Talk:Persecution of Christians/Archive 3

Ottoman Empire ?
Under the Ottoman Empire section all the info is lacking citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.109.196 (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Franco's Spain (number problem)
Under the section Franco's Spain, the sentence, "...the government persecuted the country's 30,0000[85] Protestants, and ..." contains the number 30,0000. Is this thirty thousand, or three hundred thousand? --TriTertButoxy (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation. It looks to me that the author just accidentally placed another 0 at the end of the number. I looked through the article history, and found that the person who added the number commented on their edit with the following: "Franco's Spain: 30,000 Protestants subject to discrimination, after 1945 worship protected but only in private, cite", so I'll changed it to say 30,000. --Eugeniu B (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti Catholic Sentiment in Nth. America
The article carries the line "Although there has been a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in North America since before the dawn of the US...", which seems a bit debatable to me. After all, "North America" includes Mexico (a Catholic country) and Canada as well. I think the article means "there was a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in the colonies which eventually became the US" but I'm not an expert and don't want to touch such a sensitive part of the article. 203.97.110.64 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanish photo?
Communists shooting at a statue seems a little rediculous as "persecution". I'd say the initial photo pretty much needs to be about the early romans or such since that's what people are really comming here to read about. JeffBurdges 10:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's emblematic. i don't think there are any photos of the early Romans! Paul B 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Emblematic of what?, persecution of statues?. The photo states vaguely that they were "leftists" when in fact they were probably anarchists. The picture represents a dubious momment in history, distorted to the death with propaganda from both sides. A classical painting seems to be more adequate, as anarchists werent really persecuting "christians", but were against the catholic church.200.83.56.253 17:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the word "emblematic". It wouldn't be emblematic of something that it literally depicts. It is emblematic of violence against Christianity. Shooting a statue of Jesus himself in a mock-execution sums up the whole subject of the article better than any of the other images. I'm not sure what point you are making in the rest of your post. Attacking Catholics and the catholic church can reasonably be described as a form of persecution. Paul B 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paul B. It appears that Amamlujo and Richard do as well, judging from their edits to restore the photo. I'm open to considering other images, but so far no one has proposed any. Majoreditor 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Paul B. and Majoreditor but only because having this picture is better than having none.

JeffBurdges has a point. The picture is more emblematic of one specific period in the history of the Persecution of Christians. I would prefer that this picture were placed in the section about the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps a better picture would be the Stoning of St. Stephen or a painting of one of the martyrs during the Roman persecution of Christians. In general, this article needs a lot more images. Let's worry less about whether this particular picture is emblematic of all persecution of Christians and just go on a general hunt for images to improve this article. --Richard 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
I noticed that all references to persecution during the Spanish Civil war were removed from the article. I have restored them, along with a short summary and in-line citation. Please feel free to discuss. Majoreditor (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in covering the Persecution of Christians in the Spanish Civil War here, as there is a main article.
 * Sarcelles (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that this article is meant to be a general overview of the topic. Each subtopic is treated in a high-level summary.  The main articles provide more detail for the interested reader.
 * --Richard 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews
There is a proposal to move Persecution of early Christians by the Jews to Persecution of Christians in the New Testament. Please express your opinion at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. --Richard (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Medieval Christians by the Jews
I'm new to this article, but I'm struck by the absence of discussion, let alone a section in the article, on this Medieval period of antagonism between Jews and Christians -- which ran in both directions. Among readers of Hebrew there is a well-known tradition of anti-Christian polemics and persecution within Jewish communities. A few authors who come to mind are Jacob ben Reuben (see his Milhamot ha-Shem), Joseph Kimhi (see Sefer ha-Berit), Meir of Narbonne, Joseph ben Nathan Official (see Sefer Yosef ha-Mekane), Solomon Adret, Bahya ben Asher (see Kad ha-Kemah), Shem Tov ibn Shaprut, Profiat Duran (see Al Tehi ka-Avotekha among others), Joseph Albo (see Sefer ha-Ikkarim), Abraham Bibago, Isaac Pollegar (see Ezer ha-Dat), Moses of Tordesillas, Hayyim ibn Musa, etc. There are also early anonymous works such as Sefer Nestor Ha-Komer and Qissat Mujadalat al-Usquf (Qissa), and later joint works such as the Barcelona Disputation or Tortosa Disputation. There is no question (in my mind) that Christians had the upper hand during this period, but to suggest that persecution went in only one direction is historically false and gives an inaccurate impression of the weakness of Jewish communities during this period. DBrnstn (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In earlier versions there was a section on this that was expunged with no discussion:

Medieval Jewish Persecution of Christians Sozomen's (c. A.D. 375-c. 447) "Ecclesiastical History," Book II, Chapter IX relates the Jewish persecution of Christians in Persia:


 * When, in course of time, the Christians increased in number, and began to form churches, and appointed priests and deacons, the Magi, who as a priestly tribe had from the beginning in successive generations acted as the guardians of the Persian religion, became deeply incensed against them. The Jews, who through envy are in some way naturally opposed to the Christian religion, were likewise offended. They therefore brought accusations before Sapor [King of Persia], the reigning sovereign, against Symeon, who was then archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, royal cities of Persia, and charged him with being a friend of the Caesar of the Romans, and with communicating the affairs of the Persians to him. Sapor believed these accusations, and at first, ground the Christians with excessive taxes, although he knew that the generality of them had voluntarily embraced poverty. He entrusted the exaction to cruel men, hoping that, by the want of necessaries, and the atrocity of the ex-actors, they might be compelled to abjure their religion; for this was his aim. Afterwards, however, be commanded that the priests and conductors of the worship of God should be slain with the sword. The churches were demolished, their vessels were deposited in the treasury, and Symeon was arrested as a traitor to the kingdom and the religion of the Persians. Thus the Magi, with the co-operation of the Jews, quickly destroyed the houses of prayer.

In pre-Islamic Yemen, a Jewish king called Dhu Nuwas came to power and persecuted Christians in his realm, and massacred Christian communities in Najran in about 524; apparently this was intended as retaliation for Byzantine persecutions of the Jews. http://www.gospelcom.net/dacb/stories/ethiopia/kaleb_.html According to Muslim tradition, he was the person cursed in the Quran for burning believers alive (Quran 85:4-8.)

Jewish pogroms against Christians took place not only in Palestine (note the famous Bar Kochba Rebellion of A.D. 135), in Caesarea, Scytpolis, Yemen, Antioch -- a town through which Jews dragged the body of Patriarch Anastasius in A.D. 608, after they threw his genitals in his face and disembowelled him.

F. Conybeare's translation of Monk Stratego's account of the anti-Christian pogroms led by Jews, found in "Antiochus Strategos' Account of the Sack of Jerusalem (614)," English Historical Review 25 [1910], p 506-508 (reprinted in Deno Geanokoplos, Byzantium, (Chicago: 1984), 334-335, 266-67) reads:


 * Thereupon the vile Jews, enemies of the truth and haters of Christ, when they perceived that the Christians were given over into the hands of the enemy, rejoiced exceedingly, because they detested the Christians; and they conceived an evil plan in keeping with their vileness about the people. For in the eyes of the Persians their importance was great, because they were the betrayers of the Christians. And in this season then the Jews approached the edge of the reservoir and called out to the children of God, while they were shut up therein, and said to them: "If ye would escape from death, become Jews and deny Christ; and then ye shall step up from your place and join us. We will ransom you with our money, and ye shall be benefited by us." But their plot and desire were not fulfilled, their labours proved to be in vain; because the children of the Holy Church chose death for Christ's sake rather than to live in godlessness: and they reckoned it better for their flesh to be punished, rather than their souls ruined, so that their portion were not with the Jews. And when the unclean Jews saw the steadfast uprightness of the Christians and their immovable faith, then they were agitated with lively ire, like evil beasts, and thereupon imagined an other plot. As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep. The Christians however rejoiced because they were being slain for Christ's sake and shed their blood for His blood, and took on themselves death in return for His death....


