Talk:Apostasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
To-do list for Apostasy: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. Condense Apostasy in emerging religions (a.k.a NRMs, or New Religion Movements) and cults, in particular the discussion about the reliability (or lack thereof) of apostates' testimonies as presented by scholars of NRMs.
  2. Apostasy in Buddhism
  3. elaborate on the apostasy in Roman Catholicism (Catholic encyclopedia can be used as a source)
  4. elaborate on the difference between heresy and apostasy
  5. Desribe the viewpoints and complaints of apostates for each religion. According to the NPOV policy, every article describing a group should present their views.
Archive
Archives
Pre 2006 and undated Subjects Archive

Contents

[edit] Apostasy in Judaism and Islam

Judaism explicitly demands that apostates be stoned to death, as stated in Deut 13, and referenced in Exodus (Moses ordering those praying to the golden calf to be killed). I am also removing the part that states Islam requires apostates to be killed; there is no mention of it in the Quran, and only occurs in the different interpretations of Sharia Law.

66.42.54.89 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Marcus

I think it is a mistake to assert that there is no mention of this in the Quran. While many of the lines of the Quran used to assert a death penalty for apostasy may have that meaning chiefly from tradition and "scholarship", Sura IV line 89 is... translated, "They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper."

It's only one line, but it's pretty direct.

Further reference: Paper from a UN Commission on Human Rights panel discussion Gruber76 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sura IV line 89 is talking about the Hypocrites/apostates Individuals whom are in state of war or “waging Wars.” That is because by reading the next line it says {Except those who are connected with a people between whom and you there is a pact, or those who come to you, while their hearts shrink from fighting you or fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they "withdraw from you but fight you not", and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then God Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).4:90] }.Therefore the hypocrite can be in state of apostasy and his/her life is safe as long as not be in state of war against Muslims that what Sura IV line 90 state


Okay, but why remove the part of apostasy in Judaism? Deut. 13 clearly states that apostates (those who leave Judaism) are to be ritually stoned. I feel that Pro-Jewish wiki users are removing the parts so Judaism will be spared criticism.

66.42.111.194 09:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Marcus

  • I'm changing "The Catholic Church may in certain very limited circumstances respond to apostasy by excommunicating the apostate, while both Judaism (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and Islam (An-Nisa 4:89) demand the death penalty for apostates." to say "while the writings of both Judaism (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) and Islam (An-Nisa 4:89) demand the death penalty for apostates." because I know of no Jews, other than perhaps extreme fanatical ones, who would demand the death penalty for this. As for Islam, see Apostasy in Islam and also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/4851666.stm where a man was judged insane in 2006 in Afghanistan because he otherwise would have been executed and the government there didn't want the bad world public opinion. Fanra 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fanra

Suraht Al Nisa 4:89 is talking about apostate whom waging war as the "next verse 4:90 " clearly state {So, if they keep aloof from you and fight you not, and make you an offer of peace, then ALLAH has allowed you no way of aggression against them 4:90}

The question is Fanra ! do not you agree with me ..that Jesus Confirmed all laws in the Torah including the ones that clearly state the death penalty for apostate such as (Deut13:6-10 ,Exod 32:21-28,Lev 24:16, Deut 17:2-7 , etc ) by saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law …. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter …. will by any means disappear from the law…. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches other to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven…” {Matthew 5:17-19}???????.

The issue of whether or not the Catholic church might excommunicate an apostate only in very limited circumstances is a reflection of contemporary practice TODAY. It skirts around what were very real historic tendencies among all Christians to kill apostates. Justian's code was very clear, and these codes formed the basis of Western Law for centuries. That code was the result of the consensus reached in the first four great councils of the Early Christian church. The writings in the bible may not be so explicit, but the deeds of the early church is very clear on this issue.Jemiljan 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

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

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

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

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

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

why not then remove [Deuteronomy 17:2-7],and [Lev 24:16] from the bible?

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death , and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. [Lev 24:16]

Moses slaughtered 3,000 Israelites whom worshiped the Gold Calf .(Exodus 32:21-28) [note: the surviving Israelis are then told in verse 29 that they are blessed for killing their own brothers and children]. And that because Moses with surviving Israelites Obeyed YHWH Commands .If you do not agree with YHWH command that is YOUR OWN Problem But the Death Penalty laws for "Apostasy" are Stone Curved in the bible.

