Talk:Criticism of religion/Archive 4

Quotes by Ole Nydahl, Lama
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/buddha-meets-holger-danske.html

Ole Nydahl, Lama

“To say it plainly, it’s really embarrassing that people — after 2,000 years of development towards freedom here in Europe — cannot comprehend their potential, don’t trust themselves, or are so badly disabled in childhood that they cast away their free will and enslave themselves under a totalitarian and fascist system. Surely, it’s pure fascism to subordinate oneself to other people in that way — no matter if it’s under a deity dictating what to do, a prophet, Hitler or Stalin. It’s always the same. Whenever you deny people their freedom of choice and self-determination, you reduce them to inferior beings.”

“Aldous Huxley, whom I studied extensively at the university, called it ‘pack-poison’. If a lot of people do something it will attract others who want to belong or be a part of something. And if a start like this is sufficiently deviant it will always be attractive to certain unstable individuals. That is the reason why something originally in conflicting with human nature in the end can grow powerful, and accordingly very harmful.”

“We must see to it that things are in the open. We must insist, at the least, that people who want to exploit their own humanity — and who therefore can turn dangerous to those who want to stay free — be humiliated, ridiculed and truly exposed. Which means that they can be dealt with just like anyone else. If you grant those people a hiding place and claim that they are protected from any criticism in order avoid the ire of some dead prophet, then we’ve let go of the freedom of our future generations. We can very well describe it as a cancer, if you accept that people are not allowed to think and see things as they are. It’s something that conflicts with the general trend in society. This malignancy must be opposed by showing people who choose submission that there are other options — in case they develop an appetite for living.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.122.80 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

A possible restructuring of the article
I can not find any criticism that applies to all religions. The way the article is now structured, the critiques may be interpreted as pertaining to all religions, and where they are not, it is sometimes unclear which religions are under a certain criticism.

Perhaps if one were to divide the article into groups


 * 1) Criticism of Abrahamistic religions (Christian, Islamic, Jewish)
 * 2) Criticism of other religions that include belief in gods
 * 3) Criticism of other religions

and then further divide each section into "critiques common to all religions in this group", and then sections for critique of each particular religion. There are already some interesting articles on several of these, so an over-view and a link to these articles should suffice, and hopefully make the whole article more legible and more comprehensive and above all, less ambiguous.

Please criticize the idea. In a months time I might get tempted to rearrange the article myself if no criticism is forthcoming. DanielDemaret 07:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel - thank you for all the thought and energy you are putting into this page! It is true, it needs a bit of pruning and organizing. It has grown large enough I find it hard to read through it without getting hung up on a section and spending all my time working on it and never finishing it all. Of course, I am doing lots of other things too. I am going to spin out a couple of ideas here in no apparent order for your and everyone's consideration. • I suggest we need to come up with a clear definition of what we mean by religion. This may prove more difficult than it sounds! If you look at the Religion article in Wikipedia, you will see it very loosely defined, even on a pro-theistic page! Once we managed to agree on a definition, we could look at setting up a structure for criticising various aspects of it. • There are already pages dedicated to criticising the other main religions, so I would suggest this page should be more universal. We should repeat what appears elsewhere and generously attibute the work appearing on those more focused pages here. Perhaps we can provide many more links throughout this page to these other pages taking issue with specific traditions. • One thing I did in the ‘Implausibility of specific beliefs’ section was create a new section specifically detailing implausible Christian examples, perhaps another way to do this is add specific references to different traditions in each section? Looking forward to the brainstorming! Nuloy 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me.


 * Just one detail. Should we really have different definitions on religion from the article on religion? I have seen the definition there develop over the years, and I think it has gotten better all the time. Should we not instead seek to improve the definition in that article? I agree that it is a bit looks loose, but on the other hand that may be simply beauce people use the word so differently. Please suggest a better definition, and we'll see. Chances are that it will end up the same as in the other article after a while, since they have been at it for years, probably beginning with a definition that looks very much like christianity, and becoming fuzzier with time, to contain all actual religions.


 * On the structure of the article: Perhaps when one gets down to details, the only way will be to write one section of criticism for each religion. I know that critique of followers of Kali would be very different from critique of Shinto. DanielDemaret 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have re-read this article again, with new eyes. A definition of religion should, as you suggest, be visible in this article. I am inclined to copy the one from "religion" near the top here. The section on criticism of the concept is totally lacking in citations, and that feels very wrong, but the rest of the articles paragraphs at least somewhat supported by citations. DanielDemaret 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I looked at the existing citations. They are not good enough. This article needs more citations everywhere and it needs better citations in some places. For example, the text that goes "the opposition from the Church to Darwin's theory" should probably best be deleted altogether. First of all it does not mention which church. Secondly, although there was initial opposition, the church of england quite quickly endorsed and praised Darwin. The only churches that I have heard of opposing his views are in the bible-belt. The opposition to Galileo is also well-known, but problematical, since recently historians have revealed a very different story here. It is best to link to the galileo-controversy here.DanielDemaret 14:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed my mind. I will forget restructuring for now. One major reason that it is hard to read is the lack of citations. Without more citations, a proper encyclopedic version of this article will be a very short article indeed. DanielDemaret 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the concept
The initial paragraph in "Criticism of the concept" could be trimmed down to maybe two sentences, since almost all citable information already exists below. It is good to have an overview, but an overview that gets too long tends to become illegible. DanielDemaret 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Criticism of the concept" is way to large to be legible, and the title itself is fuzzy. It would be a lot more legible if we had short overview, and a more specific title, and let the rest of the material come under appropriate headings below. Noone will bother to read it otherwise. DanielDemaret 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the "concept of religion" ?
The "Criticism of the concept" starts a long text to criticize the "concept of religion". It must at the very least, first define what is here meant by the "concept of religion".

Everyone knows what a religion is, but the "concept or religion" is less clear. Concepts are mostly used to develop new ideas or to market a package deal. One must either explain the new idea - obviously religion is not a new idea - or risk sounding like a salesman.

If no good definition comes along, we will have to think of a new title. Something that summarizes what comes below. DanielDemaret 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Religion and Mental Illness" a bit large
Also, the section "Religion and Mental Illness" is getting large enough to merit an article of its own to be legible, with a link from this article. DanielDemaret 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel and everyone. As the founder and principle contributor of this vital section, I welcome the notion of making this a separate article and expanding it. I thought this concept was a vital one to bring up and am glad to see it standing the test of time here. There is growing evidence from many sources to support the notion most prophets and subsequent saints and seers suffered from one of a variety of mental ills or were victims of abuse. I have never begun a page from scratch, but would welcome further feedback on this. Nuloy 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure you know more about this than I do, since I have not looked into any of the evidence in detail, so go for it :) DanielDemaret 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some religiously-inspired figures, such as Joan of Arc, said they were guided by voices. Today we know auditory hallucinations are a common feature of those suffering from schizophrenia."

Is there any proof that Joan of Arc actually had or suffered schizophrenia at an age of 17 and therefore? Is there proof? Because I don't see a point her name being in the same sentence when discussing hallucinations and schizophrenia. It's also like saying Prophet Mohummed(who also had visions)was delusional, hallucinating etc. Phu2734 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no question that the latter example would have been removed in a flash of lightning. Considering this standard, and the lack of evidence in general, I believe that this condescending claim should be removed if there are no sources which provide her as a specific example.--C.Logan 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Plurality section
The critical argument is written well in the beginning of the section. Everything that comes after the part "...the oldest of the World Religions began in..." does not take the argument further. I am inclined to delete the remainder, since it serves only to muddle the core argument and wonder what the article is going on about. DanielDemaret 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

obscure, or plain wrong?
This article text...

"...Examples of this would include the views many religions traditionally had towards solar and lunar eclipses or the appearance of comets. [1] [2] Many critics listed here, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray say to continue to hold on to these archaic traditions and regulations, despite the expanding fields of knowledge contradicting them, is absurd and irrational."

...implies that there are World religions still today that "continue to hold on to" the idea that eclipses and comets herald great events. I am not aware of any such notions today, so I think this is plain wrong. The ressurection of Christ would be a better example here, since that belief is upheld. But since that criticism is detailed further down in the article, I it would be better if we trimmed the text here.DanielDemaret 16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is both obscure and plain wrong? No worries. My philosophy has always been to leap before I look. I was trying to find some references and found them interesting. I will revisit this in the coming week and given this feedback will likely remove or rephrase it. I welcome any link suggestions you may have. My problem is I have all this information in my head from years of study and extensive travel experience. Sometimes when making additions here I find it a challenge to discover a useful link others can access. In time, I usually do. Please do not hesitate to improve on anything I have done yourself, BE BOLD. I have, among other things, a journalism background and am quite used to being edited. More later. Nuloy 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Identical links.
The two links which discuss the Criticism of Mormonism article leads to the same article as does the Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. I am not sure if Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint leads to a different article and were just messed up when their link locations were being added. If so I will look for that article in the mean-time (If there was an article on Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint.) Anker99 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
I added POV tag since the article is unbalanced towards criticisms and responses are not provided. For example, according to OHEAR, ANTHONY (in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Culture" article), it is not clear if a culture with no basis in religion can inveigh against materialism by articulation on highest spiritual and artistic aspirations.