 * When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem, they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches as were left standing....


 * How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamel! How many perished of hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword! How many infants were crushed under foot, or perished by hunger and thirst, or languished through fear and horror of the foe! How many maidens, refusing their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many parents perished on top of their own children! How many of the people were bought up by the Jews and butchered, and became confessors of Christ! How many persons, fathers, mothers, and tender infants, having concealed themselves in fosses and cisterns, perished of darkness and hunger! How many fled into the Church of the Anastasis, into that of Sion and other churches, and were therein massacred and consumed with fire! Who can count the multitude of the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem?

In Ethiopia, Queen Gudit, who persecuted Christians around 970 AD and helped bring down the Kingdom of Aksum, is said in Ethiopian chronicles to have been Jewish, though some modern scholars have cast doubt on this, suggesting that she may have been a pagan http://www.gospelcom.net/dacb/stories/ethiopia/gudit_.html.

More subtle is the Jewish anti-Christianism in Jewish writings and liturgies, e.g., the Amida prayer's "Birkat ha-Minim" which curses Christians and asks God for their destruction, the call for the destruction of Christian books (Shabbath 116a), the call for the decapitation of those Gentiles who violate one of the Noahide Laws (Sanhedrin 75A) -- said laws precluding the worship of Jesus as God, the study of Torah by Gentiles, etc.

Removal of Anti-Mormonism
I removed the section on Anti-Mormonism as Mormonism is generally not considered a Christian sect due to it polytheistic theology and other pseudo-Christian beliefs. This is not a condemnation of Mormonism as such, but an attempt to be accurate in this article. The same might be said of Jehovah's Witnesses, though for different reasons. The persecution of Mormons can be dealt with in its own article far more accurately. Please understand that my deletion was not an attempt at vandalism. Leto2 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not, but it was POV nonetheless. Mormonism is generally accepted as a Christian sect. e.g. EB "[According to Mormons] through Smith, God had restored the “true church”—i.e., the primitive Christian church—and had reasserted the true faith from which the various Christian churches had strayed." Paul B (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you polled a hundred sunnis and asked them if shi'a or kurds were Muslims, you'd likely get 100 "No"s. The persecution of Mormons continues on the internet. 19 February 2008

Yeah, you gotta do these things by self-identification since it's a personal belief issue, and Mormons say they are Christians. JeffBurdges (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We had this same discussion over at Christian martyrs. The fact of the matter, with all due respect to the virtuous Mormon faithful, is that most Christian churches do not consider LDS to be Christian. The Catholic Church, for example, requires LDS converts to be baptised, where they would not require that of a Baptist, Anglican or Methodist convert.  Most other Christian Churches maintain the same requirement of Mormon converts.  Likewise, Mormons have maintained that all of Christianity is wrong and in complete apostasy.  This quote regarding a survey of Christian clergy is telling: "In the year 2000, Scott Gordon and Dennis Egget of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) -- a LDS positive group -- sent a survey to 430 Christian clergy who led non-Mormon congregations. They received 95 responses, which is what one would expect from a survey of this type. They found that only 6% of Christian clergy classified the LDS church as Christian."  So although LDS may consider itself a Christian church, particularly so today, other Christians do no consider them so.  I don't think self identification is sufficient, particularly where 94% of Christian clergy do not consider LDS to be Christian.  There are other objective criteria, too, such as adherence to the Nicene and Apostles creed. As such, it would seem appropriate, to have a separate article on persecution of Mormons.Mamalujo (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the seperate article might be appropriate. But these criticisms are modern, not historic.  LDS isn't any further than many of the sects lost after the Council of Nicaea.  Also many sects consider most of Christianity wrong.  So it's not realy right to say that Mormons aren't Christians.. we'll you can call them "heretics" if your hardcore.  :P   JeffBurdges (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't judge what a religion is or is not by asking other religions. That's like asking politicians what they think of each other. If you compare the official doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nicknamed 'Mormons') to the dictionary definition of 'Christian', they qualify. To exclude the Latter-day Saints from this article is in itself a persecution of Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.114.173 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nicene creed and Apostles creed may be objective criteria, but if they constitute the definition of 'Christian', then why doesn't the page on 'Christians' even mention them? This section of the article ought to be restored.

PS The unsigned comment above was mine, too. Carl.antuar (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What about persecution BY Christians?
There is no doubt that christians very often haven been a victim of persecution, but also they have been persecutors themselves (e.g. Spanish inquisition, genocide of native Americans, of Australian aboriginals etc.) Wouldn't that also deserve an article?
 * Start one if you think so, if it meets standards then it'll stay. Can't say fairer than that. Good luck! RaseaC (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The autrocities you mentioned weren't commited by Christians. Jesus commanded His followers to love their enemies, not to kill them. Jesus said that many people will do bad things in His name and that people like that are not His true followers--204.78.9.18 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no point quibbling over semantics about who are really Christians.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that hold true for virtually all religions? Can you give me one that explicitly says "Please enslave people", notwithstanding its followers activities?--82.38.185.213 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the first poster has been reading, but there are a number sections and articles criticizing "christian" actions, true or not--Kathanar (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article deals only with persecution of Christians. It doesn't say what the Christians did to deserve that persecution. Take the case of Tipu Sultan. If a person supports his arch rival, the British and stays in his kingdom inhibiting the war effort of Mysore, what will he do? Will he treat them considerately? Again, why are you treating prisoners of war in a political game as Christians persecuted? This article is substandard and thus needs clear editing. It just seems to be a political/religious manifesto showing all Christians as pious and their opposers doesn't have any morals. It's an encyclopedia. It should give facts in an unbiased manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.63.4 (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikpedia does not deal in opinion. You would need a scholarly WP:RELY source that explains why Christians "deserved" to be murdered. With that, it could be entered here as "criticism" or rebuttal of some sort. Student7 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Christians and Lions?
The standard popular representation of persecution in the Roman era is that of Christians being thrown to the lions, in the context of gladiatorial games. It would be useful for the article to say whether this actually happened, and on what scale. Is there any evidence on this? A quick Google produced nothing useful. JQ (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted due to the pov contents of that edit, also it was reinstating an edit made by the banned , and misrepresented a citation. Additionaly wording like "A perceived (but dubious) demographic threat posed by Christians in modern India has lead Hindu Nationalists to be suspicious..." is not encyclopedic. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Hkelkar didnt make the edit. "Most of the Anti Conversion laws are brief and leave a lot of ambiguity, which can be mis-used for inflicting persecution."is unsourced and POV, Hindu extremists is a violation of WP:WTA, and unsourced allegations about the unaffiliated Dara Singh violate WP:BLP. Good to see you documenting your trolling on this page. Baka man  04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

