Talk:Christian fascism/Archive 1

"Usage"
Is it just me or does the "Usage" section seem like a rather conspicuous place to voice personal political opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.51 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit of context to the section, but not removed the banner/template because I'm also not convinced of the value of the section - is this to show that the term is in fact used? Because if so, it's not particularly persuasive - the first example is a letter to the editor (normally not acceptable in Wikipedia, as, per WP:V, it's considered to be "self-published"), the second a formal opinion piece that uses the term "Judeo-Christofascists" rather than "Christofascists".  In short, if this is the best that can be done, then one could conclude that the word in fact has no common usage.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm persuaded that it is used.
I use the word frequently in political discussion. I find it appropriate especially since fascism in the modern world was introduced in Christian countries. Islamofascism is frequently used out of context to describe the motives of Iraqis attacking the soldiers that invaded their country; locals who had nothing to do with 911 or Osama Bin Laden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.149 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Term
Is "Christofascism" really a portmanteau as the article currently states? "Christo-" is a combining form used fairly commonly in religious works as a prefix. -GRB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.138.94 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Christofascism has been coined by a legimate author, which I referenced in the description of the term. The term itself is constructed much like an already accepted term: islamofascism.

Christofascism is a term that is widely used now to described those who would elevate Christian morality above personal liberty. We need a term to describe such a belief system. Christofascist fits the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.143.2 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks in this article. I simply explained what a term meant. Are we to never have any articles because somebody doesn't like the content? Are we not supposed to have an article about "communism" because people don't like communism?

This term enjoys widespread use and is even defined in Wiktionary. RRUser (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article was deleted once before. I proposed its deletion again.  Organized off site attacks are taboo.  Here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?s=4023c5dac2f86d842665dc7a93fc3aae&p=670726#post670726 Jmegill (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no offsite attack. I don't even know what that means. It's the policy of wikipedia to have many people help out writing an article. Just because you don't LIKE the term christofascist doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwads (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability
This article has yet to establish wide Notability. There are several terms and groups that exist but don't warrant an article on Wikipidia, unless we are going to start making articles for every kid's peewee baseball team. Eggbelly (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Violation?
"It is an arrogant, totalitarian, imperialistic attitude..." I think that this might be a viloation of WP:NPOV, after all, to those who subscribe to it, it is probably thought of as great, not arrogant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukefan3 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. AnandVisho (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: AnandVisho has been blocked as a sock of IslaMuslim.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Lukefan3. Specifically, "Arrogant" strikes me as a subjective opinion of an editor. I would remove it. And there doesn't appear to be any justification for "Imperialistic". --Pstanton (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I tracked at what point the phrase was introduced to the article, and according to the edit summary, it is a paraphrase of a source which accredits the view to Dorothee Solle. I will edit the section to clarify that the view belongs to her, not Wikipedia. --Pstanton (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is very heavily biased. Still working on a rewrite, if anyone can help it would be appreciated. Eggbelly (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Three years on and still nothing, this page is in URGENT need of a rewrite 60.231.92.137 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Concept vs term
This has been brought up on AfD but not here. The article seems to want to report every use of the term its editors have come across, in conjunction with a serious idea given this name by Soelle.

For example Turley says "what do we call Jews or Christians who want to force non-believers to swear to the Bible? Judeo-Christofascists?" ("Stupid" might reflect the tone of his piece better...) He does not actually use the term, though he refers to "Judeo-Christofascism" in his conclusion. Certainly it's a neologism, not a scholarly use of a term coined in 1970.

Similarly the report that says a blogger 'referred to conservative Christians as "Christofascists,"' hardly seems relevant to a debate about Cristology.

Again in the lead "Usage of the term became much more prominent in 2006–08," which is referenced to an article that uses "Judeo-Christo-fascism" as a parody, and does not comment on usage of the term, except to imply that American society never uses it, while being free with "Islamofacism".

On the other hand we seem to have a separate concept where Chris Hedges and David Neiwert are labelling what the ADL called "professional anti-Semites and lunatic nationalists," as early Christo-fascists.

While the etymolgy of all these uses might be complained about, they are nonetheless valid uses, and in a dictionary could be identified as different sense, or sub-senses. Here, however, we have to either or some combination of the above.
 * 1) write an article about the term
 * 2) write an article primarily about one concept, with a section "Other uses of the term"
 * 3) write an article primarily about one concept, with "see also" links to other uses
 * 4) write a disambiguation page, with separate articles about each concept.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC).


 * "valid uses"


 * Note that "cultural marxism" has been deleted many, many times - the consensus is that the use of the original term is noteworthy, but left wing editors hated that, so they changed the article to "cultural marxism conspiracy theory" in order to get it deleted. Blackford discusses this here.


 * This is a major problem with wikipedia - the inclusion of political pov commentary in articles that are only defensible as notable for their non-political use -- Callinus (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"How many different religions do you want to add"
Are there many other articles on religious fascism, such that you think we're picking and choosing? I don't understand this comment. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a number of religious-fascist pages on WP, as well as a few where the terminology links directly to particular religious-nationalist movements and concepts. The question is whether or not the inclusion offers some encyclopedic value to list every conceivable combination of 'ENTER RELIGION HERE'-Fascism on every page that has some relevance to it. Let's not clutter pages up. Alssa1 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)