This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I don't think the reference to Deicide is supported, in anything Ive read in the last ten minutes. The songs on the album referred to could be interpreted as simply representational of Christian theology, rather than opposed to it. And the individualism versus Christianity concept doesn't itself indicate so much anti-Christianism as it does anti-religion. - Ste vertigo 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I just cut the reference to "Piss Christ." Serano never claimed that it was an expression of anti-Christian sentiment. Anti-Chrtistian sentiment by definition requires intention on the part of the anti-Christian. I also removed a sentence about some groups in America accusing some Christians of being bigots, again, this is not an example of "anti-Christian sentiment" because the groups cited are not opposed to CHristianity as such, they are critical of specific acts (which many Christians themselves are critial of). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I also removed the section on India, which limied itself to Indian legislation and actions against missionary atttempts to convert people to Christianity. Again, this is not "anti-Christian sentiment" per se. Nothing in the section described state or popular sentiments against Christianity. Conversion is by definition targetted at non-Christians, e.g. Hindus and Muslims, so this legislation is more about defending Hindus and Muslims from anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiment. If people could provide examples of laws prohibiting Christians from practicing Christianity that would be one thing, but prohibiting anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim sentiments cannot be the same thing as expressing anti-Christian sentiment. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed similar material from the Israel section for the same reason. being opposed to anti_Jewish sentiment is not the same thing as anti-Christian sentiment. Please note I did not remove the example of the burning of the NT which I agree is an obvious expressiojn of anti-Christian feeling. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section on Canada for two reasons. First, the item about the memorial service at Peggy's Cove uses an unreliable and unencyclopedic source. It is an editorial column in an Evangelical magazine or journal, not an item from a newspaper. It does not provide any sources, it is impossible to verify. I googled Peggy's Cove memorial service and tried to find one other source verifying this claim and couldn't find it. The item in the Wikipedia article claimed that the minister was limited by Canadian law - which law? We need better sourcing. Second, the item about the calendar not including Christmas or Easter again fails to meet the standard of intentionality. Andi-Christian sentiment must be motivated by anti-Christian feelings. There is no evidence that this was the case here. Nothing concerning the calendar expresses hostility to Christianity. These are the only Canadian examples, so I cut the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this from talk for discussion:
Slrubenstein appears to require sources. I might agree, and covinced by his argument I sought to see if the
anti-Semitism article likewise used the same broad quasi-interpretationalistic strokes to indicate concepts like motivation and ideological bias. It does!
So I added a couple {{fact tags}} to the large second paragraph on that article, requiring sources (per SLR's concepts expressed here) which specifically deal with the concepts in that article. What's good for this concept is good for that one, no?
How history is told is indeed important, and it's no wonder that there is a concept of biased ("sources" should be here, but not there) redaction in dealing with anti-Christianism. While I agree there were issues with how those concepts were expressed in the lede here ("motivated...Christian sect's dogma" was ugly, and not mine) I don't agree that the broad brush is always invalid, particularly when concepts like "anti-religious", and "opposing religion" are not really controversial, are they? If one want's to say that "Jesus denial" is not necessarily anti-Christian, fine, let's get into it. - Ste vertigo 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of sources of anti-Christian sentiment, mainly from ex-Christians, socialists, and practicing pagans. You can look up the films The God Delusion and Zeitgeist on YouTube and Google Video. Many comedians also tend to do routines where they criticize Christianity and religion in general. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We have two other articles, Persecution of Christians and Criticism of Christianity, which I think maybe we should move some material from this article into. Here are the topics currently covered by this article:
Now, numbers 2, 7, 9 and 11 seem to me to be persecution of Christianity (since they're all either crimes or large-scale, state-sponsored anti-Christian campaigns), and I don't see any compelling reason they shouldn't be in that article. 3 is a claim of persecution and could be put there too, with appropriate discussion of the dissenting point of view.
6 is criticism of Christianity and seems better placed at that article.
8 is not specific to Christians - in fact according to the source they get off lightly compared to all non-Abrahamic religions. If we do keep it in a specifically Christian article, I think it could happily go in the "other Muslim nations" section of Persecution of Christians.
4 is duplicated already at criticism of Christianity. Now that in itself isn't a reason to remove it here, because this article is given as a 'See Also' in the relevant section of that page so it's reasonable for it to have a summary there.
That leaves us with 1, 5, 10 and 12, which all deal with people being disrespectful towards Christian symbols. These would seem less obviously at home in either of the above two articles (perhaps 10 could go in criticisms as it involves a political statement about Christianity), but if we followed my above suggestions this article would be left as basically a list of desecrations of Christian symbols.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the above. Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where this goes, or if it goes at all.
Last fall the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling upon all countries to pass laws "prohibiting the defamation of religion." This sounds nice on its face. Unfortunately, the chief sponsors of the resolution are the very governments with anti-blasphemy laws that protect the majority faith only and ban all religious dissent (i.e. not just anti-Christian, but anti-everything but Muslim. Mostly aimed at Christians, though). Hillel Neuer of UN Watch charges that the resolution legitimizes the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This is not a "reference" per se but affirms the details I've given: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090305/GPG0706/903050609
Fairly dramatic and credible IMO. But does it go here? Then where? Student7 ( talk) 01:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
We like to deal in specifics here and WP:RELY references. These are not available for North Korea where, apparently, many Christians are in jail or executed, just for being Christian. We have a lot of vague figures, the type you get from a strict censorship country. Really need something here on them. Can anyone find a scholarly reference supporting imprisonment and torture? Nearly the worst in the world from all reports. Student7 ( talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article would benefir by being renamed 'Christianophobia' - at present, Christianophobia redirects here though the article makes no mention of the word. Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think there's a big gap between "one man sued a Bible publisher because he says Christianity is homophobic" (what the source says) and "Anti-Christian discrimination sometimes comes from homosexuals" (what the article says). A single case is not 'sometimes', and the source doesn't even say that it was anti-Christian discrimination.
And regarding this edit, is the website of this church really a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is...
I appreciate the attempt to improve the sourcing (and the other source added by the same user at the same time looks good to me), but we need to be really sure that sources support what they're cited for. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Olaf Davis ( talk) 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on the UK page linked to from this article, and expanded it considerably. I removed the text on the GPA here, because that is covered in a more accurate and neutral way there now, with only reliable sources, and added some text describing the material in the UK article. That was reversed, with the lede from that article placed here. That is not a problem, but it is a bit pointless having one form of the information about the GPA here as well as a more accurate item there - so I have removed it. There is no point having this in two places, and that is what the UK article is for.
I have tried to add some images, one relating to anti-Christian violence in India, and one to anti-Christian expressions in music. Unfortunately, the large anti-discrimination box on the right prevents hanging them on the right, as is usual practice, so I have hung them on the left. It is quite tricky to get them lined up against the appropriate text, but I have done my best. Manson is not 'Death Metal' as described in the text, but is notoriously anti-Christian, and uses such imagery in his artwork, lyrics and titles. I created an India section in order to place the image in context, but have not as yet started to look for details about Hindu anti-Christian violence yet. When I get time I will do that, unless somebody else wants to instead. I am more concerned with UK material to be honest, although this is reported in the national press, so can be accessed. Mish (just an editor) ( talk) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Long long time since I slept through Psychology 101, but isn't a phobia an irrational fear of something. Unless anti-christian sentiment can be shown as always based on fear and to always be irrational these terms seem incorrectly added, in bold, to the lede. Nitpyck ( talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Associating these two phrases weakens the argument IMO. Either "Christian activists" say this and quote Billy Graham or Joel Osteen or Cardinal somebody. Or say it is a political football for Fox and go with that and Bill O'Reilly who strikes me as a typical polemical broadcaster, and (sorry) not exactly "Christian" per se.
Either Christmas is being dumbed down and it is a legitimate Christian complaint or it is merely a talking point for a talking head who is not known for npov. Student7 ( talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just read through the article, and it appears that those with an Anti-Christian sentiment, indeed, the entire movement, is portrayed as entirely hateful and violent. This article shows a great deal of bias, which is against Wikipedia's standards of quality. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.135.202 ( talk) 20:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hating people who have persecuted you for centuries is not bigoted but rational.
Christian activist groups like the American Family Association have spoken out against the perceived increasingly secular nature of American society, and what they have seen as the minimizing of formerly dominant Christian traditions, for example, the "War on Christmas".[7] Just because you're not for something doesn't mean you're against it. Because individual lead more secular lives does not imply they are anti-christian. Allowing stores to operate on Sunday is not anti-Christian. Saying Have a Happy Holiday to someone whose religion you do not know instead of have a Merry Christmas is hardly anti-Christian. Surely there must be some real anti-Christian stuff out there to complain about. Nitpyck ( talk) 09:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Point by point- public displays are not illegal. The fact that we no longer accept insults as OK - such as Polish jokes or saying Merry Christmas to Jews or Muslims or Atheists is not intolerant. Tolerance is respecting other people. From my point of view saying happy holiday instead of merry christmas is just not an example of christian-phobia. When in Thailand do as the Thais do and when in 21st century US say happy holidays and don't make it illegal to operate a business on Sunday. If I knew Buddha's birthday I might wish my Buddhist friends a Happy Buddha Day -if I remembered. I expect no medals. Asking the sales help in your store to say have a happy holiday is not anti-christian. AFA has every right to their opinion; but the fact that some fringe organization sees anti-christian actions does not mean anti-christian actions have occurred. Nitpyck ( talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the whole German section as the reference is from here and it is not specifically anti-Christian but widespread anti-Cult and anti-Sect discrimination. The section was added back in June 2009 and correctly highlighted the more widespread scope but was then chopped down to only show "Christians". That is not right as it is only presneting the anti-Christian POV and so does not represent the sentiment of the reference. At best the original text should be in the religious discrimination articles but certainly the POV version can not stay here. Ttiotsw ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is clearly in need of a rewrite. It reeks of pro-Christian bias. It'd be appreciated if someone knowledgeable in the area could chime in. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Negative Drew ( talk ⢠contribs) 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Should this whole section be deleted? It isn't actually information ,it is just a perceived bias against Christians, whenthings like world youth day were heavily publicised/approved of by the media. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 166.64.3.2 ( talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead currently says:
1) "Anti-Christian sentiment is found in opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity."
