Template talk:Religious persecution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Religious persecution page.
Do not discuss here! Do not discuss the scope of the subject here!

The articles included in this navigational template are subject to discussion. Before adding an article, make sure the article itself notes why it belongs to the subject of religious persecution. This talk page is not for discussion on the scope of the subject. Discuss that at Talk:religious persecution.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 June 2. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Atheists/anti-clericals

I don't think this "persecuting group" should include atheists. The article this links to does not have ANY mention of atheism (or agnosticism). It sounds more like catholic anti-clericals. The article lists the anti-clericals as "fighting for Christ", not a group of people lacking a religion.

Yup I agree - The group at best should be titled Antitheists... which is different from Atheists... though truthfully I would imagine that atheism or even antitheism is a minority view from what in fact the real belief was i.e. Anticlericalism.
The French article mentions Atheist but only when Robespierre (a Deist) started a rival group; both though are a side-effect not a initiator of the Terrors. The Mexico article doesn't mention atheist at all. The Red Terror (Spain) article also doesn't mention anything on atheism, just anticlerical.
To thus avoid a tautology or presenting a minority view we need to simply drop the word Atheism from all three entries. Ttiotsw 13:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Have also remove atheism from the Marxist Soviet Union and China links and used "Antireligion" instead as both article are clear that they are against religion not theism (i.e. a belief in god or gods). Ttiotsw 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There's suddenly a "persecuting group" called "Antireligion"? I always thought they were called atheists. At least that term is grammatical. Not just that, but "atheists" is what they called themselves. They never called themselves "antireligion[sic]" or "antireligionists." It's original research to lable these groups as "antireligion(ists)" when they called themselves atheists. Sure they fit that definition, but it's still a synthesis of new ideas applying a term not used by these groups to self-identify before, and thus against Wikipedia's NOR policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.253.36 (talk • contribs)
The USSR and China are influenced primarily by "Marxism-Leninism" and atheism is just one side effect of that doctrine (though not an obvious one given Marx was focused on the excesses of religion as opposed to philosophical questions on existence of god or gods) so the primary identity is not atheism but Marxism-Leninism and how these countries have politically effected their objections to religion; which in the end is political. On the other hand you can be a theist and object to religion or an atheist and object to religion so atheist per se doesn't add anything other than trying to further conflate atheists with communism. As I have explained the first three entries had "Atheist" in them and I have removed that outright but left the USSR and China entries as a read of the articles highlighted the anti-religion angle intrinsic to Marxism-Leninism. For consistency though I'll agree with you and remove "Antireligion" in the USSR and China entries so it's just says "Marxism-Leninism" as I'm certain that is their main identity. The "atheist" label is ancillary and incidental to the main political driver of Marxism-Leninism. Ttiotsw 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
OK have used Marxist-Leninists for the USSR and Communists for China. Edit to suit if better political terms work. Ttiotsw 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the communist persecution of religion in Russia and China, those states were officially atheist (the fact that there is such a thing as believing communists is beside the point). To suggest their persecution of relion in those states was (and is in the case of China) unrelated to atheism really begs the question. With regard to the persecution of religion in revolutionary France, certainly one faction was just anti-clerical but another was indisputably atheist. Hebert, Danton, Chaumett, Cloots and many others were atheists. In Mexico, the most severe persecutor of Catholics Garrido Canaba was outspokenly atheist as was president Calles. The situation is the same in Spain. Just as Christians, Muslims and Jews have persecuted people based on their faith, so have atheists. You may not like the facts but they are the facts. Mamalujo 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is a philosophical position regarding the existence of one or more gods. It says nothing about how people relate to other religions. It is original research to conflate the philosophical position with any social or political side-effects,
  • Marxist/Leninists in the USSR are anti-religious and anti-clerical,
  • in the case of China I used "communists" as I was unclear as to the best description for Chinese Communism,
  • in the case of France, Mexico and Spain I kept anti-clerical as that was the primary driver,
  • Robspierre for France is inextricably related to the Terror but he was a deist - that's not Atheist ,
  • the Mexico and Spanish linked article do not mention atheism at all,
In all the cases (AFAICS) they were also men - it would be silly to change the lines to "Male or Men" persecution of 'x' so equally it is silly to change it to state "Atheist..." as you have not yet shown a causal link between the two i.e. atheism (a philosophical position) and persecution any more than I would be able to show a link between gender and persecution. I can though describe "Marxist/Leninist" or "Communism" or "Anti-clerical" (by definition) as a description for the persecutor as those are clearly documented as opposed to religion. Ttiotsw 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Have removed atheist from French entry as clearly all of atheists, theists and deists were involved so biasing towards one stance is not neutral. Will look at the others over time. Ttiotsw 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There were atheist and deists, hence the cult of reason and the cult of the supreme being. Describing them as atheists and anti-clericals is not biasing toward one stance. I am reverting. 68.126.63.211 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
But it is a bias. It is not neutral to list only one particular philosophical position without the others. We must either list all of "Atheists, Deists, Theists and anti-clericals" as there were clearly atheists who were anti-clerical, deists who were anti-clerical and theists who were anti-clerical as well as, no doubt given modern population demographics equally atheists, deists and theists who were not anti-clerical.
Why is there this desire to only bias towards just one of the many combinations ?
Please sign in - we don't know if you are a new user to Wikipedia who hasn't looked at WP:NPOV guidelines or an existing editor. For WP:DR to proceed we would need to know who the parties are.Ttiotsw 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Question

