Talk:History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance/Archive 1

Coffey 2000, p. 206, Full quote
This is what standard academic literature says:

""Eventually, this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians. Tolerationists had posed as reformers of European Christianity who were calling the church back to its roots. (...) The eventual triumph of tolerationism constituted a transformation of the Christian tradition every bit as significant as the fragmentation caused by the reformation. Today, Christians of all denomintions lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incromprehension.Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith." I had already brought most of this quote at the deletion debate, but the links to it are messed up. So, see Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 8 So it is not exaggerated to say that all (significant) Christians denominations embrace religious toleration. You would have to find a reliable source that says that a certain Christian denomination does not, and then we could argue if that group is significant enough... Zara1709 (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue came up again. diff. What Coffey says is that you will not find a Christian author who nowadays advocates religious persecution, and he is an academic source. Well, admittedly, if you would have a very broad definition of 'Christian' you could find a contemporary 'Christian' author who argues that adherents of other religions should be imprisoned or that like, but fortunately, I don't know such an author. In any case, to say that "Christians have since broadly trended toward an embrace of religious toleration..." is to weak - the source says something different and stronger. Actually, I someone has more sources about the topic, I would like to see them. Zara1709 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the quote from Coffey makes a statement about "Christians of all denominations." You seem to interpret this as "All Christians of all denominations," or alternatively as a statement about the views of every denomination and their formal positions as such.  There are several problems: 1.) To say that Christians of all denominations take a view is not the same as to say that all denominations take the view.  Christians within denominations disagree, and frankly there is no way that Coffey is making a statement about the formal positions of all Christian denominations.  The statement found in the article -- "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration" -- is not supported by this statement from Coffey.  2.) The statement that all denominations "embrace religious toleration" goes further yet from the source.  "Religious toleration" is not just the opposite of "religious persecution."  There are many views on what is meant by religious toleration, the alternatives of which may or may not be described as persecution.  Incidentally I would question whether persecution has to be considered as such by the persecutor in order to qualify.  3.) More broadly speaking, it would take a lot more than one source to establish that Christianity has universally adopted religious toleration in place of persecution.  I don't follow the formal positions of Christian denominations, but these are hardly the only structures in Christianity.  Many influential Christians advocate a highly political form of Christianity in which the level of toleration for other religions is at a minimum highly disputed.


 * Honestly I am surprised to see it suggested that Christians now universally endorse religious toleration. I think this is mainly based on a particular definition, that as long as you are not out to persecute people then you must support toleration.  All in all, I think a statement about broad trends is going to be much more accurate and easy to support. Mackan79 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A search of books on the "Christian right" may give a helpful primer on the controversy surrounding this. See a Google books search here. It's possible that those outside the U.S. (which seems to include Coffey) are less familiar with this type of debate. Mackan79 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I should probably have been more specific. Of course I know that groups like Christian identity can't be described as tolerant, but then, again, Coffey obviously doesn't take these into account and neither would I. Those are political movements with religious elements, and not actually denominations. What is meant by the statement is that in the 21 century you will not find a member of one of the significant Christian denominations that advocates the burning of heretics, the imprisonment of dissenters, etc. Historically the best minds of Christianity (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin) advocated religious persecution to such varying extends, but nowadays "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith".
 * What I want here is an article that gives these opposing views and explains why Christianity came to change it's attitude on persecution and toleration. I don't actually want to discuss whether the Christian Right in the United States is representative for Christianity or significant enough to be mentioned in the article or whether their political views qualify as 'persecution'. It certainly is not persecution, when individual Christians commit acts of violence, even if they acted out of their religious and political conviction. It is also not persecution when a mob of Christians attacks a group of other people because they have a different religion, that is religious violence. What historians describe as persecution is when a religious organisation, basically a church attempts to eradicate beliefs it deems as heretical, schismatic or unacceptable with the support (or at least the acceptance) of the state or when the state itself moves against certain religious groups for religious reasons of because they are perceived as political enemies. If you take a look at the other sentence, which you deleted and which I haven't restored: In the United States Freedom of Religion is constitutionally guaranteed. Even if the Christian Right would like to persecute non-Christians, before they actually could do that they would have to abolish the U.S. constitution. I don't know if we should discuss this further. I personally don't care that much about the current political issues in the U.S., and I don't really think that they would belong into this article. If you disagree with that, and want to bring academic sources forward that the view of the Christian right in the U.S. can be seen as a rejection of religious toleration, then we can discuss this here, though.  Zara1709 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zara. My problem is not with most of what you said, but with the assessment that "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration."  I raised specific problems with this, primarily that 1.) your source does not support this statement, and 2.) the statement is highly controversial given the extensive claims to the contrary.  I am not sure what you mean about the U.S., since clearly it is at least as relevant as any other country, but whether or not there is "persecution" in the United States is also a different question from whether there is complete mainstream acceptance of "religious toleration," as your sentence suggests.  I could discuss this in greater detail, but for now my point is simply that unless you can support the quoted sentence about religious toleration, then it needs to be changed. Mackan79 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I revised the sentence again, as I am certain we can't suggest that all significant Christians now embrace "religious toleration." The phrase is too vague to begin with. If all that is meant is that they do not advocate overt persecution, then this is all that should be said. The idea of "toleration" would seem to suggest that Christians are generally ok with everybody just being what they are, when of course that isn't at all true. We could elaborate on what Coffey means by toleration in the article, but to offer it as accepted fact in the introduction suggests a great deal that isn't accurate. Mackan79 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, religious toleration does not mean "Christians are generally ok with everybody just being what they are", at least not if you'd asked a historian like Coffey. Toleration more likely means 'I think what you belief is false, but I am not going to kill you or discriminate you for it.' And honestly, I don't need another of these stupid debates. Apparently you are primarily concerned with topics such as the Christian Right. Well, I know that this is an issue in the contemporary U.S., but I would like to work on Wikipedia without being disturbed by such political issues, which, apparently, is not possible. Coffey doesn't say that Christians now "broadly tend" towards religious toleration, he says that the "tolerationist position is the current orthodoxy among Christians". With your penny forgery approach to the quote you have so far missed what he intents to say. Take any significant Christian denomination (say 100,000+ adherents) and see whether that denomination thinks that no other religions and denominations should be allowed in the state. In that case you would have a Christian denomination that doesn't embrace civil toleration, but I don't think that you will find such a denomination. Zara1709 (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Without getting too caught up here, my question is how we can square what you're saying with what I'm saying. According to Wikipedia's article that we link to, Religious toleration is "the condition of accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices which disagree with one's own." To be clear, my question is not whether you or Coffey can argue that on whole Christians now practice toleration under this or another definition. The problem is that readers cannot be expected to presume the meaning that you or Coffey have in mind, without any attempt on our part to clarify the point (or any clear attribution, for that matter). I am not especially interested in engaging Coffey's assessment, but it is most certainly being inaccurately conveyed here, which is a problem. I have noted that there is also much disagreement over this point as currently stated; to say that the disagreement does not address "denominations" is absurd, given that Coffey's statement on toleration does not address denominations, and this is an entirely arbitrary distinction to focus on besides (I should also clarify that the "Christian Right" in the U.S. does not just include groups like Christian Identity, but is generally considered to include people like our last president). As it happens if you read our article on religious toleration, I see it suggests five distinct types of "religious toleration," with "civil toleration" as just one. Is this not a problem? I find it concerning that you dismiss this as a stupid political debate (no less in an article on "Christian debate on persecution and toleration"!). The article currently blunders through these debates to its detriment (see for instance the third Google hit for "Religious toleration Christianity," a Christian site which criticizes the idea; Ted Haggart is quoted making the point here).

If you don't like "trending," I am not sure how else to characterize it. Here is a New York Times article, not about Christians in particular, but about the U.S., which speaks of a "broad trend toward tolerance." You still have not addressed the two serious problems with your wording: 1.) "all denominations embrace religious toleration" is a careless and significant misrepresentation of the source, and 2.) in the most populous English speaking country, to say that Christians universally embrace a "tolerationist" view sounds ridiculous. We can attempt to find outside views here, but I wonder if there isn't a quicker way to straighten this out. Mackan79 (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Situation in the U.S.
I am aware of the Situation in the U.S., actually I know it quite well. Just thinking of debates like this one drives me to anger and despair. Since you brought in your President: You are probably aware of the debate whether Bush Senior actually said that "atheists shouldn't be considered as citizens" and that Separation of Church and State wouldn't apply to them. Well, currently there isn't any info on that on Wikipedia, but since I had worked that out: There is no proof that he actually said it, but his press office refused to issue a definite statement that he didn't say it.

But then, does this belong into this article? Tell me, do you think that Bush is notable as a Christian thinker? The issues you have raised belong into the article Freedom of Religion in the United States, or a related one. We can probably try to to link the article from here, but I really don't think that this is appropriate to discuss this in detail. Zara1709 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked the George H.W. Bush quote up myself some time ago and came to a similar conclusion, but no, I wouldn't consider that persecution. Nevertheless, if the topic here is "persecution and toleration," then we need to be aware of U.S. political commentary on the issue.  That may depend on how these articles were organized; it's worth noting that I arrived here after looking at "Persecution of Christians," and wondering what happened to the "Persecution by Christians" article.  So this is currently not just an article on Christian theological debate, but the article on the entire topic of persecution and toleration in Christian history.  Certainly that's a political as well as a theological topic?