Aside form being somewhat awkward phrasing, I'm not sure this is general enough of an assertion to be made without reference. The way it's worded, it implies that any opposition to Christians or the practices of the religion includes anti-Christian sentiment. The doesn't logically follow. One can oppose any given Christian for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his Christianity. Or one could oppose practices of Christianity for reasons other than being opposed to Christianity in general. For example, a Christian church in a neighborhood may have the practice of singing as part of worship. If the accompanying music is loud enough to break a local noise ordinance, that practice may be opposed, even though there's no "anti-christian sentiment" involved (the complaint about the practice is due to things unrleated to its nature as a religious practice.) Additionally, opposition is an action, sentiment is an emotion/idea. Linking the two seems an odd bit of scope shift. I think this needs to be reworded to be less awkward, more precise, less POV, and more encyclopedic. I would suggest, but would like feedback on:
2) The lead goes on to say, "Christophobia or Christianophobia are also according to Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) names for "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians".[1]"
Is this a reliable source under Wiki standards? This sounds like very specific jargon that is not universal, but being represented as such. Even if this bit is kept, it should be altered so that it is not stating as fact what "Christophobia", etc , is, but reporting on what someone else says it is. That is not what is currently reflected in the text. At the very least I would recommend relocating this out of the lead, if not deleting it all together. Jbower47 ( talk) 17:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfair treatment
Ok people, when Wikipedia speak of anti-christian sentiment the article do not have the name "Christianophobia", but the first, soft, denomination, but when Wikipedia speak of anti-islamic sentiment the article have the powerfull name of "Islamophobia".
That's not intellectual honestity, any editor to restore justice in this must do one of these alternatives.
1) Call the articles "Anti-Christian sentiment" and "Anti-islamic sentiment".
2) Call the articles "Christianophobia" and "Islamophobia".
This comment was not written in rage, just a concern about fairness in Wikipedia.
Thank you. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.240.230 ( talk) 04:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
christians get worse persecution than in the countries mentioned in this article.
This was deleted:
"===United States===
Where same sex marriage is legal, justices of the peace and other civil officers have been forbidden to decline to marry people based on the officer's conscientious objection.(ref) [2](endref)(ref) [3](endref) In Vermont, a same-sex couple, with ACLU support, sued a resort for declining to cater their reception on grounds of conscience.(ref) [4](endref)"
The editor stated that it was civil (secular) not religious, therefore not reportable. I'm just wondering where that sort of thing goes?
To use another example, let's say the civil government (as in France) says head scarfs must not conceal the face. This is aimed at Muslims. But since the secular government requires it for "everybody," then not reportable as "Anti-Muslim"?
To reword, all the secular government has to do, to remove anything from the moral sphere is to create a law, then it automatically becomes secular and nobody should have scruples about it? (except for Iran which has a theocracy. They don't get a free pass!) In other words, can the secular authority dictate morality to the point of getting someone fired.
Another wording: that which isn't illegal is automatically mandatory? Student7 ( talk) 22:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"already being suggested that churches\pastors will be forced to either perform unBiblical [sic] marriages OR refuse to perfom [sic] marriages." by whom? I see these claims all the time, but they are never actually from policy makers. Also, having a liberal view of Christianity/the Bible does not make anyone less Christian. I suspect that your biases are showing. eldamorie ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking through this article, it seems to me that almost all of this article's content belongs in Persecution of Christians. Looking through it, I cannot find a single example which shows "Negative attitudes" rather than "Acts committed against Christians". I am sure that such examples exist, but right now there is no reason not to merge and delete into Persecution of Christians. Any comments? -- LWG talk 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein removed this text from the lede, leaving only a terse dictionary style sentence:
In addiction to contradicting WP:NOT (dict) and WP:LEDE (explanation), his removal seems to be pointless, and unsupported by a reason. If you could give your reasons, SLR, we can probably work with it to recompose the lede in accord with your concerns. - Ste vertigo 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Christian sentiment is a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.
[emphasis added).
It is thus appear to be either (1) offering a (stipulative or descriptive) definition of the phrase Anti-Christian sentiment or (ii) making a statement of fact. It is not clear which. If the former it would surely better read:
The term Anti-Christian sentiment means a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.
if the latter it should surely say (since it is not self evident):
Many people beive that Anti-Christian sentiment is a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.
If the former then it would appear to be some unusual use of the term anti..X sentiment, since in normal English, on both side of the Atlantic, to the very best of my knowledge, Anti-X sentiment does not MEAN a bias against X. Eg Anti-murder , anti-capitalism, anti-communism, andi-americanism, anti-greed sentiments do not MEAN a bias against murder , capitalism, communism, americanism, greed although the sentiments may (or may not) be felt or expressed by those who happen to be bias. If it did then, presumably anti-anti-christian sentiment, and anti-atheism sentiment would mean respectively a bias aginat anti-christianlty and a bias againt atheism. If the latter, on the pother hand, it should cite some sources that make this claim of fact. To do otherwise would be both POV and OR-- Philogo ( talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
ameded accordingly, but although I am no expert it does not seem that all the content relates to crimes per se. Eg It says
Christianity was banned for a century in China by Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty after the Pope forbade Chinese Catholics from venerating their relatives or Confucius. [11
It is not clear to me that article is saying that the banning of Christianity was illegal any more that it means to say the Pope's forbidding Chinese Catholics from venenrating their relatives or Confucius was illegal. It appears to me that the article is mainly about (or imply lists purported) hate-crimes actions or statements against, restrictive or critical of Christians or Christianity, in a word anti-christianity, which would be a simple and accurate title. It might then encompass some less anecdatal and more interesting material, e.g. Anti-Christianity in Roman Times, Anti-Christianity in the 19th Century, Principle obejections to Christianity, the cases against Christianty made by other religions, criticisms of aspects of Christianity by Christians &c.--
Philogo (
talk)
22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Anti-Christian sentiment is an opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity. Christophobia or Christianophobia are also names for "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians" according to Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE).[1] It is the counterpart of Islamophobia, which is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam.[2]"
This sentence is biased, and just plain wrong. It exemplifies all that is wrong with this article itself. It implies that fear or hatred of Christianity is in some way wrong; when it is quite arguably the only correct moral stance. At least some Christians were, and are dangerous, and their dogma itself is often hateful toward anyone who believes in modern rights and freedoms.
In their holy text, "The Bible", God directly advocates slavery: and in accordance with His will, Christians (and their Jewish forebears) have continually practiced slavery for over 2 thousand years. It was not until the atheist uprising in France, followed up with a direct assault upon Rome itself, that the Christian priests gave in a little, and imprisoning or torturing human beings for thought crimes like "heresy" and "atheism". It wasn't until after the Age of Reason that we stopped having three sets of laws: one for noblemen, one for priests, and one for the common man. It wasn't until after the Christians were stopped from running roughshod over the rest of the society that modern society and modern civil rights got started at all.
To this day, the modern country of Canada (not even 150 years old yet!), still cites "Blasphemous Libel" as a crime worthy of JAIL time. At this very moment, the Canadian Constitution requires that Canadians fund Catholic schools; but not any other form of religious schooling.
Right now, all of major Churches of Canada are being sued in a massive class action lawsuit; and will be forced to pay reparations for the deliberate acts of torture, rape, abuse, forced sterilization and deliberate genocide of the Native Canadian **schoolchildren** that they committed starting in the 1890s, and continued on up to the 1960s. Listen to the pain in the voice of the 75 year old native woman who describes how, as a young girl, she was first raped by a priest, and then had a nun take her newborn baby from her, and throw it into a furnace, and THEN tell me: and tell HER why her fear and hatred of the Christian Church is not valid. Listen to Canada's Truth and Reconciliation hearings, and the United Church minister who was thrown out of his parish for daring to expose the horrible truth to the authorities and the general public.
Ask any boy who was violated by a Catholic priest, only to face lies, stonewalling, and vicious condemnation of the victim coming straight from the Vatican for daring to speak out against one of their own, if it's really so wrong to fear or hate "some or all" Christians. I'd say that boy has every right on earth to hate the priests who molested him, and the Church officials who tried to cover up the crime, and hide it from the public view. Ask anyone who's been offered the choice between a much deserved financial settlement from the Church, and the right to see the truth published, instead of having the truth hidden behind some Church settlement "gag order".
As an atheist, I feel that any religion that decided it was okay to burn humans alive for atheism is wrong, is hateful, and is deserving of hatred and condemnation. That includes Christianity, Islam, and anything else that dares stand in the way of free speech, equality of rights for all people, and all the general good modern social behaviour that we take for granted now, but that only the atheists hoping for the dawn of the Age of Reason dared to fight and die for.
Eliminate the bias that implies that Christianity ever was or is an undivided social good, or somehow undeserving of hatred for it's hateful treatment of others across the centuries, or why it alone should somehow escape the just condemnation for its crimes. Christians have wronged the rest of society, repeatedly and horribly, and as of yet, remain unpunished for the crimes of the faith while retaining the wealth garnered from their oppression.
