Talk:Persecution of Christians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] unsorted

I have added material about the persecution of Christians by Jews, and I've noticed that this subject ties in with that of Christian antisemitism, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to word the link. One question is to what extent was the persecution of Christians by Jews exagerrated to justify Christian antisemitism? Many of the passages people have attacked in the NT as being antisemtic recount persecution of Christians by Jews. Also, the ancient accounts of persecution of Christians by Jews obviously laid the groundwork in some ways for the blood libel -- in fact people such as Julian of Norwich and Anderl von Rinn, supposed medieveal victims of Jews, were celebrated as Christian martyrs, in the same way as Stephen, Peter and Paul.

Also, I think for balance, we should include some sort of link or section (or maybe even a whole new article) on persecution of others by Christians, and persecution by Christians of each other. We could link in there such things as the persecution of Greek philosophers by Christian Roman Emperors, expulsion and forced conversion of Jews and Muslims from Spain, the Crusades, the persecution of the Albigensians and Waldenses, and the wars of religion around and after the Reformation... -- SJK

We should also define what is meant by "persecution". There a number of different forms, and different levels of severity. --Wesley
In the last century Christians have been enslaved in the Sudan, and murdered by the dozens in many nations. However, such persecution seems to be socially acceptable, since no one speaks out against it, and the media hardly touches it. But if one Church is closed in Israel for security reasons, this gets ten times the media coverage of the mass murders of Christians in south-east Asian nations. RK
I agree, and that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. If this is going to be done objectively, we have to include context, and some kind of sense of proportion. If possible, it would be helpful distinguish between isolated incidents and examples of broad types of activity; we don't want to list every single incident of persecution in all places at all times, any more than we would want to do that for anti-semitism or other sorts of behaviour. At the same time, by listing specific examples, we don't want to leave the reader with the impression that they are only isolated incidents IF they are not. --Wesley
The books Jesus Freak and Jesus Freak Vol. II might be usefull for this subject. They are written by the christian band dc Talk and by an organization named "The Voice of the Martyrs". They list statistics and cases of persecution, along with background information of the events. I own them both and will make an attempt to add some of the material. RHJesusFreak40


The "Medieval Jewish persecution" section right now is an anti-semitic travesty. What it actually talks about is persecution by various mideastern governments, such as that of Iran. Now, if it pleased the resident Christian scholar to accuse Jews of fomenting that, we can mention this, but this does not change the fact that it was Persian government that did it. After all, there probably were many factions behind such decisions, Jews amongst them. The suggestion that we include Christian persecution of others in this article seems inappropriate. There are other proper places for that, and we can link there from this page. I mean, do we include a discussion of alleged Israeli war crimes in description of the Holocaust? Watcher 10:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes and no. The section seems to have expanded a lot since I last saw it, with the addition of the suspiciously propagandistic Iran stuff and the like: but several of the cases cited were clearly done by Jews (in Yemen and Ethiopia's cases, in fact, by Jewish governments), appear to have been motivated by sectarian reasons, and do belong there. - Mustafaa 17:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

In the Roman section, how about information on throwing Christians to the lions (in the coliseum) - did that happen?

Yes, it did. I think that's how Polycarp died in the second century. The story is recorded in Martyrdom of Polycarp, in which the story of his martyrdom is help up as an example for all to follow; for instance, he fed a meal to the Roman soldiers who came to arrest him. Burning Christians was also common, especially under Nero. --Wesley
True, but let's make sure we explain why the Romans felt that the persecution was valid -- Christianity was considered a threat to Rome because the refusal to honor (not believe in) the Roman gods could bring the wrath of the gods down upon Rome. Also, Christians were protected as Jews until the two groups made it clear that they were not the same. Finally, there needs to be reference to Pliny's letters to Trajan and his responses, which indicate a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. JHK
Good points. In fact, I think the Romans accused the Christians of being atheists because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. There was also at least one case, I think in Ephesus, recorded in which the statue makers or silversmiths saw Christianity as an economic threat, and therefore tried to get the authorities to arrest the leading Christians on trumped up charges. --Wesley

Please, please, move the external links to the end of the article. Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor is it an attempt to organize other content (though one must admit that would be a worthy project, it's not our project). --LMS

Yes. I believe the organize-other-content project is http://www.dmoz.org. Sort of like a yahoo directory of topics and subtopics, but definitely a community project. I don't read wikipedia to find links to other sites, I read wikipedia to see what others have written and contributed to this project. --Wesley

In the article,

for Christian missionaries to use synagogue pulpits to preach the claim that he would soon return, leading the armies of Heaven, to establish his kingdom, would have made the Jewish community vulnerable to accusations of treason, and thus to Roman punishment. Jewish leaders would have to supress any apparent insurrection, or risk Roman wrath.

seems unlikely since Jews were already known to the Romans as suicidal nutballs whose terrorist activities were extremely annoying. -- Ark

It is now time for Wikipedia owners to officialy ban "ARK". He is constantly vandalizing Wikipedia with anti-Semitic hatespeech. End it now.
RK, I agree the above line is insensitive, but from what little I know about the history of the area at the time it does crudely summarise a reasonably-widely held view about the Roman perception of the Jews at the time.
The issue is not what was the general perception Romans had of Jews at the time (I would be quite proud if the Jews enjoyed a general reputation for reisting colonial occupation; would that everyone, Jews today included, always oppose colonial occupation). The issue is the possible commission of specific crimes. Some 1st century CE Jews were quite willing to break Roman law and if necessary face the consequences, but with a few notable exceptions Jewish leaders tried to make the best of things -- and it is these leaders who would punish rebels. I take seriously your claim that there is a widely held view, Robert -- do you think the article could be clearer?
I'm struggling, however, to see it as anti-Semitic hate speech,
Robert, is it that much of a struggle to see someone classifying an entire people as "suicidal nutballs" and "extremely annoying" as hate-speech? Slrubenstein
and AFAICT he has only contributed once or twice to areas relating to Judaism, which is hardly time to establish a pattern. Ark, please be careful how you express things, particularly on topics like this where, as you've just seen, things get passionate very quickly. --Robert Merkel

Actually, RK is referring to a couple of long and vicious arguments we've had about Israel and anti-Semitism. More than enough to form an opinion. (Whether it's a rational, justified or even sane opinion is a different matter entirely.)

I'm more concerned with possibly having made a mistake. Now that I think about it, IIRC, the articles I read said it's the Brits who thought the Jews were lunatics and couldn't wash their hands of the Middle East fast enough. But I also read that the Jews were as masochistic two millenia ago as the early Christians, so it looks like I lucked out anyways. :) -- Ark

I removed the following text as unattributed speculation:

Some have speculated that the New Testament account may have been purposely distorted by its authors to curry favour with Rome by switching primary responsibility for Jesus' execution from the Roman authorities to the Jews.

The "Some" who have "speculated" needs to be identified if it is anyone besides the person who typed in the text. It is also somewhat off-topic, and might possibly belong in the Christian anti-semitism article instead. Wesley

I think the text should be restored - but as you point out, it doesn't really belong here. In my reading I have seen that this claim is a fairly mainstream view among a number of historians and/or Bible scholars, both gentile and Jewish. I am not saying that it is necessarilly the majority view; just a common one that is widely accepted as reasonable. I don't have a ready citation at hand, but I will keep my out for citations on this topic. It also is the view that I happen to find extremely likely. There is no more reasonable way to explain how the Roman persecution of Jews (including the crucifixtion of thousands of them), somehow got rewritten as a pro-Roman, render unto-Caesar what is Caesar's, non-Jewish (and sometimes anti-Jewish) book. (It makes sense considering the time and place that it was written.) Perhaps we should have a discussion of this idea in Christian anti-Semitism article, as you suggest. RK

The historian Paula Fredriksen is one example of someone who deals with these questions, although I do not know if she has proposed this specific claim. By the way, it is not that the "NT account was purposely distorted," it was that more that the "NT account" itself was produced by people living under specific political conditions, with specific agendas, which colored their memories or their own interpretations of Jesus' career and fate. This coloring is probably something that happens in all history, Slrubenstein
One of the early baptismal forms, which became known as the Apostles creed, says that "suffered under Pontius Pilate" is an article of faith. I suspect that this can be shown to have been in use in some form even under the Caesars. So, if the New Testament was trying to shift preponderant blame to the Jews, to avoid offending Caesar, the official interpretation of the New Testament doesn't seem to show that they got the message. It was Pilate who attempted to shift his blame; without credibility, in the Christian view. Mkmcconn

Wesley writes that "intolerance, exclusivity and schism are not the same as persecution".

I disagree. In fact, these terms are a very good definition of persecution. I think you are reading "persecution" as "physically assaulting", but that is not what is stated or intended. Assault is only the last type of persecution. Many other forms of persecution exist! Even so, Christian intolerance towards other Christians, exclusivity and schism often do lead to bloodshed, assaults and all out wars. To mention just the most famous example, a large part of the terrorism in Ireland is part of religious conflict between Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians. The nation of England also has a long history of warfare between one Christian group and another, and the violence was long preceded by intolerance, exclusivity and schism. RK

Conflicts within mainline Protestant denominations Forces of Schism within Christianity

So must one be pluralistic to avoid being a 'persecutor'? Is merely separating from another group the same as persecuting that group? That seems far too broad. Wesley
I think we are getting into a pretty abstract question here, but perhaps that is unavoidable. I don't want to speak for RK but I think you are reading his claims too brodly, Wesley. I think RK is simply pointing out that there are other forms of persecution besides direct physical assault (whipping, stoning, imprisonment, torture, etc). I agree and frankly would be surprised if you did not. I think you are asking the question from the other direction -- is "x" always (necessarily) persecution, and I am sure that both you and RK would agree, no. For example, just because I punch or arrest someone who is Jewish doesn't mean I am persecuting Jews; he may have insulted me personally or he may have robbed a store, in both cases the assault has nothing to do with his being Jewish (ditto, Christians). So I think "persecution" involves some kind of attack against a group identity or belief. I do not see that it matters whether the attack is material or discursive, physical or symbolic. I do think you are raising a more profound question, what is the difference between disagreeing and attacking? Can I disagree with Christianity/Christians without "persecuting" them? I think so, and I think we can establish criteria for telling the difference. And, pace RK, I do suspect that pluralist assumptions are somehow involved... Slrubenstein

This comes from Talk:Christian persecution

-A friendly amendment - this should branch off of (but not be a subpage - horrors, no!) and refer back to another entry on 'religious persecution'. I think it should probably be a headered section on religious persecution. I'm the last person to suggest that the persecution of Christians doesn't happen (I read a lot of memoirs and history from the Soviet era), but we've got to set it up so everyone can get in their persecutions. --MichaelTinkler, who suggests something like:

20th century religious persecution:

  • persecution of Christians
    • by other Christians
    • in Islamic countries
      • in Indonesia
    • under Communist regimes
    • in Israel
  • persecution of Islamic believers
    • by other Muslims
      • Shiite persecuted by Sunni
      • Sunni persecuted by Shia
    • in India
    • under Communist regimes
  • persecution of the practice of Judaism (insofar as that can be distinguished from ethnicity?)
  • persecution of Animists
    • by Christians
    • by Muslims
    • under Communist regimes
  • persecution of ...now fill in all the blanks...

Augustine's writings have always been viewed with skepticism by Eastern Christianity, and Tertullian ended his life formally denounced as a heretic, an adherent of Montanism.

These arguments are special pleading. Augustine and Tertullian are highly regarded. What they say on this issue has not been condemned by the church in any segment of it, as far as I know. I removed them.