 * I think one difficulty with these Wikipedia articles is attempting to cover academic research in different fields for a lay reader. It seems there is a field of academic research related to "toleration."   However, when this is also a political concept in the U.S., then that needs to be acknowledged here as well.  On that point the fact is that a large and significant faction of Christian evangelicals, or Christian fundamentalists, or the Christian right, is not especially comfortable with the concept of "religious toleration" as generally used.  To say that they embrace "religious toleration" is to disregard and contradict a significant body of opinion which argues exactly the opposite.  Considering also the weak sourcing, that is all I am sure we need to change. Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from some of the above sources, I just came across a book which discusses the use of "religious tolerance" in the U.S. The author's premise is repeated, that the "main target of the champions of tolerance are Christian conservatives." I'll copy the thesis below:

In many ways the charge of intolerance against Christian conservatives is misguided. It is the inevitable consequence when a people who believe in moral truth try to assert it in a relativistic age that sees all truth as mere opinion. A misguided charge, yes, but not entirely wrong. Christians are often enough belligerent, hostile, and judgmental to have earned the label of intolerant. As with any caricature, there is just enough truth in it to give rise to the caricature in the first place. If our accusers enjoy shooting at us, it is too often we who have provided the ammunition.

In many other ways, however, the question of whether or not we are tolerant misses the point. Tolerance, frankly, is not an explicitly biblical value (though we will see there are many related biblical values). God does not call us to be tolerant, he calls us to love. It is a much higher standard. In the final analysis, we are no more or less intolerant than our critics, but the standards of our critics are too low.

This is basically the problem with saying that Christians universally embrace the concept of "religious toleration" before a largely U.S. audience. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have time for an elaborate reply a.t.m., but here is a suggestion. As soon as I find the time, which would be in 1 to 3 days, however, I'll expand the article further and start a section on the U.S. We need one anyway, because Jefferson also had to say something about the topic. Then we can include material on the contemporary views concerning toleration in the U.S., too, and in that context we can discuss the issue further. What do you think of that? Zara1709 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether the U.S. merits its own section, as I'm not sure the primary debates on "persecution and toleration" have so much to do with the U.S. A section on current debates in various countries could be useful, that could be expanded by whoever was able.  If you start something on the U.S., I think maybe such an international discussion would be the way to frame it.  My question remains about the sentence in the introduction, which makes an unequivocal statement about 'all' denominations (in all places) that I think goes too far.   Will you object if I change it back to a sentence on trends?  If so then I would like to ask for others to comment on the issue.  Mackan79 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, with the material I have, I shouldn't be hard to warrant a separate section on the U.S. The material from Coffey is not about the contemporary U.S., but about the views of people like Jefferson, but, then, we can fit in a little material on the contemporary U.S., too. The question concerning the lead is more difficult. I tried to find a better version of that sentence which is more precise, however, I couldn't think of anything. I hope that I get an idea when I'll find the time to expand the article. Zara1709 (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I took another shot, which I think is significantly more consistent with the sources we have. Even Coffey, as I've noted, does not comment specifically on denominations, other than to say that Christians "of all denominations" look back with horror at the history of persecution. That all denominations embrace toleration goes much further, and is for that matter just not supportable in light of the contemporary debate in the U.S. Further discussion of that debate could be useful here -- I'm not sure it's really at the heart of this topic -- but I think this is the least necessary to be accurate in the introduction. Mackan79 (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote, again
Couldn't you have a little patience? Now, instead of having the time to work on the article, I'll have to continue to discuss the issue here. First, an even longer quote from the page from Coffey:
 * "Eventually, this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians. Tolerationists had posed as reformers of European Christianity who were calling the church back to its roots. In its own way, their reformation was to be as successful as that of Martin Luther and John Calvin. The eventual triumph of tolerationism constituted a transformation of the Christian tradition every bit as significant as the fragmentation caused by the reformation. Today, Christians of all denominations lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension. Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith. This tolerationists version of Christianity took a long time to gain general acceptance, and even in the 1700s there was still a good deal of enthusiasm for various measures of religious coercion. Yet in England at least, the seventeenth century proved the beginning of a critical watershed, dividing a Christianity that persecuted its enemies from a Christianity that eschewed violence and coercion in religion."

If you don't think that my current version gives an accurate, one-sentence summary of this paragraph from Coffey, I could go for something like this: ''The Tolerationist position became the new orthodoxy among Christians. "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith." "Christians of all denominations lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.'', a version, which I suppose would find your agreement even to a lesser extend. So you can't actually oppose the current version on the basis that it wouldn't "fit Coffey". You can only oppose it on the basis that other sources disagree, but then, we need to include in the article, what these other sources have to say. It certainly is not sufficient to add a few links to google books on the discussion page. I will try to get started on an U.S. section now, and if you want you point to be included in this article, then you could try to search the literature you have for quotable passages. Zara1709 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, here you have a sub-section on the U.S. Please feel free to add the material you consider relevant.Zara1709 (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding patience, please consider that I raised the inaccuracy of this text on June 23, which is now one week ago. I have now shown not just that the sentence cannot be supported with the source provided, but that there is a great deal of sourcing which directly contradicts the point.

Let me recap the two problems with this sentence as stated, in any case: 1.) Relying on Coffey, it cannot be said that "all significant denominations" of Christians now "embrace religious toleration." The primary problem here is that Coffey does not assess the positions of denominations as such; I consider it odd that you don't see this as a problem, but your statement is incorrect in suggesting that he or any other reliable source has taken this position.  2.) Even if Coffey had made such a statement, it is apparent that many other qualified and reliable sources take a contrary view which would need to be reflected in the introduction. Certainly we could address the first problem by more directly quoting Coffey, but yes, that would leave the second issue.

I am not sure why you disregard the passage from Daniel Taylor above, but here is another passage of his in a piece in Christianity Today:

I would like to think that the charge of intolerance is entirely wrongheaded, a badge to be worn proudly by a people committed to goodness and truth no matter what the cost. The problem is, I hang around Christians too much. I hear too many sermons, too many Christian gurus on the radio and television; I get too much Christian junk mail from too many Christian organizations. It is difficult to argue with a straight face that Christians are unfairly accused of intolerance when one is surrounded by name calling, finger pointing, back stabbing, bomb throwing, and plain, old-fashioned gossip. And that's just the stuff Christians do to each other.

It is an admirable thing when one is willing to die for the truth. It is more problematic when one is willing to kill for it. Throughout this century, the church has shown itself more willing to do the latter than the former. A long documentation of fundamentalist and evangelical warring against those within the ranks is both depressing and unnecessary. Anyone raised in this subculture knows the stories, and many bear the wounds.

As noted above, Taylor criticizes the concept of "tolerance" as generally understood within the United States. Here is another relevant source:

But seldom has any set of groups generated more controversy than the contemporary Christian Right. Critics of the movement charge that it has mobilized into politics a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance and who despise the very idea of compromise and cooperation. The movement is portrayed as undermining democracy by elevating the importance of an unrepresentative group of activists in the political process, intimidating opponents, and polarizing political discource. The source of the movement's greatest strength--the certitude of its members that they are doing God's work (Wilcox, Jelen, and Linzey 1991)--is seen as its greatest problem. Individuals bent on doing God's work are unlikely to find common ground with those who oppose them.

Is there a reason why we would rely so heavily on Coffey, to the exclusion of other sources that have been raised? To me it seems quite apparent that Coffey's comments are limited in scope, potentially to the English Christian community, and to a specific type of toleration that he has just defined. It's entirely clear that his comments would not hold in the United States. As far as your material on the United States, this is a good starting point, though I must say it disregards a great deal of modern discussion about how dedicated the early colonists really were to toleration, and of course the entire history of intolerance toward religious minorities in the U.S. (see the history with regard to Mormons for one well-recognized example).