It's not wrong to hate Christianity for it's evils. Their God advocates slavery; He considers women as mere objects to be owned, like cattle and donkeys, and He is so enthralled with blood sacrifice that He even kills His own son rather than break with His own bloody handed traditions.
By the words of it's own God taken from His own Holy Scriptures, Christianity largely opposes everything that the UN Declaration of Human Rights stands for; all that is considered right and good and fair, according to modern ethics.
What's not to hate? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.112.114 ( talk) 03:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if all this petty vandalism should be reported. There are teens and twenty-year olds everywhere who will defame anything if given the chance. So what? I would be more concerned with the government posture or tacit support for this vandalism. See Israel, for example. Someone spitting on the cross or writing obscenities is "not nice," but so what? Having the church uh "desecrated" (I'm on a kid-friendly library computer that censors stuff) seems like the authorities are ignoring loitering by vagrants. Also disconnected is the very polite treatment that religious tourists get. Without that, no tourism. Some of these are out of the tourist eyes - e.g. vandalism in churches used by locals. Student7 ( talk) 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
84.74.98.74 ( talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This breaks the neutral point of view rule of wikipedia.
For example, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism. It says "Anti-fascism is the opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals".
Well, Anti-Christian is the opposition to Christian ideologies, groups and individuals.
Christianity has been as destructive to the human race as Fascism. Also, Fascists movements have been around for 100 years, and killed a few million people. Christianity has been around for 2000 years and murdered way more people.
But wikipedia says Anti-Fascism "fights" fascism, while Anti-Christianity "attacks" Christians.
Both movements fight against a retrograde ideology that is harmful for the human population.
almafuerte@gmail.com â Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.41.173 ( talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
How can this article gloss over the entire Islamic world? Anti-Christian sentiment is quite strong in much of it. 12.239.145.114 ( talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The source says, "Since the fall of the old regime, however, the Copts have been exposed to an escalated level of discrimination. As a result, about 10,000 Christians have left Egypt since Mubarak was deposed -- and many are wary of returning now that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups are likely to seize control of the country."
I wrote, "Since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, Egypt's Coptic Christians have been the target of growing discrimination. By mid-2012 10,000 had fled the country."
How is that "not supported by source"?â Biosketch ( talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The following text was deleted, 'âDeath to Christiansâ and âWeâll crucify youâ were painted on the Baptist Church in Jerusalem while similar hate graffiti was found on a Greek Orthodox monastery. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the popeâs custodian in Israel, wrote to Shimon Peres and warned the president that âred lines have been crossed and we cannot remain silent.âHe was asked to put an end to the attacks.'
1) For starters, this is Custodian of the Holy Land which can be piped to shorten, I suppose. It is the pope's emissary, and therefore worthy to quote. 2) He is defending, not RC churches, but a Protestant church and and a Greek Orthodox church. That is significant. It is also significant that he is addressing the President, not the local constabulary, for example. 3) Yes, the wording is significant IMO. Graffiti doesn't come out of nowhere. If someone is writing it, someone is saying it. 4) Someone has to cleanse this - not easy to remove. 4) In a RC group, per-arranged, we found an Orthodox nun the only resident of someplace we wanted to see. She was clearly terrified to let us in! Maybe of Arabs rather than Jews, but still terrified. This sort of stuff is not funny. Student7 ( talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
While this was clearly an expression of anti-Christian sentiment, it's not like Christians worship the bible/NT. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, in another context, with burning a bible, per se. There are few "sacred icons" in Christianity. For Christians, the Bible is just words printed on a page. (For Jews the same, except the hand-written, letter-perfect, Torah is extremely expensive! :) Student7 ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As Messianic Jews self identify as Jews, then this belongs on the Anti semitism page. I propose that it be moved there. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 11:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Now we have "were burned by three teenaged Orthodox students of Judaism. Uzi Aharon, the townâs deputy mayor, told CNN he had collected the New Testaments but that he did not plan for them to be burned. The youths had done so while he was not present. Once he found out that the fire was going, he put it out."
I really don't care much about this entry anyway, but this does not sound very credible. Let's say Catholics in Italy "collect" (from where? Someone must have had them originally!) copies of The Da Vinci Code. They stack them in the plaza, pour lighter fluid on them and then and only then, do they set fire to them. The "Deputy Mayor" (what is the Deputy Mayor doing anything for? In most cities, the "Deputy Mayor" stands in for the Mayor when he is absent. He doesn't lead demonstrations unless he is at odds with the mayor). The Deputy Mayor says, "Gee Whiz". Just because we "collected them, stacked them up in the middle of the plaza and poured lighter fluid on them, doesn't mean I wanted anyone to put a match to them! As soon as I found out, I came back with my fire extinguisher and put the blaze out. The books, of course, will be redistributed to the owners, from which we took them illegally!"
This reply sounds silly. I mean, funny-silly. It does not sound credible. We can leave it there as a joke I suppose.... :) Student7 ( talk) 13:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
At first glance, it appears that this article only discusses things that happened within about the last 20 years. My understanding is that there has been some anti-Christian sentiment in the world for a couple of thousand years. Is this article suffering from WP:RECENTISM? If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title? What is the defining period of time? Is it only an account of "current events"? (That would seem to be a news article, not an encyclopedia article.) â BarrelProof ( talk) 23:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to question the neutrality of this article. It reads like it was written by Christians exclusively to portray themselves as weak helpless victims and Anti-Christians as bigots and aggressors. I mean, discrimination? Come on. Furthermore, for an article about Anti-Christian sentiment there isn't much information about the other side of the coin, the opinions and views of Anti-Christians. Where's Nietzsche's philosophy, for instance?
I believe an article about discrimination and discriminatory actions against Christians should be placed in an article called " Anti-Christian discrimination" or " Christian discrimination" or " Discrimination against Christians" and this article should be reserved, instead, for expounding on the Anti-Christian point of view, in all its myriad forms (and yes, including the violent discriminatory POV). - Red marquis ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no mentions of islamic massive persecution of christians all around the world âPreceding unsigned comment added by 93.14.162.23 ( talk) 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I know little something about what's going on in Israel, and that part of the article sounds *exclusively* written by missionaries. Missionizing is limited *by law* & absolutely NOT because of the missionaries themselves; the acts of violence are against missionaries who do stuff like hand out tracts at playgrounds, not against the converts, & if the acts are not punished by the Israeli authorities, it's because these people aren't supposed to be doing anything in the first place! I guarantee you that the "We Killed Jesus" graffiti was NOT written by Jews, but by Jew-haters, seeking to make Jews look bad (not that no Jew has ever vandalized a church, don't get me wrong, but that specific bit of graffiti? Inconceivable, since most Jews who are violently opposed to Xianity deny Jesus even existed). I could go on, but I think my point is made. I would clean up the section, but it would actually mean erasing & re-writing it!! FlaviaR ( talk) 21:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I challenge the neutrality of this article. According to Phobia Dictionary, Christophobia means Fear of Christians, http://www.blifaloo.com/info/phobias.php it says nothing about hatred or intolerance. The source currently cited http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930 (CCEE) is clearly biased in favor of christians and christianity in general. The source is NOT valid, the page gives a "not found" error. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorstag ( talk ⢠contribs) 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Moorstag ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Moorstag
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section on Israel was recently rewritten to sound more like an apologist essay replete with WP:OR statements concerning numbers and frequency of incidents. I have removed this limiting the section to cited facts that detail the incidents more inline with WP:NPOV guidelines. If we are to list apologies for anti-Christian sentiment in one section, than certainly each other country listed in the article would have to do the same. As the focus on this article is "Anti-sentiment" lets keep it restricted to just that. Veritycheck ( talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Avaya1, concerning your unexplained revert: Good Faith reverts require a comment at a minimum as a courtesy. Better yet, if you take issue with an edit, your constructive feedback would be welcome here to work towards consensus. Letâs discuss it. Thanks Veritycheck ( talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Avaya1 ( talk) 20:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Primary issue: Does the incident of publicly burning more than two hundred New Testament bibles at the hands of a group of Judaism students have a place in this article?
Secondary issue: To what extent should the incidents of spitting and threatening-violence via Graffiti be detailed? Please see the above thread for background. It includes links to previous edits and cited sources. Thanks for participating. Veritycheck ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1. The sources specifically say that the incident relates to Messianic Jews not Christians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7413134.stm
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared/news/stories/2008/06/BIBLE_BURNING08_PBP.html?cxntlid=inform_artr
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/385992.aspx
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/bible.burning/index.html
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/shows/cwn/2008/June/Bible-Burning-Targeted-at-Messianic-Jews-/
2. The motive is not clear according to the sources. To the Army Radio, and other sources, Aharon said he was fighting against evangelism of Jews by Messianic Jews, which he described as an "evil" (in itself anti-Evangelism is not necessarily anti-Christian). To Jerusalem Post, Aharon also said "We respect all religions as we expect others to respect ours. I am very sorry that the New Testament was burned, we mean it no harm and I'm sorry that we hurt the feelings of others.â http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=101759 Avaya1 ( talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Whether or not Messianic Judaism is Christianity or Judaism is a disputed issue, and probably not something we should be arbitrating on. The position of mainstream Judaism is that anyone who believes that Jesus is a Messiah is no longer practising Judaism (although they may nonetheless remain Jews according to Halakhah). On the other hand, according to self-identification of religious categories, they generally identify their beliefs as Judaism, and they identify themselves as Jews - and that's the case in the context of this particular story: ("He characterized antagonism toward Messianic Jews as a "family feud." http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared/news/stories/2008/06/BIBLE_BURNING08_PBP.html?cxntlid=inform_artr )
That doesn't mean that this story definitely doesn't concern Christianity, but the Messianic Judaism page would surely be a much more suitable place for it. I don't edit that page, but we could include a section about the community's reception in Israel. There's currently a lot about their theological reception, but nothing about the community's existence in Israel. I asked Malik to have a look because he edits that page, and he also edits the Black Hebrew Israelite pages which have a very careful and balanced discussion about their situation in Israel.