It seems a shame for Augustine to suffer disrepute just because a boneheaded "scholar" misunderstands his quote. Tertullian wasn't _the_ leader of the church at any time, and it's silly that he would be credited with inciting a mass-suicide movement among the Christians. Mkmcconn

It's not clear to me what exactly you mean by "special pleading"; is that a specific logical fallacy? Augustine and Tertullian are highly regarded only in the West, and I believe the West agrees with Tertullian's ultimate excommunication as a Montanist, while still drawing from his earlier writings. We don't have any context or reference for these quotes; the external web site points to a dead tree book which presumably has footnotes citing the sources. I agree that their writings are probably being misused and misrepresented here. Wesley
Followup: ok, think I found out what special pleading is. I really don't think those arguments are a special pleading when used by Eastern Christianity, because those two haven't been particularly influential in the East. On the other hand, I don't really care whether they get restored or remain deleted, either. Wesley
I want to extend this discussion at length, because I think it's important to the topic. Not all Christian suffering at the hands of others is admired by Christians, nor should it be. The quotation in the entry is an astounding example of complete ignorance of its subject. Such a blind and prejudicial interpretation of the crucifixion, John the Evangelist, Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian, should not be answered by discrediting Augustine, or Tertullian on this one point, any more than it can be answered by discrediting John. The answer is to show its entire incompatibility with the attitudes it pretends to explain.
Its not worth challenging that some writings and reports which came out of the persecutions show a morbid preoccupation with dying. They do. And at times this fixation became perverse, or was misunderstood by those outside of the faith, which ellicited corrections by confessors and teachers (some of whom were later martyred). Suffering and death are meaningless in themselves; but they are transformed by the pursuit of the goal of faith, which is life.
That's all Augustine is doing in the place referred to (I'm assuming that the writer wants to refer to City of God, where Augustine argues this way). Death for death's sake reduces life to vanity, but in contrast martyrdom shows how death is swallowed up by life, the crown of a life lived for Life's sake. Romans unsympathetically thought that Christians desired death, and promoted a culture of death, but Augustine shows that martyrdom is the opposite, and is the epitome of the Christian warfare against death, and the triumph of life, through the uncompromising full embrace of Truth even in the face of death. This is the reason Christians regarded the janissaries with such singular horror: the idea of perverting death (instead of life) into the central principle of salvation, or that Christians would be deceived by promises of incorruptible rewards into voluntary enslavement in the service of death itself, is despicable to Christians, and always has been except in those places or periods which Christians regard with the greatest self-reproach.
Similarly, Tertullian was saying that it is the obligation of every Christian to confess Christ, and rather than obstacles to confession, suffering and death for Christ's name are the epitome of the confession of faith. All Christians must be martyrs. For example, Cyprian wrote that martyrdom is an angelic baptism, to be desired because it not only takes away sin but also the further possibility of sin. The "scholar" makes clear how he would interpret all statements like that - in a sense that is exactly antithetical to the Christian faith professed by the author of the statement. But, in their Christian sense, the remarks are not in the slightest contrary to Eastern Christianity, or peculiar to the West: even if the authors of them are not equally admired in the East and the West. Mkmcconn 18:43 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)
Well put. I have to agree. Trying to discredit Augustine and Tertullian on this point was a knee-jerk reaction on my part, and not at all well thought out. Please leave out the text in question. Perhaps some of your above statements could be included in an article on martyrdom? I don't think it exactly fits here, but seems well worth keeping in an appropriate topic. Wesley 19:11 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

"However, Pilate's wife, through occult practices, had warned Pilate that he should not have any dealing with Jesus..." -- we need some documentation on this. The locus appears to be Matthew 27, but it is much sketchier than this.

I think this is a good point. It does not say "through occult practices". It simply says, "in a dream". Mkmcconn


From what i read, the first paragraphs of this article (jews and romans) are largely based on the New Testament. I don't believe that is a NPOV source. I think the article can be improved by the adition of historical accounts. Like the descriptions of Nero persecutions after the Rome fire, for instance. Muriel Gottrop 14:54, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That would be from Tacitus, right? There's also Pliny the Younger's correspondence with Trajan, and bits on persecutions by Marcus Aurelius, Maximinus Thrax, Decius, and Diocletian, just off the top of my head. Mightn't the subject be worthy of a separate article? It's a complex topic, and what's there right now doesn't really do it justice: persecution of Christians was (at first) only a small part of the Romans' persecution of other "detestable superstitions" (as Tacitus called Christianity), including Manicheaism and some of the weirder Hellenistic mystery cults. --MIRV 21:49, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed this new paragraph: It should be noted that almost none of these events involve the native "Malankara" Orthodox Christians of India but are instead directed at Roman Catholics or Protestants. Thus, this persecution could very well be as much a matter of political opposition to what is perceived as extension of old colonialist attitudes from foreigners as it is a matter of religion.

This is a hateful and unjustifibale excuse to justify attacks on, and murder of, Christians. People in a mob screaming to hurt or kill Christians are not voicing political differences about colonialism versus nationalism; they are simply hurting or killing Christians. (The same is true when people unjustifiably try to justify suicide bombings against Jews.) There is a big difference between voicing political differences, and murdering people of other religions. RK 21:31, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

The same user reinserted an edited version of the same text. I think it is perfectly fair to note that most attacks have been against Catholics and Protestants, as that seems to be the case, but speculation about the motives for these attacks should not be included without hard evidence. --MIRV 22:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If no one can supply substantial and UNBIASED evidence that the "Discrimination in the West Bank & Gaza / Palestinian territory"-section is not WIDELY blown out of proportions (note the biased sources) within a reasonable time period, say a few days, I'm going to remove it in its entirety as pro-Israeli propaganda. The existence of Palestian Christians has always disturbed Zionists for several obvious reasons, so to put this down as a propaganda attempt makes sense. Note that I'm not saying that there aren't any real incidents, but this section is called Persecution of Christians, so their scale and severeness must differ substantially from that of other multi-cultural societies which are not mentioned here, before a case can be made for their inclusion in this article. -- 213.73.231.245 01:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure what unbiased evidence could exist. The press in that region is controlled either by Israel or by Muslims; is there a Christian press, and if there were wouldn't it also be considered biased? Where would you expect to find an "unbiased" source that would also consider such actions newsworthy? I can tell you that I've read in Orthodox Christian news accounts of Orthodox being kicked out of monastaries in the region, fwiw. Such action is consistent with how Christians are treated by Muslims in Egypt, where they are regularly imprisoned simply for practicing Christianity. What other "multi-cultural societies" in the region are suffering without mention? Regardless, if Christians are being targeted primarily because they are Christians or because they are trying to practice Christianity, then the accounts should remain. Wesley 05:23, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There are massive amounts of evidence. You just read it...and deleted the evidence. How disgustingly dishonest. Why are you hiding the persecution of Chrisitans by the Palestinians? RK 02:08, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

That section is indeed very problematic. We must remember that the Israeli government has extremely clear reasons for wanting to talk up the problems of Palestinian Christians. The main reason, in a nutshell: the USA is predominantly Christian. What better way to promote anti-Palestinian sentiment in America than to teach Americans that the Palestinians persecute Christians? All claims about this that come via the Israeli government (directly or indirectly) need independent verification.
--
That said, some of the events described probably did occur. However, a second problem with the section is that it makes no distinction between local and official events. Violent behaviour from a few neighborhood hotheads does not qualify as "persecution" unless it is systemic and has official sanction. There is no evidence for this that I have seen. Yes, many in the Muslim population don't care for Christians and especially not for proselytizing Christians. Same in Israel.
--
A third omission is the fact that Christian organizations have many times denied the claims that they are persecuted (while not claiming to be free of problems). Examples on the internet include http://www.eohsjatlantic.com/Nazareth.htm and http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9266/pauhrv.htm ("The LATIN PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM assured me that all is untrue and all is lies"). A denial by the Palestinian Human Rights Organization is here. Also see http://www.al-bushra.org/holyland/0persecution.htm for a list of related articles.
--
Another problem, though not conclusive on its own, is that Christians have always played a major role in the Palestinian nationalist organizations. The PLC has 6 Christians (last I heard), and there are many senior Christians in the PLO. Arafat's wife is Christian. Of course there aren't too many Christians in the Islamic organizations like Hamas. --Zero 12:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am ashamed that you would minimize the persecution of Christians as being the acts of just a gew hotheads. That is absolutely false, and without any justification whatsoever. Your anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian POV is now so extreme that you whitewash even the persecution of Chrisitians to push your ideology. For shame. I am going to restore much of the censored material. RK 02:08, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
That's just typical of you. You don't bring up any evidence, just the same old libel and rhetoric. -- 213.73.231.245 02:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the last part of the article (actually from "Islamic Persecutions of Christians" till the very end) is not encyclopedic. Even though the facts may be (or are) true, they ought to be summarized. Moreover, even though the facts be real, I guess the term "persecution" has to be used with utmost care lest we (the wikipedia) should be making unfair generalizations. Remember that the WP is not a manual of History (least of Contemporary History).

I do not know who inserted those lists of facts, but I would delete them as they are from the page, because WP is not either a collection of events.

Moreover, for the sake of honesty and peace, I would use expressions like "in the name of Judaism" "in the name of Islam" etc... instead of "Islamic persecutions"... Sounds more fair to me. Obviously the above does not refer to the Romans or "disappeared cultures", which may not get hurt. You can check my contributions elsewhere to check my POV here (which is not "persecution denial" or "anti-christian"). Hope this helps. Pfortuny 16:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to summarize, rather than necessarily spell out every incident. But since when does Wikipedia not cover history?? I also don't quite understand the distinction being made between "Islamic persecutions" and "persecutions in the name of Islam"; they seem to mean the same thing, with the latter being wordier. What's the intent here? Wesley 17:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
No, I did not mean WP does not cover history, but it takes quite a while (years) to qualify something as a true persecution of a people/belief/religion/culture...
On the other hand, "in the name of something" means that people "use something as an excuse to..." while "Christian persecutions" (to give another example) can be understood as something sanctioned by Christianity. "Islamic persecutions" could be understood as "persecutions promoted by Islam". Getting absolutely extremist and simply as an example, would you say Bin Laden's acts are "Islamic terrorism" or "terrorism in the name of Islame"? For me it is quite different.
The case, simply stated is trying not to hurt other people's feelings if (and only if) a different expression can be used. Of course, I may be being too sensitive... I only wanted to state my feelings at first sight of the article, just that. Pfortuny 18:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pfortuny writes "Moreover, for the sake of honesty and peace, I would use expressions like "in the name of Judaism" "in the name of Islam" etc... instead of "Islamic persecutions"... Sounds more fair to me."

This is not fair; this grossly misleading. You are using the infamous and discredited No true Scotsman argument to wash away or downplay persecutions committed by religious followers. RK
Not fair why? No, I am not using that argument and I am not trying to wash away or downplay anything. I am simply trying to be kind to other people and honest. Things which fit into a newspaper headline (for clarity and sales) do not fit into an encyclopedia (for precision). But I am not going to argue with you on this. I did not want to hurt anyone's feelings (and keep in mind that I am grossly hurt by people killing Christians). Go on yourselves. Pfortuny 08:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with RK. We should label people according to what they labeled themselves, and based on whether that label was questioned at the time or not.—Eloquence 08:54, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)


I have moved these two paragraphs from the article to here for discussion.

== Persecution by Scientists ==
Christians and in particular Christianity has also been persecuted with the arrival of Western Science. Many prominent men has persecuted it, and in return being persecuted by. One prominent example or artifacts are the Inquisition, which the most gruesome torture is to be seen, and Gallieo, who wast threatened to withdraw his theory that earth is not the center of the world or face torture, and also Bertrand Russell, who has wrote "Why I am not a Christian" and has been put in jail several times in his life.

Um, I am not aware of any time or period in history where scientists have persecuted the Chrisitan community! Even more odd, this paragraph gives no examples. It seems incoherent. RK


== Persecution by Christians ==
Among the Christian history, many national wars have started because of different sects of Christianity, resulting thousands of deaths. Most notable example is Catholics vs Protestants in Europe.

These two sentences are too vague to have any meaning. RK 21:53, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