I am not sure why you object to my most recent formulation, which seems entirely uncontroversial. Your approach, to go for the strongest statement possible on such a controversial topic seems quite poorly supported. I suggest that we adopt a more qualified and better supported statement, without the errors of the current version, but since WP:Edit warring is strongly discouraged I will just add a neutrality tag for now while waiting for additional comments on the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, don't give such a 'neutrality' debate. I've granted to you that we should seek further sources, but if we rely on Coffey (and there is no reason not to, until we find another introductory history textbook on the topic), and Coffey writes: "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith.", then the article can certainly say: "owadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration". Whether other sources come to a different assessment is, of course, a different question.
 * I've had it with you guys at Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you are atheists, Christians or Neopagans, all you care about is pushing you limited religious-political world view into Wikipedia, you don't actually want to write an encyclopaedic article. Couldn't it possibly occur to you that the views of the Christian Right, although they, for whatever reason, might be of some importance to you personally, are of a relatively minor importance for THIS article. The views of people belonging to the Christian Right, even if these would include George H. W. Bush, are certainly less important to the topic of this article than the views of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams, and these in turn, are of lesser importance compared with the vies of Augustine, Auqinas and Locke. But who am I talking to? Unless I am mistaken, the Wikipedia article on Christianity still doesn't mention Augustine... But anyway, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams are mentioned in the article by now, and if you wanted, you could expand the section so that it also includes the current vies of the Christian Right in the United States concerning persecution and toleration, whatever these might be. But you are not doing this. Instead you flag the article with 'neutrality disputed' and add your sources ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE. What are you expecting from me? That I get myself the literature you mentioned, and that I write a paragraph summarizing them? Just for the record. I am not living in the U.S., it is rather difficult/expensive for me to get the kind of books that is only indented for an American audience. And take a closer look at your sources. One of the actually says, as you have quoted:
 * "It is an admirable thing when one is willing to die for the truth. It is more problematic when one is willing to kill for it. Throughout this century, the church has shown itself more willing to do the latter than the former."
 * The certainly is an interesting statement, and it makes me ask a lot of questions, like: What Church is he talking about, and what century? I wouldn't know that there was a religious war in the U.S. in the 20th century, would you? Did any churchman actually raise his fist and proclaim: GOD WANTS YOU TO PURGE THE HERESY FROM THIS LAND? (i.e. the United States) If so, then of course this would belong into this article, albeit only with a few sentences. Historically there were enough Christians who would have said something like this, with dire, and historically significant, consequences. I hope you see it that these other people are more important then the Christian Right you care so particularly about. Zara1709 (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the neutrality tag again. I've just checked the source from google books that you provided: How can you seriously attack me on the grounds that I am not giving the verbatim wording of the book I'm quoting when you yourself quote highly selectively. "The Christian right in American politics" does not say: "Critics of the movement charge that it has mobilized into politics a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance ...", it says:


 * "Critics of the movement charge that it has mobilized into politics a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance ... Yet supporters of the movement claim that it has enabled evangelical and other conservative Christians to become involved in politics ... They argue that the process of political engagement has inevitably taught these activists the norms of civility and tolerance..."


 * So, what you source actually says is that OUTSIDERS have described the Christian right as intolerant, and the supporters of the movement argue to the contrary. Based on this, one probably couldn't say that those 'supporters of the movement' embrace religious toleration, but one would have to say that they acknowledge it. If you want to have a 'neutrality-disputed'-tag on this article, you would need to warrant it better. Zara1709 (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Zara, if you would please stick to the topic of this article and not my presumed interests, I think we will do better here.  First, while I am willing to carry on this discussion until some type consensus is reached, I am certain that you are not entitled to remove the neutrality banner after reverting two times to your version and not correcting clear errors in the text that I have pointed out.  The banner is entirely appropriate here; if you remove it again I will have to seek further input on an applicable noticeboard as to your actions here.  Really, so far as you seem to feel not just that you should decide what goes in the article, but to decide whether there is a legitimate disagreement as well, please take a moment to reconsider that position.


 * As to the substance, I do not see how you have disputed the relevance of the source. My point is solely that Christians (and more specifically all significant Christian denominations) are not uniformly recognized to embrace religious toleration; in fact the allegations of intolerance in Christianity, and political Christianity, are prominent and widespread.  Certainly what I do not dispute is that religious freedom is the norm in predominantly Christian countries, and if that is something you would like to clarify then you have no problem from me.  The question here is whether Christians uniformly embrace religious toleration.  The controversiality of that statement (and the inappropriateness for the lead paragraph of this article) should be obvious from the sources presented.


 * I'm not sure why you are so combative over this. I have presented sources that clearly contradict the current text of the article.  Why is this such an issue?  I would think that on a collaborative project like this you would see the need to work together, and not just to revert, exclaim that you are fed up, and hurl insults. Mackan79 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're simply being to ignorant to see that is see it is the same thing to say that: "Today, Christians of all denominations lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension. Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith." and to say "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.", well then I suppose, we need to expand the quote for people like you. However, If you honestly think that what you have written here is sufficient to justify a debate about neutrality, then this article needs some more eyes. I'll remove the neutrality tag. Feel free to notify whatever noticeboards you like. Zara1709 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have read my posts, you will see that you are addressing just one of the points I have raised and not the other, which is that many authors clearly do not feel that modern Christianity's embrace of religious toleration is an uncontroversial matter. Your argument, besides that, has yet to address why you believe that a statement about members of all denominations can be translated into a statement about the denominations themselves (and if it could be, why your qualifier of "significant" is needed).  I will ask for input on WP:AN/I. Mackan79 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding ANI

 * I am not an admin, but the part of the case regarding the quote might better be resolved at Third opinion. I agree the quote is likely controversial, almost certainly not universal, and seems like it is being used beyond the scope the author intended. Doing some OR I found Christian terrorism and Religious discrimination which provide examples that contradict the view that Christians of all denominations embrace religious toleration. Also, it might help to find an reliable source which discusses religious intolerance in modern Christianity as a counterbalance to the above quote and use it. Sifaka   talk  07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mackan79 actually went to the ANI with this. Well, I probably could have been softer, but then, again, I repeatedly asked him to simply expand the section on the U.S. If we know that denomination X or religious movement Y doesn't embrace toleration, and we have I reliable source for that, then we can discuss how to reword that. The sources Mackan brought forward simply aren't good enough. I mean, I tried to find another source, specifically for the U.S., but that one also says:


 * "We can be as thankful that Terms such as 'colored' and 'negro' have mostly disappeared from our vocabularies as late eighteenth-century liberals and evangelicals were that terms such as 'sectaries' and 'heretics' had mostly disappeared from theirs. We decry the racial bigot, just as they decried the religious bigot."(Chris Beneke: Beyond Toleration, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.223)


 * I know that the Christian right is not particularly tolerant towards homosexuals, e.g., but we are concerned here with religious toleration. And as Beneke points out, in the 18th century the Protestant denominations in the U.S. came to embrace not only religious toleration, but even religious pluralism. The current Catholic view can already be found in the article, b.t.w. Of course, there are (and there probably always will be) individual Christians that are religious bigots that can't accept - or at least tolerate - a disagreement in religious matters. There also are fringe Christian groups that can't, e.g. Christian Identity (although we could use a source for that, too). But as far as those denominations are concerned, if you'd asked any Bishop or head of a congregation, they will at least embrace a minimum of tolerations towards other religious groups, at least according to the academic textbooks so far. It is possible (and not unlikely) that Coffey missed something here, since he is only dealing cursory with the current (20th century) views. But then we need reliable sources on this, which, so far, we simply haven't. Zara1709 (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the statement at issue, I am not seeing why you believe that a quote from Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1588-1689 is somehow more relevant than an analysis of the Christian Right in American politics from 1980-2000. Of course neither of these is good for more than the experience in those countries, and to the extent other sources do not say differently.  If you could explain that position, then we might be closer to resolving this.  The question could be discussed from a number of angles, but for now I am simply noting that the current language, without disclaimer, and without further qualification, contradicts a great deal of reliable sources.  If you think the topic of this article should be narrowed to exclude those sources, then it needs to be explained how, explained why, and clarified accordingly.  Until then the language needs to be qualified according to any reliable sources that are brought forward. Mackan79 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger?
Quoth the article: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Christianity and Paganism.

Ah, please don't. This section gives an overview on the issue of Christians versus Pagans, and following the suggested internal links should suffice for anyone who needs or wants further study. (I am, of course, assuming, sight unseen, that the other articles are accurate and true and meet Wikipedia's standard of neutrality; I may be wrong.) I have watched the evolution of this article, from an nigh outright rant to a more decorous discussion of the historical and sociological features of a sensitive issue. On the other hand it may be now on the point of becoming too cautious. Any encyclopedic article on persecution by Christians needs to cover all issues. There is much said about internal conflicts within Christianity (such as the persecution of such groups as the Waldenses and Huguenots by Christians closer to what might be called a mainstream), and this is good, but do please keep the article as complete as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.48.17 (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want an article Persecution by Christians or Christian debate on Persecution and Toleration for that point, you can't really debate the situation of Christians and Pagans in the middle Ages; the history textbook I read simply don't consider this religious persecution, although some (or probably a lot) Neopagans do. On the other hand, I think that we should debate this topic somewhere, and Christianity and Paganism would be the right place for that. The situation in the late Roman empire is even more difficult to assess, and will be debated in this article, but not with as much detail as it could be debated in a more specialized article. Zara1709 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Homosexuals
So supposedly there was a Persecution of Homosexuals in the late antiquity. Is is already difficult enough to get the issue of the Persecution of Pagans depicted correctly, another section "Persecution of Homosexuals" is not really helpful. But unlike other people I am an inclusionist. The situation of non-Muslims (whether Atheists or not) in Muslim countries is notable, and so is the situation of Homosexuals in ancient Rome; but please, don't give a section on this the title: "Persecution of Homosexuals": or if you do, at least state how many people actually were persecuted. There is currently no information on that, we only got the imperial edicts; and even those are taken out of their context; They cannot be taken as evidence for homophobia, without at least a few words in how far this is comparable to modern homophobia. And which secondary literature was for finding those references? I don't suppose that anyone but a highly regarded university teacher of ancient history could find such quotes himself in less than several months. Zara1709 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on introductory paragraph
In discussions above, Zara1709 and I seem to be unable to reach an agreement on the introductory paragraph, specifically the sentence sourced to John Coffey's Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1588-1689 (2000). The sentence had stated: "''Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration, and 'look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.[1]
 * [1] Zara1709 has now changed the sentence to state:
 * "Nowadays, 'persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith' and Christians of all denominations embrace religious toleration and 'look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."