2. The story has to have some context. To the Army Radio, and other sources, Aharon said he was fighting against evangelism of Jews, which he described as an "evil" (in itself anti-Evangelism is not necessarily anti-Christian - ). Later, to the Jerusalem Post, Aharon said "We respect all religions as we expect others to respect ours. I am very sorry that the New Testament was burned, we mean it no harm and I'm sorry that we hurt the feelings of others.â http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=101759
In itself, anti-evangelising activity is not necessarily anti-Christian. The Ottoman Empire often pursued anti-evangelising policies, but at the same time was very tolerant towards established Christian communities. Similarly, burning bibles is not inherently anti-Christian (and there are no theological objections to it). The Catholic Church burned a lot of b ibles in the Early Modern period.
3. Veritycheck is definitely right that I added (two) qualifiers that weren't supported by the sources. When I re-read it, I removed them. They shouldn't be there. On the other hand, Veritycheck removed the official reactions to the incidents, which certainly should be there.
4. There's an issue of balance and space here (which comes under WP:DUE), when covering spitting by Haredi in the Old City and graffiti (there's also an over-emphasis on black metal in Norway). Of course these should be included, but taking up 30% of the article detailing it is undue (as it formerly did [5]). Even in the Old City, more violent incidents tend to occur between the Greeks and Armenians. In Israel, in general, Arab Christians face far more notable discrimination (covered by the Racism in Israel article). Of course, the article is a work in process, and as it is enlarged it should hopefully become more balanced in terms of the space used up by each country. Avaya1 ( talk) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Veritycheck has invited me here to weigh in on this discussion. At the moment I do not have time to comment, but I would like to offer a couple of suggestions on how to make the conversation easier to follow for those of us just joining. First, when you want us to be able to compare different versions, please supply diffs. ( This is a diff; this is not.) Second, if you are citing relevant Wikipedia policy, please provide a link. At this point I have probably read all of Wikipedia policy, but I have not retained it all. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you all to make Wikipedia better. -- Marie Paradox ( talk) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been asked to take part in this discussion, and a few points come to mind. One, User:Jayjg is probably the person who knows best the opinion of Jews regarding Messianic Jews, and I would welcome his input as well, but I have myself only ever seen one Jew, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, who has indicated he thinks that MJs qualify as Jews. It is, maybe, possible that Israel might consider some MJs "ethnic Jews" based on some other matters, but that is a separate matter. And I cannot see anyone in Israel who would consider burning the New Testament to be anti-Semitic. There would be a lot of more obvious choices of things to use if that was the intention.
Secondly, I tend to agree with Malik's statements above. I note Aharon's statement indicates he objected to evangelization of Jews by MJs. The word "evangelize" is clearly based on the Greek word for "gospel", and is obviously best used in reference to Christianity. "Prosletyze" is widely enough known that it could have been used if what was being objected to was prosletyzation in general.
Having said that, I have some concerns about the amount of weight given Israel in the article, but don't know enough about the sentiment worldwide to be able to say whether it is excessive. Also, in reference to the MJs matter, it is not necessarily directly anti-Christian sentiment, but seems to be anti-Christian evangelization sentiment. There is a difference, although a small one, and, yes, living in the US, Christians of some sorts seem incapable of not prosletyzing, so I think it can, reasonably, be included as being "anti-Christian" in a broad sense. But for questions regarding MJs as Jewish, I would definitely welcome Jayjg's input. John Carter ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"The act of the burning in itself is considered heinous to Christians and was in deed widely reported around the world and not limited in discussion to Messianic Jews. The information has a place in this article."- While I disagree that Christians regard the burning of Bibles to be terribly heinous, I agree that its generally a sign of disrespect, when done by non-Christians in order to stamp-out Christianity in some form.
"It doesn't involve a Christian group (Messianic Jews identify themselves as a Jewish group..." "The bibles belonged to Messianic Jews (not Christians)"- I disagree with Avaya here for a couple reasons. For one, in most contexts, Messianic Jews seem to be regarded as Christians, particularly by Jews. Avaya seems to be skirting around this issue by referencing Wikipedia's policy of self-reference, but his argument essentially rests on giving undue WEIGHT to the idea that Messianic Jews are simply Jews, when in fact they are both Jew-ish, and Christ-ian.
"As for the bible burning, the sources explicitly say that the intention is unclear.." "the government was rounding the bibles up as part of the official policy against evangelisation, and the destruction of them would likely have had more to do with anti-evangelisation than anti-Christian sentiment."- Avaya again offers a pseudo-technical argument to support his idea that the Bible burning was not actually anti-Christian, but anti-evangelism. I also disagree with this notion - and his distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism doesn't hold water. There is no distinction. Its clear that this kind of thing is actually anti-Christian in nature. We don't need to worry about finding one way or another on the matter of 'intent' - that is an unnecessary paradigm Avaya is promoting. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Avaya wrote: "I don't think we have to argue that it's "Jew on Jew action, rather than Jew on Christian action." That's taking up an overly strong position. The issue for me is that the story is specifically described as "Jew on Messianic Jew action"
- You are basing your exclusion of new material based on a distinction between Jew and Christian or Jew and Messianic Jew that is not supportable. Avaya wrote: "and the most accurate place for the story is on the Messianic Judaism page.
- I disagree. If it is an anti-Christian action, it can be mentioned here. Avaya wrote: "It's simply a better editing decision since it means we don't have to arbitrate about what exactly they are (which includes not going against their self-identification)."
- But again, not everything hinges on your conception of whether MJs are Jewish or Christian. There is a good case to be made that they are both, in a certain important sense. In any case its not for us to determine which is which, we simply report the facts. If MJs in any way qualify as Christian, even partially, then discrimination against them qualifies as anti-Christian activity of some sort. Avaya wrote" "There is a distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism, which has been made by the Pope specifically in this context.
- Can you elaborate on this point? What is the distinction made? What did the Pope say? Regards, -
Stevertigo (
t |
c)
23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be nearing a consensus on the RfCâs primary issue of including Bible burning in this article. At this time, I would appreciate the secondary issue being additionally addressed; namely Spitting and Vandalism. Concerning Spitting:
Avaya1âs edit has reduced the language describing the number of incidents in her/his own words to, âthere have been instancesâ.
The following sources use much stronger language giving an entirely different picture:
Certainly there are many more reliable sources that state the same. I believe these are sufficient to show that "There have been instances", which is currently used in the article, is insufficient and disingenuous to describe the situation. It would be valuable to have the feedback of editors to determine a consensus concerning the language that should be used to describe the frequency of these incidents and the number of years it has been happening. Please state which of these words or any others you think should be included giving your reasoning where possible. I suggest getting to vandalism after this issue has been settled. Thanks for your continued efforts. Veritycheck ( talk) 15:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's ironic that Mormons are the only people who think they are Christian.- Mainline Christians think they are Christians too! But kidding aside, I understand what you were trying to say.
In this case, Messianic Jews are the only ones who think they are Jewish. Christians considers them Christian!- It is my understanding that in most contexts, Jews consider MJs to be Christians, rather than Jews. I don't see why its so difficult to accept the idea of an ethnic Jew, theological Christian. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Ten days have now passed since I initiated this
RfC. It would seem that those who wished to weigh in have done so. The following is a summary of the consensus based on the editors who participated.
Concerning the primary issue
Support to include the bible burning incident in the article: Malik Shabazz, Veritycheck, Marie Paradox, John Carter, Stevertigo, Student7, BoogaLouie
Each editor has stated their reasons above. As a result, I will go ahead and add the cited incident to the article.
Concerning the secondary issue
Support to more accurately describe the number of incidents for spitting and vandalism:
In keeping with the feedback of Malik Shabazz, John Carter, and BoogaLouie, along with my own support, I have added John Carterâs proposed edit concerning spitting including Shirvanian's position. I have detailed the incidents of vandalism as was suggested by Malik Shabazz and supported by BoogaLouie.