The Power of Myth (part 2) can also help in providing context to the religious stories and their importance. --Aminz 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article merely attacks religious belief and offers no counter-arguments.  Most of it doesn't even attempt to take on a neutral tone.  Personal opinions of the editors are prevalent in the article:


 * "The requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding is seen as another sign of irrationality. Out-of-hand rejection of any new information contradicting strict beliefs and convictions, suggests an inflexible and closed-minded perspective. This attitude is contrasted with the basic scientific method, based on empirical observation, verifiable and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties."


 * "An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven."


 * "The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity."


 * "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars."


 * These are just a few examples. This article needs personal opinions removed and counter-arguments added. Detlevx 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is essentially a sanctuary for OR and personal opinions, and such material should be excised. However, I'm not so sure about 'responses'. I naturally consider them important (considering my own beliefs), but we should remember that this page deals with Criticisms, and is not intended to be a point-rebuttal debate list. Therefore, we may want to confine any criticisms to a 'Responses' section (for general arguments), and if context is completely necessary, to include short responses in the relevant sections. NPOV is always worth striving for, but this is, after all, an article that deals with 'criticisms'.--C.Logan 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal opinions removed, uh huh... Detlevx you do realise that's what this article is about don't you? Various criticisms that have been leveled at religion and theism, at various times. It's not a debate about whether religion is valid or not. What you're doing is like my going and tag-bombing christian apologetics, then demanding they present pastafarian counter-arguments. It's unhelpful and ultimately futile. cornis 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This article consists of opinions presented as fact. Look at the quotes I've listed above.  I don't object to and article presenting arguments against religion.  I object to the lack of neutrality apparent in this article.  The tone of the article blatantly espouses anti-religious arguments, whereas the arguments ought be presented without bias.  There's an enormous difference between saying something like "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars" as opposed to "It is a commonly held belief among polemics that religion is an obstacle to world peace, as throughout history various religions have incited religious wars."  Also, supporting evidence needs to be added to show that these opinions are commonly held, rather than merely the opinion of the editor, as it seems in some examples.  See the article "Criticism of the Catholic Church" for a good example of an article that presents arguments in a neutral tone.Detlevx 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I've replaced the POV tag as this article obviously does not conform to neutrality standards. Compare it to Criticism of Atheism where pretty much every criticism section incorporates the Atheist counterargument. This page does not, and much of it is completely without sources. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree! This is the standard tactic of the Religious people. When they cannot win an argument based on evidence, they fall back on "Neutrality". Somehow this article is not "Neutral". Why? because it only it presents religion is a bad light and "does not represent religion is a good light". Unfortunately they do not give us any evidence that refutes the criticisms in these article merely "But not all religions are like this!!!"


 * Imagine if we should demand that an article on christianity be consider pov because "The tone of the article blatantly espouses anti-atheist arguments!" 202.168.50.40 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, why do you assume that since try to present a controversial topic in a neutral light, we must be religious zealots? If you disagree with the POV tag, why don't you defend the article rather than attack the editors?  Second, have you bothered to read the Criticism of Atheism article for comparison?  Are you willing to say the tone of the two articles is the same?  Like is said before, I don't object to and article presenting arguments against religion.  I object to the lack of neutrality apparent in this article.  A wikipedia article of this type should list arguments, not implicitly support them by stating them as fact (see the quotes I've listed above).  Once wikipedia articles begin to espouse a certain sentiment, they fail as a source of reliable and unbiased information. Detlevx 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I'll try and address the points you've raised one at a time. ornis 05:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The function of religion can be successfully replaced by other branches of human activity." I've removed this, since it assumes that religion has a function at all.
 * "An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven." That is implausible. Sorry.
 * "One of the worst results of religious beliefs in the world seems to be the phenomenon of religious wars." I actually agree with you here, I thinks it's just the phenomenon atheist harp on the most. I've changed the sentence to reflect this
 * "The requirement of a leap of faith beyond understanding is seen as another sign of irrationality. Out-of-hand rejection of any new information contradicting strict beliefs and convictions, suggests an inflexible and closed-minded perspective. This attitude is contrasted with the basic scientific method, based on empirical observation, verifiable and repeatable experiment by neutral third parties." Granted the wording is problematic but it pretty much sums up creation-evolution controversy

I've reworded the last statement. ornis 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For an example of lack of neutralitly, this section is a polemic, not a statement:


 * An example of an implausible belief is the traditional Christian doctrine of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with his bodily ascension into heaven. ...
 * Unlike in ancient times, the stages of decomposition are now well understood. Within three days of death, a significant amount of change has occurred. The process has already gone far beyond any plausible possibility of the body coming back to life.

The quoted text does not represent any Christian belief that I'm familiar with.

First of all, the Christian gospel relates that Lazarus had been dead for days, and "stinketh," indicating that the process of decomposition and putrification were understood in those pre-scientific days.

Second, the traditional Christian view (Catholic, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestant) is that the resurrected body of Jesus was a "glorified" body, similar to but not the same as a mortal body. It's the implausibility of a dead body reviving on it's on (I got better!) that makes it a miracle.

Whether this actually _happened_ or not is a different argument. The problem with _this_ argument is that it attacks a straw man, not an actual Christian belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your concerns. My problem is that the entire section only cites decomposition info, rather than anyone actually making this criticism. It would seem that this is an example of original research, and somewhat more specifically, an example of editor synthesis. I also agree that the editor who added this missed the point. The whole thing is considered a miracle, not a scientific event. It is important because it goes against the laws of nature and reality; that's what a "miracle" is, on the greater level. In short, this seems like the half-baked original research of an editor, and I'll be removing it. More appropriate would be a criticism of the belief in the concept of miracles themselves, or at least the ones that break the laws by which we are typically bound.--C.Logan 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hadn't seen this particular arguement before, but it reminded me of the argument that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too stupid to know how babies were made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen these types of arguments. It seems that many people are inclined to paint our ancestors as being much dumber than they really were. This is not a good heritage to establish, and it profanes the work of human civilization- not to mention, it places us on a high horse, when today's world is really no better in many ways. Arguments like the one to which you've referred are logically unsound. Here we have Christians and Muslims, 2000 years after the fact, with detailed medical knowledge, believing in the Virgin Birth because of what is supposed to be: a miracle. That's the underlying fallacy in all these arguments; they argue against the plausibility of miracles when miracles, by definition, are meant to be implausible. In any case, the text has been removed, as it is an unsupported (unsourced, as WP:SYNTH does not allow this kind of original research), and logically fallacious mess of personal opinion.--C.Logan 20:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why there should be a requirement for an overwhealming amount of 'neutrality' about this article. It is about CRITICISM OF RELIGION and not defense of religion. It's like someone saying the page on Mormanism is incomplete without mentioning atheism. 75.28.13.226 (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with this page and with others like it is that they sometimes become a haven for individuals who'd like to insert information which they themselves consider to be criticism of the topic (i.e. their own POV, their own OR, and their own suggestive phrasings). This article is not here to cater only to the POVs of individuals who dislike the concept of "religion"; it is here to report on the issue of criticisms of religion throughout history.


 * Far too many people see the title and assume that it cries to them to "add whatever bugs you about the topic". We report on what notable people have said and have argued; therefore, we need to present things with a mind for neutrality: every criticism has a response. This article should deal with the topic of criticism- this includes, one should note, the replies made to such acts of criticism. Remember that WP:NPOV also applies to criticism articles.--C.Logan (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes, Links and References
ornis 05:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC) – 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
Friedrich Nietzsche defined faith as "not wanting to know what is true."