I have contested the sentence for the reason that at least in the United States, this assessment that Christians uniformly embrace "religious toleration" is a highly contested statement. An emphatically Christian source such as Daniel Taylor can be seen discussing the charges of intolerance against conservative Christians at length, and even arguing against the principle of tolerance as generally understood. In a 2003 book published by Georgetown University, three U.S. professors of political science comment that "Critics of the [Christian Right] charge that it has mobilized into politics a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance and who despise the very idea of compromise and cooperation." (pg. 277) It is unacceptable to me, under WP:NPOV, that the contemporary debate over this issue of toleration in the U.S. would be contradicted and ignored.

I have suggested two options, one here and one here. Any additional comments on the issue would be appreciated. Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect to Zara1709, whom I view as one of WP's finest editors in the areas of religion and recent history, my support goes to the wording proposed by Mackan79, in this particular instance. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I would at present view this article as a prime candidate for page protection. This would allow the disputants to focus on discussion instead of rapid-fire reversions of each other. However, from personal experience at WP:RFPP I am afraid that such a request would get denied. That is unfortunate because it increases the likelihood of valuable editors getting blocked, which in turn often leads to their resignation from Wikipedia. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, both proposed versions are highly POV-pushing, so I removed it. It certainly would take next to no effort to find a great number of reliable sources opining that many if not most modern Christian denominations are anything but tolerant of other beliefs. We shouldn't pick a side. DreamGuy (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * DG, are you saying that your powers of perception are so great that they enable you to step into a dispute between highly experienced and knowledgeable editors and immediately determine that both of their versions should be removed? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has read WP:NPOV and has any understanding about what it means who looks at the lead could immediately tell that both of those versions should be removed as obvious violations. You can't grab an opinion presented in a book, especially one as controversial as that, and present it in an encyclopedia article as if it were a fact. And if the editors in question were as experienced and knowledgeable as you think it never would have gotten there in the first place. Do you deny the existence of plenty of reliable sources that have the opinion that many modern Christian denominations are intolerant, or what exactly don't you understand here? DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I have opposed both of these versions, favoring a wording such as here and here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is just ridiculous:


 * Nowadays, "persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith" and Christians of all denominationss embrace religious toleration and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."


 * While my revert of Zara's edit was reverted by Goodmorningworld (seemingly to make a point), I agree with DreamGuy here. Zara's suggested version is POV-pushing and obviously anything but neutral. bloodofox: (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "antithetical" quote is blatant POV. Reads like it's right out of a brochure. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above comments, I would like to again propose the wording here, which stated that "Christians have since broadly trended toward an embrace of religious toleration in which they 'look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension.'" This is based on each of the sources noted above, including a piece in the New York Times which speaks of such a "broad trend toward tolerance."  It takes into account sources which argue that elements within Christianity are religiously intolerant. Of course this is based on a wider array of sources than Zara had in mind, but considering that the article currently does not disclaim generalized sources, I think the wording is much better supported by what we have. Mackan79 (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
Previously part of the problem was that I simply didn't have an idea how I could improve the wording. As I've tried to explain on this talk page with quite some effort, " broadly embrace" is not what the source says. I though that the best way to approach this would be to find some reliable sources on the current Christian views in the U.S. (or whereever), but Mackan79 insisted on flagging the article for neutrality, without actually bringing reliable sources forward on the dissenting POV. To quote wp:NPV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." ( Emphasis added). Before you can start to dispute the neutrality, you actually need to find a reliable source which clearly opposes the view currently expressed in the article. How are we supposed to balance the views, when we don't even know what the second view is? And it is not sufficient if you simply point out that YOU disagree with this view, because that would be, not only technically, original research. These articles aren't getting any better if editors refuse to search for sources, you know. However, with the additional comments provided by the recent attention to this issue, I finally figured out, what the problem most likely would be. When Coffey is speaking of the "tolerationist position", he is referring to a rather limited concept of toleration. He himself notes elsewhere that the word 'toleration' is quite ambiguous. I would need to expand this article or the article religious toleration with a few sentences what civil toleration means, but I can do that later, if this proposal is at least temporarily accepted. Zara1709 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Zara, I would ask that you please read the discussion more carefully as your comments are largely incorrect. First, please recall that I have presented you a reliable source that clearly contradicts your statement here, and have continued to ask you about it since that time.  The text is by three U.S. professors of public policy and political science, published by Georgetown University, in which they comment that "Critics of the [Religious Right] charge that it has mobilized into politics a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance and who despise the very idea of compromise and cooperation."  I have continued to be perplexed why you do not acknowledge this, and still speak singularly of "the source," by which you mean a text you present on 17th Century England.  Second, the reason I added a neutrality tag, after presenting this and other sources, is solely because of your evasiveness in discussing this issue, where you continue to offer to add material to the article yet will not address the clear problem with the text in this introduction.  If we are going to continue to discuss this ad nauseum, then there needs to be a template on the page. Third, if you will recognize that there is a great deal of ambiguity in the term "religious toleration," please have the courtesy to note that this is one of the the first points I raised.


 * All of that aside, I would ask you to clarify how adding to the article is going to correct the problem we currently have in the introduction. Is an expansion of the introduction what you have in mind?  So far as I can see our question is a very limited one of how to word this introductory sentence. The first recognition should be that Coffey is not our only source, and that his view cannot be recognized as universal (considering that he would not even view it in that way himself).  Ultimately my view is that a trend toward toleration is the strongest point we could make here, and is more than adequate to suit our purposes. Mackan79 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mackan's comments here. Furthermore, there is no reason to toy with the NPOV tag until the issue is resolved, which it is obviously not. Zara, you've removed the POV tag from the article twice now and changed it to a balance tag once. This article has seen several different editors very clearly stating POV violations in the quote you're pushing. Leave the tag alone until the issue is resolved. bloodofox: (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mackan79, I have replied to you that you are quoting selectively from The Christian right in American politics. You yet have not replied to that. You have also quoted selectively from the essay that was published on Christianity today. Just two paragraphs before the one you quote, the author of that essay writes:
 * "What, in short, are theologically conservative Christians to make of all this? Should it bother us to be called intolerant? How far do we go in resisting what we believe to be wrong? (Do we, for instance, call for sodomy laws and the jailing of practicing gays? Or do we support fairness in housing and employment rights for gays but not the legalization of homosexual marriage? Or something else?)"


 * Since you have apparently not understood this yet. 'Toleration' can mean several things. In this context, Coffey means it in a quite minimal sense: It doesn't mean that people get along with each other, I simply means that people refuse to jail or murder each other because they have different opinions. The Christian author of that essay is actually playing with the different meanings of 'tolerance' and 'intolerance'. "Should it bother us to be called intolerant?" We can at least display a minimal amount of tolerance and not argue for sodomy laws and imprisonment of gay people, but we can still oppose gay marriage. You could probably use that essay as source for the point that a few Christians in the United States are intolerant, in the sense that they oppose at least minimal civil tolerance for other people. But then again, this wouldn't invalidate the view that in the doctrines of all significant Christian denominations at least a minimal tolerance for other religions and denominations is included., and we still don't know who these people are.
 * There is an easy way and a hard way to solve this, read the material and try to understand what the expert historian wants to say with the phrase I've quoted. You would actually have the opportunity to learn something. Or you can make an attempt of Wikilawyering to turn this into a neutrality debate, but I am not going to fall for that. There have been enough attempts by Neopagans and atheists to write articles on Persecution or Discrimination based on cherry-picked quotes from essays on the internet or searches at Google books. If you want to work an article on this topic, you have to do more than make a search for "Christian right" + "intolerance" at google books. You have at least to display a minimal respect for academic research. If an expert historian comes to the conclusion that "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith" nowadays, and you disagree with that, then, as an editor, you either have 1) the option to take into account that you might be wrong or 2) you have to conduct a literature search on your own until you find an equally reputable source that actually backs up you opinion. If you are doing neither of that, then I'll have to conclude that you are simple being prejudiced against Christians. I personally don't have a problem with that, after all, there are many Christians who are prejudiced against atheists and neopagans, but it kind of disqualifies you as editors.
 * And on a further note. If you are actually thinking of attacking Coffey's book on the grounds that is wouldn't be a reputable source, tough luck. Whereas you apparently been contended to write a few lines on this talk page, I've spent two hours yesterday in the library, searching for reviews of the book. There are three in reputed academic journals, and all are positive. ... Zara1709 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You did reply. The problem is that since then you have acknowledged only the one source that you have brought to the table.  I also responded that there is nothing selective about the quotations, since I have not argued that we should present modern Christianity as intolerant.  What I have noted is that to characterize modern Christians as uniformly tolerant (or intolerant) is controversial and disputed, to the extent that it cannot be said in the introduction of this article.  It happens you seem to have agreed with this, in saying that "Based on this one probably couldn't say that those 'supporters of the movement' embrace religious toleration, but one would have to say that they acknowledge it."  Absolutely, so where did I propose something else?


 * With Coffey, I suggest we discuss what he means directly rather than who has the better understanding. What I think is clear is that Coffey is not speaking of all Christian groups internationally; in fact, besides what can be drawn from the title of the book, one of the quotes you present specifically confines his comments to "in England at least."  Let me repeat that I do not question Coffey's assessment, but it appears to me that he was (as one might expect) quite careful to clarify the scope of his comments, and that we should be the same.