Isn't this template inherently carrying bias. To place on a page, "this group has been persecuted by/persectued" seems awfully POV no matter how true (or not) it may be... (just my 2 cents) Makenji-san 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two way grid?

We need a two-way grid really, "Persecution of atheists by Mormons", "Persecution of Zoroastrians by Christians", etc. Admittedly, some would be a bit short. Poetlister 16:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Trouble is, the longest article would probably be "Persecution of Christians by Christians". We'd then need to split it into "Persecution of Protestants by Catholics" and vice versa, etc. RachelBrown 10:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Afraid I have to agree with you. Poetlister 10:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientologists

I do not see this as a notable group, and this page is already sinking under the weight of its unused links. (In case you have not noticed, it is being VfD-ed itself.)

If you want to add Scientologists, then kindly first create the relevant articles. --EMS | Talk 02:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Those articles would be rather long, and I don't see any problem with them being red links in the template. Scientologists have been persecuted and persecuted others in thier history. SCN is very relavent to any article on Religious persecution. Klonimus 07:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I find that to be remarkable in a 50-year-old religion.
As far as I am concerned, you have demonstrated that the concept of this template is corrupt. It was meant to be a navigation bar, not a billboard. Historical, dominant religions I can accept in this list by default. Lesser religions should at least have the articles already in place at the least.
Also, if this template is to accept anthing that comes along with the proper set of articles, it will get awfully long after a while. --EMS | Talk 17:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Why should the fact that an article would be rather long mean that it shouldn't be written? On the contrary, it means that it's a substantial subject that may well deserve an article. And it seems awfully wrong to me to have a template dominated by red links. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy on this? Poetlister 10:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] zoroastrians?

where are the zoroastrians? Sohrab Irani 02:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pagans and Germanic pagans

I don't see why there should be a separate entry for Germanic pagans, when there is already one for Pagans in general. DFH 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Further duplication - Heathens and Pagans are the same. One just redirects to the other. This is overkill! DFH 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As nobody responded, I have just removed some of the duplication. DFH 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, SqueakBox 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks and hidden links

As some of these links are to subsections in the main article about that religion, rather than wait indefinitely for someone to write "persecution of the Cathars", and "persecution of the Zoraoastrians" articles, I've linked to the relevant subsections in the main articles. I'm wondering if we should do the same for the two hidden links, Sikhism and Spiritualism. Sikhs#Sikhism in the Western World has a section on recent persecution, which I guess I'll just add if no one objects. However there is no section on persecution in the Spiritualism article. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Christians, Jews, Muslims" then "Soviet Union"...WTF???

Okay, if you're going to generalize people by religion, then do it equally, do it fairly. The first three are RELIGIONS. The last one is a COUNTRY. You should do one of two things:

1) Replace "Christians", "Jews", and "Muslims" under the "by persecuting group" column with the specific NATIONS that did the persecuting, or

2) Replace "Soviet Union" under said column with "Atheists".

It is not fair to say that when the Soviet Union persecuted people, it was the Soviet Union not Atheists that did the persecuting, but when anyone else persecuted people, it was (religion) and not the respective nation or country. You are either being unfair towards religion, or letting atheists off the hook. Take your pick, and fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.227.63 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removing the persecuting group altogether as POV ?

We don't seem to be able to describe the persecuted in a NPOV was so as per some of the suggestions in [1] we should remove the persecuting group. They do seem very contrived given they do not point to articles but sections inside articles. This does seem like a pic-n-mix approach. Ttiotsw 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhists listed as a Persecuting group yet....?