 * It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity. (Abraham Lincoln)
 * The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of reason. (Benjamin Franklin)
 * When you know a man's religious complexion, you know what sort of books he reads when he wants some more light, and what sort of books he avoids, lest by accident he get more light than he wants. (Mark Twain)
 * Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect. (James Madison)

Schopenhauer also criticizes believers for mistakenly trusting those who claim religious authority, rather than thinking for themselves.
 * Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. H. L. Mencken

Links

 * taj al hilali on rape
 * cardinal pell, stem cell research
 * Holy war, AP state univeristy
 * Love thy neighbour. Hartung.
 * Draper, conflict of religion and science

Criticism of Buddhism
Being a major religion, how come there is no "criticism of buddhism"???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.196.163 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 July 2007
 * Well this article is not supposed to be about specific religions. As to why there is no "criticism of buddhism" article, I couldn't tell you, I guess no one has gotten around to writing one yet. I'm sure there's plenty that could be written, particularly about the type of cruel, theocratic buddhism, practised in tibet prior to the chinese annexation. ornis 03:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered about the absence of the "Criticism of Buddhism" page myself. It has been created but is simply a redirect. I'd volunteer to create a stub out of it, but am really lacking in knowledge on the subject. Anyone care to get it started? Iceswimmer 07:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticism pages, like most sub-pages are normally created as offshoots of the main article, when the criticism section gets too large. See WP:SS.  If you think you have enough criticism to make an entire article, you should probably bring it to Buddhism first; that article currently doesn't even have a criticism section, although that seems to be down to the fact that nobody has added any rather than because of any whitewashing attempts.  But good luck finding any sources; there aren't many people other than the Chinese government who have much of a beef with the Buddhists.  -- Vary | Talk 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from some sectarian violence in feudal Japan, Buddhism is about as peaceful, accepting, and open to new ideas as you can get. It has problems like anything else, but many of the complaints Western commentators have about religion in general really don't apply to a Buddhist worldview.  I'd be curious to see a criticism of Buddhism page, if only to better understand it.  Also, I'd be curious to see the evidence supporting comments like the one Ornis makes above: "...particularly about the type of cruel, theocratic buddhism, practised in tibet prior to the chinese annexation."  I don't think that's an accurate picture, but then I don't know for sure, and I'd be interested to see why Ornis might make such a statement.--Pariah (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Things that come to mind off the top of my head, and a few suggested sources:
 * Collusion or cooperation of Buddhist institutions in abetting violent nationalist policies. The book 'Zen at War' deals with this in WWII era Japan; there's also been some writing about the role of monastic preachers in keeping the rhetoric hot in the Sri Lankan civil conflict.  Potential difficulty here is that most of these criticisms tend to be limited in scope to particular branches of the Sangha during particular eras, rather than taking a more general view of Buddhism's relationship to government power.
 * Critique of Buddhist doctrines and philosophy generally. These are almost all written from a Christian POV, as evangelists and the Vatican are really the only folks to show a lot of interest in general criticism of Buddhist philosophy.  Appropriate for a 'Christian Criticisms of Buddhism' section, primarily.  Pope JP II wrote a few critical blurbs about Buddhism late in his tenure along these lines.
 * Abuse of authority in the monastic tradition. Quite a bit was written regarding this in the American Zen and Tibetan traditions, particularly following the big meltdown at the San Francisco Zen Center.  Old issues of Tricycle would certainly have some info here.
 * Regarding Tibet- the Chinese government is currently the primary author and proponent of criticisms of Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion. Criticisms of the government of pre-Chinese Tibet are difficult to separate out from criticisms of Tibetan Buddhism; there are indications that the PRC thinks that Tibetan Buddhism was to some degree responsible for the low level of development in Tibet prior to the Chinese occupation, but these critiques haven't been greatly elaborated on in Western literature.  There's a blanket claim that Tibet was a poor and harsh country prior to the invasion, and that Tibetan Buddhism and the feudal/religious government were responsible for those conditions, but not a lot more elaboration than that (at least that I've seen in English, but I'm far from an expert).
 * There were also some critiques of Tibetan Buddhism written during the early 19th Century by early Western observers, many of which involved Protestant writers drawing a parallel between the elaborate ritualism and clericalism of Tibetan Buddhism and that of Roman Catholicism. Donald Lopez catalogues some of these critiques in Prisoners of Shangri La.  I don't know that those historical criticisms are still embraced by anyone- they were written before there was much meaningful knowledge of the Tibetan philosophical and scholastic tradition available.
 * Feminist critiques- the position of nuns versus monks, the authority of female teachers and leaders, various potentially disparaging remarks made in scriptures about women.

All that jumps out at me at the moment. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

--Clay Collier (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are all very interesting and well rounded points--enough to begin thinking about an article. The points you brought up reminded me of a few related examples: --Pariah (talk) 06:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to feminism, there is a reference somewhere to the Buddha apparently saying that the dharma wouldn't last as long (500 instead of 1000 years) if women were allowed into the sangha, but it's unclear whether this is meant disparagingly, or simply to say that men and women are different in their approaches to spirituality. I'm also not sure if the Buddha actually said this or if it came along later, out of the monastic tradition.
 * There's also been some controversy over Homosexuality and Buddhism, but there again, it's difficult to say what it actually means since Buddhism doesn't actually punish people for being homosexual (though many traditional schools may not ordain them).
 * Right now I'm reading Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor. It is a critique of the more religious aspects of Buddhism, and advocates a return to a more agnostic / fallibilistic form of the philosophy, which Batchelor argues was the Buddha's original message.

According to the Vinaya Pitaka (at least the Pali version), the Buddha had to be asked 7 times before agreeing to ordination of nuns, warned that this would weaken the teaching & shorten its lifetime, & made them thoroughly subordinate to monks. As with everything else attributed to the Buddha, this is a matter of disagreement among scholars. There's also some far more misogynistic material elsewhere in the Pali Canon, most notably the Kunala Jataka. Peter jackson (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also notable that Christopher Hitchens, one of the "Four Horsemen" of the "New Atheism" is highly critical of atheism. I will add a "Criticism" section to the Buddhism article 121.222.181.96 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Us versus Them Mentality
From the wiki article

HARMFUL TO SOCIETY

Critics of this world-view claim that this monopoly of universal truths leads, inevitably, to a very ingrained ' us vs. them ' group solidarity and mentality which, to a wide range of extents, dehumanise or demonise individuals outside the particular faith as 'not fully human', or in some way less worthy and less deserving of rights and regard. Results can, based on the fanaticism of this belief, vary from mild discrimination to outright genocide.

From the news


 * http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7806c633-36f5-46b4-a83c-4900c15d8353&p=2
 * http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e8606929-82d9-4d42-82a5-0e3f4465f9cf&k=0

The New York Police Department report examines 'radicalization' of Western Muslims.

The report by the NYPD Intelligence Division examines recent cases of "homegrown" terrorism in Britain, Madrid, Germany, Amsterdam, Australia, the United States and Toronto. In each case, it says, the suspects were influenced by spiritual figures who preach an "us-versus-them/war on Islam" mentality that provides a moral justification for violence. They are vital to terrorist groups because they frame violence as a religious duty.

"The sanctioner is often a self-taught Islamic scholar and will spend countless hours providing a cut-and-paste version of Islam which radicalizes his followers. In many cases, the sanctioner is not involved in any operational planning but is vital in creating the jihadi mindset," it says.

In all the cases looked at by the NYPD, the suspects went through a remarkably similar process of radicalization that was triggered not by oppression or suffering but by a search for identity that went astray and led them to extremist Islam.

The report calls this the "self-identification" phase of radicalization, in which suspects begin converting to fundamentalist beliefs.

They may become alienated from their former life, seek like-minded believers, grow a beard, wear traditional Muslim dress and give up drinking.

The next stage is indoctrination. Suspects will often withdraw from the mosque and become more politicized, blaming global events on a perceived Western war against Muslims, the police report says.

The Toronto group was indoctrinated through spiritual mentors and on the Internet, where they watched jihadist videos and communicated with like-minded radicals in places such as Bosnia and the United Kingdom, it says.

"The Mississauga group went as far as wearing combat fatigues to the mosque -- a fact that was noted as unusual by the other congregants, but not reported to authorities," says the report. 220.239.110.162 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Intolerance to icons of competing religion(s)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_on_re_af/new_religion_vs_old_gods

ACHINA, Nigeria - Born to a family of traditional priests, Ibe Nwigwe converted to Christianity as a boy. Under the sway of born-again fervor as a man, he gathered the paraphernalia of ancestral worship — a centuries-old stool, a metal staff with a wooden handle and the carved figure of a god — and burned them as his pastor watched.

"I had experienced a series of misfortunes and my pastor told me it was because I had not completely broken the covenant with my ancestral idols," the 52-year-old Nwigwe said of the bonfire three years ago. "Now that I have done that, I hope I will be truly liberated."

Generations ago, European colonists and Christian missionaries looted Africa's ancient treasures. Now, Pentecostal Christian evangelists — most of them Africans — are helping wipe out remaining traces of how Africans once worked, played and prayed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.50.40 (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Implausible beliefs
This section is far too short. I did a brief rewrite listing several examples of implausible beliefs intertwined into the concept of religion, but this was deleted. Any explanation? This.machinery (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because it looked like OR. All of the text you've added needs to cite reliable sources that criticize specific faiths or religion in general over those points.
 * That section's difficult because, once you get past the idea that most religious people believe in a god and most people who aren't religious don't, there's really not anywhere to go. Most individual points are going to boil down to the same thing: such and such a faith teaches that their god (who they believe can do the impossible) did something impossible.  People who don't believe in their god say "That's impossible."  The faithful smile and nod and say "Yeah, exactly!"  Repeat.
 * So I'd defiantly move away from the bulleted list, which is at best going to be repetitive and at worst could sound petty, and try for a solid paragraph or so of (cited) discussion of the topic, which I think could be incorporated into "Irrational Foundation;" there's a lot of overlap there. -- Vary | Talk 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, please add citations for the text you've added, and please do it before you make the problem worse by adding more uncited text. You'll notice that most of the rest of this article is very well cited; that's because this is a review of notable criticisms by established experts on the topic, not 'what bugs us about religion.'  A lot of the text you've added is very defiantly Original Research; you need to replace it with sourced criticisms.  Thanks. -- Vary | Talk 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't original research it is common knowledge. Am I supposed to find a published text to say that mythology is no longer considered serious religious doctrine?  That is the definition of mythology.  Am I to find a published text that tells us that the events of the afterlife are unprovable? Give me a break.