does not carry the comments like about the British which is POV.Unlike Aurangzeb there was no open Anti-hindu movement under the British .Please read what the author has written they were more known for the selfless service and there population never exceeded 3%.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the anti-Christian sentiments harbored by contemporary Hindu extremists dwell on the time when India was under British colonial rule, and when a substantial number of Christian missionaries openly voiced crude anti-Hindu sentiments. is found on the site of Vinay Lal who has also been cited in Religious violence in India. It is a quote that is entirely contextual, but if it hurts your feelings so much to have some testimony, we can merely quote it without the fluff.
 * ASSIST News, is a Christian ministry, not any sort of NPOV news source. It cannot be cited in this section, because I might as well cite Panchajanya. Neither meets WP:RS in this context.
 * The other violations were documented above. Nice to see one of our "great admins" reverting in conjunction with a troll and Pharaoh. Baka man  23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You lied to me Bakasuprman, this was Hkelkar after all. Now explain why you want to reinstate a banned user's pov pushing. Dance With The Devil (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read quote in full :It is a remarkable fact that in 200 years when India was under British rule, the Christian population of India never exceeded 3% of the population. Though the sentiments of Hindus were often flagrantly wounded by Christian missionaries, whose insensitivity and arrogance come across in countless number of texts, missionaries today are nonetheless more often remembered for performing social work in both metropolitan centers and more remote parts of the country, and for establishing schools where the bulk of the Indian elites still receive their schooling:Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
Discussion between myself and MishaPan on my talk page yesterday. Main reasons for the exclusion of the Spanish civil war image given. Mamalujo has recently, however, restored the image with no explanation provided.Nwe (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you removed an image from Persecution of Christians, with the comment, "that's related to the persecution of an ethnic minority which is different, we also have context in a case like that, we also have none here &the image is misleading terms whole article". I was wondering if you could expain this--I'm not really an expert on Spanish history. Which ethnic minority is being persecuted in the photo? And how is the desecration of a statue of Jesus by anti-clericalists to be parsed from persecution of Christians? A lot of religious persecution has ethnic persecution at its root. Thanks for your help. MishaPan (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, you misunderstood my edit summary, I was responding to your parallel with Nazi persecution of the Jews, pointing out that I felt this was an inappropriate parallel, since that's ethnic persecution. It's not a big point I want to pursue, I just feel that it's a false analogy. My main objections, I think, to the use of this image is:
 * 1. It's disputable whether vandalism of this kind counts as religous persecution, from my point of view religious persecution should consist of attacks on people or communities for their beliefs.


 * 2. We have no evidence, or none that I've seen, that this image is anything more than a symbolic announcement of defiance against the Church, since while there was a large amount of church property in the Civil War, actual persecution of clergy was less common.


 * 3. The Spanish Civil War is itself a bad illustration of persecution of Christians. It was more an attack on the institution of the Catholic Church in Spain for its political views, not on Christians for their religion so to speak. In fact there is at least one description I've heard of people burning churches and then the same people proceeding to attend religious services in its sinders a week later.Nwe (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Nwe. I see your point. There is certainly enough ambiguity with regard to motive to warrant the image's removal. Thank you for your time. MishaPan (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main reason for sidelining the discussion of fighting between Catholics and Anarchists during the Spanish civil war is that it's not really that historically significant to christianity. People come here wanting to know about the ancient stuff that had a major influence on all of Christianity, or as a starting point for reading more detailed articles about current persecution around the world (middle east, etc.) I mean, the Spanish civil war and French revolution are quite interesting, but not exactly central. Well, at that time, every political movement needed to either embrace Catholicism's political power, or fight it. JeffBurdges (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Persecution"
I wanted to remind everyone of this. Unless an action, or view, or law (etc.) is specifically labeled as "persecution" (by a reliable source), it should not be in this article. This article is about persecution of Christians, not unfair acts against them, or anything that is not persecution.

To be "persecution" it must be called "persecution" by a reliable source (preferably multiple ones).

This is an accordance with consensus on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34. If you have any questions please just ask. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:SpanishLeftistsShootStatueOfChrist.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians in the New Testament
Why does this part of the article focus so much on the 4th century? For instance, where it states "examination of the sources for fourth century Jewish history will show that the universal, tenacious, and malicious Jewish hatred of Christianity referred to by the church fathers and countless others has no existence in historical fact." The stories and accounts of the New Testament have nothing to do with the 4th century, they occur prior to that point. The books of the New Testament were all basically completed, at latest, in the 2nd century, and the main focus of the New Testament is on the 1st century. This part of the article should deal with 1st and perhaps 2nd century persecution of Christians by Jews, no later, and anything after that should be part of a different section. And in regards to later persecutions there were apparently Jewish persecutions of Christians in pre-Islamic Yemen, perhaps the article should discuss these as well. -unsigned 6:48 PM, 12 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.202.208 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Violence in India photo shock value/POV?
It seems the burn victim photo in the Persecution in Indian section seems to add very little information to the article, and seem to just add to the shock value of the section. If the picture showed the violence in progress/photos of the riots or protests, etc. it seems it would be more relevant.--Primal Chaos (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is showing example of persecution, the level of violence Christians face in India and is relevant.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The image is showing example of persecution" - Not really. The girl is just sitting there, looking horrific. It's an appeal to emotion, not fact. I suggest finding a picture of the actual riots involved.--Primal Chaos (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

20 million deaths a year
This passage - right at the start of the Persuction of Christians section, appears to be unsubstantiated nonsense. What is meant by "people that die from persecution"? I certainly don't think that 4 times as many Christians as Jews killed by Hitler are killed every year. So I am removing it. "There are 20 Million people that die from persecution per year. There are 1000 that die per day.[citation needed] Orlando098 (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Quakers, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses?
If I remember correctly, Mormons only left for Utah after being violently persecuted in Illinois, and German Jehovah's Witnesses were put in Nazi concentration camps, and in here in the States they had to fight for themselves in ground-breaking freedom of religion cases. How about adding sections for these groups? Blueaster (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Early American persecution section is needed
The state of Rhode Island was formed by Baptists expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony by Puritans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.232.91 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging material from Anti-Christian sentiment
Does anyone have any comments on this proposal? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mormonism
I've removed material essentially identical to this edit twice now, on the grounds that it's not really relevant to the article's subject. By all means lets have a section about persecution of Mormons, and a discussion of why other Christians felt moved to view them as 'different' and persecute them. But a detailed analysis of whether that difference is real or not based on a theological comparison of Mormonism and other forms of Christianity does not belong here. Perhaps it could be added to Mormonism and Christianity, but it really needs sourcing as well.

Therefore, I would like to remove the material again. Does anyone disagree? Olaf Davis (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Olaf,

Forgive me, I'm still learning many aspects of Wikipedia and its messaging, posting and commenting mehtods.

I am the author of the material you have removed twice. The material you describe as being irrelevant is very much relevant due to it describing the reason for Mormon persecution, which is the purpose and scope of the article section. The section was not only corrected to remove some minor historical errors, but also expanded to adequately provide and properly articulate a full context for accurate understanding. There is a trememndous amount of misinformation about the Mormon religion that prevails on the internet. There is great interest to ensure that Wikipedia articles are informative in proper context and clarity. The sections that you have removed were not only very relevant, but critical in pointing out the very reasons that mainstream Christian persecution agaisnt Mormons exists. Also, further sources are being gathered, but much of the deleted content itself was source material from such well known sources that no source links were necessary. I request that the edited content be left intact since it has further clarified, in proper context, the subject matter of the article section.