By Persecuting group lists Buddhists and yet the Wikilink to that article is unclear why Buddhists are listed. The only reference to the word "Persecut*" is with "Buddhists were briefly persecuted under the Zoroastrian priest-king Kirder.". Huh ? They were persecuted not the "...persecuting group:" surely shome mistake ? I vote they are removed along with all the other atheists ! Ttiotsw 19:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Still seems like a good delete so I was bold and did it. Ttiotsw 04:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Resolution next step.

Disputes on Templates are new to me so I'll create what I feel is an unbiased and neutral edit and then self-revert it instantly (this doesn't count against WP:3RR ) because at this time I don't want to tag the template NPOV as that may mess with many articles. Once the IP identifies itself then we can proceed with resolution on handling the reverts (e.g. WP:3O or WP:RFC. Ttiotsw 11:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This template is biased and should probably be deleted entirely. There is no such thing as factual "persecution". Would like to see all references to "persecution", "victim" etc. which are stated as facts removed from wikipedia. Fourdee 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want the template to be removed just the original research removed. I have edited the template and removed words unless they are in the article title or in the leader paragraphs. Anyone using any other wording that they pick from their own personal view or from deep in the article is either doing a bit of original research to push their point of view by presenting a minor view.
I have removed the heading "By persecuting group" and split it into three,
  • Notable events:
  • Historical perspectives:
  • Contemporary perspectives:
How do we know things are "Notable" - simply because they describe some event (rather than a place or person) and have a Wikipedia article, how do we know something is historical ?, simply because it says that in the title and how do we know something is contemporary ? - it doesn't have historical in the title or it's talking about recent times. Hopefully this'll be a better approach. Ttiotsw 06:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable events

These are the "notable events" in the infobox...

  • Dechristianisation in French Revolution
  • Uprising in 1920's Mexico
  • Spanish Civil War of the 1930s

You gotta be kidding me... Where's the Inquisition? Persecution of Christians by Jews and Romans? Persecution of the Huguenots? Persecution of Catholics and others in England? And on and on...

I cannot believe that these three are the three most notable events in the history of religious persecution. I'm going to be bold and remove them from the infobox. If anyone disagrees, revert me but also explain why you think these events deserve to be highlighted.

--Richard 05:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See your comment now. Can we add those? Seems like they'd all be useful, unless it became a big gang-up on somebody, or some other problem.Mackan79 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The list of events would I guess be special events that didn't exactly fit into a category, or maybe the very largest types of upheavals. The Inquisition would seem like it would have to fit; as to persecution of Christians by Jews or by Romans, that's in the main article, I believe, no? Mackan79 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The strange change of categorization within the template from organization by presecuting group to "notable events" was a plain act of POV pushing to remove atheists as a persecuting group. Significantly, that change still listed religions as persecutors. That change to the template is blatant POV and is unacceptable. There was nothing wrong with the organization of the template as it was. It made more sense, it was neutral and it was consistent. Mamalujo 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's problematic to focus the template on who has committed persecution, particularly when the articles don't match up such that you have five on one group and one on others. If there's material on persecution by atheists, that could certainly be made into an article. In any case, I'd think a more helpful template would focus on things that don't look like accusations, which would probably mean moving the "by group" material somewhere lower. Mackan79 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79 characterized the list of "Notable events" as a "list of events would I guess be special events that didn't exactly fit into a category". If that is the intent, then I would suggest renaming the section to "Other notable events" and moving it to the bottom of the template. Placed at the top and without the qualifier "other", the section seemed to be saying "These are the most notable events in the history of religious persecution". I was objecting to that implication. By placing it at the bottom and saying "Other notable events", we change the meaning to the one that Mackan79 described. --Richard 