 * For some of the more common abuses in the religious power structure, I've also been noted for citation. You don't need a study to tell you that sin instills guilt in children.  If you want to see development of the concept of atonement THROUGH religious institutions, go to a charity dinner at a church, or step into a confession booth.


 * When I look down the page, I do in fact see many sourced statements. The problem is these are often irrelevant, pretentious quotations which do not in anyway act as serious and succinct written criticisms of religion or the actions of religious institutions.  Other sections may be well-sourced for their quotes, or write in detail about already famous criticisms, but overall the article is terribly organized and lacks any form of cohesion in adding these claims up and applying them to regular use.  If you really think that I am causing damage to this article by writing obvious interpretations to the common practices of major world religions, feel free to simply delete my additions and bring them back to the sourced, yet utterly useless, 1-sentence sections they were before.  Or better yet, just delete these sub-sects all together.This.machinery (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "it's common knowledge" argument is usually the first thing that comes out of individuals after they are notified that they've added what could very well be original research. The fact of the matter is that if the knowledge is so common, a citation to that effect should be easy to provide. As far as I'm concerned, everything you've added could just be your opinion. Why should we consider it?


 * Find reliable sources to back up the claims; also, keep a mind for NPOV- always a good idea on articles like this. Try to display views and arguments from both sides of the spectrum, if at all possible.


 * Your major problem is your approach. This is a neutral encyclopedia which is based on verifiable and generally reliable sources. What may seem obvious to you is not so to others; in cases like this, your "truth" may be different from others, so try to stick to scholarly or notable opinions on the matter and give due space to the arguments of the other side.--C.Logan (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what you want here. I used religious websites themselves, Richard Dawkins (who cited many, many times in the article), and Time Magazine.  Apparently these are not "reliable" enough.This.machinery (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that OR and POV presentation is apparent; that Biblical creation myths are incompatible with scientific theories is one particular view within a complex issue. The comment on divine guidance seems like simple personal musing on the issue. The quote from Zarathustra should be cited to support the connection between the quote and the cited concepts. I'm unsure what "tithing" has to do with the rest of its home paragraph; the paragraph would need clarification to that effect.


 * The paragraph on missionaries diverges from what the cited source says- the issue is the perceived obliteration of culture, and not the hard exchange of help for conversion (which the source does not support, and which should be referenced quite clearly- there have certainly been cases of such nature, but this does not reflect the whole of missionary work). In general, and especially concerning the "guilt" paragraph, you'd want to make it note that what's presented is being said by the source; it is not necessarily true.--C.Logan (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tone is defiantly a big part of the problem. The statement that "A strong teaching of sin is crucial to the indoctrination children and new members, as it instills early on a profound sense of guilt in believers," for example, is not common knowledge.  It needs to be cited, and it should not be stated as fact, even if you can find someone who's used those exact words: there are a lot of people who'd disagree.  Read through the rest of the article to see how such information is already being presented.
 * The bit on tithing is way off topic in that section, and so far as I can tell is not backed up in any way by the source you provided; perhaps you used the wrong link? And I don't see the phrase 'quid quo pro' anywhere in the aricle on missionaries.  Citing neutral or pro religion sources and using them to create a critical argument is synthesis.  You need to find sources critical of this aspect of religion, and then find a way to report their arguments in a neutral way.  We're writing an encyclopedia article covering the major points that critics of religion have raised, not constructing an essay on the subject ourselves.  There are plenty of outlets on the web for personal opinion, but this isn't one of them.
 * And I'd encourage you again to move away from bullet points and towards cohesive paragraphs. It's just better writing.  -- Vary | Talk 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you checked my citations, you'd see that the guilt into children clause is under the same citation that covers confession and psychoanalysis. The Christian author of the article states quite explicitly "Guilt is the physical manifestation of sin."  Then elaborates on the effects of this on children.  But it looks like you just jumped the gun and deleted them.This.machinery (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Among non-Christians, the most serious criticism of missionaries is that, just as in the past, they are changing religious ways of life for whole societies." Does this not infer a quid pro quo?This.machinery (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

George Carlin
Page history here comments that it would be useful to check the George Carlin quote from a transcript. The clip is on U-tube here and near the end of the routine Carlin recommends other, comforting fairy tales from which his audience might draw moral lessons, but concludes "there is no Humpty Dumpty and there is no God...not one, never was." --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that he could be saying either "there is no god" or "there is no God", and the two are homophonous so watching the video wouldn't help. I'd lean towards the former, but I can't commit to it without a transcript. Ilkali (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "...not one..." I see what you mean. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden quotes
All right, I see that an edit war over the Bin Laden quotes is going on. Can this be resolved in a more civil manner? I see that they were removed for being "inflamatory"; that to me seems like it would have no bearing on their NPOV-ness. They're quotes, so their text is allowed to have a POV (unlike article text), so long as the article doesn't become a giant quote and thereby have a POV. They seem illustrative of the sections' themes, so unless the quotes are inaccurate, could someone explain how being "inflamatory" qualifies as not NPOV? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How has civility been violated? Is pointing out Wikipedia policy in an edit summary uncivil?  Anyway, that is a side issue.  The quote was clearly in violation of WP:NPOV.  Wikipedia may present significant views on the subject, as attributed to reliable sources and critics of religion.  What it may not do, however, is to embellish those sources by adding quotes whose specific purpose is to elicit an emotional response from the reader.  This is, as I see it, a component of the WP:NPOV policy (neutral tone).  Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a platform for editors to pick emotionally evocative quotes to advance their own position.


 * However, the policy which perhaps most directly applies is WP:SYN: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. Since this quote itself was not cited by any notable sources as a criticism of religion, it is either irrelevant to the subject of the article (see above NPOV concern), or constitutes original research (via synthesis).


 * As a final strike against itself, the quote was of dubious authenticity, since it had been apparently cobbled together from various sources. So my opinion is that the quote should not be in the article, and fails on multiple policy fronts.


 * In conclusion, I am willing to be overruled on my editorial decision. However, I have so far provided three fairly solid reasons why this single quotation is unsuitable for inclusion in this article. The final question an editor should ask is the most important one: Is the quote encyclopedic?  It fails this most important test, for me at any rate.  Silly rabbit (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to criticism of religion
Shouldn't this article start out by highlighting that criticism of religion is often considered rude or offensive, and is basically a taboo to many people? Of course, nobody like their ideas or themselves being criticized, but with religion you are considered rude for the sort of criticism that would be considered fine if you were criticizing anything else. It is also non-religious people who feel religion shouldn't be criticized or scrutinized. Anyone who has read books critical of religion will know what I am talking about. Richard001 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is absolutely absurd. Criticism is off course a part of every aspect of society, not only religion. Criticism is part of freedom of speech. If anyone is not able to criticize religion, this means his/her freedom of speech is restricted. Your comment and proposal is violation of WP:NPOV. Do not bring your own POV/agenda in wikipedia.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Otolemur crassicaudatus. Criticism of religion is part of freedom of speech. However, I don't think User:Richard001 is pushing his POV. He is an atheist. Criticism of religion is often considered rude and offensive, and it is a taboo in many socities. That's a not a good thing. I want this article to achieve GA status. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Start out with? No. Mention along the lines of cultural responses? Yes. --Draco 2k (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow way to completely misunderstand the comment everybody Gtbob12 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah,User:Richard001 was basically regurgitating part of a Dennet argument and it still managed to bother people (and the opposite people I would have guessed.)Madridrealy (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good and Evil
i changed the bit under Implausible beliefs, stating that it was impossible to be all good, because the nature of good and evil are man-made concepts and are not dictated by some universal law, therefore is extremely ill defined. consequently i said tried to say that people rarely can follow the criteria for good dictated by the religion itself but i'm not really happy with edit, because it's mostly POV with no citation's. does anyone have any suggestions for rewording it or improving the section? (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

Rebuttals
Has there been any attempt to include rebuttals to any of these arguments, like in Criticism of atheism, or is this just a dumping ground for people to lambast religion?--134.241.28.252 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have any reliable sources listing rebuttals to anything in the article, please, be bold and add them. There is no reason to scold other editors for being lazy without contributing yourself.