 * As far as your continuing stream of personal comments, particularly about who should be disqualified as editors, please consider that I find it offensive and that I am formally requesting that you stop. Editors should be able to discuss the relevant sources without this kind of pointless sniping.


 * The primary problems with the introduction are in any event still present. "Civil toleration" is an improvement on "toleration," but the sentence remains highly problematic based on the sources available in 1.) attributing a position to denominations as such, and 2.) attributing any such position to all "significant" groups of Christians.  The main problem here is the word "embrace," considering the significant body of opinion in the United States which suggests that religious toleration is not "embraced" but enforced.  This is the theme of probably most of the writing that covers the Religious Right in the United States, as recognized in the quote from Green, Rozell and Wilcox discussed above.


 * I would hope, Zara, that you would be willing to discuss these problems more respectfully so that we can resolve them. For instance, you seem to acknowledge above that Green, Rozell and Wilcox recognize controversy over the idea that Christians uniformly embrace toleration.  Two questions: 1.) Is this not a problem with the current text?  2.) How do either of the wordings I have proposed fail to acknowledge these assessments?  Your response would be appreciated, and I think would get this discussion back on track. Mackan79 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You complain about my "continuing stream of personal comments" and asked that I should be willing to discuss these problems more respectfully"? Well, my personal comments weren't as much aimed aginst you, but against those editors who write " blatant POV" in the edit summary. If had enough of these discussions by now, and they all went the same way. It is not about sources, it is not about balance, it's only about the problem that some editors personally object to some statements. I could bring factual arguments as long as I like - they aren't working unless I also point out that that problem is not the article, but the editors. I mean, they should know by now how to write articles. You search for a reputable secondary academic source, and summarize what this sources has to say. And if it says: "This tolerationist position [i.e. civil tolerance] was to become the new orthodoxy among Christians." you have to accept that, until you have conducted a sufficient research of your own. If you want me to "be willing to discuss these problems more respectfully", you should first start to respect academic works.
 * Now, probably we could continue the debate whether it is the say thing to say that "This tolerationist position was to become the new orthodoxy among Christians." and to say that "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace the concept of civil toleration." When, in a completely different article, I had added a statement that was opposed by several Christian editors, that resulted in a two moth debate about the meaning of the word "nominally". "Orthodoxy" is a ancient Greek word composed of the words for "right" and "opinion". You might find an occasional Christian who would say "that the [Christian] magistrate has the authority and the duty to punish heresy and schism" (you haven't found any yet, but you could find one). However, if you asked any authority for the view of the Christian churches, this authority would say that such a person has the false opinion. Christians don't punish heresy and schism any more (which, again, doesn't necessarily mean that they get along with heretics and schismatics.) So, instead of discussion whether my sentence correctly summarizes the intended meaning of the passage from Coffey's book, we could simply look if there actually is a Christian denomination that doesn't approve the concept of civil toleration. That's what I had suggested in the first place. Since you appear to be concerned about the Christian right (probably because you are a U.S. citizen and you aren't a member of the Christian right movement), we can expand the section on the U.S. But instead of doing this and working on the article, you rather wrote a notice for the ANI. And anyway, if you want to say something about the Christian right, you have to do better than this. You can't use "Green, Rozell and Wilcox" as source, because it isn't actually clear, what is meant on p. 277/278 of their book with "tolerance". I'll see if I can find the book they are quoting, and since I think I can catch Coffey's intended meaning with a somehow weaker word, I'll change "embrace" to "approve". But expect me to continue these personal comments if a quote from an academic history book is again described as "blatant POV". Zara1709 (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you believe it is Coffey's position that the tolerationist position is identical in England as it is in, for instance, the United States, Latin America, or Serbia? You say it isn't clear what Green, Rozell and Wilcox mean, incidentally, but I find it entirely clear (as indeed is common knowledge in contemporary U.S. politics): there is a great deal of opposition to the Religious Right in the United States as intolerant of others groups that don't accept their beliefs, accompanied by the view that absent legal protections and/or political activism the Christian Right would fully like to turn the United States back into a "Christian nation" with ever decreasing rights of religious minorities (let me emphasize that this has nothing to do with my own views which are not relevant here).  This is however what is so bizarre about reading on this page that, no, actually we have now come to the point where there is full institutional support in Christianity for the idea of accepting this lofty goal of toleration.


 * If you don't believe that this is a notable view in the United States, then say so and I will provide any number of sources to show otherwise. Regardless, I think we could write a much more sensible summary without attempting to stick so closely to a source that clearly does not represent a fully international study or commentary (and that remains only one source).  I'll have to return to this in a few hours.  Mackan79 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Recap
Based on the discussion above, I see about half a dozen people who have agreed that the "Nowadays" sentence reads as inconsistent with WP:NPOV and other policies. I think this is for many reasons, including 1.) the word "Nowadays" sounds almost ironic in this context, as in "...yada yada yada then there was peace love and happiness," 2.) any statement about all "significant" Christian groups places Wikipedia in the precarious position of deciding which Christian groups are "significant," specifically based on whether or not they embrace "civil toleration," 3.) all Christian denominations do not take a position on this kind of thing, and no source presented has suggested that they do; denominations are also not distinguished based on their political views about toleration but on their theological views, 4.) at least in the United States, controversy is well known (and has been sourced on this page) about whether the Christian Right respects the rights of religious minorities or appreciates any specific type of religious toleration, 5.) making such a remarkable statement based on one source, without specific attribution, is not appropriate in the introduction of an article and becomes less so when the source is clearly focused on one country and a different time period than is under discussion, 6.) the statement deviates in many of these respects from the source, and 7.) the idea that Christians world wide take the same views on any type of toleration is highly questionable and unsupported.

After a great deal of discussion, it appears that only one editor (Zara) insists on a strong statement saying that modern Christians uniformly accept toleration, based on an English historian's assessment. Frankly it is not clear to me why Zara insists on this, as they have not presented any argument against other proposals other than that they do not match the source Zara provides.

It seems to me that this discussion has ceased to be useful, and that the sentence should be removed for another better supported sentence such as proposed here or here. Unless some new information is provided, accordingly, I think we should go ahead with the change. Mackan79 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. bloodofox: (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The last 3 days were such a waste of time. I mean, I tried to explain to you that civil toleration does not mean "peace love and happiness". Actually, I didn't comment here yesterday because I rather spent my time fixing the article Religious pluralism, which confused toleration and pluralism. It appears as if the meaning of civil toleration is not yet explained well enough in this article, but you could at least try to understand - and you are not even trying. I have refuted the points you are bringing forward previously, but here we go again: 1) Wikipedia is not based on the views expressed by editors, but on the views expressed by wp:reliable sources 2) if you disagree with the current version, I can write you one that instead uses Coffey's wording "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the faith. 3) well, then it should be easy to find a reliable source for a Christian denomination that does not 4) again, it should be easy then to find a reliable source 5) as it happens, that tolerationism is the new orthodoxy of Christianity is the essence of the 2000 year debate and needs to be included in the lead 7) my reliable source supports that. If we haven't moved in this debate so far, this is because you are simply unable to accept wp:reliable sources and are unable to accept the Coffey uses toleration in a certain meaning that apparently differs from your understanding. Zara1709 (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking you could have put a little more work into this response, but that it's probably more fruitful to pursue the thread below. Mackan79 (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Excerpt from Coffey
"This political change [in early modern England] coincided with a corresponding intellectual shift. For more than 1000 years Christians had accepted that the magistrate had the authority and the duty to punish heresy and schism. A venerable tradition of religious coercion had developed, building on the writings of Augustine and the actions of the early Christian emperors. It had proved immensely powerful and resilient, guiding the thinking and actions of countless Christian rulers in many different times and places. Whilst the success of the Reformation meant that it was no longer feasible to enforce uniformity across the whole of western Christendom, it was still possible to persecute dissent within particular territories, and Protestants were as enthusiastic as Catholics about doing so. Yet during the course of the seventeenth century, the consensus on religious coercion broke down. In 1603, English Protestants had believed that the Christian magistrate had the solemn duty to punish heresy and schism. By 1689, many had come to the conclusion that this was simply not so. Indeed, a substantial minority of seventeenth-century Protestants had become convinced that the magistrate had a solemn duty to tolerate heresy, schism and other faiths. As far as they were concerned, persecution was fundamentally at odds with the teaching and example of Christ and his apostles. (...)	Eventually, this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians. Tolerationists had posed as reformers of European Christianity who were calling the church back to its roots. In its own way, their reformation was to be as successful as that of Martin Luther and John Calvin. The eventual triumph of tolerationism constituted a transformation of the Christian tradition every bit as significant as the fragmentation caused by the reformation. Today, Christians of all denominations lock back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension. Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith. This tolerationists version of Christianity took a long time to gain general acceptance, and even in the 1700s there was still a good deal of enthusiasm for various measures of religious coercion. Yet in England at least, the seventeenth century proved the beginning of a critical watershed, dividing a Christianity that persecuted its enemies from a Christianity that eschewed violence and coercion in religion." (John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558-1689, p. 205-06)

Probably this long excerpt is helpful. According to Coffey, but not only according to Coffey, there was a very substantial intellectual change in Christianity, starting with the 17th century. We can discuss how we can improve the coverage of this intellectual shift in Wikipedia's articles, but we certainly can't discuss that this shift never occurred. Can you accept that contemporary Christians do not persecute their enemies, or do you actually have a reason to disagree with that? Zara1709 (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can repeat what I said above, that Coffey seems to be offering a specific narrative here. This narrative is indeed fairly uncontroversial, that at some point European Christians stopped trying to forcibly convert other religions to Christianity.  Do you believe Coffey is saying something stronger here?  As a general narrative I have no reason to contest this.