[edit] Notable apostates

The section on "notable apostates" is deeply flawed, because it defines them as " notable persons that have been labeled an apostate by reliable published sources ". To be labeled an apostate is not the same as being one, irrespective of the "reliability" of the source. The heading should make this explicit: "Notable persons labeled as apostates", though probably it´s better to leave out the whole section, since it´s quite trivial. --217.232.40.129 21:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


[edit] Please provide references and then add to article


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


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

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

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

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


In Rushdie's own words:

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

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

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

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

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

I think it really weird that Ayaan Hirshi Ali quoting a dead person about herself being an apostate is included, it seems more like she's promoting her own role as 'martyr', definitly not something for inclusion in an 'encyclopedia.

Can I suggest Ambedkar be added to the list of apostates there is a good Wiki article on him which clearly shows he was a Hindu then converted to Buddhism and criticized the Hindu caste structure.

With regard to the above discussion. Augustine was clearly an apostate since he adopted Manichaeism when he was young then later became a Christian and launched a strong attack on Manichaeism in his books. Nietzsche was a Christian and studied theology as a young man then attacked all religion but especially Christianity in later life. All of these points are made in the wiki articles on these people BehyarNikandish 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism Section Disputed

  • Ok, in the Judaism section, I see a big problem. Being a Jew is being in an ethnic group, not a religion, i.e. you are a Jew if your mother was a Jew, regardless of what you believe. See: Jew and Judaism and Who is a Jew?. Therefore, anyone listed in the Judaism section needs to be confirmed to have been a believer or practicer of Judaism to qualify to be listed, regardless of their ethnic origin. This means if they were over the age of 13 when they became an Apostate, they had to have had a Bar mitzvah or Bat mitzvah or they must claim to have practiced Judaism. If they haven't done any of these, then they can not be counted. Fanra 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, Albert Einstein is listed, yet on his page it says "The Einsteins were not observant, and Albert attended a Catholic elementary school.", so there is no proof there that he was ever religious. Fanra 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Albert Einstein identified with Israel, and was a Zionist. He is certainly not an "apostate" for having not been a practicing Jew. --Metzenberg 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann page says, "Growing up in a non-practicing Jewish family, János, nicknamed "Jancsi" (Johnny), was an extraordinary prodigy." So he should not be listed either. Fanra 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A Jewist person is not an apostate unless he practices another religion. The various mitzvot (Jewish commandments) are worded this way: prohibition on idolatry, have no other Gods, etc. Thus, Carl Sagan, Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Baruch Spinoza, and several others do not belong on this list. I can think of several others who do, and I'll add them. --Metzenberg 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What about adding Bob Dylan? Larry Yudelson, in a 1991 article in the Washington Jewish Week wrote: "His widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history" [3]. That, along with numerous other potential sources, would seem to argue for adding him to the list. --JJay 00:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I would personally agree that apostasy demands a renunciation of the earlier belief system. Generally, Christianity does not require people to renounce Judaism, as Christianity generally sees itself as an "extension" or "fulfillment" of Judaism. Maybe the section with names could be removed entirely, with perhaps an explanation to that effect and (perhaps) a link to other pages dealing with conversion? For what it's worth, I'm not sure but that people who convert from Christianity to the Unification Church or from any branch of Islam to Bahai might not be disqualified from this list on the same basis. I do however note that one convert from Islam to Bahai is listed as having been executed for apostasy. Clearly, in any case such as this when there is a legal definition of the word which may also apply, it would qualify for inclusion. However, I would try to ensure that it is made clear that the definition used by the court is not necessarily the definition used by each of the faiths involved. John Carter 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone removed my tag I put here about that factual accuracy of this section is disputed. I could just remove all the Judaism names because they aren't sourced but I decided to give people time to come up with some sources. They will be removed soon if someone doesn't put references in. I've looked at some of them and can not find any proof they were ever religious Jews on some of them. Fanra 10:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I decided to try to work with this rather than just complain, I'm checking out each person and putting a "dubious" tag after those that don't seem to fit here. I've removed the section tag. Hopefully we can get this section accurate. Fanra 10:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Why wouldn't Jesus be a noted apostate in the Judaism entry? 213.217.216.126 10:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • An interesting idea. I'm not very familiar with Jesus, but I don't think so. Apostasy requires renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to one's former religion. Did Jesus renounce Judaism? Did he speak in opposition to it?