 * The simple fact is that rebuttals to criticisms of organised brainwashing sects or nonsensical concepts are hard to come by. Criticisms, sure - but it would seem the apologists tend to lead attacks the different route, hence the Criticism of atheism article. --Draco 2k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you're focused on making this article neutral.--134.241.28.252 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although before anyone asks, I'm not the initial poster here. This is a shared computer (college) and I came upon the previous one in the school's contribution history. And although I'm agnostic myself, this article still has a lot of bias issues (although it appears one user's trying to balance it out, so I commend him on that). And I find it hard to believe that there aren't people who aren't Ann Coulter who disagree with the notion that religion poisons everything. Just a thought.--134.241.28.252 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttals of points in the article are all very well, indeed they may be necessary for WP:NPOV, but I'm concerned that many recent edits are just stuffing the piece with pro-religious material. One example, from many: "spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being 'very happy' than the least religiously committed people". It's no longer an impartial piece describing the circumstances: it's turning into a pro-religion polemic and the encyclopedic purpose and coverage of the subject are being lost. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That bit may not be well integrated, but I do think it's directly relevant. The section is one dealing with the criticism that religion is "harmful to the individual" and starts by talking about arguments that "dogmatic adherence to irrational beliefs and practices" results in "subsequent mental and emotional trauma of fear and guilt."  That's a common argument, and one that needs to be in the article.  But if we talk about some who conclude that religion creates mental and emotional trauma in the believer, then we have to include the counter-argument that religion increases mental and emotional well-being.  Otherwise, we're unbalancing the article.
 * We do need to make sure that the discussion is balanced in depth. Right now, the criticism of religion's impact on emotional health is light (and completely unsourced).  I'd like to see it better explained and provided with reliable sources.  I personally don't have a source for that readily at hand, but perhaps someone else does.  On the other hand, this is just the lead-in to the section.  When you include the subsections ("Dogmatism," "Ideological indoctrination of children," "Faith healing" and "Jerusalem syndrome"), which don't include any counter-arguments, I think the overall section is still reasonably balanced. EastTN (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the considered response. When I get time I'm going over the whole piece (I don't want to rush into it) in the light of all these comments, with a view to integration, flow and balance. My concern is that the title is possibly being taken too literally: the piece should be an account of "criticism of religion", not criticism of religion in itself. As such, therefore, no corresponding "praise of religion" needs to be included in the interests of balance. If any changes are called for I will be looking to tweak the piece, not rip it about. Further views welcome, and if anybody gets it done ahead of me I will be delighted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that we don't need to pad the article with free floating praise of religion. All of these "criticism" articles are difficult - to be fair to whatever, we do need to include both sides (e.g., atheism has been criticized for undermining morality, and in response atheists have argued that morality does not depend on religious belief...), but without turning it into a pure "defense" article.  As general rules, it seems like the criticism should always come first in a section, we should always try to include a sourced response afterwards when one is available, and the response should be reasonably "on topic" even if (as it usually will) it comes at things from different angle from the criticism. EastTN (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jonestown.jpg
The image Image:Jonestown.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image has been re-added and removed several times, I removed it again with an edit summary note. The bot has a point, this is not a content issue, it's a copyright issue.  Use of the image in this article requires a fair use justification for this article, as opposed to the Jonestown article, which is the only justification on the image page.  Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

minor edit
I am changing the term "superstition based healing" under "faith healing" in the article to "faith based practices for healing purposes" as more npov

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.158.15 (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

homophobia
"most major reigions state that homosexuality is immoral and this has lead to a rise in homophobia, especially in the United States." under the heading "homophobia" in the article is a clear POV. It is already marked "citation needed" but this seems inadaquate as the whole statement is inflammatory and not only a POV but two POV's, the first being that most major religions hold this view. I am not an expert on major religions of the world but it seems that there are dozens of them at least, hundreds depending upon the arguable definition of major, a mini POV inside a POV, what each of these theologies states i don't know, but I kinda doubt they are all anti-homosexuality. Despite my doubts I'm not going to state many major religions are for homosexuality because that's a POV. the second is that this supposedly widely held religous belief is responsible for a arguable, unproven rise in homophobia, the definition of homophobia also debatable in itself in relation to scope and harshness of view (ie: personal distaste, intense hatred, criminality etc.). Lastly it states this unproven posit is localised largely in the United States. I'm removing it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.158.15 (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement "Most major religions consider homosexuality immoral" was put back in by another editor. I've flagged that with a "citation needed" tag.  It may well be true, but it's a strong enough - and sweeping enough - statement that it should be sourced.  For instance, I'm familiar with the positions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam (which are not monolithic), but I have no idea what the position of Buddhists, Daoists or Hindus might be towards homosexual activity. EastTN (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion it should stay. Fair enough adding the citation needed tag, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam are certainly "most" of the "major" religions the way I see it. I agree most times that practically every paragraph needs a reference source, but such common knowledge concepts like this are unlikely to produce much with a Google News search. If you were to reference the major religions text book (Bible etc) the views would be seen as strongly homophobic. Since the article subject is "Criticism of religion" I feel the subject should be covered within that section. Claims that the section is "inflammatory" and "clear POV" made by the IP editor show more of a POV agenda than the homophobia section does in my opinion.--Sting  Buzz Me...   22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to arm wrestle anyone over whether or not the sentence should stay, but we really do need to source it - and be careful that we don't over reach. For instance, the article List of religious populations says that the four largest religions by number of adherents are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.  With estimates of the Buddhist population running from 489 million to 1.512 billion and the Hindu population running from 965 million to 971 million, I'd have a hard time claiming that Christianity, Judaism and Islam represent "most" of the "major" religions. EastTN (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But many schools of Hinduism and Buddhism do consider homosexuality immoral. I must say though the "especially in the United States" comment is absurd, considering the homophobia in, you know, Iran or something Gtbob12 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do they? I honestly don't know.  In any event, the statement strikes me as suspect unless we can find a source or sources that document that the religions representing most of the world's population do in fact consider homosexuality immoral.  Otherwise, we're just speculating based on the religions that we personally happen to be familiar with.  (Pointing to the Bible alone isn't enough, given how many people adhere a religion that does not recognize it as scripture.) I tend to agree with the concern about the "especially in the U.S." phrase.  I assumed it was meant to say that the "rise" (from what base?) was most prominent in the U.S., but without further context or explanation, it's confusing at best. EastTN (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

remove unbalanced banner
I propose to remove the "unbalanced" banner currently on the article. I believe the issue was over having rebuttal sections and that has since been corrected. Any reason the banner shouldn't go? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I support removing it, because if it is biased - and some of the sections do strike me as biased - the discussions over time suggest there's no way we could ever come to agreement on which direction the article as a whole is biased in. (And it seems unlikely that it could be biased in both directions at the same time.) If we want to flag things, it would be more useful to flag specific sections. EastTN (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

how to i report to wikipedia about a biased article?
i try to make the article less biased but people just blind undo my edits. i know my edits are not perfect, so improve my edits. now the article has so much info about "homophobia" and zero info about sexism, just a line saying "misogyny". you think everyone english so good? sexism is more important criticism. about half of all people is woman, homosexual only how many per cent? see all the news about things like honour killing? when you tell people "islam", many people think "bad to woman", not many people think "homophobia". of course not only islam, other religion also like that. and dont assume "homophobia" is bad, homosexual is good. even the word "homophobia" is biased, assumes that there is no good reasons to oppose homosexual, only fear. i thought wikipedia is good website, now i see why other people say it is biased and got a lot of nonsense info. please make sure people do not blind undo my edits and people try to make the article less biased, add more info about sexism, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.207 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heading for the "homophobia" section
I'd like to suggest that we do try and go for a more neutral heading here. The issue seems to be balancing two points of view: 1) the religious point of view that opposes homosexual relationships, lifestyles, or whatever, but claims that opposition is not based on either fear or hatred of homosexuals, and 2) the point of view that either attributes that opposition to homophobia or characterizes it as being per se homophobia. In an edit comment, Cybercobra suggests that since the word "homophobia" is used in multiple senses, it can encompass both sides here.