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Mackan79 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Simply rearranging the order of a POV laden edit (whether the POV was intentional or not) does not cure the problem. The previous organization of the template made the most sense. Removing areligious groups as persecutors while retaining religions as persecutors is POV and greatly misleading. The greatest persecution of religion in the 20th century was not by other religions but by those opposed to religion. Mamalujo 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Mamalujuo, I don't believe I removed them; the problem is that those aren't actually articles on persecution by atheists, but a group of articles on events which have been named that for purposes of the template. Surely you see the problem with this. I'm suggesting if we move all of that to the bottom, then it's less of an issue, while the events involving atheists are still included under their actual names. Also religious persecution here is being defined by those against whom it's being done (the article is on persecution of religions, not by them), which suggests to me that the victims should go on the top. Mackan79 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they ARE articles about persecution by atheists and anti-clericals, whether or not they bear that moniker. I do see what you're saying is the problem, but I don't think it is a real issue. Moreover, the countervailing problem is greater. By far, the greatest persecution of religion in the 20th century was not by other religions but was by those opposed to religion, namely atheists and anticlerical in latin countries and atheist states in the communist world. The revised template is thus less factually acurate and it moved away from the simple and workable organization which it had.Mamalujo 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I support Mackan79 on how they have re-arrange this. It is more logical view. Whereas Mamalujo is clearly inventing new titles for articles by plucking words he wants out of articles (in some cases inventing new words not even present in the linked articles). The articles ARE also about *men* being the oppressers (from a feminist POV) or *meat-eaters* (from a Vegetarian POV) or heterosexuals (from a homosexual POV)...there are many other possible attributes plucked to push a point. You are plucking out "atheists" to reword article titles and present a particular spin to the template and this is against the broader consensus of editors. If you want articles with "atheist" this or that in the title then start them and then they may fit here.Ttiotsw 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Richard's comment, above, as to the absence of the Inquisition, it is referenced in the article on persecution by Christians. But it should be noted that despite the Black Legend, the Spanish Inquisition was in relative terms vastly less bloody than, for example, the Reign of Terror. Modern scholarship concludes that the Spanish Inquisition killed 3000-6000 people over a number of centuries, whereas 40,000 people were killed in less than a year in the Reign of Terror. The Red Terror in Spain in a matter of months killed more clerics alone (not including lay people) than all the people killed in the centuries of the Spanish Inquisition.Mamalujo 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Category has all of this. The Template is a navigator to help logically group articles. You seem to be suggesting we group by body-count. Ttiotsw 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No. I'm not suggesting we order it by body count. I'm suggesting we keep the simple and sensible organization which it had: by persecuting group and by persecuted group. You prefer the current haphazard and obfuscated organization because you refuse to believe that atheists have ever persecuted people based on their faith.Mamalujo 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We're kind of in agreement except I think the victimized (i.e. persecuted) people are more important than the persecutors and so should figure up on the top of the list. The strategy used is important as it is victim-focused and then the persecutors and then some significantly related events. This does seem to be the consensus view whereas there is no consensus for your views (especially your inventing new and imaginative titles for article wikilinks) and I don't know exactly where I figure personally in this. Ttiotsw 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This template's NPOV has been seriously compromised. It now distances secularism from the intense and well-documented persecutions against religious people that took place during the 20th century. People have both killed and died for secularism on a massive scale. We should try to put the secularist apologetics and revisionism on a back burner so that this template can conform to NPOV guidelines. Some secularists, especially hardline atheists, hate religion and want to destroy it, and have attempted to do so in the past. There should be an article called persecution by secularists that could cover things such as:

  • The Reign of Terror and the dechristianization of France (deist and atheist secularists against Christians--deists were most certainly secularists)
  • The Pontic Greek Genocide and the Armenian Genocide (secularists against Christians) (one other genocide was carried out by the secularist Young Turks but I forget what it was about--all of these were based on ethnic hatred, but religion played a major role)
  • The Red Terror of the Russian Revolution (communist atheists against Christians)
  • The Red Terror (Spain) of the Spanish Civil War (anarchist and communist atheists against Christians)
  • The Cultural Revolution (communist atheists against all religious Chinese)
  • The Soviet Union's persecutions (communist atheists against Muslims, Jews, and Christians)
  • The Khmer Rouge (communist atheists against Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians)
  • Albania (communist atheists against Christians)

There are a half dozen others that could be included in that article. Secularism and anti-religious sentiment were the primary motivating factors in all of these persecutions. Today's secularists often rely on the no true Scotsman fallacy or try to highlight variations in ideology ("Oh no, they were communists."), but they only do this so they can continue to use guilt by association against religion for the past crimes of religious people without being outed as hypocrites (see criticism of religion to see how that works). An article about persecution by secularists would fit well with this template. Persecution by atheists might need to be spun off into another article, though, because it could get very long. 154.20.253.36 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Was the Reign of Terror really motivated primarily by secularism? My point here is that we're better off not making a big deal of this either way. If persecution is about being targeted for your religion, then we should focus first on the religions that have been targeted. Incidentally, I'm guessing people would object if any of the religions were given five articles right at the top, followed by one for each of the others. I don't see any reason to focus on this, or to change the names of the articles for purposes of the template. If you'd like to create those articles, though, you can feel free. Mackan79 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Was the Reign of Terror really motivated primarily by secularism?"
When a mob of atheists encircle a church, drag those inside out toward the guillotine, and light fire to the church, I might suspect that secularism could have something to do with it. Anticlericalism was a major factor in the Reign of Terror, and thousands of clergy were executed. The Pope ended up dead in a French jail cell, and thousands of churches and cathedrals ended up stolen, desecrated, or destroyed. What motivated all that, if not secularism? Was it Buddhism? Or maybe Hinduism? Wait, neither of those were very popular in France at the time...
"Incidentally, I'm guessing people would object if any of the religions were given five articles right at the top, followed by one for each of the others."
Well, I am sorry that atheists have persecuted so many people, that their belief system starts with the letter A, and that there is no article that compiles all their crimes, but changing the entire template to downplay their crimes comes off as POV. But that is irrelevant, because I advocate the creation of an article called persecution by secularists that would balance things out in more ways than one. But I don't have an account, so I can't start that article. Someone else has to. 154.20.253.36 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry that you have such a distorted view of the reality here. It is not what you suspect but that someone else notable says this. It is trivial to create an account. Ttiotsw 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Well I'm sorry that you have such a distorted view of the reality here." Please refrain from personal attacks. 154.20.253.36 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack. I am describing (partly paraphrasing your own words) that the reality here is deliberately phrased that way using the word "here" so that it means the environment of Wikipedia rather than reality in general. Thus a) what you suspect isn't notable unless you can identify someone notable who has said this and b) that it is trivial to create an account. That is the reality here and that is what you are misunderstanding. It feels odd to me that you know of these nuances of Wikipedia, are actively editing as an IP and yet can't create an account. Ttiotsw 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Telling someone that they have a distorted view of reality anywhere is a personal attack. Way to follow that up with an assumption of bad faith. Good job. 154.20.253.36 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Err, whatever.Ttiotsw 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The third genocide of Christians undertaken by the secularist Young Turks was the Assyrian Genocide. 154.20.253.36 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well yes we all know about the Ottoman Empire !. Yesterdays Muslim Terrorists. Have no idea how that's got to do with "atheists". Also haven't actually worked out the relevance of Albania in your edit. Ttiotsw 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Let’s examine the beliefs of the Young Turks, shall we? From the article about them: “Another guiding principle for the Young Turks was the transformation of their society into one in which religion played no consequential role. In this ultra-secular and somewhat materialistic structure, science was to replace religion. However Young Turks soon recognized the difficulty of spreading this idea and began to work at developing claims that Islam itself was materialism. As compared with later intellectual activities by Muslim intellectuals, such as the attempt to reconcile Islam and socialism, this was an extremely difficult thought.” Also: “Positivism, with its claim of being a religion of science, deeply impressed Young Turks, who believed it could be more easily reconciled with Islam than could popular materialistic theories.” The Young Turks were about as Muslim as you are Christian. They were materialists and positivists. Please see materialism and positivism. Both are rather secularist, I must say.
You don’t see the relevance of Albania? Then could you please read History of Communist Albania. Maybe you will understand then. Here is the best part: “In 1967 the authorities conducted a violent campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania, claiming that religion had divided the Albanian nation and kept it mired in backwardness. Student agitators combed the countryside, forcing Albanians to quit practicing their faith. Despite complaints, even by APL members, all churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions had been closed or converted into warehouses, gymnasiums, and workshops by year's end. A special decree abrogated the charters by which the country's main religious communities had operated. The campaign culminated in an announcement that Albania had become the world's first atheistic state, a feat touted as one of Enver Hoxha's greatest achievements.” 154.20.253.36 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't comment much on the Wikipedia Young Turk article as it fails to cite any reliable sources. You haul up a strawman of the Young Turks not being Muslim, call them materialist and positivist, say those are secularist no doubt to conclude that thus secularism is what committed the Armenian Genocide. Rather odd way of shifting blame. Though it would probably get me imprisoned in Turkey I'm confident the Young Turks more or less committed the Armenian Genocide rather than some the bit of original research on your part to remove the blame from them and stick it on "secularism".
On Albania - good you have fixed the Wikilink. Again this desire to cry "secularism" when you need simply read about old "shroom" Hoxha himself to get the full story. As with many despots in history, religion is a tool they use to manipulate the masses. We're starting to get well known scientists seriously questioning this delusion but it is nothing new,
Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate. Ulysses S. Grant
Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. both by Thomas Paine
and finally the first part of this one,
Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg
obviously applies to all of Hoxha, Young Turks and any other despot but by you trying to say it's Secularism like it was some kind of religion you are actually trying to deflect the responsibility. I can see the International Criminal Court lawyer, "Sorry but my client isn't responsible as he was under the influence of secularism." Judge replies, "Ooowch that's nasty. Good point though so case dismissed, please don't kill and torture any more people."....Ttiotsw 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I never made the fallacy of guilt by association. That is something you read into my words. I understand how and why you thought so, but I never meant that it is secularism in general that is responsible for these persecutions. That is the argument form that you use against religion, and I would never want to borrow your fallacy. I must have hit a nerve to make you read my words in that way. Maybe because it is the atheists' favourite fallacy when talking about religious people to blame their beliefs for things like the Crusades, etc. and you were just surprised to learn that your ideological camp has a few skeletons in its own closet? A few million skeletons, in fact. Maybe you should realize that such closets don’t exist.