It was my thought that he embraced and extended Judaism, rather than renounced it. Christians, in general, are supposed to believe in the Old Testament and that it is correct, but that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, while most of the Jews of his time did not believe he was the Messiah. Thus, it would seem to me that for him to be the Messiah, he couldn't renounce the very religion he was Messiah of. If Jesus is considered a apostate, then Martin Luther would also have to be one, since he renounced the Catholic Church without renouncing Christianity. Much like Jesus renounced the Jewish leaders without renouncing Judaism.

Of course, I really don't know a lot about Jesus, so an expert would have to answer this. Fanra 11:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanra, you're correct except Jesus did not renounce the Judaic leadership either. Rather, He denounced them. Jstanierm 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

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

Former members of NRMs often see the use of "apostate" as an attempt to discredit them and their statements.
I did not write this, but I have read quite a lot of examples of this and I hence strongly believe it is true. Andries 08:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example I think by Miguel Martinez, a critical former member of New Acropolis [4] Andries 09:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
How about "Since the former member says he intends to denounce the "atrocities" of the group, according to the scholars we have in mind, this would be a case of "apostasy," that is, a case in which the person who has left the group starts a war against it for personal reasons or interests, or because he/she belongs to an "anti-cult" movement."[5]? Tanaats 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction II

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

[edit] "Ex-Christians"

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

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

[edit] Apostasy vs. Spiritual desertion

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

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

[edit] Usually make allegations?

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

I made the edit. Tanaats 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that these that "go off and lick their wounds in silence" are not referred to as "apostates", but as "leavetakers", "defectors", etc. Apostates, in this context, are those that usually do actively criticize their former groups/religions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed it back. Tanaats 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Only some sociologists make this distinction sometimes. And sociologists are not the only ones who have written about the subject. Andries (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elan Vital not a reliable source for this article

I have removed references to the organisation, Elan Vital, from this article as the organisation is not an authority on apostasy, nor a scholarly source. Elan Vital's opinions on significant topics should be confined to the Elan Vital article. --John Brauns 00:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the references to Elan Vital. This group and its leader are not authorities or scholars on apostasy or new religious movements. Moreover, the links to Elan Vital FAQ make the sentence unbalanced, and doesn't even mention it's (Elan Vital) critics' website. Statements like this should be limited to the articles Elan Vital or Prem Rawat. Without mentioning the name of the critics of Elan Vital, Ex-premies, the assertion is not NPOV, and to expand on both the critics and the NRM in this case would be inappropriate for this article. Sylviecyn 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take "Thelema" out?

Is anyone attached to the "Thelema" mention? I don't think it belongs in the article, and propose that we take it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanaats (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like a good idea, by the way, that entire subsection is given undue weight to the traditional meaning of the term "apostasy", and should be forked off into its own article subsection of "apostasy" as defined by cult apologists... Smeelgova 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Added to 2 Thessalonians 2:3 additional versions

I added the King James Version and New American Standard Bible translations of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to make the scriptural reference more contextural and less opinionated. Taitken 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Moved the LDS paragraphs

I created a new section for the Mormon paragraphs since the LDS chruch is not Christian and should not be listed under Christianity. In fact, it could be argued that the Mormons are themsleves apostates of Christianity. Sduplessie 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other uses

I'm not sure if I put the otheruses template up properly, and its definition of this article is definitely not worded correctly. backstabb 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I've started to archive the really old stuff. If you wish to continue a subject that was archived, please start a new subject here. Thanks. Fanra 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

See above "Notable apostates: Judaism Section Disputed" Fanra 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All these have been deleted. People are confusing conversion with apostasy. Only these people referred to as apostates in multiple reliable sources should be added to that list. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not forget that multiple varying definitions of the word exist. Opponent of one's former religion is only one among several definitions and should not dominate this article. Andries (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern religions - was: Bias