Opposed: None
I expect the essential information of the edit to remain as the RfC has shown that there is a consensus. I would caution any who would revert it that he/she doesnât have the support of the editors involved in this RfC at this time. It's been a lot of hard work to get this settled. The article has been expanded. I expect it will continue to evolve in the future with the help of other dedicated editors like those we've seen here already. Thanks again to all who participated. Veritycheck ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the competing
edits of Veritycheck and Avaya1, on suggestion I have is to add qualifiers to Veritycheck version, e.g. add According to haaretz.com..., to the sentence
It has been more or less routine for Ultra-Orthodox/
Haredi youth to spit at Christian clergymen from senior cardinals to priesthood students. I think this would be preferable to replacing the sentence with
A number of Ultra-Orthodox/
Haredi youth have reportedly spat at Christian clergymen. ... which smells like censorship to me. --
BoogaLouie (
talk)
19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I don't think the reference to Deicide is supported, in anything Ive read in the last ten minutes. The songs on the album referred to could be interpreted as simply representational of Christian theology, rather than opposed to it. And the individualism versus Christianity concept doesn't itself indicate so much anti-Christianism as it does anti-religion. - Ste vertigo 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I just cut the reference to "Piss Christ." Serano never claimed that it was an expression of anti-Christian sentiment. Anti-Chrtistian sentiment by definition requires intention on the part of the anti-Christian. I also removed a sentence about some groups in America accusing some Christians of being bigots, again, this is not an example of "anti-Christian sentiment" because the groups cited are not opposed to CHristianity as such, they are critical of specific acts (which many Christians themselves are critial of). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I also removed the section on India, which limied itself to Indian legislation and actions against missionary atttempts to convert people to Christianity. Again, this is not "anti-Christian sentiment" per se. Nothing in the section described state or popular sentiments against Christianity. Conversion is by definition targetted at non-Christians, e.g. Hindus and Muslims, so this legislation is more about defending Hindus and Muslims from anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiment. If people could provide examples of laws prohibiting Christians from practicing Christianity that would be one thing, but prohibiting anti-Hindu or anti-Muslim sentiments cannot be the same thing as expressing anti-Christian sentiment. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed similar material from the Israel section for the same reason. being opposed to anti_Jewish sentiment is not the same thing as anti-Christian sentiment. Please note I did not remove the example of the burning of the NT which I agree is an obvious expressiojn of anti-Christian feeling. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section on Canada for two reasons. First, the item about the memorial service at Peggy's Cove uses an unreliable and unencyclopedic source. It is an editorial column in an Evangelical magazine or journal, not an item from a newspaper. It does not provide any sources, it is impossible to verify. I googled Peggy's Cove memorial service and tried to find one other source verifying this claim and couldn't find it. The item in the Wikipedia article claimed that the minister was limited by Canadian law - which law? We need better sourcing. Second, the item about the calendar not including Christmas or Easter again fails to meet the standard of intentionality. Andi-Christian sentiment must be motivated by anti-Christian feelings. There is no evidence that this was the case here. Nothing concerning the calendar expresses hostility to Christianity. These are the only Canadian examples, so I cut the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this from talk for discussion:
Slrubenstein appears to require sources. I might agree, and covinced by his argument I sought to see if the
anti-Semitism article likewise used the same broad quasi-interpretationalistic strokes to indicate concepts like motivation and ideological bias. It does!
So I added a couple {{fact tags}} to the large second paragraph on that article, requiring sources (per SLR's concepts expressed here) which specifically deal with the concepts in that article. What's good for this concept is good for that one, no?
How history is told is indeed important, and it's no wonder that there is a concept of biased ("sources" should be here, but not there) redaction in dealing with anti-Christianism. While I agree there were issues with how those concepts were expressed in the lede here ("motivated...Christian sect's dogma" was ugly, and not mine) I don't agree that the broad brush is always invalid, particularly when concepts like "anti-religious", and "opposing religion" are not really controversial, are they? If one want's to say that "Jesus denial" is not necessarily anti-Christian, fine, let's get into it. - Ste vertigo 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of sources of anti-Christian sentiment, mainly from ex-Christians, socialists, and practicing pagans. You can look up the films The God Delusion and Zeitgeist on YouTube and Google Video. Many comedians also tend to do routines where they criticize Christianity and religion in general. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
We have two other articles, Persecution of Christians and Criticism of Christianity, which I think maybe we should move some material from this article into. Here are the topics currently covered by this article:
Now, numbers 2, 7, 9 and 11 seem to me to be persecution of Christianity (since they're all either crimes or large-scale, state-sponsored anti-Christian campaigns), and I don't see any compelling reason they shouldn't be in that article. 3 is a claim of persecution and could be put there too, with appropriate discussion of the dissenting point of view.
6 is criticism of Christianity and seems better placed at that article.
8 is not specific to Christians - in fact according to the source they get off lightly compared to all non-Abrahamic religions. If we do keep it in a specifically Christian article, I think it could happily go in the "other Muslim nations" section of Persecution of Christians.
4 is duplicated already at criticism of Christianity. Now that in itself isn't a reason to remove it here, because this article is given as a 'See Also' in the relevant section of that page so it's reasonable for it to have a summary there.
That leaves us with 1, 5, 10 and 12, which all deal with people being disrespectful towards Christian symbols. These would seem less obviously at home in either of the above two articles (perhaps 10 could go in criticisms as it involves a political statement about Christianity), but if we followed my above suggestions this article would be left as basically a list of desecrations of Christian symbols.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the above. Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where this goes, or if it goes at all.
Last fall the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling upon all countries to pass laws "prohibiting the defamation of religion." This sounds nice on its face. Unfortunately, the chief sponsors of the resolution are the very governments with anti-blasphemy laws that protect the majority faith only and ban all religious dissent (i.e. not just anti-Christian, but anti-everything but Muslim. Mostly aimed at Christians, though). Hillel Neuer of UN Watch charges that the resolution legitimizes the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. This is not a "reference" per se but affirms the details I've given: http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090305/GPG0706/903050609
Fairly dramatic and credible IMO. But does it go here? Then where? Student7 ( talk) 01:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
We like to deal in specifics here and WP:RELY references. These are not available for North Korea where, apparently, many Christians are in jail or executed, just for being Christian. We have a lot of vague figures, the type you get from a strict censorship country. Really need something here on them. Can anyone find a scholarly reference supporting imprisonment and torture? Nearly the worst in the world from all reports. Student7 ( talk) 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article would benefir by being renamed 'Christianophobia' - at present, Christianophobia redirects here though the article makes no mention of the word. Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 09:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I think there's a big gap between "one man sued a Bible publisher because he says Christianity is homophobic" (what the source says) and "Anti-Christian discrimination sometimes comes from homosexuals" (what the article says). A single case is not 'sometimes', and the source doesn't even say that it was anti-Christian discrimination.
And regarding this edit, is the website of this church really a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is...
I appreciate the attempt to improve the sourcing (and the other source added by the same user at the same time looks good to me), but we need to be really sure that sources support what they're cited for. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Olaf Davis ( talk) 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on the UK page linked to from this article, and expanded it considerably. I removed the text on the GPA here, because that is covered in a more accurate and neutral way there now, with only reliable sources, and added some text describing the material in the UK article. That was reversed, with the lede from that article placed here. That is not a problem, but it is a bit pointless having one form of the information about the GPA here as well as a more accurate item there - so I have removed it. There is no point having this in two places, and that is what the UK article is for.
I have tried to add some images, one relating to anti-Christian violence in India, and one to anti-Christian expressions in music. Unfortunately, the large anti-discrimination box on the right prevents hanging them on the right, as is usual practice, so I have hung them on the left. It is quite tricky to get them lined up against the appropriate text, but I have done my best. Manson is not 'Death Metal' as described in the text, but is notoriously anti-Christian, and uses such imagery in his artwork, lyrics and titles. I created an India section in order to place the image in context, but have not as yet started to look for details about Hindu anti-Christian violence yet. When I get time I will do that, unless somebody else wants to instead. I am more concerned with UK material to be honest, although this is reported in the national press, so can be accessed. Mish (just an editor) ( talk) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Long long time since I slept through Psychology 101, but isn't a phobia an irrational fear of something. Unless anti-christian sentiment can be shown as always based on fear and to always be irrational these terms seem incorrectly added, in bold, to the lede. Nitpyck ( talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Associating these two phrases weakens the argument IMO. Either "Christian activists" say this and quote Billy Graham or Joel Osteen or Cardinal somebody. Or say it is a political football for Fox and go with that and Bill O'Reilly who strikes me as a typical polemical broadcaster, and (sorry) not exactly "Christian" per se.
Either Christmas is being dumbed down and it is a legitimate Christian complaint or it is merely a talking point for a talking head who is not known for npov. Student7 ( talk) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I just read through the article, and it appears that those with an Anti-Christian sentiment, indeed, the entire movement, is portrayed as entirely hateful and violent. This article shows a great deal of bias, which is against Wikipedia's standards of quality. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.135.202 ( talk) 20:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hating people who have persecuted you for centuries is not bigoted but rational.
Christian activist groups like the American Family Association have spoken out against the perceived increasingly secular nature of American society, and what they have seen as the minimizing of formerly dominant Christian traditions, for example, the "War on Christmas".[7] Just because you're not for something doesn't mean you're against it. Because individual lead more secular lives does not imply they are anti-christian. Allowing stores to operate on Sunday is not anti-Christian. Saying Have a Happy Holiday to someone whose religion you do not know instead of have a Merry Christmas is hardly anti-Christian. Surely there must be some real anti-Christian stuff out there to complain about. Nitpyck ( talk) 09:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Point by point- public displays are not illegal. The fact that we no longer accept insults as OK - such as Polish jokes or saying Merry Christmas to Jews or Muslims or Atheists is not intolerant. Tolerance is respecting other people. From my point of view saying happy holiday instead of merry christmas is just not an example of christian-phobia. When in Thailand do as the Thais do and when in 21st century US say happy holidays and don't make it illegal to operate a business on Sunday. If I knew Buddha's birthday I might wish my Buddhist friends a Happy Buddha Day -if I remembered. I expect no medals. Asking the sales help in your store to say have a happy holiday is not anti-christian. AFA has every right to their opinion; but the fact that some fringe organization sees anti-christian actions does not mean anti-christian actions have occurred. Nitpyck ( talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the whole German section as the reference is from here and it is not specifically anti-Christian but widespread anti-Cult and anti-Sect discrimination. The section was added back in June 2009 and correctly highlighted the more widespread scope but was then chopped down to only show "Christians". That is not right as it is only presneting the anti-Christian POV and so does not represent the sentiment of the reference. At best the original text should be in the religious discrimination articles but certainly the POV version can not stay here. Ttiotsw ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is clearly in need of a rewrite. It reeks of pro-Christian bias. It'd be appreciated if someone knowledgeable in the area could chime in. âPreceding unsigned comment added by Negative Drew ( talk ⢠contribs) 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Should this whole section be deleted? It isn't actually information ,it is just a perceived bias against Christians, whenthings like world youth day were heavily publicised/approved of by the media. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 166.64.3.2 ( talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead currently says:
1) "Anti-Christian sentiment is found in opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity."