I merely meant to say that they were secularists who persecuted religious people. Secularism is fine, as long as it isn't the intolerant, bigoted, militant varieties responsible for the atrocities under discussion, and even then it is the intolerance, bigotry, and militancy of those types that is responsible, and not secularism per se (wow, I wonder if secularism and religion could be on equal footing there?).

Besides that, what a lovely little antireligious rant you ahve there. It is the best one I have seen since…well…since the last one I made. Please face the facts, though. Some secularists of a militant stripe have killed millions of religious people and otherwise persecuted millions more in the name of combating religion and establishing the dominance of secularism. I hope that those same quotations of yours are not used again someday to justify more such antireligious activity. For example, your Richard Dawkins advocates removing children from the influence of religious parents. I for one cannot see any potential for human rights violations in that, but then again I am a rather trusting person.

I wish you luck in curing us masses of our delusions. Just try not to make the cure worse than the disease next time, if you can. We religious folk are somewhat tired of being slaughtered by one group of secularists and then scolded by another (totally unrelated) group of secularists about how violent our beliefs are in comparison to the bastion of peace, tolerance, and harmony that is secularism (that we must embrace or be mocked, marginalized, and destroyed--in that order). You can see how that gets old very quickly. 154.20.253.36 05:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see a couple of days ago you say...
"I never meant that it is secularism in general that is responsible for these persecutions."
Yet a few days before that you said...
"Secularism and anti-religious sentiment were the primary motivating factors in all of these persecutions."
That's almost Biblical in consistency. We shiver with anticipation on this plan your working on, if secularism is really to blame or if it is a cause or a symptom. Ttiotsw 04:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Is the secularism and anti-religious sentiment of a bigoted, intolerant, uncivil atheist who wants to shove his beliefs down everyone's throat and, say, gets indignant whenever someone points out historical persecutions by other bigoted, intolerant, uncivil atheists really the same as the secularism and religious tolerance of the rational, tolerant, civil atheist who has nothing in common with these persecutors except his secularism? You see, that's the difference between the type of secularism that I *meant* (your eyes skipped over that word, huh?) and "secularism in general". 154.20.253.36 09:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Template looks fine. We're discussing the template contents after all. Ttiotsw 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? That antireligious screed of yours seemed to change the subject. But yes, the template looks fine. I'll submit some content for the new article persecution by atheists that should allow for an even better structure. 154.20.253.36 21:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to date on existing articles seem to get reverted. You may get more lucky with trying to get stuff into persecution by atheists but please try to get good cites else you're just wasting everyones time. You will have to create an account to create an article see here and also upload images. You can still avoid creating an account but it does look odd when you're going beyond quick edits. Ttiotsw 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made plenty of edits that have not been reverted, and some of those that have have been reverted back again by other editors. There is a considerable body of literature surrounding every persecution that I have listed, as you can tell from the footnotes of the related articles. I really do not take it into consideration how odd anything looks to you, so, while I thank you for your repeated suggestion, please do not repeat it again, for there is no need, and doing so might start to seem obtuse. 154.20.253.36 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Plenty is relative - you have done just 33 edits in total on Wikipedia and only 12 are to mainspace. Plenty is e.g. WP:AWB trigger of say 500 mainspace edits.
So then why are you complaining for me to start an account? Get your story straight. 154.20.253.36 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past week as a guess only 1 of your edits has stuck - and truthfully it is a dubious deletion because you cut+paste some waffle about Christians, reworded it to say "atheists" and stuck it in another target article and then used the reverting editor's summary on the target article to revert the original text on the original article !.

So? I've only made a few edits in the last week, and several of them have stuck, thank you. So then why are you complaining for me to start an account if I contribute so little? Get your story straight. And I thought that one was a very clever edit. It brought the article in question into better line with Wikipedia's standards while excluding the possibility of anyone applying a double standard. 154.20.253.36 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that this template is being stuffed with article wikilinks which present an undue weight to a particular view. Ttiotsw 12:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not your only concern. If it was, you would not be looking through my edit history for red herrings with which you can personally attack me as an editor. The template is one of your concerns, though. So start the persecution by atheists article yourself and add it to the template. That way we would have no need for those article wikilinks. That is the reason why they are there--to make up for the lack of persecution by atheists article on the template until we start one. I am trying to balance the view, not load it.
Thank you for ceasing your insinuations as to why I do not have an account. I appreciate that. Do you honestly want to know why I have not registered and never intend to? The reason is that I do not contribute often or enough, and you seem to agree with me on that point, with all your complaints on this talk page about my edits to articles irrelevent to this one. Also, I am the only person on my IP, so I have no reason to have a user page. I do not feel that it would be worthwhile in any way to register, especially given the warm welcome you have given me here. If this is any indication of the kind of interaction that takes place on this website, I think I will pass on the membership. 154.20.253.36 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on 25 July