 * There are nevertheless several problems, which as you have noted include the fluid meanings of both "persecution" and "toleration." The meaning of "persecution" becomes only more fluid when denoted "religious persecution," a phrase that can potentially be read very broadly and, candidly, is not going to have a generally recognized meaning (consider the 55,000 hits on Google for "religious persecution of homosexuals" and probably at least two reliable sources found via Google Books). Ultimately I believe that "religious persecution" could reasonably be defined to include anything from systematic religiously-motivated mistreatment of an individual, to systematic (and possibly secularly-motivated) mistreatment of a group for that group's religious beliefs.  I am confident we could find reliable sources to support any version in between.  As far as "religious toleration," I imagine the conceptions are as broad as the term "toleration," and am sure one could defend at least the five types described in Wikipedia's article.


 * Considering the fluid understandings of these terms, my view is that any statements we make need to be clear not just based on our understanding of academic sources, but to a lay reader entirely unfamiliar with those sources. If the article is only about persecution by Christians against religious minorities, then we should say so, and so on.  To the extent we do not make such clarifications, however, the statements need to be qualified so that they are consistent with all reliable sources of which we are aware.


 * That said, I wonder what you will say of something like this:


 * ''This article gives an overview about historical cases of persecution by Christians, also taking a look at cases of religious warfare and religious violence. Important Christian theologians had, during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, advocated religious persecution to various extents. However, Early modern Europe witnessed a turning point in the Christian debate on persecution and toleration leading to broad acceptance among Christians for the values of religious toleration.


 * Religious persecution by Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries was less centralized, and tended to be connected with localized civil conflicts. Contemporary debates over religious discrimination related to Christianity are covered in the general article on religious discrimination.


 * I could pick at some parts of this, but perhaps it goes toward something we could use. Mackan79 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course we should discuss how we should word the lead, but we can't do that yet. There are reasons why I worded it the way I did, for example I included the quote that Christians "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension" because this in my view gives an accurate impression of the typical reaction of a contemporary Christian when he is confronted with topics like the Spanish Inquisition. However, rewording the lead in the way you propose would be pure wp:original research. If we don't use a summary of Coffey's already condensed account as lead, we have to write it summary style on the basis of the article, and we currently simply don't have enough material from reliable sources in there. That's why I had asked you repeatedly to help expand the section on the U.S. Unless we have more material we can't actually discuss how to reword the lead. I am myself searching for more material, and I've not only got Coffey's, but also 3 more history books here which I am reading. But a prolonged discussion without any reliable sources is not helpful at all. Zara1709 (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I have not expanded on the situation in the U.S. is largely what I stated earlier, that controversies over religion and government in the U.S. generally are not associated with a debate on persecution and toleration. The concept of "toleration" comes up, but the related controversies have little to do with those discussed in this article.


 * I wonder if you will take this suggestion seriously: on some reflection it seems that part of the problem here is that the entire debate discussed in this article, and on which you wish to focus, basically ended some two or three centuries ago. This is what is said in our section on the 18th-20th Centuries, that contemporary debates focus instead on religious discrimination (in the U.S., I would suggest that debates have moved further yet to issues like the separation of church and state, excessive political influence by the Religious Right or perhaps the secular left, or equal rights for gays and lesbians).  The problem is that, while a European theological debate may have resolved in favor of a certain kind of "toleration" some centuries ago, a statement that the same resolution holds today is misleading.  Modern political players simply are not operating under the terms of those debates.


 * Perhaps the point will be lost, but the fact is that notwithsanding 2000-year debates, religious influence on politics in any particular society can reverse in little more than a moment (Turkey, Iran). Tendencies toward full-blown persecution can swing nearly as quickly.  In the U.S., one contemporary view suggests in kind exactly that the Christian Right "has mobilized into politics a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance and who despise the very idea of compromise and cooperation."  To say that all significant Christian denominations accept toleration, in this context, doesn't hold up.


 * I realize that I am repeating myself here, so I am going to do the following: per the discussion above (including several editors), I am removing the unsupported statement that all significant denominations support toleration; the statement is incorrect, and should not be in the article. If you disagree, I think is is clear under WP:Consensus that you need to explain and find some support for your position.  Of course I welcome any additional information you bring forth, with the caveat that since I am not willing to WP:Edit war, continued reverting will send us to dispute resolution.  However, I do not see any chance that the statement about "all significant denominations" will be supported in the lead, so I think it is past time this was removed. Mackan79 (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have little to add here except that I am reading along, following the debate between two erudite and articulate editors. Both of you bring good points to the table and state them well. Zara1709, perhaps dial down the polemic a notch? I have nothing against polemics when warranted, but I view Mackan as very earnest and sincere, therefore deserving of maybe just a little more respect? Otherwise, good show, both of you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you seriously believe that the Christian Right in the United States is preparing the next Spanish Inquisition? Seriously? Obviously the term 'toleration' is nowadays often used differently, but then, it is also easy to explain what the people from the 17th century, or historians like Coffey, mean when they speak of 'toleration'. When can discuss how can word this, but you cannot base your general objection to the view of an academic historian on a quote, taken out of context from a book at google books, that the Christian right is "a group of religious bigots who lack the norms of civility and tolerance". It should have become quite obvious by now that 'toleration', as it is used by historians to describe the intellectual shift in Christianity that occurred in the 17th century, does not mean 'civility'. Your statement that "Tendencies toward full-blown persecution can swing nearly as quickly." is certainly false, concerning the U.S. The United States will not abandon their constitution and the intellectual heritage of Thomas Jefferson, certainly not in a matter of years. You can't deny it. You are not basing your objection to the statement by Coffey on honest editorial concerns, but on your personal political views, which are giving me more and more the impression of being some kind of paranoid delusions concerning the Christian right in the U.S. I've never intended to participate in the current political controversies in the United States, my only intention is to write a good article on an admittedly controversial topic. Zara1709 (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To late, Goodmorningworld, the next polemics were already under way. I probably have to add that the tone of my writing is not only aimed against Mackan79, it is aimed against all those editors with whom I have been engaged in a contend dispute and who didn't take my arguments pertaining the contend serious. If Mackan79 - or anyone else, for that matter, does not like my tone, all he/she needs to do is to bring forward a reputable source on the Christian Right in the United States and 'toleration'. One quote from google books, taken out of context and with an unspecific definition of toleration, is not enough. Zara1709 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I understand you and I do empathize. (The problem with Wikipedia – well, one of its many problems – is the laughably touted as a selling point "anyone can edit", meaning even some barely literate knuckle-dragging loudmouth who has never set foot in a library.) However, please don't take it out on Mackan79, who has done nothing to warrant opprobrium. Also, and please don't take it as criticism of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia, it seems to me that sometimes you hamstring yourself by using words not in their most commonly understood meaning but in a semantic variant specifically defined in an academic context. It could be that this leads to misunderstandings, given that we are writing for a general readership. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A procedural question: I see a section headed "Requests for comment..." on this Talk page, but was this actually advertised on the appropriate RfC bulletin board? If not, this may be a good idea to help along a discussion that appears to be stuck. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re RFC: The lede states: "Centuries of persecution by Christians are seen "with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension." Now whilst I understand the emotional angle from which the quote derives, it's technically incorrect. People who study this field do indeed comprehend the reasons why certain things were done in the past and how the hard lessons of history have modified modern perceptions, in the light of bitter experience. I would suggest moving this from the lede and within the article state explicitly that "According to Coffey........" and then put in the lede, but not a colourful quotation, something that summarises the shift in thought. Taam (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that my lack of comment about the "significant denomination's" issues mentioned above is not an endorsement of the present wording, though it seems a reasonable assertion, only that I do not know enough about the size of the various groups and their opinions, in particular North America. Taam (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension" quote needs attribution directly to Coffey as Taam mentions above. This is clearly a POV statement, and it needs to be in the body, as with all referenced material. The lead is a summary of the article itself, not a place to introduce new material, per WP:LEAD, and especially not a place for slapping someone's unattributed statement on the article as fact. bloodofox: (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording of the lead
So, let's consider my alternatives. Of course, if a reputably historian writes "... this tolerationist position was to became the new orthodoxy among Christians" and "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith." then I can write that "Nowadays all significant Christian denominations embrace the concept of civil toleration,.." The application of the rules of logic is not original research. If persecution is the opposite of toleration and "Persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith.", then religious toleration is seen as essential for the Christian faiths. Since the Christian faith is made up of several denominations, all of these denominations approve religious toleration, then If all humans are not beasts without language, they are beings with language. If Socrates and Plato are humans, they are beings with language. As I said, elemental logic. However, I strongly suspect that some editors would rather deny the rules of logic than to concede that Christianity has profoundly changed since the time of the Spanish Inquisition. One of the favourite arguments of atheists and neopagans against Christianity is the argument that all religious people are necessarily intolerant. Since intolerance and tolerance aren't actually well-defined, we would have huge difficulties discussing that argument. However, contemporary Christianity certainly is not intolerant in the same way that the Spanish Inquisition, or the Elizabethan Anglican church, was intolerant.