You can't simply delete all these sources, quotes and websites, call them a "pack of lies", and claim that we must look at less biased sources. On what grounds are you accusing every one of these deleted sources of being lies and fabrications? It is well known that Christians are persecuted in Egypt and Malaysia. Please back up your claims, or the material will have to be restored. RK 22:41, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Did you even check the "sources" I deleted? Does this site (the only source given for all the persecution allegations) look like an objective source to you (let alone one of a quality worthy of being quoted here?) Conversely, does this site, which I linked to a copy of at atheism.about.com, strike you as reasonably reliable? Well, the latter confirms that the only "severe punishment" imposed by the government on converts to Christianity in Egypt is a refusal to recognize this as changing their legal status, and reveals no evidence at all of persecution of Christians in Malaysia. As to the interview, claiming that people not of your own religion are infidels is scarcely persecution, or all countries adhering to major Abrahamic faiths would be hotbeds of persecution. - Mustafaa 22:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Iam not sure what Mustafaa means by this last sentence. Does "Abrahamic faith" mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Judaism does not consider people of other religions "infidels" -- does Islam or Christianity? And as for the Jewish State -- well, you can be against the treatment of Arabs as second class citizens, and the occupation of Palestine, but the state does not consider Christians or Muslims or people of other faiths infidels. Slrubenstein
Perhaps I should have phrased myself more precisely - it's not the state that's being quoted as calling people "infidels", it's "an Egyptian government funded magazine" which "published an interview with three Islamic clerics" who called Christians infidels. That position is actually Islamically incorrect, as far as I'm aware - the People of the Book are specifically described as not being infidels in the Quran. However, the English term "infidel" is of course Christian in origin (specifically Catholic, I believe; it's from the Latin meaning "unfaithful") and is indeed reserved by some (though not all) Christians for describing those of other faiths. - Mustafaa 23:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
By not recording the change in religion of converts to Christianity, Egypt effectively prevents formerly Muslim converts to Christianity from marrying those who were born and raised in Christian communities. It also does not recognize the children of converts to Christianity as Christians, because according to the government's records, their parents are Muslims not Christians. This then affects the children's education and their own marriage choices down the road. In addition to this official action, there are many accounts of Christians being arrested and imprisoned in Egypt because they converted from Islam; it is a persistent problem in practice, though it may not be officially endorsed by Egypt's penal code. Wesley 16:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The non-recognition, as you point out, certainly constitutes government harassment, given its effects. But can you supply some documentation of "Christians being arrested and imprisoned"? Given how many parties have a stake in spreading rumors about the Middle East, I tend to be extra-sceptical about such claims unless they're from a particularly reliable source... - Mustafaa 17:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, http://www.copts.net/index.asp has many recent stories, but perhaps you would find it unreliable since the site is run by Christians, particularly Christians sympathetic to the Christian Copts in Egypt. CNN has this old story, which mentions both a specific incident and the general climate: http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/02/24/coptic.church/. And here's a BBC story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/589977.stm. This is of course just a small sample. If you find all these sources unreliable, please clarify your criteria. (At some point I'll try to get around to documenting some of the ongoing persecution in Nepal, if only to show this isn't just about "spreading rumors about the Middle East". Wesley 05:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One more link: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_EgyptCoptic.htm. This one looks at the history of the region, including President Saddat sending (Coptic) Pope Shenouda III into exile in 1981, the attempt of the Muslim government to influence the selection of a successor, and President Mubarak's restoration of Pope Shenouda III, having failed to effectively replace him. Wesley 06:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. These links are much more helpful than the ones previously in the article. I'll see if I can put together something on the topic, if you don't beat me to it. - Mustafaa 06:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you find them helpful. The US State Department report (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24448.htm) actually describes several forms of discrimination and persecution, including: huge bureaucratic hurdles before a new church can be built or an old one repaired, including Presidential approval; detention (arrest and brief imprisonment) of converts to Christianity; Christian missionaries allowed only if they do not proselytize; failure of the government to prosecute anyone for the murder of Christians in some cases, including the 2000 incident mentioned in the earlier BBC link; numerous unproven allegations of Christian girls being kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men. Of this list, it is (according to the State Dept.) known that some Christian girls who marry Muslim men are under the legal age minimum of 16, and that this minimum age is often not enforced in such instances. Apparently, a number of Egypt's laws in these areas are based on Sharia and/or the Ottoman Empire's laws. Wesley 06:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"F. Conybeare's translation of Monk Stratego's account of the Persian Empire's sack of Jerusalem (614) claims the Jews took the opportunity to persecute the Christians." now that User:Amys has suppressed the entire quote, this looks like an unsupported assertion. Even the author's name is untraceable. Was that the intention? Wetman 03:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've restored a reference to the text, which is available on the Web and needn't be quoted in toto with a warning that this fiction is a libel. Wetman 03:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can't just add an editorial like that without at least attributing it to someone. Who says it is a myth? What alternative historical evidence is this commentator relying on? --Zero 07:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Apparently User:Zero didn't bother to read the "editorial" text in question, which was linked right there. Even someone with a mediocre education can detect that this is a fiction: it scarcely needs an editorial. Extremely poor behavior. Read the reference and have the grace to restore it please. Wetman 07:27, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think a fairer summary would be the one given at the link itself:
"Byzantine law granted toleration to Jews [Theodosian Code 16.8.21], although there were occasional attempts at forced conversion [Leo VI, Novels], but there was a general prejudice against Jews. The following account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Persians in 614, by the monk Antiochus Stategos, who live din the monastary (lavra) of St. Sabas inJerusalem, shows this attitude. It provides a Byzantine version of the later blood libel. It also, of course, may reflect Jewish resistance to Byzantine restrictions an oppression." [1]
It is obviously gross propaganda, of course, but it is not at all obvious that it is pure fiction; like much propaganda, it could equally be an exaggerated account of something that did happen. Suffice it to say that this monk's reliability is low. - Mustafaa 08:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wetman's version is quite unacceptable because it states as facts several things which are obviously opinions. They should be stated as someone's opinions, if at all. I made my comment without following the link because it is obvious from the text (but I knew of Stratego's account already). As for Stratego, he wrote in a style completely normal for medieval chronologers, who were more interested in telling a good story to their audience than in recording history as a modern chronologer would do. This means he made no effort to disguise prejudices that he thought his audience would share (in this case, his disgust for the Jews) and one can be sure that he told his story in a way that cast the Jews in a worse light than they deserved. However, there is no special reason in this passage to doubt what he records of the Jews more than we should doubt what he records of the Persians. The bottom line in Strategos' account is that the Jews joined with the invading Persians in persecuting the Christians. This may be true or it may be false. It is certainly not obviously false. Without an independent account to compare with Stratego, historical certainly is not available here. That's true about a large part of medieval history. --Zero 10:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here is a reference likely to be interesting, but my library's holdings start with the following volume. E.Horowitz, Modern historians and the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614, Jewish Social Studies, Vol 4, No 2. --Zero 10:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Persecution by Scientists"

"Christians and in particular Christianity have also been persecuted with the arrival of Western Science. Many prominent men have persecuted it, and in return were persecuted by them/it. One prominent example or artifacts are the Inquisition, which the most gruesome torture is to be seen, and Gallieo, who was threatened to withdraw his theory that earth is not the center of the universe or face excommunication, and also Bertrand Russell, who has wrote "Why I am not a Christian" and has been put in jail several times in his life, mainly for reasons unrelated to Christianity." How is the practice of science related to this material, already covered elsewhere? Wetman 20:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


lol, isnt the Galileo thing about Christians persecuting Scientists instead of the other way round-Anon

Except Galileo was himself a member of the church who persecuted him, so it could really go either way.

[edit] Kosovo

"In March 2004, many largely Muslim Albanians attacked over thirty Christian churches and monasteries in Kosovo, killed at least thirty Christians, and burned hundreds of Christians' homes, over the course of about five days. One NATO commander said it verged on ethnic cleansing of Serbians. Others compared it to Kristallnacht. Over 150 Christian churches and monasteries were destroyed in the five years prior to this incident. See Unrest in Kosovo, and http://www.kosovo.net." I dispute that this is persecution of Christian, as Christians, at all: rather, it's old-fashioned ethnic violence by a group (Albanians) with a Muslim majority and large Catholic minority against another group (Serbs) which is characterized by adherence to Orthodoxy. - Mustafaa 20:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When the violence is characterized by the systematic destruction of Christian churches and monasteries and the descration of Christian cemeteries, it certainly appears to be a religious conflict. Certainly ethnic tensions play a part, but the attacks particularly on the churches seem in many ways to be a continuation of the old Muslim iconoclasm. Further evidence that it is understood to be a religious conflict is seen in that when Serbs in Belgrade chose to retaliate, they did so by attacking mosques in Belgrade, not an Albanian museum or embassy. (The attack on the mosques was condemned by the Serbian Orthodox patriarch, in the same statement in which he condemned the attacks on the churches and monasteries; if any Albanian cleric or official has condemned the March attacks on Serb churches, I am unaware of it but would be glad to learn of it.) Wesley 17:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair argument, but I haven't heard of any attacks on Catholic churches or monasteries in Kosovo, and while I can't find the statistics for Kosovo itself, I know a large proportion of Albanians are Catholics. To my mind, that aspect of it suggests an ethnic rather than religious conflict. - Mustafaa 19:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This quote, for instance, suggests a Serb-specific attack, though the article tries to minimize that angle:

Fr. Sava specifies that an authentic smear campaign has been unleashed against the Serbian Church: “The schools teach the theory that we did not build most of the Orthodox holy places in Kosovo, but that Roman Catholic Church did, and that they do not belong to us.”
There are approximately 65,000 Catholics in Kosovo. “We have excellent relations with the Muslims, and the government treats us well,” a spokesman for the apostolic administration of Prizen told the Norwegian news agency for religious liberty “Forum 18.”[2] - Mustafaa 19:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the numbers in that article, there are 65,000 Catholics, 130,000 remaining Orthodox Christians, and another 250,000 Orthodox Christians who only recently fled and have been unable to return. I suspect that there simply aren't that many specifically Catholic churches and monasteries to attack; perhaps the Catholics and Orthodox are arguing about proper possession of the same churches.

The same article revives a topic from our earlier discussion of Egypt: apparently former Muslims are being beaten in Kosovo simply because they converted to Christianity. Perhaps this should be added to the article as well? And isn't this more evidence of an active anti-Christian hostility rather than just an anti-Serb hostility? Wesley 03:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Persecution of converts I would accept as clearly belonging here, though I'd like to see more verification first. However, I'm not so sure about burning of Orthodox churches; the other aspect of this is that the Catholics are Albanian, while the Orthodox are conspicuously not. - Mustafaa 06:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The whole section on persecution in the Soviet Union needs severe editing. The promotion by the state of anti-Christian propaganda in schools does not constitute "persecution" any more than the teaching of religion in schools "persecutes" atheists or those of other faiths. Both arguably are a perversion of schools' duty to educate but should be discussed under "religious/anti-religous propaganda". The failure of the Orthodox Church to revive after the fall of Communism is attributed to successful persecution. This is just speculation. It COULD be due to successful propaganda - but decades of pro-Communist propaganda had little lasting effect after the fall of the USSR.

This section should discuss alleged cases of people being executed, exiled, imprisoned, thrown out of work, being socially ostracised, etc for their religious beliefs. Exile 11:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No response. Does anyone agree with me? disagree?

Exile 22:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early persecutions in Non-Biblical Sources

I just updated the URL for the quote "Jesus, too, says John, really committed suicide, ...". However, this seems a very whacky source for several reasons:

  • It does not specify which John said that, where and when.
  • Given that the author uses "dicta" as if it were a singular, I doubt that the "alter present to feel pity" part is anything but gobbledygook.
  • The author seems to have his own axe to grind. To see this in context, read their Preface.

[edit] Rise of Persecution in the Roman Empire

I have made some extensive editions under 'non-biblical sources' for persecutions in the Roman Empire. I changed the heading title to 'Rise of Persecution in the Roman Empire,' because I feel that this title expressed more effectively what the author had been attempting to communicate in the underlying paragraphs (i.e. that persecution became widespread in the Roman Empire through imperial influences, hostility by the Roman public, etc.) I hope this was okay. Also, I deleted a paragraph under this heading because it was composed of a statement by Tacitus which was misquoted. I elaborated on the nature of persecution under Nero from A.D. 64-68, beginning with the great Fire at Rome. I would like to suggest that persecution in the Roman Empire be broken down into the reign(s) of various emperors, simply because imperial edicts and influences bore so much weight on the nature of persecution at this time. What do you think? I hope I didn't take too many liberties with my deletions. Sarah20 17:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I deleted the following paragraph:

Some comminators believe that it is unlikely that such hatred of an obscure sect could have developed so rapidly, especially since this obscure sect did not have a distinctive name for itself and was considered by outsiders to be part of a much larger sect, Judaism. Although Church Father's emphatically try to make the case for widespread persecution of Christians at their present time and in the past, no Christian (or non-Christian) author quotes the reference to the "Neronian persecution" until the 5th century, when it is quoted by the apologist Sulpicius Severus in a work replete with anachronisms and fanciful miracles. Indeed, some "Christians", if one could call the sect in its early stages of development that, may indeed have been persecuted for their religious ideals, though it would have been mere venting of Roman anti-Semitism at the obscure "Jewish" sect after the costly and foolhardy revolts in Judea, and not particular hatred of these people for worshipping "Christus."

The author of this passage is trying to say too many things at once, and most of his/her statements are speculative at best. First of all, to call into question the reality of persecution under Nero is to deny the validity of all of the writings of Tacitus on this subject; Philostratus mentions it as well. The statement that "no Christian (or non-Christian) author quotes the reference to the "Neronian persecution" until the 5th century" is utterly false. sarah 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In the section about persecution in the Roman Empire in the second century, the statement is made that: It should be noted that today massive numbers of martyrs claimed by the early Church during these persecutions are not generally accepted by scholars. I would like this to be cited, because I am not sure if "massive numbers" are claimed in the primary sources. If I do not hear back on this point, I will make the necessary corrections. --LawrenceTrevallion 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am revising the paragraph on the desire of some Christians to be martyred. I disagree with the provided analysis, which is: But the Christians, following Tertullian's dicta that "martyrdom is required by God," forced their own martyrdom so they could die in an ecstatic trance: "Although their tortures were gruesome, the martyrs did not suffer, enjoying their analgesic state." For one thing, Tertullian is not arguing for a death in an "ecstatic trance," but attempting to prove that martyrdom is good (Ad Scorpiace, Chp. 5). Besides, to only cite Tertullian here is to misrepresent Christianity's view of martyrdom since Tertullian was an extremist. Also, to say that the Christian martyrs were seeking an "analgesic state" seems insulting to the martyrs. At the very least, if the claim is going to be made, it should be supported with evidence and counter-arguments provided. I will add some material later, but I will delete this for now. --LawrenceTrevallion 01:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this paragraph:

Further state persecutions were desultory until the persecution under Diocletian and more so Galerius that began in 303 AD. The persecution under Decius from the winter of 250 to the following spring of 251 martyred Pope Fabian, Bishop of Rome, involved Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in controversy, and figures large in the founding myths of the seven bishops sent to Christianize Gaul, but finds no confirmation outside the vita of Cyprian composed by Pontius the deacon and writings in the hagiographic tradition.