My sincere thanks,

- Highwinder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highwinder (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Highwinder. I understand it can take a while to get to grips with Wikipedia - feel free to ask if there's anything I can help you out with.
 * "Describing the reason for Mormon persecution" is well within the scope of this article, but I think some of your writing goes beyond that. That Mormons believe their practices are true to the Bible is not the reason for persecution, it's a side-line - and as I said would be better placed at the article Mormonism and Christianity. Perhaps this article could make a brief mention - something like "many of these practices are believed by Mormons to be more true to the original teachings of Christianity than those of other sects" with a link to Mormonism and Christianity, but anything more is, I think, getting sidetracked from the point of this article.
 * As for sourcing, you might want to read Verifiability, which is one of our central policies. Where there's any doubt or controversy, claims need to be backed up by citations to reliable sources. It's good to hear you're finding some - I'd advise you to do so soon, because leaving things unsourced is not a good idea (and is likely to lead to others removing it). Make sure to check that they are 'reliable' in the sense that the policy describes.
 * Additionally, it's not Wikipedia's place to say that "mainstream Christianity ... has deviated from or completely abandoned many of Christianity's original, biblically-defined doctrines", or that Mormonism has done the same. We need to try and report in a neutral manner on what reliable sources have said about the subject. Neutral point of view goes into more detail on this.
 * Finally, if you end your talk-page comments with four tildes ( ~ ) it'll produce your signature automatically.
 * Cheers, and I hope that helps. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this edit which, besides using some distinctly unconvincing referencing and leaving the article in a schizophrenic "this-is-true-no-it's-not" state, is attempting to solve the problem by arguing the other side of the 'Mormonism vs. Christianity' argument. That's not what this page is for. I've left Highwinder's material to give him/her a chance to respond to what I said above. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no more discussion has been forthcoming, I have again removed the material which - in my view - is about doctrinal differences between sects and not about persecution per se. I invite anyone who disagrees to discuss their reasons here rather than simply reverting again. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article should neither be about presenting the Mormon idea of why they are ignored anymore than presenting the opposite view of why. It should be content neutral, not a pov presentation.


 * I've been offline awhile. I thought one editor had separated out real persecution (e.g. massacre at Navahoo) from unpleasant encounters (e.g. ignoring Mormans as Christians). The latter claim does not strike me as a good candidate for this article, if there is another.Student7 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are Mormons Christians?
The section on Mormon persecution should be deleted. Mormons are not Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo has now removed the whole section, saying "Most Christians don't consider LDS Christian". That may be true, but surely the relevant thing is whether most scholars (that is, authors of reliable sources) consider them to be so. Is that the case? I really don't know enough about the subject to say. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This ground has already been hashed over multiple times on other more prominent, more top-level articles, such as Christianity and List of Christian denominations, which include LDS as a Christian denomination/movement. As one editor over there said, "Can we nip this discussion in the bud? We've had it before. We'll have it again. The shorter it is, the better. We refer to JWs and Mormons as Christians whether they "really" are or not." For a scholarly source that places LDS as Christian, see the Pew Forum's The Religious Composition of the United States. That said, I think the the "Anti-mormon" section should probably be pared down to the murder of Smith, maybe the Extermination Order and the various violent incidents (Haun's Mill, 1838 Mormon War, Illinois Mormon War, Utah War), and Reed Smoot is probably a better example than Romney if we're going to include non-violent political "persecution". --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks alot for your detailed reply, FyzixFighter. It confirms what I thought myself. I agree about the size of the section too. Since no-one has commented on it in support of the 'full' version for a while, I will restore a reduced version when I get time. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is so lazy. Mormons and JW's are a Cult- not part of the Universal Christian Church. It is wrong to include them under the Christianity heading. It is lazy and ignoring scholarly fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.131.32 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally, we would like to entertain "scholarly fact." As the discussion suggests, the editors have been through all of that. The LDS considers themselves Christians, and would rightly complain (in their article "Anti-Mormonism"?) if they were omitted. As they might well ask, "what part of "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" don't you understand?"


 * Having said that, I understand where you are coming from. Remember that Christians (and Muslims) are all considered "heretics" by Jewish people! And rightly so!Student7 (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The question here is not what Mormons believe themselves to be (that would be the only REAL Christians; the rest of us are "abominations"); it's whether they can really be considered Christian in light of Christian understandings of the last two millennia.

Christians believe in One God in Three Persons; Mormons believe in three separate beings, two of them formerly ordinary human beings. Christians believe that the universe and everything in it were created by the One God; Mormons believe that every planet has its own god, and that those many, many gods merely "organized" the materials - and have lots of wives, and lots of "spirit children". Christians believe in one heaven for all believers; Mormons teach three different heavens - a sort of first class, economy class, and steerage - depending on what you believed on Earth. Christians believe that all are equal in God's sight; Mormons have such a low opinion of women that they teach that women can't even get into the best heaven without their husbands' say-so. (And that's not even getting into the Mormon belief that Jesus was conceived by their god having actual physical sex with Mary, or many other Mormon teachings that are at odds with Christianity.)

These are not, to put it mildly, Christian teachings.

Mormonism is, at best, a religion based on Christianity, but far departed from it in every way. There was some persecution of Mormons early in the religion's history - as there has been Mormon persecution of Christians - but that really does not belong in an article dedicated to the persecution of Christians. The two are just too far apart; save it for the article on Mormonism. RossweisseSTL (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Christians believe in One God in Three Persons" -- this is manifestly untrue. See Armenian Apostolic Church and Jehovah's Witnesses. Later-Day Saints define themselves as Christians, see . Since there is no supreme authority on Earth who decides who is a Christian and who is not a Christian, Christians are by definition the people who call themselves Christians. According to Bart Ehrman, there were Christians who believed in two gods, there were Christians who believed in 30 gods and there were Christians who believed in 365 gods. They were all Christians. Further reading: . What you propose above is simply put libel. It is very shameful for brothers to engage in libel against each other. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are another quasi-Christian cult, like Mormonism. Bart is talking about the Early Church, before the Councils. It's not libel, and you don't get to rewrite almost 2,000 years of history to suit yourselves - or perhaps you do on Wikipedia, where putting pressure on those in charge can get you placed where you want to be. But that doesn't make it true. I can change my name to Elizabeth Windsor and claim to be the Queen of England, but that doesn't get me into Buckingham Palace.

It is frankly offensive to claim that Mormonism is Christian, with its grotesque rewrite of the Bible, its poorly written (except where they're plagiarized) additions to Scripture (although Smith's take on the Egyptian Book of the Dead is amusing), its three heavens and teaching of an everlasting second-class status for women (who are, basically, men's property), among other things. And, of course, Smith and his successors taught that all the Christian Churches were "abominations." Where do you get "brothers" out of that?

I have Mormon friends, just as I have Muslim and Jewish friends; we respect each others' religions. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that they're the same faith - and the latter two are quite honest that they're not. Why do Mormons want to claim to be part of a religion that they despise? RossweisseSTL (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I neglected to specify that you have evidently misunderstood what Bart Ehrman meant. It's not "two gods," it's God in Two Persons, rather than Three. It's still one God, not multiples. Polytheism - and Mormonism is manifestly polytheistic - is simply impossible in a Christian context. And the basic Mormon concept that men can become gods and have their own planets and harems producing "spirit children" is simply too outre to be considered even remotely Christian. There are many other points that I could make, but this isn't the place. I'm not trying to say that you're not entitled to your beliefs - just that you should not deliberately mislabel them in this manner.