This article shows a disturbing lack of objectivity while also giving a strong hint of hostility toward apostasy. This article should be rewritten with a more academic look at apostasy while not seeking to justify their persecution. This is most evident in the request to expand the Buddhism section. First and foremost Buddhism is barely a religion (if at all) and more a philosophy. As the original article states - the concept doesn't exist in Buddhism. The fact that a request has been made to enhance apostasy in reference to Buddhism shows a lack of education and bias by the members editing this article. Perhaps adding more material/point-of-view from true apostates would balance the entry and demonstrate broad subject matter coverage. For example the question "What are the main points apostates make." is not answered sufficiently. James Ingrahm 01:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point: "the concept doesn't exist in Buddhism [or Hinduism, according to the article]". Glad I found it in your comment, because I came to this Talk page to ask more about that same section.
To wit:
Do Buddhism and Hinduism have concepts of faith?
If so (or even if not, for the sake of argument), then do they also (as this article states) NOT have concepts of faithlessness/lack of faith/loss of faith?
(Let's call that concept F/LoF/LoF for short, or "floflof")
It doesn't seem to me that the answers to both questions can be "yes", nor could the answers to those questions be "yes/no" or "no/yes". The only option left, then, is that the answer to both questions must be "no" - Buddhism and Hinduism both have NEITHER any concept of floflof NOR any concept of faith.
If I bring this to the Hinduism and Buddhism Talk: pages, and point out that this page apparently alleges that Buddhism and Hinduism deny any faith in themselves (since they deny floflof), what reactions are likely? Thanks for any response anyone can offer - am I on the right track in trying to understand what conveyance is meant in the section Apostasy#In Hinduism and Buddhism? 76.200.156.134 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest the WikiProject Hinduism and WikiProject Buddhism instead, as they get more attention. Based on what little I know about both religions, they don't have the concept because, in at least some cases, they acknowledge more than one god. Changing to worship Shiva instead of Krishna/Vishnu isn't apostasy. For that matter, many Hindus think of Jesus as being some form of some god, so even changing to Christianity will, in the eyes of these people, still be, basically, worshipping the gods. The exclusivity of divinity is I think the part that is missing from their belief systems which would be relevant here. This is not to say that worshippers of Shiva don't catch heat if they start worshiping Vishnu instead, or the other way around, but that isn't apostasy, just changing which god or divine essence that religion recognizes that you actively worship, which isn't quite the same thing. John Carter 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"Exclusivity of divinity", or lack thereof, isn't relevant when someone denies divinity. What about a Hindu who becomes atheist, rejecting all the gods? Or someone who comes to reject that there's any such thing as Karma? Or one who comes to reject one of the many orthodoxies within Hinduism (see Great Apostasy for an analogue - Christians have gotten lots of mileage out of calling each other Not Christian)?
And as far as Buddhism (no gods at all) goes: what about some Buddhist who comes to reject the very notion of enlightenment? Or one who comes to deny that suffering exists? Do Buddhists have faith in these things, or not? If so, then, wouldn't such a person be an "apostate"? The answer is "yes", according to this article's own description.
Anyway thanks for the suggestion to take it to a greater audience of Hinduism/Buddhism experts, but I kinda wanted to see if the absurdity even passed the sniff test here before taking it to them. I'd argue that the section should be entirely removed. The claim is uncited. I doubt that any Buddhist or Hindu wrote it. 76.200.156.134 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.67 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Dharmic religions sometimes do have the concepts roughly equivalent to God and faith , but these ideas are not central concepts in these religions. "Disbelieving" is okay, and there is pretty much nothing equivalent to "apostasy". Buddhist practice involves realizing that any belief you cling on to is wrong. Likewise, there is no orthodoxy that you can break after which you cease to be a Hindu, although there are ways to get yourself "outcasted" or expelled from your social group. There are no sources in literature, however, that compare expulsion from caste or social group to the concept of apostasy in other religions, so there's no justification for mentioning those things here. See also, Atheism in Hinduism. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What about someone who rejects the idea of Dharma itself? Is that not "the renunciation of [the Hindu] religion or faith"? (Definition 2 of small-a "apostasy" from http://en.wiktionary.org) Just to be clearer: I'm not talking here about whether Buddhism or Hinduism make a big deal out of Capital-A Apostasy, the way the religions you're comparing do. I'm talking about this article's statement that "There is no concept of ... [the renunciation of one's religion or faith] in Hinduism or Buddhism", again paraphrasing with the definition of "apostasy" from Wiktionary. What do you think? 76.247.106.95 02:24, 13 September 2007 (

i UTC)