The first sentence is inaccurate. I do not think Decius' persecution can be labeled as "desultory" since it was Empire-wide. Also, the second sentence I found confusing. I did leave the quotation from Gregory, but I find it odd to be using a description from someone writing in the fifth century. I will leave it for now, but unless there is serious objection, I will delete it. (Maybe it could be replaced with Eusebius?) --LawrenceTrevallion 03:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Persecution

This is a rather broad statement, but the section on Russia today seems rather non-NPOV (it says that Russians today don't take their religion "seriously").

The article should aslo expain why Christianity was attacked. For example the Tsars controlled the Church and claimed God wanted them to be slaves. 67.41.186.237 06:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


"The Church was falsely portrayed as obscurantist and opposed to the findings of science."

Is it quite neutral to include _falsely_? Hegel and Heidegger are still debated. There is a long Christian tradition of "faith as the substance of things not seen" and finding blessed those who "believe without having seen." Referring to "the Church" could be interpreted as the Rus. Orth. Ch. or the body of Christians in general. There are many groups of Christians who have been inarguably obscurantist and anti-scientific. This statement should be clarified.

"Much has been made of alleged Christian belief in the literal Creation account in the book of Genesis which the pro-Darwinian textbooks ridiculed."

Cite? The Soviet Union only reluctantly accepted the neo-Darwinian synthesis, because it went against the Marxist doctrine of the malleability of people depending on their environment. Depending on what time period is mentioned, it would be more likely that the textbooks would have criticized Darwinian evolution as Western propaganda and supported Lysenkoism instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Why alleged? There were plenty of Christians who believed in a literalist creationist account.

[edit] Persecution of Christians by Christians

The reader of Wikipedia should note that this subsection has been deleted from the article, as it did not suit local POV. --Wetman 04:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Really?! When was that? Was there any talk about it? This seems absurd. How can Wikipedia turn a blind eye to the undeniable persecution of Christians by Christians such as the systematic persecution of Huguenots which led to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Sebastian 06:37, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Revision as of 09:08, 10 Jan 2005 by User:Mihnea Tudoreanu, who suppressed a good deal of text here and boldly and somewhat disingenuously remarked in Edit Summary "there is a great deal of POV in this article; I've begun some editing, but more will have to be done." One might ask why this individual's spin should prevail. Apparently the point to this article is that Christians are innocent victims, and the subsection didn't fit that particular PoV. --Wetman 00:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Needs to be re-added. 67.41.186.237 06:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the section was about, but this article personally seems to be lacking persecution between Christian denominations, anything I've found so far has been far too narrow, and I hasn't had info on what I'm looking for. Thanks, Silles Sellis 15:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I'm not sure how relevant this is. But it is worth noting that wikipedia and this article in particular was cited in the UK Houses of Parliament by Anne McKintosh (Con: Vale of York).

Nothern Ireland is also rife with instances of Christian on Christian sectarian violence.

[edit] not Christians, but Jews

I dispute including this:

According to NT accounts, Judas Iscariot was paid by the priesthood and officers of the Temple to lead them to Jesus when he was alone and away from the crowds (Luke 22:4-6). Jesus was then arrested (Luke 22:54) and taken before the Sanhedrin (ecclesiastical court) (Luke 22:66), who then took him before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, claiming that he was subverting Roman rule (Luke 23:2). According to the NT, Pilate did not want to give Jesus the death penalty, but Jewish crowds convinced him to have Jesus executed (Luke 23:13-24, 33). According to Matthew 27, Pilate's wife told him of a dream warning him against any dealings with Jesus, could have supposedly influenced his judgement.

as an example of Jews persecuting Christians, because at that time no Jew thought that Jesus or Judas or Peter or anyone was not Jewish. It is certainly true that by the time of Paul (i.e. not much later) Christianity had emerged as a Jewish sect that Pharisees did persecute. Good scholarship means avoiding anachronisms: we have to distinguish between Jews whom Christians came to identify with the origins of their religion; Jewish Christians at a time of sectarian conflic among Jews; and Christians, a new religion clearly separate from Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you agree. For the record, though, I do not see this as the idiotic act of anti-semetic Christians. I see it instead as representing the fact that most people, at least most Christians, are actually pretty ignorant of the history of their own religion (I've certainly seen the same with Jews). Wikipedia is open to everyone, including dilettantes, which means that we will always have to clean up stuff like this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi/Fascist Persecution

Um, why did you just delete the "Persecution by Nazis/Fascists" section? - Mustafaa 01:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The section itself clearly represents an attempt by Christians to push the blame off Christianity for the rise of Adolf Hitler, but the facts speak for themselves. Hitler was a Christian fanatic, as shown by his constant references to his religious beliefs, as were most Nazis. They banned abortion, executed gays and lesbians, genocidally murdered Jewish people, and other minorities in German society. Their views were clearly that of extremely right-wing Christian fundamentalists. Of course there was persecution of certain Christian sects, but this persecution was done by Christians, and was mostly because these sects did not conform to the militaristic and fascistic goals of the Nazi Party, and they weren't persecuted by "pagans" as Christians allege the obvious Nazi-Christian fascists to have been. Revolución 01:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Hitler was in no more a Christian than he was a Confucian. "Their views were clearly that of extremely right-wing Christian fundamentalists." That's a very anachronistic, very POV statement. --DNicholls 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
He was a Christian fanatic, as evident by this he wrote : "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work." Also, Mussolini said: "The fascist state lays full claim to an ethical character. It is Catholic, but it is fascist, even above all exclusively fascist." Revolución 02:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The above is in his own words. Explain that. Revolución 02:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You're talking about a slick statesman who pretty much talked his way to the top, not to mention a madman, and you think his words regarding Christianity have any bearing on his actual stance? Nazism was a new religion, capable of consistently maintaining no other world views. The Straight Dope has a good roundup of the conflicting quotes and motivations, even if leaves out some of his more blatant quotes, like "Christianity is the invention of sick minds" or whathaveyou. Did he pander? Sure. Is it correct to describe Nazism as a Christian cult/denomination? Not from what I've seen.--DNicholls 03:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no single word in the following sentence, "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work," that invokes Christianity, or identifies Hitler as a Christian. This particular sentence proves nothing pertinant to this article. As DNicholls suggests, I think we need to distinguish between an act that comes from one's beliefs as a Christian, versus acts which, whatever their motivation, are justified in various ways (nationalism, Christianity, something else). If, after taking these two points into account, one can still argue that Hitler was a Christianity and that Christianity led to his anti-Semetic acts (and by the way, virtually all of the literature on anti-Semitism and the Holocauset argues against this view) then we need to do two things (1) cite the appropriate source -- what researcher has published this interpretation/calim, and in what publication; (2) we had better start making more nuanced distinctions among Christians. Look, many Christians used Christianity to justify slavery in the antebellum US. But one cannot, from that fact, infer that "Christianity is responsible for slaver." Many if not most abolitionists were Christians too. The only logical interpretation of this analogous case, it seems to me, is that people had their own reasons for supporting or opposing slavery that had nothing to do with religion, but they all felt that they had to justify (dare I say rationalize) their positions through Christian rhetoric. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's amusing, really. Everyone agrees that Hitler was a madman, and no one would take his speeches on German/Arian superiority, or Jewish inferiority, or anything else, seriously. But when it comes to Hitler's religion, Atheists automatically claim that a handful of sentences spoken by Hitler himself in political speeches and rallies are all the proof we need. I guess no theory is too far-fetched when you need a reason to smear Christianity, right guys? Ritchy 23 July 2005

Restored Hitler section. Even if Revolucion proves correct in claiming that Hitler was Christian (an extremely dubious idea), that's not a reason to delete it: it would belong under "Persecution of Christians by Christians". - Mustafaa 22:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hitler made many religious references in his speeches, but this should in no way shape or form be used to suggest that he was actually a Christian himself. I've always considered Hitler a puppet master who played on other's religious faiths to make them tools of his agenda. I know of several personal quotes by various nazis showing that they held a very warped, twisted, and ethnocentric form of christianity, but as for Hitler himself, his personal notes always seem to convey that he knew how to use religion to manipulate people, not that he was religious. --Lucavix 23:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Hitler was a Christian fanatic, as shown by his constant references to his religious beliefs, as were most Nazis."

I don't agree at all. As has been said before, Hitler despised religion, and used it to establish HIS philosophy, which may have been inspired by some aspects of Christianity (like the idea of a Creator, or the idea that God has a plan for humankind), but certainly not from Christianity's core message, which is a message of reconciliation, mercy, and love. Hitler called the Bible "the Jews' Book of lies" whereas most Christians value the Bible and consider it contains truth.

Nazis held, amongst others, a belief in "race cleansing", so to speak, as they murdered numerous disabled people for the sake of keeping the German race "pure". Such a notion - killing the weakest - is not only alien to Christianity, it's opposed to its teachings.

Most Nazis might well have come from a Christian background, but their beliefs and values certainly didn't reflect the Christian message. littl'un--217.136.222.210 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the issue whether the individual or group identified themselves as Christian, and persecuted people from that place, or whether they were actually Christians? If we are going to pick and choose based upon whether their actions "Reflected" the Christian message, we might as well stop attempting any unbiased inquiry here, because I seriously doubt we could even come up with an agreeable, unbiased definition of "the Christian message". Maybe we can call him a "Christian Extremist" or "Christo-fascist". -KST

As far as I know, Hitler never said, "I am a Christian" and the Nazi party never registered itself with the German government as a Christian church. There is no sweeping self-identification of Hitler and the Nazi party as being Christian. Nazism was a secular political movement based on the secular political ideology of nationalism. I'd go so far to say that secularity was one of it's definitive characteristics. At the very least, it never officially claimed to be otherwise. - Ryan
Hitler said he was a Christian many times - in public. He also denigrated Christianity - in private. But the Nazis were clear that they were anti-Semitic on racial and cultural grounds, not on religious grounds. Paul B 12:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Many people would dispute this. Conservative Protestants would argue that Hitler was a Mariolater - ie Roman Catholic. Some Protestants believe that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian religion.


Hitler was certainly a Christian in his own mind. The issue is whether considering yourself something actually means you are. And if not — why should the Muslims, Jews, or others persecuting Christians be considered as such? There certainly exist people who’ll say someone acting in that fashion is not a Muslim, not a Jew, etc.

Hitler not only functioned with the blessing of the Catholic Church, but demonizing Jews was common among Christians in the region at the time. It was that common perception, descended from religious thinkers such as Martin Luther (one of Hitler’s stated inspirations) and his tract The Jews and Their Lies, which inspired the campaigns against Jews in the first place. Hitler gave taxes from Catholics to the Catholic Church. Owing to his involvement with the church, he went after gays, outlawed abortion, and set discipline standards. The Nazis ordered that Christianity be taught in schools. Religious mottos were part of Nazi uniforms. German troops were often required to be blessed by Catholic priests before going out. The SS enforced discipline against heresy against church doctrine.

Not wanting Hitler to call himself Christian is understandable, but it’s too late to change history. He was an avowed Christian, and referenced his beliefs regularly, most notably in Mein Kampf. In the truest sense, it can be said that he isn’t Christian, but that doesn’t erase that he believed he was. --Skyhawk0 08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Catholic and Protestant leaders and congregants were imprisoned based on their religious beliefs (where those beliefs went against Nazi policy) and many ultimately perished in concentration camps. That Nazis persecuted individuals that qualify historically as Christians is fact, whether or not the Nazis considered themselves Christians. As you will see in articles like the one on the Protestant Reich Church, the Nazis also took positions extremely hostile to mainstream orthodox Christianity (Catholicsm, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism). A debate on who is and who isn't a "Christian" (self definining) isn't totally relevant here. However I do think a distinction should be made between the Christianity professed by the vast majority of professing Christians over 2000 years and Nazis who invented doctrines that nobody professed to believe before 1900. NB, even Lutheran and Catholic anti-Semitism was decidedly non-racial. Official doctrine was that a converted Jew was the same as a converted German, Spaniard, etc. To say that racial differences constitute spiritual differences would be considered a heresy against the stated anthropology of the Church. The disputed tag on this section is completely pointless in my view. I realize objectivity is difficult, but that tag only represents the fact that some extremely muddy thinking has occured on someone's part. If you want to be hostile to Christianity, go ahead, but at least think your position through.