I really don't mean to offend, but for a group simply to decide to call itself the only true Christians, while subscribing to beliefs that are 180 degrees removed from Christianity as it has been taught and practiced for two millennia is, itself, offensive. RossweisseSTL (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the Bible, women are the property of men, see God and Sex for a scholarly analysis. Such an idea would make Mormons fundamentalist, but not heretic (heresy is what the speaker disagrees with in matters of religion). Besides, the canon of the Scripture was settled at the Council of Trent for the Catholic Church, at the Synod of Jerusalem for the Eastern Orthodox Church and by Martin Luther for mainstream Protestantism. These were very late events, and are binding only for those who admit them as binding (just as any definition of "Christianity" is binding only for those who accept it as binding, there is no escape from such relativism, except by consulting scholars and scholars have broad definitions of Christianity, just think of how Howard S. Becker defined art). The Bible does not say that the canon of the Bible is finished, since when the Bible was written there was no such thing as a canon of the Bible, not even in prophecy. Therefore the opinion that the canon of the Bible is closed is just as good as the opinion that the canon of the Bible is open (it would fail by one man one vote, but so would Protestantism as a whole, since only a minority of the Christians are Protestants). Mormons think it is open, this is why they have added books to the Bible. Since there is no higher authority stopping them from doing this, they are free to do it. If they consider themselves to be Christians, who are you to say they aren't? Just because you have made up a definition of Christianity which is not accepted in mainstream scholarship? The Seventh-day Adventists also consider themselves the only church of God on Earth, and I guess Catholics see themselves as the only true church. You are building a conspiracy theory about the intentions of the Wikipedians. I remind you of the basic policies WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:SOURCES and WP:NPOV. I suggest you read them before arguing about anything on Wikipedia: we may all edit it as long as we respect these policies. Otherwise you would feel persecuted and have no idea why it happens. Your viewpoint is unacceptable because these policies define the rules of the game. And no, I did not misunderstand Ehrman, I am actually reading the book: 365 gods=365 gods, not the holy 365-ity.Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See e.g. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While I personally do not think that Mormons are Christians on theological grounds, from an anthropological perspective, Mormonism is derived from Christianity, calls itself a form of Christianity, and considers Jesus to be (a) God. It can only (from an anthropological perspective) be described as a form of Christianity. A form that is very different (irreconcilably so) from mainstream Christianity in terms of beliefs, but still a form of Christianity. Wikipedia, like anthropology, does NOT take a stance on doctrine but just describes it. Otherwise, we open the door to fanatics of all kinds pushing their own doctrine (for example, insisting users remove themselves from the "Christian Wikipedians" user category because they don't have problems with meat, alcohol, evolution, masturbation, homosexuality, etc). However, Wikipedia can observe that Mormonism does hold to doctrines irreconcilable with the majority of other Christians' doctrine. While there have been variations, in the big picture the overwhelming majority of Christianity has held to the trinity (three forms of some sort united in one person, not three separate beings), the incarnation (however it works out), the crucifixion, and resurrection (even in cases like the Armenian Apostolic Church, which didn't argue agaisnt the incarnation but had differing views with how the incarnation worked). If a bowl of green M&Ms has a red one in it, it is still safe to describe it as "a bowl of green M&Ms," and it is ridiculous to act like there are equal amounts of red and green M&Ms. I recommend the two of you quit this discussion. RossweisseSTL, you need to learn to stay with an anthropological perspective when discussing religion here and not get offended when it contrasts with theological perspectives. Tgeorgescu, I want you to go count M&Ms (perhaps review WP:UNDUE) and learn more about Christian beliefs. You've missed the point of the miaphysite/monophysite controversy the Armenian Apostolic Church faced, and don't seem to get that the Jehovah's Witnesses are a divergent minority within a divergent minority within a divergent minority (it's like listing Anton LeVay as equally representative of Atheism than Richard Dawkins, or even moreso). For anyone else who cares to get involved, I suggest that Mormons (and Jehovah's Witnesses and Cathars) should be included in their own section, with something along the lines of "Although doctrinally divergent from all other Christian denominations..." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Mormons are quite different from other Christian denominations, but "Christian" is not a registered trademark, that was my point. See also: So, this kind of brotherly defamation is a lot more common than one may think: it's not just about the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses, it is about lots of churches who despise other churches who differ from their own. Christians do not cherish diversity, at least in matters of theology. And understandably so, since they consider true belief as the key to redemption (false beliefs equal damnation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not what we think, but what scholarly citations state. And those are that Mormons are not Christian. We must refer to them as "Christian" within LDS articles (and mention objections from others) and non-Christian in general articles.
 * As far as "accepting diversity" goes, there is a quote: "Religious faiths generally make claims about the nature of reality that conflict with the claims of other faiths. Attacking Christian religions exclusivity is also to attack nearly every vital religious tradition." Stating what each perceives as the truth is the hallmark of religions and Christianity in particular. If they fail to state their version of reality, they are no longer a religion nor Christian.
 * The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and is respected for saying that. Religions state what that evidence is and are reviled for it! Something is wrong there. Student7 (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ehrman makes this point: in antique paganism, there was no such thing as dogmas. One generally accepted that gods exist, that they have to be respected and appeased, but there was no such thing as moral dogma, metaphysical dogma, political dogma or so specific for paganism. Pagans were completely free to believe whatever they wanted, in matters of morals, metaphysics, politics and so on. So, the idea that true belief makes you live for ever is a Christian invention. Previous religions did not have such requirement and Judaism was meant for Jews only and they could not care less about the beliefs of the non-Jews. Besides, I have quoted above a reliable source (published by Duke University) which says that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are neo-protestant. This implies that they are Christians, since neo-protestants are Christians. So, I doubt that scholars do not consider Mormons as Christians, since my quotation from a reliable source shows the opposite. If you speak of theologians, they certainly have a bias, namely of defining Christianity according to their pet dogmas (such as the Holy Trinity, Jesus being both human and divine in the same person, respecting the decisions of several ecumenic councils and so on). But there were large numbers of Christians who did not accept such dogmas, and such dogmas were the result of political machinations, persecutions, genocide, bribes, threats, murders, so they are historically seen completely arbitrary, therefore they are of equal standing with any other alternative outlook. Just because they were believed by most Christians in the past 1500 years does not make them true. As I said, there were Christians who were polytheist, so monotheism is not a requirement for being Christian. This is reflected by scholars and published in reliable sources. So, this is not a matter of original research, it is just what scholars say. By scholars I mean historians and religion students rather than theologians, since theologians are overwhelmingly biased in such matters: they have an agenda in respect to how Christianity is to be defined. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do theologians have an agenda in this respect? Simple: theology is not an empirical science; what is true in Catholic theology could be false in Protestant theology. Theologians advance theories that in their own view should become the standard beliefs for the members of their church. So, they are committed to their church in the first place and if they do science, this comes upon a second place. A theologian is by definition a (potential) director of conscience in the first place and a scientist in the second place. This is why Julius Wellhausen resigned from his professorship. Things have changed since them, since according to Ehrman students of mainstream US Protestant and Catholic seminaries and divinity schools have to learn the basics of scientific Bible scholarship. So to speak, Wellhausen would not have to resign nowadays from teaching theology. But these courses are a bit of scientific approach in a sea of faith-based teaching. So, theologians have a commitment to their faith and theology students are mostly educated according to a specific faith rather than an analytical-empirical approach, as taught to students of religion studies. Religion studies are not committed to a specific faith and do not seek to establish what believers of a certain church have to believe as a matter of true belief. Instead, they seek to render a scientific analysis of religion. Theologians do the opposite: they try to establish correct beliefs, and in this endeavor empirical truths come second, if they are at all relevant. Of course, this does not deny that someone educated as a theologian is able to switch ranks and prefer the scientific study to the approach specific to his own faith. It is just saying that what is published as theology inherently has a faith-based bias in approaching religious matters and in deciding who should be considered a Christian, while religion studies have to render what is a sound empirical analysis. So, definitely, a theologian defines Christianity different from the definitions used by anthropologists, sociologists and religion students. E.g. when making a poll, in order to establish if the respondent if Christian the standard question would be "Are you a Christian? Answer: yes or no." It would be strange to ask questions like "Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?", "Do you accept the Council of Nicea as binding for your faith?" in order to decide if that person is really a Christian. So, in sociology, an answer indicating that the respondent is a Christian is taken at face value. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we take one step back? There was a time when it was important for ancient Christian to "be Jewish." This did not work out. They were rejected as "heretics" by Judaism. While we still use "Judeo-Christian" as an adjective, no Christian denomination says that "it is Jewish," though everyone claims Jewish "roots."
 * Christians, as a group, do not accept certain later denominations as "Christian." Mormons are one of those groups. They may claim "Christian roots" or whatever. But they lack the creed that binds all Christians together. They may consider themselves Christians, but, for Wikipedia/encyclopedia articles, this can't be claimed outside of Mormon articles, any more than we can say "Catholics are Jews, too" in general religious articles. Jewish people do not accept Catholics as Jews! It's that simple! Student7 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As said above, that creed is the result of intrigue and wrongdoing, so it has no special epistemic status, it is just a result of blind historical forces. It is broadly accepted by the intellectual successors of those who have persecuted in the name of Christ whole generations of their Christian brothers and sisters. So, Wikipedia may agree that such creed is broadly shared today by most Christians, but it cannot agree that it constitutes an essential definition of being Christian. The difference between Catholics and Jews was for the past 2000 years a matter of recognizing (or not) Christ as the Messiah. Anyway, I think that I am losing my time here producing arguments, so I point to the official Wikipedia policies, and they say that we're not rendering here our own opinions, but we let the scholars settle the issues and we may only render the viewpoints of mainstream scholarship. So, this is not a matter of producing or refuting sophisticated arguments about what constitutes being Christian, but it is a matter of following mainstream scholarship. Anthropologists and sociologists tend to disbelieve essentialist definitions, so I guess that anthropologically and sociologically the very idea of producing an essential definition of what is that being a Christian is flawed. In general, theology may only speak for its own church, since the acceptation of theological arguments depends upon denominational membership. E.g. you cannot ask an Adventist to accept as binding the theology of the Quakers. So the only matter needing attention is how mainstream scholarship defines Christianity: either take the self-definition at its face value or produce a theologically-biased definition of what constitutes being a Christian. It is evident that in your arguments you introduce a theological bias, since you say that people who do not believe x are no Christians. Theologically, what you do is perfectly sound, but scientifically seen it is quite biased. Wikipedia follows science (scholarship) rather than theology, since the politics of neutrality says that Wikipedia cannot have a theological bias. On religious wikis, the bias is evident, e.g. the Orthodox Wiki defines its own bias and states it as binding for the whole wiki. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, we have been asked to ignore scholarly theologians by non-believers, figuring that they can get preferential references from atheistic scholars! Hard to do on a religious topic.
 * Because a person holds a doctorate in theology, doesn't mean they are automatically religious bigots! Not sure how they came by that reputation.
 * While I have been almost famously unsuccessful in eliminating religious references by science writer Richard Dawkins from the encyclopedia, most (other) reliable sources are not "self-trained." Except for Dawkins, theological credentials are generally required. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say that theologians are bigots. I only said that when they write theology (as opposed to when they write history or sociology), they may only speak for their own church (sometimes, we cannot assume even that much), since the acceptation of theology depends upon denominational membership. The acceptation of sociology, history, anthropology and religion studies does not depend upon denominational membership (with the exception of the bigots). I did not say that theologians cannot write history or anthropology, it is just that their contributions to such sciences are not judged according to their theological credentials, but according to the empirical proofs their offer and according to the soundness of the arguments they make. They are judged by peers, i.e. by empirical scientists. A scientific definition of Christianity should not have any theological bias. If we allow theologians do decide who are the Christians, as a matter of theology rather than empirical science, they will do so according to the faiths of their own churches, therefore such definition will have a theological bias. In general, it is very hard to write theology without a theological bias. Wikipedia cannot accept policies based upon theological bias. That was what I was talking about. So, the policies of Wikipedia should be based upon empirical science rather than theological bias. If is perfectly correct to write "The Catholic theologians believe that all Christians have to believe in the Holy Trinity." However, it is wrong to say "According to empirical science, all Christians have to believe in the Holy Trinity." Historians simply do not assume that people who do not believe in the Holy Trinity are not Christians. For Ehrman and Pagels, the Christian Gnostics were fully Christian. So, even if Ehrman and Pagels were educated as theologians, they did not make such claims as a matter of theology, but as a matter of empirical science. Their scientific contributions are not judged by that gage of theology, but they are judged by historians, i.e. by empirical scientists (who some of them may have been educated as theologians, but only judge such contributions as a matter of empirical science). Inside Wikipedia, it is simply not done to say that Catholic theology should be preferred to Mormon theology, just as atheism, agnosticism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology and so on deserve equal treatment, i.e. no editorial bias for or against such beliefs. They all may speak for their own faith, but none of these beliefs has to be preferred to other beliefs, as a matter of editorial policy. That's why we have to accept an empirical definition of Christianity and not by resorting to theological bias. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Student7, you make a lot of excellent points - thank you! Tgeorgescu, even if we don't say what one MUST believe to be a Christian, we can say that there are things that Christians do NOT believe. A "plurality of gods" is paganism, no matter what a few confused early Christians - hardly in the mainstream - might have thought. The notion that men could become gods is paganism. The notion of cosmic harems and cosmic sex producing "spirit children" is paganism. The idea of several heavens may not be paganism, but it sure isn't Christian; taking one passage from one epistle out of context and concocting a doctrine out of it doesn't cut it. That men could be the ones to decide if their wives can get into a particular heaven or not is simply blasphemous: even if one buys into the (strictly Hebrew Bible) idea that women are nothing but property, Christianity has never bought into that: read (unedited by Smith) Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." God - the One God - decides, not men, in Christianity.

