "usually" to have possible negative connotations in this context -- it can give the impression that we apostates are making knee-jerk reactions. I propose this instead: "Apostates of new religious movements sometimes make a number of allegations against their former affiliation and their leaders. These allegationss can include failed...". Tanaats 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/o/Talk%7EApostasy_273b.html"