Anyway, we could discuss this on this talk page for ages, and not reach a conclusion. Instead of searching sources to support their point, the editors I mentioned will happily continue bickering about the statement from the historian I've quoted, which is kind of a pity. If I am spending time on this article, I'll rather do something useful. This discussion could be useful if we were actually searching for more sources, but this is simply not the case.

So I've removed the statement that all significant Christian denominations nowadays approve religious toleration, and I've largely avoided the issue of a definition of toleration with the current wording. That John Locke approved a limited religious toleration should be beyond any doubt, after all, he wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration. So instead of having to bicker about single sentences on this talk page, I can probably now continue to work on the article, or can't I?Zara1709 (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In all honesty Zara I think there remain clear problems with this text, not to mention your frankly belligerent editing style. Then I see your July 5 appeal to WP:WikiProject Catholicism in which you request help stating, "And now, some atheists and neopagans are apparently trying to deny that this intellectual shift ever occurred and are out to destroy that article."   This is followed by three more reverts, after you had already reverted more than anyone else in this disagreement and been blocked for it.  Are you not missing something?


 * Thank you, I suppose, for removing the statement about toleration, and showing that you recognized this (rather than some claim about a modern Inquisition) as the source of disagreement all along. Despite all of your protestations I have to assume you realize that if a statement is true or false under two plausible meanings of the word, then it needs to be clarified.  The paragraph remains awkward in several respects, but as long as you are not entirely blockading the article, I suppose you are right that energy is better spent there.  Sheesh.... Mackan79 (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the quote you've put forth by Zara—
 * "And now, some atheists and neopagans are apparently trying to deny that this intellectual shift ever occurred and are out to destroy that article. Help, and further comments, would greatly be appreciated. Zara1709 (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)"
 * —explains Zara's behavior and attitude here. Stick this up against what Zara wanted in the article above—
 * Nowadays, "persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith" and Christians of all denominationss embrace religious toleration and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."
 * Nowadays, "persecution is seen as antithetical to the Christian faith" and Christians of all denominationss embrace religious toleration and "look back on centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."


 * —and things become even more clear. We "atheists and neopagans" are out to "destroy" this article. And there'sthe very NPOV-violating quote that Zara insisted on in the introduction above. Are we "atheists and neopagans" making it troublesome to white wash the article with cherry-picked quotes added to the introduction? Judging by this post, I'm pretty sure Zara knew what he was doing here. It is pretty hard to assume good faith that Zara isn't intentionally attempting to inject his POV into this article for matters personal. We could do well with more eyes and greater scrutiny here. bloodofox: (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After some throughout consideration, I've come to the conclusion that I am not the one who should be ashamed. If there were any clear problems with the text, you should have been able to point them out by now. I mean, Bloodfox is accusing me of cherry-picked quotes? Obviously I couldn't accuse him of "cherry-picking quotes", because he hasn't quoted anything here at all. I probably can at least try to explain to him, what I did: I discovered a controversial and extremely undersourced article on Wikipedia. I then searched for a reputable academic work on the topic, found one, and started to excerpt it. For the lead of the article I wrote I used the summary from the conclusion of the book, and in that context I picked a fitting quote. You certainly can't call that cherry-picking. However, it is cherry-picking when you search "Christian right" + "intolerance" at google books and then only quote the paragraph that mentions that the Christian right has been accused of intolerance and not the following paragraph, which mentions the contrary view. Anyway, I've never heard that intolerance is hailed as a virtue by any contemporary (significant) Christian denomination, and until you find a source for that, I think I don't need to be ashamed when I continue to hold that view. I am certainly not white-washing Christianity here, since the article obviously also includes material on the Christian advocacy of religious persecution, but I am also impeding you attempts to black-wash it, since unlike other editors on the religious persecution topics, I am not using any partisan sources, but the most reputable academic works I could find, and, as I happens, these works make it abundantly clear that there was an intellectual shift towards toleration in Christianity starting in the 17th century. Here is what another source says:


 * "The late seventeenth and early eighteenth century witnessed the decisive advance, indeed the first real triumph, of the concept of toleration in western Europe if not officially, then certainly in the intellectual sphere and in practice." (J.I.Israel: Locke, Spinoza and the Philosophical Debate Concerning Toleration in the Early Enlightenment, p.5)


 * The 17th-century meaning of toleration is likely different from the common, contemporary one, but I've certainly tried to explain that. But then, again, you probably wouldn't even know who Spinoza was if you couldn't look it up on Wikipedia. What I've written on the Catholic noticeboard was part of a futile attempt to get some more eyes over here, preferably some who aren't suffering from the prejudice that Christians can't be tolerant, because adherents of abrahamic religions must necessarily be intolerant. But obviously I didn't get a reply, because, as I would image, Christians have difficulties dealing with this topic, too. After all, most Christians "look back on the centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension." Zara1709 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is your theory, Zara, let me propose mine: if, rather than approaching this discussion as a knight among barbarians, you had instead been open to the possibility that one, two, seven or eight people actually had a point to make, then our efforts may well have been as much more positive as they'd have been more focused. I believe this largely because, substantively, I would never have disagreed with any of the things you just said. "I've never heard that intolerance is hailed as a virtue by any contemporary (significant) Christian denomination...." No, and neither have I; the problem remains whether 1.) we are correct to focus just on "significant denominations" in this article, and of course whether 2.) just because a group does not "hail intolerance" that its embrace of the opposite can be concluded. I have a book, not in front of me, American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, which is largely about the devolution of power through U.S. history from mainstream denominations to smaller sects. I could quote from it on request, but here is an interesting paragraph from its review in the New York Times:

"He points in particular to the Southern Baptist Convention, once a scorned seceding minority of the American Baptist Church but now so large that it dominates not just Baptism itself but American Protestantism generally. The Southern Baptist Convention does not speak with one voice, but almost all of its voices, Phillips argues, are to one degree or another highly conservative. On the far right is a still obscure but, Phillips says, rapidly growing group of 'Christian Reconstructionists' who believe in a 'Taliban-like' reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a 'myth' and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent 'rapture' — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven."

"[S]till obscure," but "rapidly growing." So does that mean insignificant? Clearly not to Phillips. Ultimately the question was your choice of language, although to a native speaker of English familiar with these debates in the U.S., I'd like to assure you that the problems were clearly visible. "[T]hese works make it abundantly clear that there was an intellectual shift towards toleration in Christianity starting in the 17th century...." Yes! And that is of course exactly what each of my proposed wordings stated. What they did not state is that this shift has come to its permanent conclusion in the Christian religion.

The question I've had is why you are so resistant to a minor change that made the article more consistent with diverse views on this topic, all of which you can't possibly believe you are fully versed in. Yet, from your second or third comment you have been going on as if you are the only one entitled to edit the article. Only after reverting half a dozen times did you make any serious efforts to engage the issues raised. If we're talking philosophers, how about Kant? As to Jefferson, I am sure you are aware of problems with including and crediting him as a Christian thinker (especially after you balked at my mention of George W. Bush), but I thought that could be addressed later. I'm not here to praise or bash Christianity (as I don't believe you are either), incidentally, but I am quite sure that much (if not all of) the speculative hostility here has been more trouble than it's been worth. Mackan79 (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, finally the discussion is moving forward: Now you're bringing in a book that deals with the potential issue of tolerance and intolerance, whereas you previously only had an out-of-context quote from a book at google books, an essay from a Christian author and a news source. Well, as I perceived our debate above, I tried to explain to you that I don't have a problem with your view concerning the U.S. as such, but that I only insist that you bring forward a reliable source for it. If you change the wording of a sentence which is sourced to an academic work, and then you're saying something that this work doesn't, then this is not only a misquotation, but also original research. Of course, if other academic works disagree, then we need to have a neutrality debate and have to see how we can balance the views, but to do that we first need to hear from these academic works. When I tried to point that out to you, instead of presenting more sources then, you went whining to the ani, which in turn ultimately attracted more editors - but what kind of editors?


 * When an experienced editor, who is otherwise very well able to apply wp:rs, describes a statement from an academic history book as "blatant POV violation", then obviously something must have made this editor temporarily forget what he owes to our policies. The most likely reason is that he couldn't possibly fit the statement in his world view, and since I know that there are at least some atheists out there who suffer under the prejudice that monotheism "often leads to disturbing level of intolerance", that seems to be a plausible cause of the problem.