Aside form being somewhat awkward phrasing, I'm not sure this is general enough of an assertion to be made without reference. The way it's worded, it implies that any opposition to Christians or the practices of the religion includes anti-Christian sentiment. The doesn't logically follow. One can oppose any given Christian for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with his Christianity. Or one could oppose practices of Christianity for reasons other than being opposed to Christianity in general. For example, a Christian church in a neighborhood may have the practice of singing as part of worship. If the accompanying music is loud enough to break a local noise ordinance, that practice may be opposed, even though there's no "anti-christian sentiment" involved (the complaint about the practice is due to things unrleated to its nature as a religious practice.) Additionally, opposition is an action, sentiment is an emotion/idea. Linking the two seems an odd bit of scope shift. I think this needs to be reworded to be less awkward, more precise, less POV, and more encyclopedic. I would suggest, but would like feedback on:
2) The lead goes on to say, "Christophobia or Christianophobia are also according to Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE) names for "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians".[1]"
Is this a reliable source under Wiki standards? This sounds like very specific jargon that is not universal, but being represented as such. Even if this bit is kept, it should be altered so that it is not stating as fact what "Christophobia", etc , is, but reporting on what someone else says it is. That is not what is currently reflected in the text. At the very least I would recommend relocating this out of the lead, if not deleting it all together. Jbower47 ( talk) 17:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfair treatment
Ok people, when Wikipedia speak of anti-christian sentiment the article do not have the name "Christianophobia", but the first, soft, denomination, but when Wikipedia speak of anti-islamic sentiment the article have the powerfull name of "Islamophobia".
That's not intellectual honestity, any editor to restore justice in this must do one of these alternatives.
1) Call the articles "Anti-Christian sentiment" and "Anti-islamic sentiment".
2) Call the articles "Christianophobia" and "Islamophobia".
This comment was not written in rage, just a concern about fairness in Wikipedia.
Thank you. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.240.230 ( talk) 04:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
christians get worse persecution than in the countries mentioned in this article.
This was deleted:
"===United States===
Where same sex marriage is legal, justices of the peace and other civil officers have been forbidden to decline to marry people based on the officer's conscientious objection.(ref) [2](endref)(ref) [3](endref) In Vermont, a same-sex couple, with ACLU support, sued a resort for declining to cater their reception on grounds of conscience.(ref) [4](endref)"
The editor stated that it was civil (secular) not religious, therefore not reportable. I'm just wondering where that sort of thing goes?
To use another example, let's say the civil government (as in France) says head scarfs must not conceal the face. This is aimed at Muslims. But since the secular government requires it for "everybody," then not reportable as "Anti-Muslim"?
To reword, all the secular government has to do, to remove anything from the moral sphere is to create a law, then it automatically becomes secular and nobody should have scruples about it? (except for Iran which has a theocracy. They don't get a free pass!) In other words, can the secular authority dictate morality to the point of getting someone fired.
Another wording: that which isn't illegal is automatically mandatory? Student7 ( talk) 22:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"already being suggested that churches\pastors will be forced to either perform unBiblical [sic] marriages OR refuse to perfom [sic] marriages." by whom? I see these claims all the time, but they are never actually from policy makers. Also, having a liberal view of Christianity/the Bible does not make anyone less Christian. I suspect that your biases are showing. eldamorie ( talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking through this article, it seems to me that almost all of this article's content belongs in Persecution of Christians. Looking through it, I cannot find a single example which shows "Negative attitudes" rather than "Acts committed against Christians". I am sure that such examples exist, but right now there is no reason not to merge and delete into Persecution of Christians. Any comments? -- LWG talk 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein removed this text from the lede, leaving only a terse dictionary style sentence:
In addiction to contradicting WP:NOT (dict) and WP:LEDE (explanation), his removal seems to be pointless, and unsupported by a reason. If you could give your reasons, SLR, we can probably work with it to recompose the lede in accord with your concerns. - Ste vertigo 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Christian sentiment is a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.
[emphasis added).
It is thus appear to be either (1) offering a (stipulative or descriptive) definition of the phrase Anti-Christian sentiment or (ii) making a statement of fact. It is not clear which. If the former it would surely better read:
The term Anti-Christian sentiment means a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.
if the latter it should surely say (since it is not self evident):
Many people beive that Anti-Christian sentiment is a bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity.
If the former then it would appear to be some unusual use of the term anti..X sentiment, since in normal English, on both side of the Atlantic, to the very best of my knowledge, Anti-X sentiment does not MEAN a bias against X. Eg Anti-murder , anti-capitalism, anti-communism, andi-americanism, anti-greed sentiments do not MEAN a bias against murder , capitalism, communism, americanism, greed although the sentiments may (or may not) be felt or expressed by those who happen to be bias. If it did then, presumably anti-anti-christian sentiment, and anti-atheism sentiment would mean respectively a bias aginat anti-christianlty and a bias againt atheism. If the latter, on the pother hand, it should cite some sources that make this claim of fact. To do otherwise would be both POV and OR-- Philogo ( talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
ameded accordingly, but although I am no expert it does not seem that all the content relates to crimes per se. Eg It says
Christianity was banned for a century in China by Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty after the Pope forbade Chinese Catholics from venerating their relatives or Confucius. [11
It is not clear to me that article is saying that the banning of Christianity was illegal any more that it means to say the Pope's forbidding Chinese Catholics from venenrating their relatives or Confucius was illegal. It appears to me that the article is mainly about (or imply lists purported) hate-crimes actions or statements against, restrictive or critical of Christians or Christianity, in a word anti-christianity, which would be a simple and accurate title. It might then encompass some less anecdatal and more interesting material, e.g. Anti-Christianity in Roman Times, Anti-Christianity in the 19th Century, Principle obejections to Christianity, the cases against Christianty made by other religions, criticisms of aspects of Christianity by Christians &c.--
Philogo (
talk)
22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"Anti-Christian sentiment is an opposition to some or all Christians, the Christian religion, or the practice of Christianity. Christophobia or Christianophobia are also names for "every form of discrimination and intolerance against Christians" according to Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE).[1] It is the counterpart of Islamophobia, which is the irrational fear or hatred of Islam.[2]"
This sentence is biased, and just plain wrong. It exemplifies all that is wrong with this article itself. It implies that fear or hatred of Christianity is in some way wrong; when it is quite arguably the only correct moral stance. At least some Christians were, and are dangerous, and their dogma itself is often hateful toward anyone who believes in modern rights and freedoms.
In their holy text, "The Bible", God directly advocates slavery: and in accordance with His will, Christians (and their Jewish forebears) have continually practiced slavery for over 2 thousand years. It was not until the atheist uprising in France, followed up with a direct assault upon Rome itself, that the Christian priests gave in a little, and imprisoning or torturing human beings for thought crimes like "heresy" and "atheism". It wasn't until after the Age of Reason that we stopped having three sets of laws: one for noblemen, one for priests, and one for the common man. It wasn't until after the Christians were stopped from running roughshod over the rest of the society that modern society and modern civil rights got started at all.
To this day, the modern country of Canada (not even 150 years old yet!), still cites "Blasphemous Libel" as a crime worthy of JAIL time. At this very moment, the Canadian Constitution requires that Canadians fund Catholic schools; but not any other form of religious schooling.
Right now, all of major Churches of Canada are being sued in a massive class action lawsuit; and will be forced to pay reparations for the deliberate acts of torture, rape, abuse, forced sterilization and deliberate genocide of the Native Canadian **schoolchildren** that they committed starting in the 1890s, and continued on up to the 1960s. Listen to the pain in the voice of the 75 year old native woman who describes how, as a young girl, she was first raped by a priest, and then had a nun take her newborn baby from her, and throw it into a furnace, and THEN tell me: and tell HER why her fear and hatred of the Christian Church is not valid. Listen to Canada's Truth and Reconciliation hearings, and the United Church minister who was thrown out of his parish for daring to expose the horrible truth to the authorities and the general public.
Ask any boy who was violated by a Catholic priest, only to face lies, stonewalling, and vicious condemnation of the victim coming straight from the Vatican for daring to speak out against one of their own, if it's really so wrong to fear or hate "some or all" Christians. I'd say that boy has every right on earth to hate the priests who molested him, and the Church officials who tried to cover up the crime, and hide it from the public view. Ask anyone who's been offered the choice between a much deserved financial settlement from the Church, and the right to see the truth published, instead of having the truth hidden behind some Church settlement "gag order".
As an atheist, I feel that any religion that decided it was okay to burn humans alive for atheism is wrong, is hateful, and is deserving of hatred and condemnation. That includes Christianity, Islam, and anything else that dares stand in the way of free speech, equality of rights for all people, and all the general good modern social behaviour that we take for granted now, but that only the atheists hoping for the dawn of the Age of Reason dared to fight and die for.
Eliminate the bias that implies that Christianity ever was or is an undivided social good, or somehow undeserving of hatred for it's hateful treatment of others across the centuries, or why it alone should somehow escape the just condemnation for its crimes. Christians have wronged the rest of society, repeatedly and horribly, and as of yet, remain unpunished for the crimes of the faith while retaining the wealth garnered from their oppression.