[edit] Richardson's opinion is off-topic here

I think that the opinion by Richardson that Jossi inserted is off-topic here. Andries (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Richardson viewpoints are directly related to the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is in the section opinions about the reliability of apostates. Where and how does he voice this opinion about this subject? I do not see it. Andries (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disputed text that I copied from the section cults and NRMs section, sub-section "Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their testimonies" that as far as I can see makes no references to apostasy, let alone the reliability of apostates.
" James T. Richardson, says that there is mythology created by those that feel threatened by growth of new religions, and that theses myths provides ammunition for fighting these religions. In this context, he describes "exit counseling" (formerly "deprogramming"), as "a legislative action and governmental bureaucratic controls of various kinds" that uses the brainwashing myth as a justification for fighting these movements and groups.[34]"
I think this text is off-topic and could be moved to opposition to cults and new religious movements. Andries (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Off topic? Please explain your thinking. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Richardson does not even use the word "ex-believer" or "apostate" or "apostasy", or something similar in the quoted text or in the title of the reference. So taking that into account the burden on proof is on you to explain why it is on topic. Andries (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC) amended. 17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please engage in serious discussion instead of merely saying that you disagree or asking repeatedly to explain myself without serious reply by you. Please stop reverting without serious explanation from your side. Andries (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I did remove it from the "reliability of apostates" section as you indicated. The passage is pertinet as it addresses the issues of "exit counseling" and the mythology created by those people that oppose NRMs, including apostates. Rather than delete material, you can ask for an RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
But Richardson does not even mention apostasy or ex-believer, so how you can think that this is on-topic is beyond me. Andries (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Following your way of reasoning, it would be okay to copy text from cult new religious movement that does not even mention defection, ex-believer or apostasy. It will be clear that I think that your reasoning is completely flawed. Andries (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It is very pertinent, IMO. In any case, I would find an appropriate quote from Richardson, as he wrote extensively on the subject in his Apostates, Defectors, Law and Social Control . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
WHY IS IT PERTINENT? Andries (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that before requesting an RFC a serious discussion is recommended. It will be clear that I think that you have not yet engaged in it. Andries (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to shout. Please move the material you deleted to the opposition to cults and new religious movements, and I will look for a short quote from Richardson's article that is directly related to the subject of this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced since August 2007

This material is pertinent, but requires sources. Moved here.

Apostates of new religious movements make a number of allegations against their former affiliation and their leaders, including failed promises; sexual abuse by the leader who claimed to be pure and divine; false, irrational and contradictory teachings; deception; financial exploitation; demonizing of the outside world; abuse of power and hypocrisy of the leadership; discrimination; unnecessary secrecy; teaching platitudes; discouragement of critical thinking; brainwashing; mind control; exclusivism; pedophilia; leadership that does not admit any mistakes; and more.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re-read

[6] Richardson uses Bromley's definitions page 172. Please read the book before making such changes. Andries (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In page 172 there is no mention of Bromley. In page 173 there is a mention of Bromley's reference to '"subversive organizations". The citation I added to this article is summarized from Richardson's "Theoretical Implications" on page 185-6. Changed page number in cite to reflect this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. It is page 171. Andries (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion you are making is completely wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. Richardson wrote on page 171 that he uses Bromley's definitions. Andries (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course Richardson explains the definitions that he uses at the beginning of the article. What is your view? Andries (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material 21 January 2008

Jossi removed a paragraph:17:50, 21 January 2008 Jossi (→Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their motivations: rm Dunlop - not an RS, self published stuff) But work is cited elsewhere, eg http://www.cifs.org.au/DominiekCoates.pdf which is a paper supervised by Marilyn Rudd, Ph.D. So it is not clear that material removed by Jossi is not RS, please justify EmmDee (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Left it 4 weeks, no response from Jossi, so reinstated paragraph they removed 17:50, 21 January 2008. On balance, think that material (originally added by Zappaz I believe) is RS, though I agree it is a bit marginal. EmmDee (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NRMs and Alleged Cults

This section seems to be a total mess, and it's taking over an otherwise very solid article. I know it's controversial -- I recognize Jossi and Andries from the Prem Rawat articles, which I have just recently been editing -- so I want to start a dialog toward making a major revision. Here are the problems I have with it:

-- it has far too much weight in this article. 19 paragraphs on NRM apostate reliability, and one line about Salman Rushdie?!
-- It's not really about Apostasy in these groups, which would be interesting (many members of NRMs for example, have tried several before "landing" at one; and why do some NRMs have huge battles, while others don't?), but rather it's about the reliability of criticisms of these groups by former members
-- I'm concerned that this section exists primarily as support for POV arguments on other articles, such as Prem Rawat, etc.
-- I've never seen a section packed with more weasel words.
-- The list of individual scholars and studies is vastly too detailed and needs to be summarized. At most, one paragraph could summarize these studies. It would make a great external link if this information existed on an external website, but it's too much for the article.