You are incorrect concerning the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox and others; while they believe themselves to be the true Church, they accept that other Christians are, in fact, Christian; it's just that we're all "ecclesial communities" instead of part of said true Church because we don't subscribe to certain of their doctrines and disciplines. I cannot imagine them accepting Mormonism as Christian.

And, of course, once again, to Mormons, the Christian Churches are all "abominations." There has also, of course, been Mormon persecution of Christians, which I notice is no part of this article.

Nobody has suggested that Wikipedia should say that Christian theology should be preferred to Mormon theology, although the former is certainly easier to pin down that the latter. Wikipedia should not take sides, even one side is strident about its claims, as Mormonism is. But it is simply wrong for Mormons to say that they are Christian in non-Mormon articles; their latter-day innovations have too little in common with Christianity as it has been practiced and understood for so many centuries. RossweisseSTL (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As a matter of official policy (WP:NPOV), Wikipedia cannot have a theological bias. Even if all your arguments were correct, they would still constitute theological bias, while anthropology, sociology, religion studies and so on do not have theological bias. As said, our arguments do not matter, only the arguments of the scholars matter. I and FyzixFighter have quoted two reliable sources, you have quoted no reliable source. The discussion has precedents, this theme has been discussed before and consensus was reached then. See the articles quoted by FyzixFighter: they consider LDS as part of Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree that Mormons have weird beliefs. But this holds for every faith: explain the advanced dogmatics of your denominations to adults who never heard the basics of your religion, and they will be inclined to see them as weird. It's a matter of acculturation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * FyzixFighter is just another aggressive Mormon apologist whose primary tactic is to attack Christians in favor of his own religious biases, while repeatedly removing their contributions to any discussion that touches on Mormonism.

Merely misusing references does not make them accurate. Wikipedia cannot have a theological bias, but it really should be biased in favor of antecedent, history, and, one hopes, fact. It's gracious of you to admit that "Mormons have weird beliefs," but that's not the point. To insist on including Mormonism - which is, as I have demonstrated, not just "weird" but approximately 180 degrees from, and pointedly hostile to, Christianity in most of its doctrines - as a part of Christianity is to make a mockery of Wikipedia's stated policies. Just saying you're a part of something does not make it true. RossweisseSTL (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The facts are: in debates about Wikipedia articles it has been decided that Mormonism is part of Christianity, there are reliable sources which call it part of Christianity, and being a Christian is not the same as being made of iron or of copper, which can be objectively assessed, but it is more a matter of how one defines his/her own identity. There's no supreme theological authority (i.e. an objectively existing person or an institution) which defines Christianity, so everybody is free to call himself/herself a Christian. There could be an authority belonging to scholarship, but till now you have not proved that scholars who have no theological agenda consider that Mormonism does not belong to Christianity. I may agree that most theologians do not consider it part of Christianity, but this is because they have the agenda of promoting their own denomination, and thus have an interest to define Christianity in a manner that suits their own faith best. Such a definition is biased, thus unacceptable as a matter of policy. There were no arguments produced showing that such a definition of Christianity is accepted by empirical science (anthropology, sociology, religion studies, history). In fact, counterexamples were shown in this respect (e.g. the Christian Gnostics as analyzed by Ehrman and Pagels). Your viewpoint is in fact a version of No true Scotsman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it has not been "decided that Mormonism is part of Christianity," and there are absolutely no reliable sources which say that. Again, Christians are not polytheists. They do not believe that mere human men can decide whether women get to go to heaven. They do not believe in cosmic sex and "spirit children". They do not believe in Joe Smith's badly written, demonstrably fake pseudo-scriptures. You can quote bits and pieces of respectable sources out of context until you are blue in the face, but you haven't proved a thing, because you are misusing those sources. The *facts* are that while Mormonism originally derived from Christianity, it quickly went off into left field and has next to nothing to do with the religion as it has been understood for almost 2,000 years. The *facts* are that basic Christian doctrines are easily established, and it has been shown that Mormonism is not just different from, but actively hostile to, those doctrines. I have cited actual Mormon doctrines; you've thrown out bits of Ehrman and Pagels that touch marginally on your thesis, but you've proven exactly nothing. Your viewpoint is in fact a version of blind adherence to an unworkable doctrine, and the urge to prove it against all logic. (Membership in Mensa doesn't prove anything either... I should know! ;-) ) RossweisseSTL (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, there is no supreme authority recognized by all Christians, which could decide which are the basic dogmas mandatory for all Christians. In lack of such authority, your definition of the basic Christian dogmas is subjective, i.e. theologically biased. There is a theological consensus, but it has been obtained through persecution: most dissenters have been killed, maimed and silenced. Feeling proud of such consensus is like feeling proud for the deeds of Hitler. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See e.g., On the Church's Councils... What You Were Never Told for murder and misbehaving at the ecumenic councils. The article quotes reputable church historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not offering the following as a RS. But is this report essentially correct? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_the_Mormons_consider_the_Nicene_Creed_to_be_%27corrupt_doctrine%27


 * The Nicene/Apostles Creed is accepted by "most" Christian denominations. I'm assuming the Mormons do not accept it. (Apparently there are other Christian denominations who don't accept it either, so not the criteria needed, but provides a point of reference). Student7 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has been edited, but I have found this: "The Nicene Creed was written between 325 and 381 A.D. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly called Mormons) is a restoration of the first century Christian Church, before the creed was written. They believe that after the first century, with the death of the apostles, the church went into apostasy and it's leaders no longer had the authority to lead the church given to them by God, so the Creeds (Nicene and otherwise) are not the Word of God but the precepts of men, and therefore not correct doctrine." . I think is good enough for a restorationst movement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That gives us a point of reference. Not as crystal clear as needed, though. We'll need something else, apparently.
 * For the record, the Old Roman Symbol preceded the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed preceded (or followed) the Roman Symbol. I would assume that the LDS has the same, or a similar position on those? The wording is "sort of" similar. Dating is tough, but they clearly precede. By how much is "hard to tell."
 * Trying for a point of contact, Mormons do accept the Protestant version of the New Testament, right? Not to be too picky here, but (say) the King James version is "close enough"? Student7 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know which version of the Bible they prefer, but I saw their extended Bibles and they contain the (Protestant) Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and such. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Student7, The eighth Mormon "Article of Faith" says "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." They use the King James Version of the Bible, but only as edited by Joseph Smith, and don't accept any other version, which means that they're missing out on a ton of scholarship. (Interestingly, "The Book of Mormon" contains many errors of translation found in the KJV.) "The Pearl of Great Price" contains the "Book of Abraham," "translated" by Smith from Egyptian papyri he bought. Unfortunately for Smith's credibility, scholars learned to read hieroglyphics shortly after the publication of "Pearl," and the papyri used for "The Book of Abraham" turned out to be actually a section of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and not, needless to say, Christian or Jewish in origin. In any case, for all their disagreements on other subjects, no Christian denomination considers anything outside the canonical books of the Bible as holy scripture.

As for our Mormon friend Tgeorgescu's claims of a "restorationist" movement, Smith claimed that the Church fell away almost immediately. However, while the Apostles' Creed was certainly not written by the apostles, parts of it are based on the Gospel of Matthew, and every concept in it can be found in the New Testament. If you deny that, in historical terms, you're pretty much denying you're a part of Christianity. RossweisseSTL (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've since decided I was going in the wrong direction and need to find references that support my view from reliable Christian sources, particularly Catholic and Christian Orthodox, plus others. Student7 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the vastly overwhelming number of Christians do not consider LDS Christian and require a separate baptism unlike a Methodist converting to Catholicism, where no baptism would be required - the Methodist baptism being considered valid. I do not believe that self-identification is sufficient. In a poll of Christian pastors 94% said they did not consider Mormons Christian. That study and other helpful data are available here.Mamalujo (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'm saying it again: The question "are Mormons Christians" depends on in what sense you mean by the word "Christian."