"Catholicism and Nazism have a more complicated relationship than some might think. Hitler both despised and admired various aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. Though the Nazi movement was superficially areligious, even anti-religious, the Nazi's greatest piece of propaganda and self-aggrandizement, Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 film about the Nuremberg Party Rally, Triumph of the Will, is in many ways profoundly religious. The film both makes use of Catholic religious imagery and draws on the Catholic sacramental tradition to give dignity and legitimacy to its construction of Adolf Hitler as the "god" of the Nazi movement... Since the beginning, Catholicism and Nazism had an uncomfortable coexistence. They jarred long before Riefenstahl began filming Hitler's rally in the summer of 1934... The Concordat, along with many other more famous agreements and treaties signed by the Fuehrer, was quickly violated, and the Church was ineffective in protecting Catholics from all manner of religious and cultural harassment. Alfred Rosenberg, the closest Nazism as an ideology ever came to having a philosopher, was consistently and virulently anti-Catholic... Hitler himself was not purely or simply anti-Catholic or anti-Church, and certainly not so before his rise to power. He was a baptized Catholic, as was his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, and a number of other prominent members of his administration. Interestingly, though both men rejected their Catholic faith and recognized that they had excommunicated themselves, neither ever formally left the Church and dutifully continued to pay church taxes until their respective deaths. Hitler's own mother, to whom he was very close, was a devoted Catholic, and Hitler received Catholic schooling during his childhood in Austria... In his extensive, often contradictory writings and "table-talk," Hitler reveals an ambivalent attitude toward the Catholic Church. As an institution on German soil, he is very much opposed to it, and he ridicules the teachings of Church fathers and the practice of the Catholic faith... he detested the doctrines, of the Roman Church... Institutionalized religion, in Hitler's view, was a waning phenomenon... " Extracted from Hitler & Triumph of the Will: A Nazi Religion in the Catholic Style by Jadwiga Biskupska (Cornell University). 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent cut

In addition to cutting the meaningless paragraph discussed above, I also deleted a paragraph suggesting reasons for why Saul of Tarsus persecuted Christians. The reaons I did this is that none of the suggestions had any citations, and thus seemed to me to be original research. I know of only one explanation for the persecution. I added it, and provided the proper source. It would not surprise me at all that there be other suggestions as to why Saul persecuted Christians and I do hope that other editors will add them to that section -- along with citations. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revolucion

Please stop deleting the Nazi section. It's pertinent. At best, your claim is controversial, so include a paragraph about why some would think Nazism counts as a Christian sect. [edit: Sorry about the multiple entries. Had a lag problem.]--DNicholls 05:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I put it under "Persecution of Christians by other Christians". I was not deleting the section, I was simply trying to move it, and the server errors complicated that. I did not say Nazism was a branch of Christianity, but that most Nazis were Christians. Thus this section belongs under "Persecution of Christians by other Christians". The Nazis did execute Christians who did not follow their militaristic or fascistic agenda, but it should be noted that the Nazis were Christians themselves, and Hitler derived most of his support from the far-right conservative Christians. Revolución 19:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. For it to count as persecution by Christians, it has to have been done for Christian reasons. A group composed in part of Christians persecuting people for governmental reasons is not persecution by Christians. It's persecution by a mixed group for secular reasons. Ritchy 24 July 2005
  • I support Ritchy's point. The Nazis were a political party, not a religious sect or denomination, even if they did try to appeal to "conservative Christians." In the U.S., both Republicans and Democrats appeal to Christian voters (among other blocs), and both parties include Christians among their members, but I wouldn't confuse the actions of either party with the actions of Christians in general; they are the actions of politicians. Wesley 20:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That ignores that the Nazis incorporated and enforced Christianity. The SS punished heresy and troops were required to be blessed by Catholic priests. They had religious mottos on their uniforms and demanded Christianity be taught in schools. Christianity was part and parcel of Naziism, as least Christianity as they viewed it.

The section is about persecution BY Christians. Ritchy’s comment about secular reasons is turning a blind eye to the direct involvement with the Catholic Church. If it has to be proven what someone believes (with their own words discounted) before they can be considered to persecute in the name of religion, then absolutely nothing belongs on this page.--Skyhawk0 08:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vote

[edit] Proposal #1

  • Section entitled "Nazi-Fascist persecution" should go under "Persecution of Christians by other Christians"

Support:

  1. Revolución 23:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carl Kenner 12:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Skyhawk0 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal #2

  • Section should not be moved

Support:

  1. Ritchy 24 July 2005
  2. --DNicholls 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Falphin 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Gugganij 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. LawrenceTrevallion 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Ritchy

Consider the text already present in the "persecution of Christians by Christians" section. It begins by relating how the Roman Empire, after adopting Christianity as its state religion, proceeded to eliminate Christian groups with different theological dogmas from itself. It then describes later events in history, when the Roman Catholic Church authorized crusades against Christian groups who did not follow the same dogma, such as the Albigensian and the Orthodox.

These events have two things in common: They were acts of persecution authorized by a Christian group (the Christian Roman Empire in the first case, the Catholic Church in the second) and were done to impose a specific Christian dogma against all others. Those two conditions are necessary to an event to qualify it as persecution of Christians by Christians.

Now consider the text being debated. It related how the Nazi and Mussolini regimes persecuted Christianity. Before deciding if it should be moved to "persecution by Christianity", one must ask two questions. First, were these Christian regimes? No, they were not. The Nazi regime, most notably, tried to create its own Nazi mysticism to replace Christianity, which the party leaders viewed as a corrupting force and a threat. One might argue that these parties were only in power because a majority of the population of the nations allowed them, and that since these populations were Christian this makes them by extension Christian governments. But by this definition, every nation with a Christian majority has a Christian government by default; this means that every Western state in existence today is not led by a secular government but by a Christian one. This is a clearly false assessment. The second question we must ask is, was this persecution done for Christianity? No, it was not. This was persecution done to safeguard the interests of the party in power, and eliminate a possible threat to this power. This was not persecution done over differing interpretations of dogma, this was done purely for political gain.

The inescapable conclusion is that Nazi persecution of Christianity was not done by Christians, and was not done for Christian reasons. It was done by an anti-Christian group, for a secular reason: political power. Therefore does not belong in the "persecution by Christianity" section.

-- Ritchy 24 July 2005

By the same logic, we'd have to distinguish between persecution by Muslims or Jews that were motivated by religious reasons, vesus persecutions by people who happen to be Jewish or Muslim, although that fact was not an issue in the persecution. I agree with this attitude. There is a simple, general principle: when the identity of the persecutor is a motive for the persecution, it should be properly identified. When the identity of the persecutor is not an issue, we should not. We also have to recognize that people have multiple identities, and while one identity may be relevant to the persecution, others may not. We might as well have a category, "persecutions by men." It would be a big category — but in no way a useful one, even a misleading one. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


Ritchy is completely off. The Nazis didn’t just happen to be Christian — they required the teaching of Christianity, celebrated it actively in their daily routine, pursued agendas based on it, and donated tax money directly to the Catholic Church. Under what Western governments does this scenario exist? No one put forward the majority religion of the electorate, and that strawman argument has no place here. The Nazis were emphatically not ‘anti-Christian’, rather incorporating and celebrating their Christianity widely.

It should be noted that the persecution specifically driven by Christianity is hard to separate from the very real power agenda that existed. Certainly the gays who died in concentration camps, were imprisoned, sent to work camps, castrated, and/or institutionalized were the result of a very specific Christian-inspired agenda — done under the auspices of the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion.

Anyone in a power position could be said to be performing the acts they do in the name of power. Slrubenstein makes a great case. There are numerous grey shades to be navigated, and an article entitled “The Persecution of Christians by Other Christians Acting Specifically in the Name of Christianity With No Power Agenda” would be significantly sparser. As would ones about any other religion. The idea of applying a different standard to the article about Christianity than to those about other faiths is untenable, and it should be noted that those disagreeing with the standard applied in considering the Nazis Christian seem to have no issue with that same standard being applied to other religions.--Skyhawk0 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Skyhawk0's comments, the Nazi form of "Christianity" varies so greatly from Christianity it could hardly be considered Christian. All fundemental elements of Christianity; it purposes, ethics, values are completely subverted to a nationalistic, vanity driven pursuit of power and an ideal. The Nazi regime failed to bring the fruits of love, joy, peace, goodwill, long-suffering, etc but succeeded in bringing death, murder, slaughter, chaos, anger, rage, self-love, pride, deceit, rape, love of the motherland, etc. It is true that some Christians may have been duped by a fastitic conception of perfection. However, it is not true that the asserted ideas of Nazi Germany are consistent in anyway with Christianity. Perverting the ideas of a religion into a tool and a gimic intended to control people is what we refer to as a cult. The Nazi movement if it is to be viewed in a religious fashion should be viewed as a cult. We could go into all of the changes to Christianity made by the Nazi movement, but it can be left at the heart of Christianity was removed and whatever Nazi "Christianity" celebrated was something else.

By the way Skyhawk0, you are far from neutral on this issue. Combatting homosexuality and abortion doesn't mean the government was religious. Homosexuality and abortion can impact population growth. Nazi Germany did not want fewer Germans for their conquest efforts. More strength for this argument can be drawn from the fact that Nazi Germany euthanized disabled and mentally handicapped people. Religious beliefs that value life apart from stage of development and quality of life were obviously not responsible for the "pro-life" stance you say the Nazi's took. I think it is helpful to not just recite propoganda in the form of reasoned debate. --DBdowner 10:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed sections

There is quite a few sections under dispute and have been there for a long time so this is my attempt to discuss and solve the disputes if they still exist. Falphin 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persecutions by "the Jews" as narrated in the New Testament

The current title is 1 of two neutral statements that I believed could be used. The second would be the "Jewish persecution of the developing religion known as "The Way"(could be better worded) . The section should describe Jewish persection of "The Way". Keep in mind not all memembers were Jewish many were Protestant and by the time of the Roman persecution I believe the numbers show most were Gentile. Falphin 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Protestantism did not exist until the 15th and 16th Century...The term the Bible uses throughout is Christian. (Anon. 63.19.101.39)