It's not wrong to hate Christianity for it's evils. Their God advocates slavery; He considers women as mere objects to be owned, like cattle and donkeys, and He is so enthralled with blood sacrifice that He even kills His own son rather than break with His own bloody handed traditions.
By the words of it's own God taken from His own Holy Scriptures, Christianity largely opposes everything that the UN Declaration of Human Rights stands for; all that is considered right and good and fair, according to modern ethics.
What's not to hate? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.112.114 ( talk) 03:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if all this petty vandalism should be reported. There are teens and twenty-year olds everywhere who will defame anything if given the chance. So what? I would be more concerned with the government posture or tacit support for this vandalism. See Israel, for example. Someone spitting on the cross or writing obscenities is "not nice," but so what? Having the church uh "desecrated" (I'm on a kid-friendly library computer that censors stuff) seems like the authorities are ignoring loitering by vagrants. Also disconnected is the very polite treatment that religious tourists get. Without that, no tourism. Some of these are out of the tourist eyes - e.g. vandalism in churches used by locals. Student7 ( talk) 22:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
84.74.98.74 ( talk) 16:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This breaks the neutral point of view rule of wikipedia.
For example, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism. It says "Anti-fascism is the opposition to fascist ideologies, groups and individuals".
Well, Anti-Christian is the opposition to Christian ideologies, groups and individuals.
Christianity has been as destructive to the human race as Fascism. Also, Fascists movements have been around for 100 years, and killed a few million people. Christianity has been around for 2000 years and murdered way more people.
But wikipedia says Anti-Fascism "fights" fascism, while Anti-Christianity "attacks" Christians.
Both movements fight against a retrograde ideology that is harmful for the human population.
almafuerte@gmail.com â Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.12.41.173 ( talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
How can this article gloss over the entire Islamic world? Anti-Christian sentiment is quite strong in much of it. 12.239.145.114 ( talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The source says, "Since the fall of the old regime, however, the Copts have been exposed to an escalated level of discrimination. As a result, about 10,000 Christians have left Egypt since Mubarak was deposed -- and many are wary of returning now that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups are likely to seize control of the country."
I wrote, "Since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, Egypt's Coptic Christians have been the target of growing discrimination. By mid-2012 10,000 had fled the country."
How is that "not supported by source"?â Biosketch ( talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The following text was deleted, 'âDeath to Christiansâ and âWeâll crucify youâ were painted on the Baptist Church in Jerusalem while similar hate graffiti was found on a Greek Orthodox monastery. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the popeâs custodian in Israel, wrote to Shimon Peres and warned the president that âred lines have been crossed and we cannot remain silent.âHe was asked to put an end to the attacks.'
1) For starters, this is Custodian of the Holy Land which can be piped to shorten, I suppose. It is the pope's emissary, and therefore worthy to quote. 2) He is defending, not RC churches, but a Protestant church and and a Greek Orthodox church. That is significant. It is also significant that he is addressing the President, not the local constabulary, for example. 3) Yes, the wording is significant IMO. Graffiti doesn't come out of nowhere. If someone is writing it, someone is saying it. 4) Someone has to cleanse this - not easy to remove. 4) In a RC group, per-arranged, we found an Orthodox nun the only resident of someplace we wanted to see. She was clearly terrified to let us in! Maybe of Arabs rather than Jews, but still terrified. This sort of stuff is not funny. Student7 ( talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
While this was clearly an expression of anti-Christian sentiment, it's not like Christians worship the bible/NT. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, in another context, with burning a bible, per se. There are few "sacred icons" in Christianity. For Christians, the Bible is just words printed on a page. (For Jews the same, except the hand-written, letter-perfect, Torah is extremely expensive! :) Student7 ( talk) 16:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As Messianic Jews self identify as Jews, then this belongs on the Anti semitism page. I propose that it be moved there. Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 11:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Now we have "were burned by three teenaged Orthodox students of Judaism. Uzi Aharon, the townâs deputy mayor, told CNN he had collected the New Testaments but that he did not plan for them to be burned. The youths had done so while he was not present. Once he found out that the fire was going, he put it out."
I really don't care much about this entry anyway, but this does not sound very credible. Let's say Catholics in Italy "collect" (from where? Someone must have had them originally!) copies of The Da Vinci Code. They stack them in the plaza, pour lighter fluid on them and then and only then, do they set fire to them. The "Deputy Mayor" (what is the Deputy Mayor doing anything for? In most cities, the "Deputy Mayor" stands in for the Mayor when he is absent. He doesn't lead demonstrations unless he is at odds with the mayor). The Deputy Mayor says, "Gee Whiz". Just because we "collected them, stacked them up in the middle of the plaza and poured lighter fluid on them, doesn't mean I wanted anyone to put a match to them! As soon as I found out, I came back with my fire extinguisher and put the blaze out. The books, of course, will be redistributed to the owners, from which we took them illegally!"
This reply sounds silly. I mean, funny-silly. It does not sound credible. We can leave it there as a joke I suppose.... :) Student7 ( talk) 13:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
At first glance, it appears that this article only discusses things that happened within about the last 20 years. My understanding is that there has been some anti-Christian sentiment in the world for a couple of thousand years. Is this article suffering from WP:RECENTISM? If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title? What is the defining period of time? Is it only an account of "current events"? (That would seem to be a news article, not an encyclopedia article.) â BarrelProof ( talk) 23:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to question the neutrality of this article. It reads like it was written by Christians exclusively to portray themselves as weak helpless victims and Anti-Christians as bigots and aggressors. I mean, discrimination? Come on. Furthermore, for an article about Anti-Christian sentiment there isn't much information about the other side of the coin, the opinions and views of Anti-Christians. Where's Nietzsche's philosophy, for instance?
I believe an article about discrimination and discriminatory actions against Christians should be placed in an article called " Anti-Christian discrimination" or " Christian discrimination" or " Discrimination against Christians" and this article should be reserved, instead, for expounding on the Anti-Christian point of view, in all its myriad forms (and yes, including the violent discriminatory POV). - Red marquis ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no mentions of islamic massive persecution of christians all around the world âPreceding unsigned comment added by 93.14.162.23 ( talk) 12:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I know little something about what's going on in Israel, and that part of the article sounds *exclusively* written by missionaries. Missionizing is limited *by law* & absolutely NOT because of the missionaries themselves; the acts of violence are against missionaries who do stuff like hand out tracts at playgrounds, not against the converts, & if the acts are not punished by the Israeli authorities, it's because these people aren't supposed to be doing anything in the first place! I guarantee you that the "We Killed Jesus" graffiti was NOT written by Jews, but by Jew-haters, seeking to make Jews look bad (not that no Jew has ever vandalized a church, don't get me wrong, but that specific bit of graffiti? Inconceivable, since most Jews who are violently opposed to Xianity deny Jesus even existed). I could go on, but I think my point is made. I would clean up the section, but it would actually mean erasing & re-writing it!! FlaviaR ( talk) 21:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I challenge the neutrality of this article. According to Phobia Dictionary, Christophobia means Fear of Christians, http://www.blifaloo.com/info/phobias.php it says nothing about hatred or intolerance. The source currently cited http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2930 (CCEE) is clearly biased in favor of christians and christianity in general. The source is NOT valid, the page gives a "not found" error. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorstag ( talk ⢠contribs) 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Moorstag ( talk) 16:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Moorstag
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section on Israel was recently rewritten to sound more like an apologist essay replete with WP:OR statements concerning numbers and frequency of incidents. I have removed this limiting the section to cited facts that detail the incidents more inline with WP:NPOV guidelines. If we are to list apologies for anti-Christian sentiment in one section, than certainly each other country listed in the article would have to do the same. As the focus on this article is "Anti-sentiment" lets keep it restricted to just that. Veritycheck ( talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Avaya1, concerning your unexplained revert: Good Faith reverts require a comment at a minimum as a courtesy. Better yet, if you take issue with an edit, your constructive feedback would be welcome here to work towards consensus. Letâs discuss it. Thanks Veritycheck ( talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Avaya1 ( talk) 20:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Primary issue: Does the incident of publicly burning more than two hundred New Testament bibles at the hands of a group of Judaism students have a place in this article?
Secondary issue: To what extent should the incidents of spitting and threatening-violence via Graffiti be detailed? Please see the above thread for background. It includes links to previous edits and cited sources. Thanks for participating. Veritycheck ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1. The sources specifically say that the incident relates to Messianic Jews not Christians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7413134.stm
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared/news/stories/2008/06/BIBLE_BURNING08_PBP.html?cxntlid=inform_artr
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/385992.aspx
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/28/bible.burning/index.html
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/shows/cwn/2008/June/Bible-Burning-Targeted-at-Messianic-Jews-/
2. The motive is not clear according to the sources. To the Army Radio, and other sources, Aharon said he was fighting against evangelism of Jews by Messianic Jews, which he described as an "evil" (in itself anti-Evangelism is not necessarily anti-Christian). To Jerusalem Post, Aharon also said "We respect all religions as we expect others to respect ours. I am very sorry that the New Testament was burned, we mean it no harm and I'm sorry that we hurt the feelings of others.â http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=101759 Avaya1 ( talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
1. Whether or not Messianic Judaism is Christianity or Judaism is a disputed issue, and probably not something we should be arbitrating on. The position of mainstream Judaism is that anyone who believes that Jesus is a Messiah is no longer practising Judaism (although they may nonetheless remain Jews according to Halakhah). On the other hand, according to self-identification of religious categories, they generally identify their beliefs as Judaism, and they identify themselves as Jews - and that's the case in the context of this particular story: ("He characterized antagonism toward Messianic Jews as a "family feud." http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared/news/stories/2008/06/BIBLE_BURNING08_PBP.html?cxntlid=inform_artr )
That doesn't mean that this story definitely doesn't concern Christianity, but the Messianic Judaism page would surely be a much more suitable place for it. I don't edit that page, but we could include a section about the community's reception in Israel. There's currently a lot about their theological reception, but nothing about the community's existence in Israel. I asked Malik to have a look because he edits that page, and he also edits the Black Hebrew Israelite pages which have a very careful and balanced discussion about their situation in Israel.