 * So,if I am acting like "a knight among barbarians", then this is most likely because I am feeling like I am among barbarians, and my feeling is probably justified. Take another look at the articles Christianity and Persecution of Christians. The authors of these articles must be barbarians, because they've apparently never heard of Augustine and the 'virtues' of the Roman Church. I mean, they try to make it appear as if Augustine was a martyr under the Vandals in the article Persecution of Christians, but they forget to mentions that it was his doctrine which was the basis of the persecutions by Christian for more than a millennium. Even if they have converted to Christianity by now, the authors of that article must still be barbarians who need to become more familiar with Christianity. - I'm being too sarcastic right now, so I'll better not say anything on the barbarians who haven't converted.  Zara1709 (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 2 million articles on Wikipedia. Only 2500 are so-called "Featured Articles", which means they have withstood quality control by experienced reviewers. That doesn't mean that all the other Wikipedia articles are shit, but most of them probably are. I wonder if we would be so passionate about correcting the bad articles in WP if WP did not have such a high Google search ranking? Or am I just idly speculating here? Dream Guy and bloodofox, I'd like to see some more respect from you for Zara1709 (and you two could also start actually making productive contributions). Zara1709, I'd like to see some more respect from you for Mackan79. (I know, I'm not a referee nor a mediator, I'm sounding like a broken record, I have no business telling people off…) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very well within the realm of civility, and so is DreamGuy - not to mention the rest of the editors above who have criticized Zara's extremely dubious quote insertions into the lead. Frankly, if anyone out of this entire conversation is being uncivil, it is certainly Zara. Then again, we "atheists and neopagans" who are "trying to destroy the article" may not deserve respect in the face of Zara's noble crusade. bloodofox: (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened to "Persecutions by Christians"?
I don't think "Persecutions by Christians" should redirect here. I think (file this under '2-cents worth') that "Christian debate on persecution and toleration" is a good topic, but it doesn't substitute for "Persecutions by Christians" (which should have a "see also" to this article, and vice versa). Some of the POV conflicts discussed above could be avoided by separating the two.

One problem I see with the topic "Persecutions by Christians" is that the material might already be covered by articles on heresy and 'witch' trials. But 'heresy' is obviously about theology as well as acts of persecution, and the 'witch' trials present issues specific to 'what is a witch?' and the role of gender, so I think an article surveying the question of "Persecutions by Christians" is worth having — in addition to this one, which I understand to be about official Church policies. If it is, it needs to be sober, factual, and focused on a historical explanation of policy documents and their enactment. Neither an exercise in Christian apologetics, nor an exposé of Church hypocrisy. I don't mean to sound like a scold, but these arguments just shouldn't arise. We're not here to either work out or promulgate our personal religious views.

The crucial period of Christian persecution in the West, however, if we define that as the deliberate, active stamping out of other religions, is the 4th–6th centuries (or later in Northern Europe). The dismantling of the traditional religions of antiquity in the pursuit of Christian political hegemony enabled later persecutions of heretics, Jews, and others. Ramsay MacMullen is briefly referenced for late antiquity, and certainly an important scholar on the topic, but requires balance from cooler heads such as Peter Brown, who makes no appearance here. It does seem odd that Valentinian isn't mentioned in the current article, nor is Theodosius really discussed properly. I mean, the man disbanded the Vestals, and forced the Roman senate to convert en masse; this is not throwing people to the lions, but it's just as effective for wiping out religions and is "intolerant" by anyone's measure. See also Symmachus. The article should not say 'Theodosius rid the empire of the wicked pagans' nor 'Intolerant Theodosius destroyed the religion of the noble Romans.' An encyclopedia article shouldn't be written by people yelling "She hit me first!"

Also (and this is a particular cause of mine), the emperor Julian was not a 'pagan' restoring something called 'paganism'; this term reduces the multiplicity of religious practices in antiquity to a single -ism or system, which is historically inaccurate — a successful attempt by early Christians to reshape the religious landscape in their own dualistic, good-vs.-evil image. 'Pagan' was a derogatory term used by Christians to insult those who hadn't converted (see this definition of "Pagan"); Julian and Libanius called themselves "Hellenes".

BTW, I am not a pagan, Neo- or otherwise; nor do I call myself an atheist. My agenda, if I have one, is to understand the historical process. Sorry to have stuck my nose in, but I think both sides have a point here, and the solution may be to accept that you're talking about two different articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading this. Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're still around, Cynwolfe, I totally agree with your points... I opened a topic about this below.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 18:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So I've read "American Theocray"..
... and I've likely figured out what the problem is: Whereas in Europe you have a somehow manageable amount of Christian denominations, the United States has a "superabundance" of them; from a European perspective it would be possible to survey all significant denominations and figure out what they think about the historical "religious persecutions by Christians". We've already got the contemporary Catholic view included here. However, from an U.S. American perspective, that would hardly be possible. Many European Churches have their own historians, and it should be possible to find at least some kind of statement concerning the Inquisition etc., which certainly would not be an endorsement of religious persecution. In the United States, on the other hand, I would assume that several denomination don't even have theologians trained in Hebrew, ancient Greek and Latin (all mandatory if you would study theology in Germany, e.g.) They couldn't even read the original version of the documents of the Lateran Council (which are in Latin) if they wanted. Then better not expect any statement pertaining to the historical persecution by Christians from them.

The other issue is the meaning of "toleration". Because of reasons like the the aforementioned one it is rather unlike that the average reader would aware of the 17th century meaning of "religious tolerance", much less the 15th century meaning of "tolerantia". Most Anglican Christians would probably at least have heard of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration, but I am not sure that your usual adherent of an Evangelical, fundamentalist or Pentecostal denomination has. I am not sure that your average secular U.S. citizen has heard of Locke, neither. So I've avoided the issue by writing "Nowadays, Christians generally accept that heresy and dissent are not punishable." I mean, adherents of Evangelical, fundamentalist or Pentecostal denominations might have some strong political views and might express them boldly, but that really isn't "persecution". It might be described as intolerant, but I bet YOU wouldn't know which concept of tolerance would be used in that case. (A hint: It is not the concept of tolerance that Coffey is using in the quotes I brought above.) In any case, the current petty quarrels between Bible-believing Christians and secular citizens in the United States are only very marginally relevant for this article. If we would add anything more on that then what I have written in the meantime, that would be undue weight.

So, to move forward, I'll remove the neutrality-disputed tag. Without doubt, you will add it back in if you think the issue isn't resolved, and then we could continue this stupid discussion. I hope, in that case, that this time we would get a discussion based on reliable source and not another one of these "let's go shopping for supporters at the noticeboards"-rounds. Zara1709 (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Henry Thorndike
I'm wondering if Herbert Thorndike is meant here. I've found another place on the web where there is this as a confusion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's him. Coffey explicitly writes Henry Thorndike, but he mentions him as the author of A Discourse of the Forbearance or the Penalties which a Due Reformation requires (1670), which is listed in the WP article on Herbert Thorndike. Zara1709 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Other articles for persecution
This is an interesting and informative article. I just wonder why there are no other similar articles which describe historical religious persecution by Jews, Muslims, or even communists/atheists etc. It is extremely hard to believe that Christianity is the only religion which has persecuted people in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Atheism is not a religion and thus does not fall under the category "religious persecution by x". It is a linguistic umbrella term for people who do not believe in any kind of "supreme being" and are most likely (but not always) to adopt scientific views. It does not have a general political connotation and thus could not be labeled under "political persecution by x". Being an atheist is as neutral a statement as being hungry/not hungry, loving the color purple/not loving the color purple (in this case the matter concerns not believing/believing). Please do not force the grossly inaccurate label of "communist" on people who, in essence, just refuse to partake in practices and beliefs that they do not deem valid. There might be people pushing their agenda but considering their individual actions as if they were "in the name of atheism" would be as deplorable as saying "Liberals want abortion to be available for everyone with a sufficient reason because they are heretics/wiccans who do not value life" or "There are priests who embezzle money from church members in the name of Christianity" or "where I work, I have this colleague who calls in sick all the time and forces me to do his work for him. He does so because he's a Hindu." If you'd follow that kind of logic the world would be as black and white as believers of any religion = theocracy and people who do not believe = communist state. This is why I hate this narrow-minded labeling of people who do not believe, it immediately loads the word with political, philosophical and "religious" connotations when all the linguistic term "atheism" stands for is "As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why there would be a divine being. Next question?"


 * Personally I'd love to see some recognition of the fact that nobody has ever been able to publicly admit that they do not believe in their country's religion (or any religion for that matter) up until what? The fifties? Thinking outside the box has been a reason for almost any religious group to persecute those who did just that. This has - frankly - stunted the growth of our scientific, technological, cultural and ethical development enormously. I wonder what the world would be like if people would stop navel-gazing for once in their life and stop pushing their own petty little agendas. 84.192.180.40 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Nissaxx

Article renamed
Per analogy with History of Christian thought on abortion. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's necessarily an equal comparison, or a good exemplar to take as precedent. That article is about an idea and associated discussion of said idea, while this is an article is largely about historical events. It doesn't seem analogous at all. The original name seemed to be more in line with comparable articles; as it is, I don't think this one describes the content or makes much sense. It seems to be mild censorship, to my eyes. I'd like to hear something further in support of this move based on that rationale to justify keeping the title. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Priscillian
This article mentions the "burning of Priscillian", while the article on Priscillian says he was beheaded. Please find out which article is correct and fix the incorrect one.

Don't overlook the murder of Hypatia, not a pagan but a scientist, mathematician, and rationalist
Don't overlook the murder of Hypatia, not a pagan but a scientist, mathematician, and rationalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Persecution by Christians merged into an article on persection of Christians?
This makes no rational sense, is not informative, and seems an effort to obfuscate more than anything; if the sources cited turn out to be selective, even more so. I'll check later, but the merge already merits attention.  THE PROMENADER  ✎ ✓ 20:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)