(The term "Christian" appears but twice in the New Testament, in Acts and in 1 Peter. --Wetman 21:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC))
Plus, the early christians didn't call themselves "Christians". I believe they referred to themselves as follower of "The Way" but its been a long time since I studied it. The Romans viewed them as a sect, which they essentially were until at least Nero or as late as Constantine depending on your viewpoint. Falphin 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The Way? Somehow that doesn't sound right to me. Anyway I'd think tension between a religion and its offshoot, or whatever term is preferred, is fairly normal. Like Hinduism to Buddhism, Islam to Bahai, etc. I think Celsus is a pagan who mentions Jewish people being as hostile to Christians as he was. Likewise the early Christians were mostly Jews and there was several sectarian infightings in first century AD Judaism I believe. I imagine it was probably like the tensions between Jews and Samaritans or between Christians and Gnostics.--T. Anthony 12:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Things can be named retroactively, so there is no problem with calling the first followers of Jesus Christians, or what Jesus started Christianity. People called Christianity any number of different names when it first emerged, and although Christianity was not the first name coined, it was the name that stuck. All the other names have long since fallen out of popular use. Though people did not call Christianity Christianity back then, we should not call Christianity whatever they called it. It was still the same thing--a thing which we now call Christianity. When writing an article about, say, the use of spades in ancient Greece, you would not entitle it “Spathes in ancient Greece” and refer to spades all throughout as spathes, then at the end of the article clarify "Spathes are now called spades." No, that would be anachronistic for an article written in the present day. You would just just call a spade a spade, and perhaps in passing mention what the ancient Greeks called it if relevant. Keeping the title Jewish persecutions of Christians will be fine.
The Jews did what they did to the Christians because of the things (for example, the belief in the divinity of Jesus) that make Christianity distinct from Judaism and define it as a thing in itself. How is that not persecution of Christianity? Back during the middle ages, a lot of Christians regarded Islam as a sect. Does that mean that what the crusaders did to the Muslims in the territories they occupied does not count as persecution of Muslims by Christians? Islam was still its own thing, and it is what we regard as Islam today, regardless of whether or not it was a sect of Christianity or not. I cannot understand why this section is disputed on those grounds.
One last note; Jesus was the leader and figurehead of the first Christians, and He was persecuted, so His persecution can be counted as persecution against Christians. When a group's leader and figurehead is persecuted for being that group's leader and figurehead, it is persecution against that group. Ecto 07:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What exactly did "the Jews" do? The New Testament account is not an historical account. At most (to comply with NPOV) we would have to say "Authors of the NT claimed" or "Christians believe." There is no sound historical evidence that Jews persecuted Jesus. Moreover, Jewish "persecultion" of early Christians was motivated by fear of Roman violence against sedition. The real persecutors were the Romans. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
By the Jews I mean the people and non-Roman authorities of the Roman province of Judea, which was essentially a (or the) Jewish nation-state of its day, so there is no need to use scare quotes. Referring to the people and the non-Roman authorities of Judea as the Jews is accurate, because, to the best of my knowledge, they were the Jews (as in the Jewish nation-state of its day), just as today the Americans are the Americans, the French are the French, and the Floridians are the Floridians. Sorry, I really should have specified.
So, what exactly did the Jews do? Well, that is for the most part already in the article, so I see no need to repeat it here.
The New Testament is a historical account. The question is whether or not it is a reliable historical account, and I agree with you that no, for our purposes here we cannot rely on it, at least not it alone. But the New Testament is not the only account we have of the Jewish persecution of early Christians. It is the only account we have of the Jesus incident, but I am not referring to just that. The reason I mentioned that at all was to head off any argument that the Crucifixion cannot be considered a persecution of Christians because Jesus was not a Christian. Some of the wider persecution is attested to by nonbiblical sources as well, which are mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, which should be incorporated into the section in question. I have no problem with making explicit the incidents where the only source we have is the New Testament, so using “According to the New Testament” and the like would be best, I agree. That is already the case in the article, so there is no need to worry about that.
The Jews had their own reasons for persecuting the early Christians. Pressure and threats from Rome obviously played a huge part in it, but they were not the only part. Radical new religious movements are usually not all that popular with those in power, especially when they challenge the status quo the way early Christianity did. At the end of the day, those who carry out persecution also carry responsibility for it, though they may share the burden--and the burden is shared with Rome and many others, and in at least one case all. Though its sovereignty was limited as part of the Roman Empire, Judea remained a semi-autonomous nation-state. The “I was just following orders” defense does not fly very far, you have to agree. For these reasons, I have to consider the Jews persecutors of early Christianity.
There should definitely be a paragraph on how this persecution has been used to justify Christian anti-Semitism. Ecto 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, and in a thoughtful way. I'll try to reciprocate. First, think about the difference between "the Jews" versus "Jews." The use of the definite article carries with it a set of connotations and is commonly used by anti-Semites. Not using the definite article communicates the same information, but without the suggestion that all Jews think or act alike or that there is collective responsibility. It also obscures the fact that Jesus and his followers, certainly up until Paul's ministry, were all Jews. Second, you seriously misread me if you think that by pointing out that the Romans were behind it, Jews were just "following orders." Romans not only killed seditious Jews - thousands in the Galilee, around the time Jesus was a kid - they also executed Jewish authorities who did not maintain civil order. You may not know it but in in the late 60s Jews rebelled against Rome and they were crushed. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Romans learned of Jews preaching sedition after that war would have reacted with brute and overwhelming force. "Radical new religious movements are usually not all that popular with those in power" may or may not be true elsewhere, but it is a mischaracterization of first century Roman occupied Palestine. First, before the destruction of the Temple in 70, there was no "normative Judaism" against which anything could appear a "radical new religious movement." Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots - all had strikingly different versions of Judaism and Christianity was no more different or radical from one of these groups than they were from one another. In fact, first century Judaism, such as it was, was quite eclectic and open. Intolerance took the form of endogamy (not marrying someone of another sect), not persecution. After 70, Pharisees began consolidating their leadership of the Jewish community but there is no reason to think that they dominated Jewish life. Evidence of this absense of intolerance is the fact that Christians preached in synagogues. They would not have been allowed to unless the members and leaders of synagogues believed they were Jews with as much a right to speak as any other Jew. It was only when Christians began preaching that Jesus would return to restore the kingdom that jewish leaders began persecuting them, because if the Romans found out about this seditious act, the people of that synagogue would face execution themselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize once again for using the phrase the Jews, though I did not mean anything overly generalized by it. I am not that familiar with the hate speech of anti-Semitism, and I thought that the context in which I used the phrase made it clear which Jews I meant. I am not sure if there are any other terms for the Jewish people and authorities of Judea which is more specific and just as terse, so if you know of one please, let me know. For now I will just use the phrase the Jews of Judea to specify. Jews without the definitive article seems to me much more generalized than the Jews and I was unaware of the broader connotations connected to the Jews. I am deeply sorry if I offended anyone.
There is a need in this discussion to differentiate between the Jewish Christians and the rest of the Jews of Judea. Calling the others the Jewish Jews of Judea seems a bit redundant to me, and yes, I agree that calling them simply the Jews does obscure the fact that the original Christians were Jews as well, so how about using the Jewish Christians and the non-Christian Jews of Judea to differentiate? There must be better terms out there, but I do not know what they are.
The problem is, "the rest of the Jews of Judea" did not persecute Christians. At the most, aome Jews persecuted Christians. The only reason to suggest or even imply that all non-Christian Jews, or all non-Christian Jews living in Judea, persecuted Jesus is if one wants to provide the basis for collective guilt. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Persecution is by its very definition a collectivist concept. It is something one group does to another group. It is not something one individual does to another individual. It goes without saying that not every individual is accounted for when discussing persecution. If you atomize persecution to the extent that individual actions are the only concern, the concept loses all meaning. I never suggested that all of the non-Christian Jews of Judea are responsible as individuals (they are not), just that the non-Christian Jews of Judea are as a group. Yes, I am providing the basis for collective guilt because we are discussing whether or not the non-Christian Jews of Judea are responsible for persecution. I think the fact that not every member of the group (or not even the majority of the group) is responsible is implied by the very definition of persecution. Ecto 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I am referring exclusively to the period after the Christian leaders began teaching that Jesus is the King of the Jews. That made Christianity radical as well as seditious in comparison to the other religious groups of occupied Palestine, because it was a threat to both the Romans and the non-Christian Jews of Judea because it endangered the political status quo of Judea, which was guarded by both Rome and the non-Christian Jews of Judea, though for different reasons. The Jewish authorities of Judea, like any politicians, wanted to retain what power they could.
I am saying that it was not power they wanted to preserve - Christians never threatened the authority of the High Priest in any meaningful way (and after 70, there was no High Priest to threaten), nor did they threaten the authority of the Sanhedrin in any concrete way. Seditious activity however did threaten the lives of Jewish authorities. I am saying that it wasn't their powere they wanted to retain, but their lives. If they allowed a popular seditious movement, they would have been killed. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Romans who disobeyed the Emperor? They were treated less harshly, but I would not want to be in their shoes. Do you think that the only person responsible for the persecution of the early Christians is the Emperor, because he was the only person involved free from coercion? Ecto 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Like any politicians, they were not completely selfish, but they did have their own reasons. The non-Christian Jewish people of Judea saw Christianity as a threat to the political status quo because, yes, it stood to bring down the wrath of Rome, but also the flip side of that--Christianity abstracted the political struggle against Roman oppression to a spiritual struggle (i.e. the Kingdom of God) deflating the non-Christian Jews' aspirations of throwing off the Empire.
Do you have any evidence for this? Most Jews had no aspirations to throw off Roman oppression because they knew they would lose. The uprising in 66 was not fomented or led by Jewish authorities, in fact, Jewish authorities tried to prevent it. Same thing in 135. Abstracting a political struggle into a spiritual struggle is something many Jews thought was a good idea - it is arguably what the Pharisees and Essenes were doing (and while the Pharisees and Essenes were as different as the Pharisees and Christians, or the Essenes and Christians, they never persecuted one another). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not have any evidence off hand. I think you go too far in saying that Judea had lost all hope of being free from the Empire, though. For being apolitical in this respect, early Christianity was much closer to the fringe. Sedition just pushed it over the brink. Ecto 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The Jews of Judea were persecuted by the Romans themselves, but that does not mean that the non-Christian Jews of Judea are not responsible the persecution of the Jewish Christians of Judea.
What exactly do you think these non-Christian Jews did? What exactly do you mean by "persecute?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate Christians." Ecto 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Romans played the Jews of Judea against themselves by playing the non-Christian Jews against the Jewish Christians in order to maintain control over Judea. Serialization is the name of that process, I believe. The Nazis used it during WWII to maintain control over the Jewish ghettos of Europe in the build-up to the Holocaust. It is a sick, sad, and sorry situation Rome put the non-Christian Jews of Judea in, but that does not change the fact that persecution took place, and that does not totally absolve the non-Christian Jews of Judea of responsibility for their part in it. I think we can agree on that.
I do not think you are making a fair analogy. Capos were not fighting to keep the Nazis from exterminating their people. The Nazis were already doing this and capos were just hoping to save their own skins. Moreover, the Jews capos led to the gas chambers were guilty of nothing but being Jewish. There was no grounds for sedition. Now, the Jewish authorities who gave the names of Christians to the Romans were not trying just to save their own skins, they were trying to stave off a more brutal occupation and likely the deaths of many more people. Also, they only turned over people who had created civil unrest and who had made seditious statements. You don't have to like it, but it is not fair to equate those people to capos. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not making an analogy or equating the situations. I was clarifying a term with an example. Both situations fit the definition of serialization. I am not suggesting that the two situations have anything in common besides that.
What do you mean by civil unrest? Those seditious statements were a matter of Christian belief. The Romans did not like that belief because it threatened them, so they decided to persecute those who believed it, (i.e. the Jewish Christians) in order to eliminate the threat. Since the Jewish authorities of Judea used their authority to turn over the Christians, they played a part in that persecution. Their reasons for doing so are important to take into consideration, but they do not change the fact that persecution took place. Ecto 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Now it is my turn to thank you for your intelligent responses. Thank you! Ecto 15:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope these latest questions make sense.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
They do, thank you. Your writing style is very clear. Ecto 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I still have some questions/problems with some of your statements.
Persecution is by its very definition a collectivist concept.
You are turning a historical question into a semantic question. And in the process you are distorting the issue in two ways. First, the definition of persecution is not at issue here. The issue is, what actually happened. You cannot say "there was persecution, and since persecution is by definition collective, therefore the acts were collective." You cannot deduce what happened from the definition of a word.
That is not what I am doing at all. You seem to be suggesting that, unless every last member of a group persecutes every last member of another group, then the situation cannot be considered persecution, which would mean that every incidence of persecution throughout history would not be persecution, and so persecution would not exist. So, I offer the definition of persecution to counter that because, you must admit, that assertion of yours narrows the definition of persecution to the point where it is rendered useless. I am not attempting to prove my argument from nothing but the term at hand, but attempting to prove that the term at hand applies to my argument. I am asserting that the concept of persecution applies to the situation if indeed it played out in the way I am argueing that it did. You seem to be arguing that the term could never apply to any situation. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something here? Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You need historical evidence. I know of no historical evidence that non-Christian Jews persecuted Christians as a group or collectively.
I will address the issue of evidence in a bit. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Second, you turn the issue of "collective" on its head. My point was that not all Jews or even non-Christian Jews persecuted Christians, which is why you should not use "the Jews" which suggests collective guilt of the Jews. Even if some Jews were prejudiced against all Christians regardless of their acts or individual differences, this does not mean that all Jews or even most Jews were, and it is therefore wrong to say "the Jews."
What extent of collectivity does the Jews imply? If it means every Jewish person who has ever lived, obviously that is way, way, way, way, way too broad for our purposes here. That is not what I meant when I originally used the phrase. If two Jews went to the store, you could say, "The Jews went to the store". There is a wide range of collectivity in that term, depending on the context, but the broadest sense is the one usually implied, so that is why I agreed with you that we should not use the phrase the Jews after your first reply and apologized for using it at all. We should find a phrase that works. How about "Some of the non-Christian Jews of Judea"? Would that be okay? It is about as specific as I can make it.
That said, I think the phrase, say, "The European settlers persecuted the First Nations people," is useful. It is implied by the word persecute itself that only some of the European settlers persecuted some of the First Nations people, yet is was done because of differences between the groups, in part, by individuals who represented the Europeans as a collective, such as leaders and authorities. It is not about establishing absolute collectives, just using terms of convienience for describing conflicts between groups of people in general terms. If you think that the word some is needed because the concept of persecution does not make the generality of the phrase explicit enough, I am fine with that. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think "some" solves the problem I raise. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Romans who disobeyed the Emperor? They were treated less harshly
I am afraid I do not know what you mean. Less harshly than whom?
Than non-Romans who disobeyed the Emperor. I think that was embodied in Roman law. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
In any event, this is irrelevant. You are making a vast generalization when we are talking about one specific issue.
Well, you say that the Romans are responsible for the persecution in this specific case, because the hands of the Jewish authorities were forced, so I mentioned the fact that the Romans' hands were forced as well. That seems relevent to me. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean the Romans' hand was forced as well? By whom and how? As to whether Roman citizens found guilty of sedition were treated less harshly than non-citizens found guilty of sedition, well, ma6ybe but I would still like to see your evidence. From what I know of Roman history most people who rebelled against the romans were not citizens; most people under Roman rule were not citizens. I do not understand why you introduce the issue of citizens here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Jewish authorities were responsible for maintaining peace. Those who didn't were killed by the Romans. Moreover, civil unrest always led to massive military action by the Romans resulting in hundreds or thousands of people killed or enslaved. These are simple facts, and they explain why Jewish authorities tried to maintain the peace.
I think you are blaming the victim. Two of the three groups involved were victims, but one group was a victim of both of the other two. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not mean to blame the victim because I am not concerned with the question of blame meaning guilt or innocence. My point is that Jews - whether you mean all Jews, or just Jewish authorities, or some Jews - were not persecuting Christians as such (mmeaning, because they were Christian); any collaboration with the Romans were the consequence of Christians who (1) were thought to be guilty of breaking certain clearly defined rules (2) and rules that applied to everyone, or - and this is my main point, to Jews. People were turned over to the Romans because they were Jews suspect of sedition, not because they were Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you go too far in saying that Judea had lost all hope of being free from the Empire, though.
Again, what is your evidence? All of my research argues, strongly, that you are wrong. After 70, most Jews had lost hope of being free from the empire. After 135 virtually all Jews lost all hope of being free from the empire. You have told me what you think, but you haven't given me any evidence that I am "going too far" and have not shared your research with me.
All of your research? I have to admit that I am no expert on the subject, but the little I have read about it suggests the opposite of what you claim. I will see what I can find as far as evidence goes, and in the meantime would you mind sharing your research with me? I would like to read both sides of the story myself. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
On Jesus, the main sources: Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen. On Jews under Roman rule Cohen (the premier historian of Hellenistic Jews) and Neusner (one of, if not the, premier historian on Jews in the Rabbinic period). I know of no Jewish historian who doubts the general abandonment of hope that has its roots in 70 and became pervasive after 135. 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Persecution may refer to unwarranted arrest, imprisonment, beating, torture, or execution. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate Christians
Okay, how many documented cases are there of Jews arresting, imprisoning, beating, torturing, or executing Christians without warrant? How many documented cases are their of confiscated or destroyed property or incitement to hatred? What is your evidence?
Those seditious statements were a matter of Christian belief. The Romans did not like that belief because it threatened them, so they decided to persecute those who believed it, (i.e. the Jewish Christians) in order to eliminate the threat. Since the Jewish authorities of Judea used their authority to turn over the Christians, they played a part in that persecution.
I am not sure what you mean by "Christian belief." Christian belief as opposed to (or differentiated from) what?
The Jewish Christians believed that Christ is the Lord. The non-Christians did not. This belief is the source of the charges of sedition. It is also part of the Christian belief system. I would say that it is the definitive belief of Christianity, more-or-less. Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ecto, this may be the root misconception. Jewish Christians were not persecuted for believing Jesus was "Lord" if by Lord you mean God. Jewish Christians were arrested for believing Jesus was king. Moreover, Jewish Christians were not arrested because they believed Jesus (as opposed to someone else) to be king; they were arrested because they proclaimed that there was a king, which would be sedition in any part of the Roman empire, regardless of who believed this, who they believed was king, or whatever other beliefs they had. Also, when you say that this is a "part of the Christian belief system" and a "distinctive part of Christianity" you are making a mistake that is anathema to historians: being anachronistic. It is pretty certain that by the end of Paul's career the belief that Jesus is Lord had become a central aspect of Christianity. It certainly is in the sources we have. But all sources post-date 70. Most historians believe that they reflect events that happened to Christians long after Jesus was executed. There is no evidence Christians believed this during the first century. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly not justifying any act by the Romans. I am making no claims about right or wrong. I am saying that if Jews ever informed the Romans of what Christians were saying (a far cry from unwarranted arrest, beating, execution of which there is no evidence) it was not "because" the individuals in question were Christian, but because they were commiting seditious acts that were illegal under Roman rule. That's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Their illegal act of sedition was believing in and espousing one of the central tenants of Christianity. Would they be Christians if they did not commit that crime?
I will take a look around for some nonbiblical sources for my side of things. I know that I saw something somewhere on this talk page. Also, I will see if I can find the book in which I first read the thing about the political vs. spiritual Kingdom of God. I have final exams all next week so I might not get around to it until those are over. Would you mind if the NPOV tag was removed? Everything is bound tight to the New Testament in that section, and the fact that the early Christians were Jews is outlined. I have not read it in a while, so I will check to see if there are any other problems with it we have covered here so far. I have to thank you for such an engaging discussion! Ecto 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. I highly recommend the authors I mention above. I'll defer to someone else on removing the NPOV tag - who put it there? Good luck with exams, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic persecution of Christians