I think that will be seen by many as implicitly taking a side - the use of the term itself is part of the debate (see the section Homophobia). I'm not hung up on any particular title, but it would seem better to use a heading that at least implicitly recognizes both views. That could be "Opposition to homosexuality seen as homophobic," "Views on homosexuality based on homophobia," "Opposition to homosexuality equated with homophobia," or something else. But "Homophobia" by itself does seem potentially problematic. EastTN (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You accurately summarized my view on the issue (that the article is using the term in its "discrimination against" sense as opposed to its "fear of" sense). I will only add that "homophobia" is the least verbose of the other possible section titles and a more common/recognizable term than alternatives such as homonegativity. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

hello. good to see now you discuss this and try to make the article less biased. problem is things like "opposition to homosexuality seen as homophobia" is too long. maybe just "opposition to homosexuality" or "allege homophobia". is "allege" the right word? but remember the word "homophobia" is not the only problem. the section must not be biased. it must explain why the religion think homosexual is bad. it must discuss, is this belief because of homophobia or because the religion got good reason to think homosexual is bad? another problem is, no info about sexism. sexism is very more important criticism. so must also add info about sexism in the other section. hope to see less biased article soon. --218.186.12.207 (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given how loaded the term "homophobia" is for both sides, I don't think it's safe to assume that it will be read in the "opposition to homosexuality" sense. My concern is that some readers (and based on the edit history, perhaps many readers) will read the term "homophobia" in the "hatred for homosexuals" sense.  Granted, it is the most shortest and most recognizable option, but given the POV that may be implicit, I do think we should at least consider other options to make the article more neutral. EastTN (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's a real problem with using homophobia, but how about anti-homosexuality? Ilkali (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with anti-homosexuality. I'm really not too hung up over the particular solution - I'd just like to see us try and find a title that doesn't implicitly assume one side is right.  The problem with some words is that once they're said, everyone stops listening. EastTN (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I grant that homophobia may be interpreted badly by some (as will the entire article for that matter), but this is a criticism article and I think critics would use the term "homophobia" to describe their criticism. It'd be inaccurate not to use their term. It's the most recognizable term for the related general topic. it encompasses both meanings of the term (primarily the "discrimination" one, and to a lesser extent the "fear" one), which again I think critics would agree describes their criticism. We shouldn't change "misogyny" to "opposition to female dominance" just because some people don't like it, we shouldn't do the same here either. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"anti-homosexuality" is ok with me. but remember, just changing that is not enough. you must make the whole section less biased, explain why the religion think homosexual is bad and discuss, is this because of homophobia or not? also must add more info about sexism. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.209 (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please thread your comments like everyone else so people can follow along? It's kinda standard common courtesy. And getting an account as opposed to being anonymous helps Wikipedia in general take your comments more seriously; just fyi. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of a change you would make? Ilkali (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, i create account. how to "thread the comments"? change i would make? first, add info about why the religion think homosexual is bad and how they defend this belief when people call them "homophobic". then add a lot of info about sexism, like honour killings, because sexism is more important criticism. --Kepala pusing (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:INDENT.
 * In response to the rest of your comment: Firstly, I think you should stop associating the sexism section with the homophobia one. They're two completely separate issues, and this talk page section was made to discuss the latter only. Secondly, I was asking for a more specific change. Precisely what information would you introduce? What justification, for instance? Ilkali (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cybercobra, in general I agree that criticism articles should start by defining criticisms precisely as they are made by the critics. But once the issue was raised with this particular heading, I gave it some thought, and it seems to me that it may be a special case when the heading is a one-word pejorative - especially when that pejorative is a highly loaded one (and "homophobia" is a pejorative these days).  Personally, I wouldn't take the word "homophobia" completely out of the heading.  I do think I'd lengthen the title a bit to try and balance it.  I don't have strong feelings about how, but it seems to me that the basic idea is that opposition to homosexuality is seen as homophobia (hatred for homosexuals), or equated with homophobia, or that it's being accused of being a cover for homophobia, or driven by homophobia, or some such.  We should be able to expand the heading a bit without undermining the critics' core argument, and if it makes the article a bit more neutral (and cuts down on back and forth between editors) it may be worth the loss in brevity. EastTN (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about "Accusations of homophobia" for the title? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That addresses my concern. EastTN (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "accusations of homophobia" is ok. "anti-homosexuality" is better. i mention the sexism section because it is a reason for bias. the article is not balanced, with no info about sexism and so much nonsense about "homophobia". i think better create one more section for discuss the sexism section. more specific? why the religion think homosexual is bad? because of family value? because of "lust" or what you call it? must explain that and have source, like bible verse for christianity. --Kepala pusing (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean about lust, but I'll address the 'family values' idea. For these values to be relevant, they have to come from the religion. And if they do - if those religions do prescribe lifestyles that conflict with a typical homosexual lifestyle - then does that information say "No, religions are not anti-homosexuality, and here's why...", or "Yes, religions are anti-homosexuality, but here's a justification for that..."? If it's the latter, I'm not sure the information has a place in the article. The criticism is that religions discriminate against homosexuality. Whether you think that's a flaw or not is your own business, and the article doesn't include arguments in either direction. Ilkali (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we go ahead and change to heading to "Accusations of homophobia" or "Alleged homophobia" for now? Then we can move on and think about what changes may or may not be needed in the text itself. EastTN (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anti-homosexuality is better, but I'm not convinced there's a problem with homophobia. This is a "criticism" page, and one criticism made is that religions are homophobic. Accusations of and alleged are redundant. Ilkali (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "Anti-homosexuality" as well. Like I said before, I do think there's a problem with at least perceived POV when a heading is a one-word pejorative.  "Homophobia" is a highly loaded term these days.   We use headings like "Implausible beliefs" instead of "Nonsense" and "Social construct" instead of "Fairly tale" to maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone.  In my mind, this is no different.  "Opposition to homosexuality" may be one of the technical meanings of "homophobia", but that's not how it's used or would be understood in this context.  If you approached a representative of one of these religions and asked "is your church opposed to homosexuality" they would say "yes, absolutely" - but if you approached them asked "is your church homophobic" in almost all cases they would say "absolutely not . . . let me explain."  Why?  Because they recognize the term itself as an insult, or as implying something more than simple opposition.  In my judgment, the term is simply too loaded to be neutral standing by itself as a one-word heading. EastTN (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the meaning of homophobia, I'm talking about the nature of criticism articles. Using a heading of homophobia in Criticism of religion does not mean Wikipedia is asserting that any religions are homophobic. All it is doing is reporting that others have accused them of such. That's why "accusations of" is redundant; it's already implied.
 * Look at some of the other headers in the article. "Viruses of the mind", "fruits of madness", "harmful to the individual", "moral deficiency", etc. If you approached a representative of a religion and asked "is your church morally deficient", would they answer "yes, absolutely"? Ilkali (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that - but we are talking about tone. We should seek to describe things as impartially as possible.  To the extent possible we should avoid emotionally loaded words when there are other words that would convey the meaning just as well.  So, for instance, if the article was about criticisms of Richard Nixon, instead of having a heading that used the word "crook," we'd probably use words like "illegal" or "abuse of power."  Instead of using the word "liar" we'd probably use the word "perjury."  I don't have any particular desire to critique or defend all the headings in the article - I just took a look at this one when someone else raised the concern.  But actually, I think the headings "harmful to the individual" and "moral deficiency" are pretty good examples of this - the meaning is clear, but the language is pretty low key and encyclopedic.  And there are other comparisons we could use.  In discussing parallel issues, the article on Criticism of atheism uses the headings "Effects of atheism on the individual" and "Morality," which are quite neutral and guarded.  I think that's appropriate - especially when we're dealing with terms has highly charged as this. EastTN (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "if the article was about criticisms of Richard Nixon, instead of having a heading that used the word "crook," we'd probably use words like "illegal" or "abuse of power."" We wouldn't use "alleged crookedness" either. Besides, crook would be dismissed for other reasons anyway. If your argument is just that the word homophobia carries negative connotations (which I don't agree with), then adding words like alleged doesn't address the problem, it just adds redundancy. We could add alleged to most of the headers in the article, but there're are good reasons why we shouldn't. Those good reasons apply equally here. Ilkali (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, "alleged" is just one alternative I threw out - I'm in no way wedded to it. If you look back, I've also thrown out "Opposition to homosexuality seen as homophobic," "Views on homosexuality based on homophobia," and "Opposition to homosexuality equated with homophobia" (none of which are shining examples of English style, but I was just trying to illustrate where we might want to go).  When they were suggested by other editors, I said that I was o.k. with "anti-homosexuality" (I believe that one was yours) and "accusations of homophobia" (I believe this one was Cybercobra's).  I've also pretty consistently said that I'm open to other alternatives.  Not once have I said that the words "alleged" or "accusations" or their equivalent have to be in the heading.