2. The story has to have some context. To the Army Radio, and other sources, Aharon said he was fighting against evangelism of Jews, which he described as an "evil" (in itself anti-Evangelism is not necessarily anti-Christian - ). Later, to the Jerusalem Post, Aharon said "We respect all religions as we expect others to respect ours. I am very sorry that the New Testament was burned, we mean it no harm and I'm sorry that we hurt the feelings of others.â http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=101759
In itself, anti-evangelising activity is not necessarily anti-Christian. The Ottoman Empire often pursued anti-evangelising policies, but at the same time was very tolerant towards established Christian communities. Similarly, burning bibles is not inherently anti-Christian (and there are no theological objections to it). The Catholic Church burned a lot of b ibles in the Early Modern period.
3. Veritycheck is definitely right that I added (two) qualifiers that weren't supported by the sources. When I re-read it, I removed them. They shouldn't be there. On the other hand, Veritycheck removed the official reactions to the incidents, which certainly should be there.
4. There's an issue of balance and space here (which comes under WP:DUE), when covering spitting by Haredi in the Old City and graffiti (there's also an over-emphasis on black metal in Norway). Of course these should be included, but taking up 30% of the article detailing it is undue (as it formerly did [5]). Even in the Old City, more violent incidents tend to occur between the Greeks and Armenians. In Israel, in general, Arab Christians face far more notable discrimination (covered by the Racism in Israel article). Of course, the article is a work in process, and as it is enlarged it should hopefully become more balanced in terms of the space used up by each country. Avaya1 ( talk) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Veritycheck has invited me here to weigh in on this discussion. At the moment I do not have time to comment, but I would like to offer a couple of suggestions on how to make the conversation easier to follow for those of us just joining. First, when you want us to be able to compare different versions, please supply diffs. ( This is a diff; this is not.) Second, if you are citing relevant Wikipedia policy, please provide a link. At this point I have probably read all of Wikipedia policy, but I have not retained it all. Thank you, and I look forward to working with you all to make Wikipedia better. -- Marie Paradox ( talk) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been asked to take part in this discussion, and a few points come to mind. One, User:Jayjg is probably the person who knows best the opinion of Jews regarding Messianic Jews, and I would welcome his input as well, but I have myself only ever seen one Jew, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, who has indicated he thinks that MJs qualify as Jews. It is, maybe, possible that Israel might consider some MJs "ethnic Jews" based on some other matters, but that is a separate matter. And I cannot see anyone in Israel who would consider burning the New Testament to be anti-Semitic. There would be a lot of more obvious choices of things to use if that was the intention.
Secondly, I tend to agree with Malik's statements above. I note Aharon's statement indicates he objected to evangelization of Jews by MJs. The word "evangelize" is clearly based on the Greek word for "gospel", and is obviously best used in reference to Christianity. "Prosletyze" is widely enough known that it could have been used if what was being objected to was prosletyzation in general.
Having said that, I have some concerns about the amount of weight given Israel in the article, but don't know enough about the sentiment worldwide to be able to say whether it is excessive. Also, in reference to the MJs matter, it is not necessarily directly anti-Christian sentiment, but seems to be anti-Christian evangelization sentiment. There is a difference, although a small one, and, yes, living in the US, Christians of some sorts seem incapable of not prosletyzing, so I think it can, reasonably, be included as being "anti-Christian" in a broad sense. But for questions regarding MJs as Jewish, I would definitely welcome Jayjg's input. John Carter ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"The act of the burning in itself is considered heinous to Christians and was in deed widely reported around the world and not limited in discussion to Messianic Jews. The information has a place in this article."- While I disagree that Christians regard the burning of Bibles to be terribly heinous, I agree that its generally a sign of disrespect, when done by non-Christians in order to stamp-out Christianity in some form.
"It doesn't involve a Christian group (Messianic Jews identify themselves as a Jewish group..." "The bibles belonged to Messianic Jews (not Christians)"- I disagree with Avaya here for a couple reasons. For one, in most contexts, Messianic Jews seem to be regarded as Christians, particularly by Jews. Avaya seems to be skirting around this issue by referencing Wikipedia's policy of self-reference, but his argument essentially rests on giving undue WEIGHT to the idea that Messianic Jews are simply Jews, when in fact they are both Jew-ish, and Christ-ian.
"As for the bible burning, the sources explicitly say that the intention is unclear.." "the government was rounding the bibles up as part of the official policy against evangelisation, and the destruction of them would likely have had more to do with anti-evangelisation than anti-Christian sentiment."- Avaya again offers a pseudo-technical argument to support his idea that the Bible burning was not actually anti-Christian, but anti-evangelism. I also disagree with this notion - and his distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism doesn't hold water. There is no distinction. Its clear that this kind of thing is actually anti-Christian in nature. We don't need to worry about finding one way or another on the matter of 'intent' - that is an unnecessary paradigm Avaya is promoting. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Avaya wrote: "I don't think we have to argue that it's "Jew on Jew action, rather than Jew on Christian action." That's taking up an overly strong position. The issue for me is that the story is specifically described as "Jew on Messianic Jew action"
- You are basing your exclusion of new material based on a distinction between Jew and Christian or Jew and Messianic Jew that is not supportable. Avaya wrote: "and the most accurate place for the story is on the Messianic Judaism page.
- I disagree. If it is an anti-Christian action, it can be mentioned here. Avaya wrote: "It's simply a better editing decision since it means we don't have to arbitrate about what exactly they are (which includes not going against their self-identification)."
- But again, not everything hinges on your conception of whether MJs are Jewish or Christian. There is a good case to be made that they are both, in a certain important sense. In any case its not for us to determine which is which, we simply report the facts. If MJs in any way qualify as Christian, even partially, then discrimination against them qualifies as anti-Christian activity of some sort. Avaya wrote" "There is a distinction between Christianity and Christian evangelism, which has been made by the Pope specifically in this context.
- Can you elaborate on this point? What is the distinction made? What did the Pope say? Regards, -
Stevertigo (
t |
c)
23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be nearing a consensus on the RfCâs primary issue of including Bible burning in this article. At this time, I would appreciate the secondary issue being additionally addressed; namely Spitting and Vandalism. Concerning Spitting:
Avaya1âs edit has reduced the language describing the number of incidents in her/his own words to, âthere have been instancesâ.
The following sources use much stronger language giving an entirely different picture:
Certainly there are many more reliable sources that state the same. I believe these are sufficient to show that "There have been instances", which is currently used in the article, is insufficient and disingenuous to describe the situation. It would be valuable to have the feedback of editors to determine a consensus concerning the language that should be used to describe the frequency of these incidents and the number of years it has been happening. Please state which of these words or any others you think should be included giving your reasoning where possible. I suggest getting to vandalism after this issue has been settled. Thanks for your continued efforts. Veritycheck ( talk) 15:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's ironic that Mormons are the only people who think they are Christian.- Mainline Christians think they are Christians too! But kidding aside, I understand what you were trying to say.
In this case, Messianic Jews are the only ones who think they are Jewish. Christians considers them Christian!- It is my understanding that in most contexts, Jews consider MJs to be Christians, rather than Jews. I don't see why its so difficult to accept the idea of an ethnic Jew, theological Christian. Regards, - Stevertigo ( t | c) 06:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Ten days have now passed since I initiated this
RfC. It would seem that those who wished to weigh in have done so. The following is a summary of the consensus based on the editors who participated.
Concerning the primary issue
Support to include the bible burning incident in the article: Malik Shabazz, Veritycheck, Marie Paradox, John Carter, Stevertigo, Student7, BoogaLouie
Each editor has stated their reasons above. As a result, I will go ahead and add the cited incident to the article.
Concerning the secondary issue
Support to more accurately describe the number of incidents for spitting and vandalism:
In keeping with the feedback of Malik Shabazz, John Carter, and BoogaLouie, along with my own support, I have added John Carterâs proposed edit concerning spitting including Shirvanian's position. I have detailed the incidents of vandalism as was suggested by Malik Shabazz and supported by BoogaLouie.
Opposed: None
I expect the essential information of the edit to remain as the RfC has shown that there is a consensus. I would caution any who would revert it that he/she doesnât have the support of the editors involved in this RfC at this time. It's been a lot of hard work to get this settled. The article has been expanded. I expect it will continue to evolve in the future with the help of other dedicated editors like those we've seen here already. Thanks again to all who participated. Veritycheck ( talk) 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the competing
edits of Veritycheck and Avaya1, on suggestion I have is to add qualifiers to Veritycheck version, e.g. add According to haaretz.com..., to the sentence
It has been more or less routine for Ultra-Orthodox/
Haredi youth to spit at Christian clergymen from senior cardinals to priesthood students. I think this would be preferable to replacing the sentence with
A number of Ultra-Orthodox/
Haredi youth have reportedly spat at Christian clergymen. ... which smells like censorship to me. --
BoogaLouie (
talk)
19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)