I'm a bit lost as why this is disputed. Islamic persecution undoubtly existed just like Christian persecution of Muslims also exists. The biggest problem with the section is that it is way too modern. What about the Arabian empires persecution of Christians.

I know the feeling. Just like Christian Persecution against homosexuals undoubtly exist, but there will always be those who try to white wash and minimize such things.--Lucavix 23:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This section should not be disputed. It should be expanded. There have been a couple of news stories in the past month about Christians fearing imprisonment and execution in Egypt and Afghanistan simply for being Christians (this and this come to mind). It makes sense that the section has a modern slant, because modern Islamists are responsible for most of the persecution Christians have faced in Muslim countries. Ecto 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The disputed label for this section should be removed, seeing as there is no justification for the NPOV dispute posted, contrary to Wikipedia policy ("How to initiate an NPOV dispute"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute Panzer101 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination and persecution in other Arab and Muslim nations

This exists no doubt. In Bahrain also citizens are required to be Muslims despite a .1% or something like that Christian population. Saudi Arabia's Chrisitan church is largely underground and Christians are not allowed to step foot in the holiest parts of the country. In most Islamic countries prostalization is illegal, which is discrimination of all religions but the second largest group is Christianity in most of the countries making it relevant. In Egypt some Christians have been targeted in news reports but should not be considered a common occurence in the section. The exile of Pope Shenouda III is notable, relevant and neutral. The biggest problem however is repetition.(mentioning the same type of discrmination in seperate sentences for all the countries. Easier and more NPOV to mention it once as an overview.) The Phillipene incident without more evidence is not worth keeping. The Palestine one is a difficult and controversial issue and should be dealt with more care. In the simplest terms to get rid of the tag is the following. 1. Rename it to Discrimination and persection of Christians in Middle Eastern and South East Asian countries. 2. Avoid repetition 3. Word in a more NPOV manner providing the reasoning of the case followed by what happened.

Sounds like your suggesting it be edited more "Politically Correct". If they are stated facts then they are stated facts. This is being slowly turned into a religeous debate. SIte the facts and you will see that facts are neutral..we may not like them but they are what they are. Finding more careful language is a subtle distortion of facts is it not?

[edit] Persecution in Kosovo

I'm surprised this is mentioned. There are far more notable events than this event nonetheless it did happen to Muslims and Christians. The Kosovo War was IMHO a war of ethnicity, religion, and separationism. I'm not sure what is disputed about it, however it might be a bit more NPOV to mention the Muslim persecution as well.

[edit] Persecution in China

This isn't under NPOV but this section is way too short. Persecution of Christians in China has existed for probably a century and 1/2 at one point even eliminating Christianitys existence in Eastern China. It needs to be expanded.(The house churches could use a bit more info too)

Don't forget about allegations that in modern China christians are treated unfairly by authorities, issued greater fines and harsher sentences simply because the Police there often discriminate. --Lucavix 23:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I erased even more of this section, since it was written in a blatantly subjective manner. Better to put nothing at all than something like "The Chinese did it because they were mean."

[edit] Recent Christian Persecution in Other Countries

I understand why this is disputed because of little documentation coming from these countries on this type of info. Christian persecution is known to exist, in North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, and discrimination in the Maldives.(not sure about persecution). Vietnam is likely. Now I'm not familiar with Sri Lanka, Bhutan, or Afghanistan but Nepal should be mentioned as it is likely far more notable than these three. I believe North Korea, Nepal, and Lebanon all merit there own sections (possibly Cambodia). The others probably don't need to be mentioned. If the others are kept to keep NPOV it should be mentioned that some believe persecution has taken place in the following countries. Falphin 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

People should remember that christians cause ruin for themselves by intentionally targetting the poor and the vunerable. Many missionaries flocked to tsunami-hit areas and converted many poor people to christianity in return for aid. Also these groups are keen that damaged churches are re-built more quickly than other buildings. I have seen all these events taking place. Christians therefore should know that such activity angers many people including buddhists and hindus who are peace-loving (as shown by their good behaviour in the West). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.63.5 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 September 2005.

  • I understand your point but it isn't relevant to this topic. I've heard people claim what you have before, I do however know that my church does not advocate that when sending missionaries. However, that is unrelated to Christianity and Christian persection. On a final note you can sign your comments using ~~~~ Falphin 00:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how killing missionairies is persecution of Christians. If someone goes to another country to try and convert them, surely they are bound to receive friction. I think the sections where that is the only "persecution" should be removed. It's not so much persecution as failed missions. Flangazor 06:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand why killing missionaries is persectution??? If killing people because of their religious ideas is not persecution then what is? In truly free countries Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and any other faith should be able to both practice and propagate their ideas, as they are in most Western counties. If they can't, then it's persecution. Paul B 12:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some of the above opinions. Killing missionaries is murder, it is not persectuion. Persecution, at least in this context, is done by one GROUP to another GROUP. My 2 cents is that the article should focus on persecution of Christians who live in predominantly non-Christian countries. See the wholesale massacres and suppressions of the Kirishitan groups for an example of persecution. --circuitloss 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sudan and other conflicts

I've taken out the word "murder and enslavement" and replaced them with "persecution" because I think they are too emotional. I also added some of the context of the Darfur conflict so that points out some of the other deaths and possible causes. I think that the article has to be neutral if it's goin' to be taken seriously and at the moment it isn't very neutral.

I also added "alleged Islamists", because the government of Sudan is officially secular and portraying the army as "Islamists" presents a very simplified view of the conflict, which deniers of the genocide in Sudan could use to discredit opposing views. I've also made a few changes to the other sections including changing the titles from "murder and enslavement", because once again I think it's too emotional.

I didn't really look at the "persecution in Indonesia" section and it seems to me someone needs to take a look at that, too.

XYaAsehShalomX 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is the purpose of the later sections in this article?

I understand that, at least in the early days of Christianity, it was legitimately persecuted. But the modern day examples are simply random incidents of hate crimes, i.e. one missionary getting killed by "Hindu nationalists". Yeah, whatever. I don't see how that makes it notable. By this reasoning you could make an article on "Persecution of X", where X is any group whose members have been treated differently because of some characteristic of X. For instance, you could write an article on "Persecution of Redskins fans" because wearing a Redskins jersey at a Cowboys game can get you beaten up. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Great point!

[edit] Persecution in other Eastern Bloc nations

I found the following at the end of this little peice of info:

"[3] I love you."

I simply erased it because it had no pertinence to the subject.--Brandeis 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese persecution

The following was found directly in the text of the article after the statement that in WWII prodistants were persectuted becuase of percieved ties to the west: "That's not really true - my grandfather was an officer in the Imperial Japanese Army in the 30s and 40s and had no problems." This kind of material belongs on the Talk page, and has since been removed from the text of the article itself. Thanatosimii 03:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] effect/affect

The use of the word "effected" in "Persecution of Christians in Sudan" (at the end) is incorrect.

[edit] vandalism by User:Maintenance

There has been some serious vandalism by Maintenance who has deleted the content of the Historical persecution by Christians article and replaced it with content from this article, then renamed it as persecution of Christians - leading to the absurd merger suggestion between articles that are supposed to refer to opposed concepts/events (though of course there always was some overlap because much persecution of Christians has been by other Christians). Ideally we should have identical titles for these articles - both "Historial Persecution...", or both just "Persecution...". I have tried to reverse things, but have, sadly created a bit of a mess myself by cutting-and-pasting, leading to some pretty chaotic redirects and loss of edit histories.Paul B 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] If you're going to be incendiary, at least punctuate properly

"Modern Anti-Christian activity by the Jews Jewish filmmakers have been responsible for producing films attacking the core beliefs of Christianity such as " The Last Temptation of Christ" and " The Pope Must Die" by the Weinstein Brothers.These clear attacks on Christianity and on Catholicism have been criticized by [[Chrisitian]] activists. Some [[prominant]] [[Rabbi's]] have claimed that the New Testament is Anti-Semitic which is a ridiculous charge.

The machinegunning of the Church of the Church of the Nativity by Israeli soldiers when Palestianians were seeking refuge inside has been criticized by Christians as a purposeful symbolic attack on Christandom.The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is one of the holiest sites in Christianity.

Christian Palestinians have been heavily persecuted by the [[Israeli's]] eventhough they have never participated in a single suicide bombing or assasination of any Israeli.

- 26k - 39k [http:// www.commondreams.org/views/120300-102.htm - 16k ]"

Other points of interest are that the Weinstein brothers aren't Jewish except under the standards of the Nuremburg laws and Christian Palestinians aren't persecuted by anyone except their Islamic brethren.

I'm deleting this, if someone literate wants to add something similar go ahead.

[edit] Persecution in the Ottoman Empire

I deleted this:

"...one of the biggest in terms of number of victims, and was a direct inspiration for Hitler's Final Solution. However, it was often ignored or given little significance by many Western governments for most of the 20th Century, due to political pressure from Turkey, one of the West's few allies in the Middle-East. And although Western governments have begun recognising the genocide in the past few years, Turkey still officially denies that it took place. However, Turkey has begun to debate the genocide in public as a result of pressure from the EU, recently (September 2005) holding a conference to discuss it."

First off, this is a history of the debate about Christian persecution in the Ottoman Empire, not a history of the persecution itself. It's irrelevant. Second, the Ottomans' massacres of the Armenians and other groups during the Great War and War of Independence were not a direct inspiration for Hitler's final solution. To say that is to absolutely misunderstand Hitler's character and the nature of European anti-Semitism, and it's insulting. There is one quotation attributed to Hitler talking about the Armenians--that's hardly proof of a direct inspiration. Europeans had been killing Jews for years, and it's simply atrocious to make this claim.