 * I do still think there's a real potential problem with the one word heading "Homophobia". The term does carry a very negative connotation these days.  Here's a simple example - in the U.S., many politicians proudly say that they are opposed to gay marriage.  How many say that they are homophobic?  Why not?  Regardless of what the dictionary definition says, or how sociologists may use the term, in common usage it clearly has a pejorative meaning.  As I've said before, I don't think that "Homophobia" as a one-word title has, for many readers, the kind of neutral, encyclopedic tone we want. I really am fine with any reasonable alternative. This wasn't my gripe to begin with - but I do think the concern is reasonable, and would like to help find something that's more neutral and encyclopedic in tone.  EastTN (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to get at is why the existence of alleged or accusations of makes any difference to you, given that they are implied by context.
 * "Here's a simple example - in the U.S., many politicians proudly say that they are opposed to gay marriage. How many say that they are homophobic?". How many people profess to be "misogynistic", or "morally deficient", or "racist"? Why make the homophobia section a special case? Ilkali (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with your reasoning. This is why I support the current status quo of "homophobia". --Cybercobra (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) First, my concern is not based on "the existence of alleged or accusations of" - rather, it's a question of whether the current heading is neutral and encyclopedic in tone. I apologize if I did not make that clear in my last response. Again, it really is not important to me whether the words (or necessarily even the concepts) "alleged" or "accusations of" appear in the heading. However, these days the terms "homophobia," "homophobic" and "homophobe" are more often used as negative epithets than impartial descriptions. Standing alone as a heading, it seems to me that it does not qualify as neutral language. I'm not insisting on any one particular solution, or even insisting that the term itself should not be used in the heading. But, I do believe we should try to find a heading that both sides would agree is a neutral description of the criticism.

Second, we can go around forever if we get into saying "well, this one is no worse than that one" and "yeah, but it's much worse than the other one." We're better off discussing one issue at a time - remember, this article uses the heading "Moral deficiency" when discussing the claim that religion undermines true morality, but the article on criticism of atheism uses the heading "Morality" to address the exact same criticism when it's directed at that belief system. The question of neutrality has been raised regarding the heading "Homophobia." I think it's a legitimate one, given current usage of the term. I'm more than willing to discuss which, if any, of the other headings in this article could be improved in tone, but I don't see that as a reason to not try improving this particular heading.

Third, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the subjects of criticism have to agree with it. But if, for example, we were discussing the abortion debate, maintaining a neutral point of view would require us to be very careful not to adopt the language of one side over that of the other (e.g. "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" versus "pro-choice" and "anti-choice"). Whenever possible, we need to find a way to describe the criticism neutrally, without implicitly buying into whether it is correct or incorrect.

Neutrality is hard. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I just think we can do better. EastTN (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "First, my concern is not based on "the existence of alleged or accusations of" - rather, it's a question of whether the current heading is neutral and encyclopedic in tone". What I said is that the existence of those qualifiers makes a difference to you, because you rejected a title that lacked them and proposed otherwise-identical titles that contain them. I am asking why "standing alone" makes such a difference that we need to add some completely redundant words to pad the heading out.
 * "Whenever possible, we need to find a way to describe the criticism neutrally". Obviously. But I don't think there's any neutrality problem with homophobia, and if there were, I don't see how adding accusations of would change anything. Ilkali (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "What I said is that the existence of those qualifiers makes a difference to you, because you rejected a title that lacked them and proposed otherwise-identical titles that contain them." Then you drew a mistaken conclusion, because I also accepted (and indeed proposed) alternatives that did not contain them. "Standing alone" is important because we're dealing with a highly loaded term that, by it itself and with no other context, is most commonly used in a derogatory sense.


 * I do believe there is a potential neutrality problem with the heading "Homophobia," and again, I am not asking that the heading be changed to "accusations of . . . " I wasn't even the editor to first suggest that solution!  My guess is that it was suggested because it is one way of indicating that Wikipedia is not taking the position of endorsing that criticism as "the truth."  There are other, equally valid, ways of making the language more neutral.  One would be to use less highly-charged terms, such as "anti-homosexuality" or "opposition to homosexuality" or "views on homosexuality" or "opposition to gay rights" or "rights of homosexuals" or "treatment of homosexuals."  I think it could even be done while still including the term "homophobia" and leaving out the term "accusation", thought that's probably going to be wordy and awkward: "opposition to homosexualty/homophobia", perhaps.


 * Why is the use of this one, particular term so important? What is lost by using a different, more neutral word or set of words to indicate the same area of criticism?  The section would be just as easy for the reader to find if the heading were "treatment of homosexuals" or "views on homosexuality", the language would be more encyclopedic, and the reader would be no less likely to understand what the issue is.  We're not trying to describe the criticisms as forcefully as possible, but as neutrally as possible. EastTN (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Then you drew a mistaken conclusion, because I also accepted (and indeed proposed) alternatives that did not contain them". Read what I wrote again: "What I said is that the existence of those qualifiers makes a difference to you, because you rejected a title that lacked them and proposed otherwise-identical titles that contain them". Nowhere here did I say that you demand the presence of those words, only that they make a difference to you. This will go a lot faster if you don't attack positions that I don't hold.
 * ""Standing alone" is important because we're dealing with a highly loaded term that, by it itself and with no other context, is most commonly used in a derogatory sense". "no other context"? The article defines the context! And that context makes alleged and accusations of implied and unnecessary. Any item in the article (whether "racism" or "moral deficiency", or etc) can be read to have the word alleged before it, because the sole purpose of this article is to document third-party criticisms. We don't need to take pains to remind people that this isn't Wikipedia's accusation.
 * "Why is the use of this one, particular term so important?" Remember those other sections that you refused to comment on? "Racism" and "misogyny" and so on? We're not talking about one particular term, we're talking about an entire convention being deceptively dressed up as a minor issue. Ilkali (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ikali, my point is that I'm not concerned about those particular words ("alleged" & "accusations"), but in making the tone of the heading more encyclopedic. Since (1) I'm not asking that either of those words specifically be included, and (2) you think they're redundant and as such undesirable, can we simply stipulate that we'll exclude them from our ultimate solution and move on?


 * Yes, everything in the article is certainly in the context of the article. Nonetheless, less emotionally charged language is generally preferable to more emotionally charged language.


 * Following on that, as you've pointed out, this is a criticism article. Whatever the subject identified by the heading may be, the fact that it is being criticized is also implied (just as much as the fact that the criticism is alleged).  Thus, in the article on criticism of atheism, when the heading is "Effects of atheism on the individual," it is implied that those effects are being criticized.  Similarly, when the heading is "Morality," it is implied that atheism is being criticized on moral grounds.  If, instead of the heading "Moral deficiency" in this article, we paralleled the atheism article and used the heading "Morality," the context would make it clear that religion was being criticized on moral grounds.  Again, if instead of the heading "Harmful to the individual" we paralleled the atheism article and used "Effects of religion on the individual," it would clearly be implied that religion was being criticized on the grounds of its effects on the individual.  Both changes would, in my mind, make the language more neutral and would also make the article more consistent with the way we treat the discussion of atheism.


 * Similarly for this issue: if the heading were "Treatment of homosexuals" the context would make it clear that the topic was criticism of religion based on how some religions treat homosexuals. Or, we could go with "View of homosexuality," and the context would make it clear that the criticism dealt with how some religions view homosexuality and, at least by implication, how they treat homosexuals.


 * Since you insist, I think that the heading "Misogyny" would be more neutral if it were changed to "Treatment of women." I also think that nothing would be lost by that change.  "Racism" is a bit harder to characterize in neutral terms, but perhaps "Used to justify racism" would be appropriate, or "Racial injustice."


 * No deception is intended here. I apologize if I gave you that impression.  I simply think that we need to be careful in the language we use, and that in many cases we can do better.  I also do not believe there's a clear and consistent "convention" here: otherwise we wouldn't discuss the claim that people have been killed in the name of religion under the heading "Holy war and religious terrorism," but discuss the counter claim that people have been killed in the name of atheism under the heading "Atheism and totalitarian regimes."


 * Again, what would be lost if we were to use the headings "Morality," "Treatment of homosexuals," "Racial injustice" and "Treatment of women" instead of "Moral deficiency," "Homophobia," "Racism" and "Misogyny"? The context would make it clear, in each case, that we were dealing with criticisms that were alleged on a moral basis regarding the way some religions have been used to treat homosexuals, minorities and women. On the up side, the language would be more neutral and encyclopedic (as in the case in the criticism of atheism article) because we'd be avoiding the use of hot-button terms EastTN (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find your proposed consistent renaming of the several section titles acceptable. Can we finally bring this long discussion to a close? --Cybercobra (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

very good idea, easttn. i like "treatment of homosexuals". hope to faster agree and change the heading, then can focus on other bias problems. --Kepala pusing (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum
I removed the argumentum ad populum, because in the first place it is not falacious when you are arguing whether something is normal or an "abnoral" disorder. Historically statistics were used in helping make decisions about the classifications of mental ilnesses.

Secondly, it did not even say, many people believe in religion, therefore it can't be a disorder. What it said was, ''Ward then characterizes a delusion as a "clearly false opinion, especially as a symptom of a mental illness," an "irrational belief" that is "so obviously false that all reasonable people would see it as mistaken." He then claims that belief in God is different, since "[m]ost great philosophers have believed in God, and they are rational people". He argues that "[a]ll that is needed to refute the claim that religious belief is a delusion is one clear example of someone who exhibits a high degree of rational ability, who functions well in the ordinary affairs of life ... and who can produce a reasonable and coherent defense of their beliefs" and claims that there many such people, "including some of the most able philosophers and scientists in the world today."''