Some of my edits made on this date will without doubt be controversial. With that in mind, I ask the following. I made three edits, one of which only contained formatting changes. When reverting, please adhere to the new formatting as it is used throughout Wikipedia, from {{war}} to {{love}}. --User:Krator (t c) 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy. The template was bloating out a bit and messing up articles. Ttiotsw 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some common sense please

Don't include links to every subgroup. We have a link to "Neopagans". Adding links to "Asatru" and "Wicca" on top of that is like linking to "Anabaptists", "Jehova's Witnesses", "Catholics", "Protestants", "Apostolics" and what have you on top of "Christians". Try to counteract Wikipedia's natural tendency to fragment into hundreds of badly maintained stubby sub-articles. dab (𒁳) 14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not merge Christians, Mormons, Jews and Muslims (since they are all Abrahamic religions) then? // Liftarn
Do you really want a reply to that? Zara1709 17:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please. Why the double standards? // Liftarn
I can't believe that you shouldn't know this: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a 4-, 2- and 1,5- thousand year history respectively. They contributed to the rise and fall of empires, formed human culture and values, filled libraries with academic discourses, and so on... in short, they are notable in an encyclopaedia.
Neopaganism is a religious experiment that was started 80-40 years ago and has yet achieved no impact on human history or something like that. Even the Mormons founded Salt Lake City, which would rather not have happened if it hadn't been for Anti-Mormonism. Of course every religion thinks that it's faith is the most important on earth, but some Neopagans are really overacting here. Zara1709 10:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
We're obviously talking about different things here. You talk about history and notability, I'm talking about ontology. Isn't ironic that the template for religious persecution discriminate against minority religions? // Liftarn
There are around 2,850 gods listed on God Checker split into 21 different regional groupings and representing god knows how many religions. It is impractical and unreasonable to cram every religion into this template unless it's got a clearly focused article. If people want their current favourite religion in this template they had first create the article (using notable stuff and reliable sources etc etc) and then link it in. Ttiotsw 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, what if it has an article (using notable stuff and reliable sources). That is the case here. There are different levels of indirection. We have groups of religions (African religions and Neopagans), religions (Buddhists, Christians) and branches within religions (Cathars, Mormons) mixed. // Liftarn

[edit] State religion is clearly religious discrimination.

I had added State religion as it clearly is a means of religious discrimination (and historically a form of persecution) as much as say "State atheism" has ever been but it has been reverted. In the UK the Acts of Settlement (and other laws) are clearly intended to discriminate against Catholics or to provide the one State religion with an advantage of all others (for example the Blasphemy laws in the UK only apply/applied to the Church of England). In the many countries that have State religions today though the persecution is not as cruel as in the past, the discrimination still remains. The template is clearly titled "Religious discrimination and persecution" and whilst State religion discriminates and we have reliable sources that can show examples of State religions that are discriminatory then it should be listed in this template. Ttiotsw 10:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also point out that in many countries that have state religions like afghanistan, iran and egypt, persecution is as cruel as in the past. In fact I think citing the UK as your example is a mistake, since muslim countries that execute apostates from the state religion are much less ambiguous examples. These countries don't care about jewish converts to christianity for instance, only converts from islam, and indeed it sometimes occurs that conversions are forced, by a muslim simply claiming someone converted, then forcing them to affirm the conversion or be killed as an apostate. Oh and as a final rhetorical question to those objecting to the inclusion, if state religion wasn't a means of religious persecution, why then do the US and Australian constitutions specifically forbid the establishment of state religions? ornis (t) 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Though it probably belongs in this template, I removed it because the article State religion does not state any kind of connection to persecution. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and currently there is no verifiable connection between state religion and religious persecution. User:Krator (t c) 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I took out both as an attempted compromise. It seems to me both can involve persecution, while neither does necessarily. Of course, this is similar to some of the others such as anti-clericalism, but it seems to me a fairly clear NPOV problem with representing either state religion or state atheism as inherently a "strategy" or "method" of religious persecution. Mackan79 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also: should "by method/strategy" be "by form"? This might make more sense. Mackan79 15:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