If anyone wants to discuss what the Ottomans and Turks did to Christians, fine, but if we can keep the issue focused and historical, that would be best. Hashshashin 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how does it qualify for persecution

how does this qualify for persecution.nids 07:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. neutrality is disputed. Plus there are no sources.Shiva's Trident 13:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reference is to the main article...is this where you really want to send the reader to? Because the article details persecution...and it does cite sources (see refs section at bottom).Akradecki 13:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
How does preventing forced conversions qualify as Persecution? Aren't these laws, in fact, to stop missionaries from fomenting terrorism like they did in Tripura?Shiva's Trident 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I mean, is passing anti-conversion laws in lil' ol' India to be treated at the same level as the massive atrocities perpetrated on Christians in Muslim/Arab countries and areas like Palestine (what abt Lebanon, not mentioned in the article: I believe some mischief is going on against Xians by Hezbollah)? Come on. Aren't those a LOT worse? How 'bout some perspective here?Shiva's Trident 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It is because these laws aren't limited to preventing forced conversions, they also limit free conversions. Free exercise is just that. If the government demands that someone who wants to freely convert seek permission first, then they don't have the freedom to exercise religion as they see fit. When you threaten to fine or jail someone because they want to convert right away, or in one week or two, then that is by definition persecution. Is it different than other forms of persecution? Yes. One of the things this article doesn't do...and I hope that it will soon, is clearly define in sociological terms the ranges of types and degrees of persecution, as well as generic causes. Whether you believe these laws are justified or not is irrelevent. They exist, they have a negative effect on the free exercise of religion, and they are verifiable, therefore they legitimately can be included in the article. I have deliberately not applied them specifically in my article edit to just Christianity as I want to maintain NPOV. Please note that it's not just the Christians who believe these laws are persecutive...the cited articles also accurately note that members of other religions are equally concerned, because the laws limit their free exercise rights as well. Akradecki 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless you provide sources to back up these claims, all you're doing is redefining the term persecution away from it's normative meaning. The laws do not threaten jail time for violations, for instance.
Actually, they do threaten jail time. Penalty for violation "is a three-year jail term and a fine of Rs.20,000"Akradecki 19:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, by your definition, I could argue that the very existence of Christianity entails the persecution of non-Christian faiths, since Christianity is an exclusivist faith that demands the eradication of all others. Until you provide third party evidence that legitimate scholarly sources regard this as a "persecution", this is only a Christian view on the term "persecution" and should be stated as such.Shiva's Trident 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You bring up a good point about the normative meaning. One of the things I'd like to see improved about this article is that it define things better. For the moment, though, this is from Wiktionary: "A program or campaign to subjugate or eliminate a specific group of people, often based on race, religion, or social beliefs." Because these laws do not equally apply to all religions, and only target some (especially since they are minority groups), and since this is a government-promulgated law, it looks a lot like a "program or campaign", and it targets a "specific group of people". Granted, the law is not trying to eliminate them, but it is certainly trying to limit their growth. And, on an individual level within the target group, the laws specifically prevent their free exercise of religion, and thus eliminates their ability to align themselves with the religion of their choice. Akradecki 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, from Persecution, "Persecution is persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group" and "The most common scenario is a majority group persecuting a minority group". Again, since the laws are discriminatory against a minority group, they legitimately qualify as persectution under the normative meaning of the word. Akradecki 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the conversion law bans conversions to Islam as well, so by your logic, it should be removed. What it does not ban is conversions to Indian religions (buddhism, sikhism, Ayyavazhi, hiinduism, etc.). Anyway the law was repealed, so it should be removed.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If it was banned, please provide reference and date, because as of early this month, it was being enacted in an additional province (as I cited in the article). If it has been banned repealed, it shouldn't be removed, but the article should be updated with the event of the repeal, along with a citation where this can be verified. Akradecki 18:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey! All your sources are from Xian sites. They are partisan, not secular media! They must be listed as allegations then, not as fact.Shiva's Trident 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
They are news sites. There is no requirement on WP for references to be secular, nor is there a rule saying that such sites may only be listed as allegations. A law is a law. That the legislation was passed is fact, not an allegation. The legislation's effects may be allegations, and because of NPOV, I did not include this aspect. Akradecki 19:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally to my statment, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Not, of course, that I advocate spreading of false statements. The point is that a reliable source has referenced a law that was passed. You alledge that the law was repealed but do not cite any sources. I put it to you: which view is more verifiable? So I ask again...please provide a citation for your statment that the anti-conversion laws have been repealed. Akradecki 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to your precedent, I will make sure every article with Hindu-Christian conflict is updated with sources from [www.christianaggression.org ChristianAggression]. That site is not entirely reliable. Neither are missionairy orgs. If you add missionairy and Christian news sources, we will remove them.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So do you ever refer to a Hindu news source? Sounds like you've got some prejudice yourself. Akradecki 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have been in so many POV battles I pretty much have given up using Hindutva sources, unless the source is something "unPOVable" like the building of a temple. I don't see how banning conversions is "persecution" either. Usually we Indians cite Rediff, The Hindu (mildly anti-Hindu), The Indian Express, Times of India, and The Pioneer. Rarely do we cite Christian Aggression or even the Organizer. The closest thing we have to csw is Hindu Unity banned by the pseudo-secular Indian government.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree with you, and just like you cite such sources for the building of a temple, so the passage of legislation is unPOVable. And by that I mean the fact of the legislation. Notice that I deliberately did not mention other clearly POV subjects from the refed articles, because it's inappropriate to do so. How can you not see that it isn't persecution? If I was living in India, and decided to convert to Islam or Christianity, and felt like it was important to me to do right away (rather than seek permission), I would face the threat of jail time and fines. That would be a violation of free exercies, and I would definitely feel persecuted! Akradecki 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
See WP:OR. I wouldn't feel persecutedBakaman Bakatalk 22:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the real heart of the issue for this article and others dealing with religious persecution: quite often the goups doing the action don't view it as persecution. You'd have no problem sending someone to prison. Those going to prison because of their religious beliefs would indeed have a problem with it. Rarely do any persecutors act out of malice, they believe they are in the right. This is why it is so essential to keep POV out of the arguments. The core of the issue is that legislation was passed. That's a verifiable fact. This legislation discriminates (ie, treats differently) against people based solely on their religion. That's a verifiable fact. This legislation carries fines and jail time. That's a verifiable fact. By definition, when people of minority religion are penalized for the free exercise of their chosen religion, that's persecution. Those are all verifiable facts, and that's why these laws are valid subject for this article. You can argue all you want but the facts speak for themselves. I am not here to debate the validity or legitimacy of the anti-conversion laws. I am here to document in an encyclopedic-environment the existence of legislation that, as written, has a persecutorial effect on a minority group. If the Hindus are a minority group somewhere and are similarly persecuted (Pakistan comes to mind), I would be just as emphatic about the need to document accurately the facts of that persecution. If I stumble, and I well could, and let my own POV enter into my writing, then you are welcome to call me on it. In the meantime, let the facts stand. If, as has been suggested, the laws have been repealed (and I hope for India's sake they have), let that be accurately documented, with sources, too. Akradecki 22:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The law bans conversions. Its not stated which religion people choose to convert to.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Just above, you stated, "What it does not ban is conversions to Indian religions (buddhism, sikhism, Ayyavazhi, hiinduism, etc.).", now you're saying the opposite. Which is the truth? Sounds like your story is changing to support your arguments, clear POV issue. Akradecki 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No I'm toeing Shiva's tridents line here. Its like Saudis banning conversions out of Islam except this is more lenient and in no form persecution. It also technically bans conversions to Bahai, Judaism, and Islam.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I went through the act and it does not discriminate to which religion you want to convert. You will have to take permission if you are a christian and want to convert to a Dharmic religion. Do you think not allowing a christian to convert to Islam/buddhism is persecution.nids(♂) 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revamp and cleanup needed

Besides the recurring issues of POV and factual accuracy, this article has begun to suffer from many, many edits that result in a poor layout and choppy flow. I propose reorgainizing it so that it flows better and presents the subject in a more logical progression. I'm posting this as a heads up that I intend to start working on this in a few days, and want to make sure that my edits don't offend anyone. At this point, I don't intend any major content edits, but just a reorganization. That said, I will try to add sources where I can, and relate the references directly to the statements being made (this is what everyone involved with this article needs to consider doing...there's a huge "references" section, but it's not footnoted to specific statements in the text, and for a subject this sensitive, such direct referencing is really essential).

As I reorganize, though, I will be looking at individual sections that are tagged as POV or neutrality problems, or are otherwise disputed, to try and see how this can be resolved. My goal here is to produce a high-quality article. Whether individual readers dispute the reality or not of persecution is not a subject for the article itself, but for this talk page. Persecution of Christians is a documented problem in this world, just as much as persecution of other ethnic and religious groups. Therefore, in the interest of studying the problem and its causes and ramifications, a high-quality, NPOV article is essential for the integrity of the Wikipedia project.

Lastly, about tags: several sections are tagged with dispute or neutality tags. Each tag, ideally, should have a corresponding discussion - or at least a statement by the tagging editor - on this talk page as to why that tag is there, what the specific problem is, and a proposed (if possible) solution. Tags without corresponding talk page entries are essentially vandalism, because they denegrate the section without being justified. Consequently I will be removing them. If you've added a tag, please add a section to this talk page.

Oh, one more thing...once this talk page gets to 30 subjects, I'll be archiving it, as well. Thanks, and please let me know any suggestions you may have. Akradecki 15:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edits by Anon user

I have reverted the edits by an anonymous user. If you wish, we can discuss the changes here, but I saw them as POV. LawrenceTrevallion 13:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me add, I do not wish to seem imperialistic or rude, but I do not think the edits were appropriate. If you wish, we can discuss it, but I would like some citations for your sources. LawrenceTrevallion 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry guys for all of my mess here. I went back to the edits by the anonymous user, as I do not want to be rude. However, I would like to discuss these changes as I do not agree with them. For instance, what "Christian Zealots" are being referred to in the Jewish Persecution section? Also, I think the part about medieval persecutions being inspired by these needs some citation. LawrenceTrevallion 13:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and taken it back before the anon, as the anon editor was not only inserting POV material, but material that should have been in a different article. It focused on how Christians persecuted others, which, though a valid subject for discussion, should be in the article Historical persecution by Christians. That's why there's a directory box on the right of this article. The subject of persecution can quickly get out of hand if not carefully organized. The focus of the article here is Persecution of Christians, and we need to focus on just that here. Akradecki 18:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Biblical sources

Just a question about the use of the New Testament as evidence of Judeo-Christian persecution; is it entirely plausible to use a single document, particularly one as controversial as the Bible, as the basis for such an article? It seems particularly ironic that the use of the New Testament is unquestioned, whilst the general Wikipedian consensus is that if you haven't acquired a suitable, recognizable, and above all demonstrable source, your additions are stricken and you are lampooned by the rest of the community.

The only way to resolve this inconsistency appears to be to remove the Biblican evidence of the persecution of Christians, and instead rely upon the latest historiographical evidence and theories. -- Australia, 22 October, 2006

  • Whoa, hold on. It's definitely not a bad idea to back up Biblical sources, and perhaps it should be expressed these are NT sources, but the amount of controversy over Biblical sources vary. Without it, one would have a very shattered view of the early church. 74.137.230.39 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St. Polycarp, martyrdom and Jewish participation

Note: This is not to be anti-Semitic, but to in the end understand why the conflict other agressions between Christians and Jews arose

I have not read numerous martyrdom accounts from the time of the early Christians, but in the martyrdom account of St. Polycarp circa 160, there is a line (13:1) in which it mentions that the Jews also participated in gathering wood for the fire. I thought a mentioning of such would show the continuity the Jewish persecution of Christians after St. Paul and the book of Acts. I took a college course of the Early Western Civilization, which in it we were told that there were not very many direct persecutions of the Christians, i.e, Roman soldiers going out and looking for Christians, but citizens (and not infrequently Jews) reported them to officials to have them tried. I don't know if this is the most correct, but if it is, I believe there should be a mentioning of how it was not uncommon (nor unreasonable) for Jews to help in the persecution of Christians. I say not unreasonable, because from their perspective we can assume it was like Sauls, viewing Christianity as a heretical offshoot. Please tell me what you think, about adding this in under "Jewish persecution of Christians." Also I don't fully think it describes the motives of the Jews, to say they only persecuted the Christians becuase it was "seditious" from Rome. It really was a differing view between two different groups, each considering the other incorrect or inferior.--Francis419jn655 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of christians by christians?

Thats stupid. Persecution means "persistent mistreatment of an individual or group by another group". "Other christians" are obviously not candidates for christian persecution... Fresheneesz 06:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPersecution_of_Christians_1803.html"