I'm curious to hear what folks think. Also, I corrected a misspelling of Buddhism in your to do list, reworded the first paragraph of hte NRM section for clarity, and reversed the order of the title, to "NRMs and alleged cults" -- alleged should refer only to cults, not NRMs. Thanks! Msalt (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not much reaction. OK, here's what I plan to do: 1) I will create a subpage to preserve all of the excellent research compiled here on reliability of NRM apostates. 2) Then, after leaving some time for comment, I will replace that part of the main article with a short summary giving the concepts due weight in the overall article. Msalt (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created the subpage -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostasy/Research_On_NRM_Apostates]. When I get some time I'll post a proposed summary of all of this information. Msalt (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are right that the section is too detailed, but it is also quite uninformative because merely listing opposing viewpoints hardly informs the reader. Please note that there is some confusion what should go into the article religious disaffiliation and what in apostasy. Andries (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not see what is the problem with that section. It contains detailed research and is well written. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Too deteailed for the average reader. Andries (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's vastly too much weight for apostasy in all religions throughout history. You have about 1/5th of the entire article debating academic research over one contentious argument specific to late 20th-century NRMS in western countries, more than either Christianity or Islam, the two largest religions for whom apostasy is a major issue for which thousands have been executed. Meanwhile, apostasy in Hinduism and Buddhism gets a very short (and questionable) paragraph, no mention of classical religions at all, no mention of Zorastrianism, Jainism, Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism.
Furthermore, the discussion is there to serve an obvious POV point in defense of variouis religions upset at apostates, but we don't really need to go there because the weight issue is so extreme. Msalt (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Msalt - section 7.1 'Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony' is disproportionately long in relation to the overall article and subject matter. I don't agree that it is a mess, its fairly well written, but might be easier to read if it was split into pro and anti (reliability of apostates' testimony) sections, while retaining the alphabetical format.

Section 7.1 could possibly form the basis of a new, seperate article - it contains some good material. and is an important topic within the context of NRMs/alleged cults. It could go in the article on cults, but this is already quite long, and wouldn't really benefit from becoming even longer.

It could go in secttion 5.1 of the article on 'Opposition to cults' [7] but this article also is already fairly long.

Finally, I strongly agree about the inadequacy of the 'apostasy in Hinduism and Buddhism' section, though maybe apostasy isn't exactly the right word here.EmmDee (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions where the information might go, and good reasons why they might not be ideal. I guess these seems to me like the perfect example where an external link would be the best solution -- if this information existed on an independent website somewhere. Does anyone think this deserves its own article? That seems like a stretch. Msalt (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Islam

I reworded the first paragraphs and moved one. I don't think I've changed the substance at all, just improved clarity, but please let me know if you disagree. One question: what does this mean? I can't make heads or tails of it. "any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned" Msalt (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apostasy in Hinduism and Buddhism

A quick Google search showed that there is definitely a concept of apostasy and heresy in Hinduism. There have been numerous incidents of communal violence in India for years and at least some of them appear to be directed at people considered as Hindu heretics. Here are some sources:

"re: atheism and heresies in India, it is necessary to recall that among those who repudiated the authority of the Vedas outside the Brāhmanical fold and earned the epithets pāandas (heretics) and nāstikas (non-believers in the Vedas), the important ones are the Jains, the Buddhists and the Cārvākas,the followers of Cārvāka also being known as lokāyatikas." "[Looking For a Hindu Identity], address by Dwijendra Narayan Jha

"Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Bajrang Dal unanimously passed a resolution to teach a lesson to all those who are responsible for causing damage to Hindu Dharma and those who are anti-Hindus/heretics, in the public meeting held at Costa Ground- Madgaon." [Daiji World.Com, April 22, 2008]

["Saints resolve to establish ‘Dharma Sansad’ to fight heretics!"], Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, April 19, 2008

Chapter three of the book ["A Survey of Hinduism"] by Klaus Klostermaier is titled "Hindu Dharma: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Hinduism"