By Form does sound more neutral. The consensus seems to be flowing back to adding State atheism so my original argument still applies for State religion. Please note that the template includes "Religious discrimination and persecution" (my bold). Inclusion can thus be either from discrimination or persecution. The Religious discrimination (thanks to the US State Department and their "International Religious freedom (excluding the US)" reports has plenty of material to make it stick (well and also thanks to Islamic countries !. Ttiotsw 10:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add the template itself to the article. User:Krator (t c) 11:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State Atheism

I am adding state atheism back into the template. Quite frankly, it indisputably belongs and never should have been removed. An argument that it does not belong can only be cobbled together by very strained sophisty. And no, the fact that it belongs in the template does not mean that state religion also belongs. The latter commonly exists without persecution; the former does not. Mamalujo 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is for both discrimination too. It is good that the State atheism is added back in as to balance that we need the State religion. Others had removed them. Ttiotsw 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse

Looking through various articles, it appears to me that this template is being overused. In particular, it's now been added largely by one editor to most of the events listed on the bottom portion of the template, which doesn't seem helpful to me. One can go through the articles and look, but putting large templates on articles like Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution, Red Terror - Spain, Cristero War, etc. characterizing these as articles about "Religious discrimination and persecution" seems rather soap boxy; surely the articles are about a number of things including these issues, but primarily about the events themselves. My suggestion would be to generally put the template on articles about discrimination, but not about specific events. Other thoughts? Mackan79 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Discrimination

Greetings. Over at WikiProject Discrimination we are looking to split our currently-overgrown Template:Discrimination into finer scopes such as racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, etc., including religious discrimination. Not wanting to accidentally create a fork here, how do the contributors here feel that Template:Religious persecution would fit in this plan, and/or related to WP Discrimination? - Keith D. Tyler 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-clericalism

Can Anti-clericalism be classified as "persecution"? It appears that the anti-clericalists simply want to strip power and prestige from the clergy, not arrest or rob or even kill them.Bless sins (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be my concern, too. As far as I can see, the article Anti-clericalism doesn't distinguish between religious persecution and persecution for political reasons; now, one could argue that this is both religious persecution if it goes against a religion, (see the case of Jesuit priests in Great Britain in the 17th century), but this needs to be debated in the article or in the article religious persecution; if people whould actually do that we could decide whether 'Anti-clericalism' should be linked in the template. On the other hand: if violence against Christians for political reasons is to be considered religious persecution, than violence by Christians for political reasons also need to be considered religious persecution. So we whould need to specify the clerical element within the White Terror and link that, too. I guess until someone does some work on the Anti-clericalism article the link to it can be removed from the template. Zara1709 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Anti-clericalism indisputably has often entailed persecution. Not always, but neither does state religion always entails persecution (England, Malta, Denmark, and Argentina all have state religion). Anti-clericalism in France, Mexico and Spain, to name a few, has involved serious persecution including killings of innocent faithful and clergy. I think it's clear the article should remain on the template. Mamalujo (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could actually respond to my concerns here; in what sense has "Anti-clericalism indisputably (...) often entailed persecution", answered the question whether clerics had become the victims of persecution because of their religioun or purely because or because of their (presumded) political activities? In the latter case, what is about the victims of crimes that were committed by clerics during the civil wars of the 20th century? Should they also be considered victims of religious persecution? I' d really wish that people could try to distinuish here (after all, this is an encyclopedia) and that they wouldn't display an attidute that would be more appropriate in other contexts. Yes, the killing "of innocent faithful and clergy" is wrong and despicable, but in the last century millions of innocent died. In the articles about these topcis, we are not helped by a template "Religious persecution" that lists cases of political violence as religious persecution. Zara1709 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the Red Terror (Spain) article, for example, you will see that almost 7,000 religious (priests, nuns, monks) were killed. As a rule they had no involvement in politics. In fact, I believe close to 1,000 have been beatified or canonized now (with about another 1,000 causes having been opened), and one of the requirements is that they were not killed because of their politics or as combatants (otherwise they would not be martyrs). The same is the case with regard to the persecution by anti-clericals in Mexico. Thousands of priests were also killed during the Reign of Terror. In Mexico, the president Plutarco Elias Calles was an atheist who had absolute contempt for religion. His closing of churches and killing of priests was not with regard to their politics; he simply sought to crush the church. The same was true of Tabasco's governor Tomas Garrido Canabal. As to whether it was persecution, the English writer Graham Greene, who lived in Mexico during the persecution of the church, called it the "fiercest persecution of religion anywhere since the reign of Elizabeth." Mamalujo (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)