As noted on page xxxi of the introduction of the DSM-IV-TR, "In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a signicantly increased rik of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one."(emphasis mine). Ward was demonstrating many religious people are not impaired in rational think nor distressed, but instead that some were very successful. He is rebutting another argument (something like: Religious people believe in an invisible man in the sky. Believing in an invisible man in the sky is not rational.  Therefore, religious people are not rational, but instead deluded.)  His counterexample was the philosophers and scientists who were/are rational, yet still religious.

Thirdly, there was still no WP:RS after months, so this was still WP:OR which wikipedia "does not publish". Madridrealy (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for a pattern of opposition to science and liberal democracy.
We've had some back and forth on the sourcing for the sentence:


 * In more recent time, many debates have arisen that follow a pattern of faith versus reason, in particular the rise of fundamentalist and bible literalist opposition to science and liberal democracy.

A fact tag was removed, on the basis that "examples [are] given in [the] very next sentence."

That's true, but I don't think it's enough. The sentence isn't just claiming that there are multiple debates; it's going further to say that there's a particular pattern to those debates, and that underlying that pattern is not just moral concern about particular applications of science or specific social policies adopted through the electoral process, but a basic opposition to science and liberal democracy themselves. That's a very strong assertion. It may be true, but we need more than a simple list of hot-button issues to support it.

The question I'd like to ask is this: who is it that has perceived or discovered this pattern? If we can't answer that with a source, then this would seem to me to be either original research or a synthesis. EastTN (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article lede
I rearranged the first sentence in the lede, and added some references to it as well. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Racial Injustice
In this section, it would also be good to mention the racist view of Spiritism. In the religion's books, written by Allan Kardec, the author explicitly states that there are differences of progress between the races. According to him, African people (described as savages that barely distinguish themselves from monkeys) would be less spiritually developed than chinese people, which in turn would be less developed than the civilized europeans. This is described in the book The Gospel According to Spiritism.

It would also be nice to write an article with critiscism to Spiritism/Spiritualism, but since it's a smaller religion, I don't know if there is sufficient material to write a full article - perhaps a section in the religion's main article.

189.15.236.232 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much Dominionism?
EastTN: Looking at the article as a whole, it looks like we have too much text regarding "Dominionism", relative to the rest of the article. I see that Doninionism has its own article already, and _this_ article has a "main" link to it. Would it be okay to limit this articles text to a nice summary paragraph, and let readers go to the Dominionism article for details? If you really want lots of text here on Dominionism, perhaps you could explain why it is so significant, relative to other subsections, like cruelty to animals, child abuse, etc. (Personally, Ive never heard of Dominionism outside of this article, but that may just be me). --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also:  Im sure that 100% of the content you added is correct and true and verifiable.  The question I'm posing is: should that detail go in _this_ overview article, or in the Dominionism article. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you like, I can move the detailed text from this article into Dominionism article. Is that acceptable?  --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is that this section has been so severely pruned that all it includes is a very crude and marginally sourced description of "dominionism" as a well-defined political movement that's out to make the U.S. a theocracy. If you read the main article on Dominionism I think you'll see that it's a massive oversimplification.  The text I put back into the article is intended to be a summary of the main article.  To be very blunt, it seems to me that:


 * A) The current text doesn't do a very good job of describing dominionism


 * Compare . ..


 * Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
 * Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
 * Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.


 * to . ..


 * Schaeffer's politics has influenced conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, John W. Whitehead, and although they represent different theological and political ideas, Dominionists believe they have a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society", either by putting fundamentalist Christians in office, or by forcing biblical law into the secular sphere.[159][160][103]


 * Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[161][162][163] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[161] Although such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism) has been described by many authors,[164][165] full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[164][166][167]


 * In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond[168][169] and journalist Frederick Clarkson[170][171] defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right.[172] Other authors who stress the influence of Dominionist ideas on the Christian Right include Michelle Goldberg[173] and Kevin Phillips[174][175]


 * Essayist Katherine Yurica began using the term dominionism in her articles in 2004, beginning with "The Despoiling of America," (February 11, 2004),[176][177][178] Yurica has been followed in this usage by authors including journalist Chris Hedges [179][180][181] Marion Maddox,[182] James Rudin,[183] Sam Harris,[184] and the group TheocracyWatch.[185] This group of authors has applied the term to a broader spectrum of people than have sociologists such as Diamond.


 * The first has a partisan tone - it's written in almost exactly the words a critic of the Christian Right might use in a polemic - and is completely unsourced. The second has a much more encyclopedic tone and is extensively sourced.  It covers the key criticisms - that the groups described as "dominionists" want to put Christians in office and get biblical principles into secular law - without caricaturing the the groups.


 * B) The current text makes no attempt to even recognize that the concept of dominionism as described by many of its critics has been seriously challenged. So,


 * Compare . ..


 * Nothing


 * to . ..


 * The terms "dominionist" and "dominionism" are rarely used for self-description, and their usage has been attacked from several quarters. Journalist Anthony Williams charged that its purpose is "to smear the Republican Party as the party of domestic Theocracy, facts be damned."[186] Stanley Kurtz labeled it "conspiratorial nonsense," "political paranoia," and "guilt by association,"[187] and decried Hedges' "vague characterizations" that allow him to "paint a highly questionable picture of a virtually faceless and nameless 'Dominionist' Christian mass."[188] Kurtz also complained about a perceived link between average Christian evangelicals and extremism such as Christian Reconstructionism:


 * The notion that conservative Christians want to reinstitute slavery and rule by genocide is not just crazy, it's downright dangerous. The most disturbing part of the Harper's cover story (the one by Chris Hedges) was the attempt to link Christian conservatives with Hitler and fascism. Once we acknowledge the similarity between conservative Christians and fascists, Hedges appears to suggest, we can confront Christian evil by setting aside 'the old polite rules of democracy.' So wild conspiracy theories and visions of genocide are really excuses for the Left to disregard the rules of democracy and defeat conservative Christians — by any means necessary.[187]


 * Other criticism has focused on the proper use of the term. Berlet wrote that "some critics of the Christian Right have stretched the term dominionism past its breaking point,"[189] and argued that, rather than labeling conservatives as extremists, it would be better to "talk to these people" and "engage them."[190] Sara Diamond wrote that "[l]iberals' writing about the Christian Right's take-over plans has generally taken the form of conspiracy theory," and argued that instead one should "analyze the subtle ways" that ideas like Dominionism "take hold within movements and why."[191]


 * I'm open to both pruning this section and to moving details to the main article on Dominionism. But I do think we have a serious problem with tone, balance and accuracy - all three.  The text I propose is a good bit longer, but the pro and con are about equal in length and level of detail, and I believe they're both equally encyclopedic.


 * Here's what I'd suggest. Go back for the nonce to the longer version, but punch it up on the "con" side by adding the opening sentence from the shorter version to the top ("Critics view Dominionism as an attempt to improperly impose Christianity as the national faith of the United States").  Then start working through how we could tighten it up without losing either an encyclopedic tone or a balanced presentation.  Does that make sense? EastTN (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear what you are saying. I think we are in agreement on the basic principles:
 * Most detail should be in the Dominionism article
 * This article should have a summary of the topic
 * The summary in this article should be proportional to other topics in this article
 * The summary in this article should be balanced and encyclopedic
 * Go ahead and re-write the section so we can meet those goals. But if it ends up being much larger than all the other sections in this article, it will stick out like a sore thumb.  If readers are curious about Dominionism, Im sure they will click on the "main" link that is right there at the top of the section, no?  --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ... also, I would add that in _this_ article, we dont need to describe the "Pros" of Dominionism. This article, being "Criticism of Religion" merely needs to capture the essense of the criticism of Dominionism.  Detailed definition of Dominionism, and "pros" of it dont really belong in this article, any more than the "Pros" of young-earth creationism belong in this article.  --Noleander (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't include the "pro's" in the sense of advocating for dominionism, but I do think we have to summarize the response to the criticism along with the criticism itself. That's pretty typical for "criticism" articles, because it's the only way to maintain a NPOV. EastTN (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel super-strong about it, go ahead. I'll just repeat:  It is very odd to have the Dominionism section (about at topic that started in 1980 and most people - inluding me - have never heard of) contain as much text as the Catholic church's attack on Galileo.  --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I totally understand that. Personally, I wonder if Dominionism is notable for purposes of this article, given the relatively its relatively small size and how poorly it's defined.  But . ..


 * . . . that may be coming from my own biases. There are well documented instances where it's been used to criticize religion (though I do wonder if this particular criticism would fit better in the Criticism of Christianity article than it does here).  Because of that, I'm disinclined to dispute including the section.  But given that it is included, I think it takes a certain amount of text to cover it in an accurate and evenhanded fashion.


 * I'll take a first stab at it. With a little time, we should be able to iterate to something reasonable. EastTN (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)