From a theological standpoint, they are about as far from mainstream Christianity as Hinduism. Even if they happened to be following the original beliefs advocated by Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples, and Paul of Tarsus, they are distinct enough from the ovewhelming majority of Christians (trinitarian monotheists who agree on 39 works in the Old Testament and almost completely on the New Testament) and enough of a minority that not distinguishing between them and the rest of Christianity would be like treating Anglo-Saxon as normative English and what we're all speaking as some bizarre dialect. All sources will agree that Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are almost completely separate on theological grounds.

BUT, from a scholarly standpoint, they branched off from Christianity, call themselves Christian, consider Jesus Christ to be a divine central figure, and have aesthetic similarities to mainstream protestantism. All scholarly sources will treat them as a Christian sect or pseudo-Christian sect.

Thus, to reflect both senses, we must include them, but in their own section. To exclude them from the article would be as much problematic and sectarian POV-pushing as only covering Mormons in this article. People needs to set their personal feelings and dogmas aside here. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, not the Bible. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Wikipedia is secular, so it follows the consensus of secular scholars (secular does not necessarily mean without religion). It does render the opinions of theologians as speaking for their own denomination (without implying that they would be true). An argument can be made that Mormonism follows directly from the Bible: if the Bible contains a contradiction, according to the principle of explosion it follows that Mormonism is true. But, with the exception of fringe fundamentalists, all Bible scholars agree that the Bible contains some contradictions. Therefore, Mormonism logically follows from the Bible. The same argument could be made for Hinduism following from the Bible, since from assuming a contradiction follows anything. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, they did branch off from Christianity, but that's really as far as it goes. After all, Christianity itself branched off from Judaism - but although Christianity claimed to be a part of Judaism, Christians were soon ejected from the synagogues. It's the same thing with Mormonism. It may have some Christian antecedents, but it is really a very different religion. What you call yourself really doesn't matter.

Tgeorgescu, your statement that "Mormonism logically follows from the Bible" makes absolutely no sense.

Wikipedia needs to have higher standards. RossweisseSTL (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Demonstration:


 * By assuming a contradiction follows anything (ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet).
 * The Bible contains contradictions.
 * Therefore, from assuming the truth of the Bible follows anything.


 * Particularization:


 * From assuming the truth of the Bible follows Mormonism.


 * or:


 * From assuming the truth of the Bible follows Hinduism.


 * So, I have produced a demonstration for my claim that Mormonism logically follows from the Bible. Now, logic is not an exact science. Logic is about what a logician states as the norms for correct thinking. A different logician may disagree with him/her. Therefore, my demonstration holds for most logical systems, except paraconsistent logic. So, unless you side with paraconsistent logic, my demonstration is accurate. It is original research, but this is not a Wikipedia article, it is a discussion page. The meaning of this formal logical demonstration is that from assuming the truth of the Bible follow all sorts of strange ideas, like David Koresh;s cult, Bible-thumping cargo cults, enlightened New Age beliefs, Antroposophy, Rosicrucianism, advocacy of genocide (as in Serbia -- they applied the verses about the ethnic cleansing of the Holy Land and about Midianite children to their own situation), etc. If you want a scientific demonstration, see my thesis at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally, a reliable, neutral source. See . Mormons are listed as "Other Theology." But also distinguishes Catholics and Protestants separately! Not quite the definitive ref I had hoped for.... Student7 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again:
 * Mormonism are derived from Christianity and Mormons consider themselves Christian. From an anthropological perspective, they are Christian and should be included in an article about persecution of Christians.  The article is not titled "Persecution of mainstream Christianity."
 * Still, their theology is different from the overwhelming majority of historical Christian belief. So, they should be in their own section separate from persecution of mainstream Christians.
 * Looking at the ARDA source, the qualification as "Other Theology" (aside from being part of an arbitrary categorization system) does not discount the first point, but only repeats the second. To discount the first point, you would basically need to find some lost journal of Joseph Smith's saying he didn't intend for Mormonism to be Christian, a proclamation by most Mormon churches that they do not consider themselves Christian, and a poll or study showing that most Mormons do not consider themselves Christian.  Heck, I can find some folks from my old Baptist church who think they're still true Christians, and the Community of Christ really only diverges from mainstream Christianity by including the Book of Mormon and (their own version of) Doctrines and Covenants.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I still need a reference. But both Christians and Muslims derive from Judaism. Neither claims to be Jewish for various reasons, though Christians once did. President Clinton once claimed to be the "Black" President (I forget his exact words). The claim lasts only as long as it is accepted by the people he (or the organization) claims affinity to. The Jews rejected early Christians as heretics. I must show with a clear reference (hard to come by) that Christians have done the same to Mormons. The Mormons claim is not any more relevant to the discussion, than Clinton's claim to "be black." Student7 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * From my reading of the link you provided above, ARDA's placement of Mormons in the "Other" category just means that they don't fit into any of the already named categories, but since none of those categories are "Christianity" it requires additional assumptions to imply that such a reference puts Mormons outside of Christianity. However, on other pages at the ARDA website, Mormons appear to be more explicitly included within "Christianity". For example, Sources for Religious Congregations & Membership Data for the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) in the section "Who is included in the 2000 Religious Congregations and Membership data?" --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Persecution in India and persecution.in
There is a line that keeps being added and removed- here it is: "Persecution in Orissa, India, is still taking place in 2008, and a current update can be found at "

Are there reliable and verifiable sources outside of persecution.in that can attest to this? The fact that adding/removing this statement has turned into a minor edit war is strange; it appears to promote a website more than the fact, which hasn't been backed up by solid references. I've removed it; let's discuss it here, rather than edit war on the article page. tedder (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont worry the socks of ip24.28.79.93 have been blocked he was a pov pusher 86.162.66.43 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a sock/POV pusher, but the burden is on you to prove it is true. Please find reliable sources and discontinue edit warring. tedder (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will get some other sources aswell just to satisfy you :-) 86.162.66.43 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm sure they are out there, and it'll help justify the sentence if you provide them. Cheers, tedder (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Link needs correcting
The external link www.iabolish.com should be changed to www.iabolish.org
 * ✅—SpaceFlight89 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article mentions a statistic that is referenced in footnote 1. This links to a book which makes note of a number of people who were Christian and were killed during various atrocities which took place in the 20th Century; however, the first sentence of the wikipedia entry defines persecution as "a consequence of professing their faith". The footnoted article, the source of the figures, does not list the 45.5 million people as having been killed as a consequence of their faith. I feel that it is highly misleading to inflate the number of people persecuted. I came to this article with a genuine curiosity about the subject matter, but was immediately suspicious of its accuracy when I saw this blatant discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.52.103 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Secular states?
The opening paragraph contains the phrase: "In later centuries, Christians have been persecuted by other religious groups including Muslims and Hindus, and by secular states such as the USSR."

To me, this sentence is problematic, since it attempts to conflate the religious policies of the USSR with those of any other secular state. Secularism is the belief that state authority and religion should be separate, not that they should clash. The USSR wouldn't, in my view, be regarded as a secular state (even though they claimed to be), since they clearly promoted the atheistic side of the argument.

I think a better, more suitable and less pejorative phrase would be "states such as the USSR", or "atheistic states such as the USSR". -Mpidge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC).


 * Good point. "Atheistic states" is better (though I don't see how "secular" is pejorative - it's just inaccurate). Olaf Davis (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Woops! Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I didn't mean to imply that the term "secular" was pejorative, instead I meant that referring to the actions of the USSR on religious matters as "secular" was pejorative to other secular states. Woops! Mpidge (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes more sense! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Atheistic" is certainly better accepted and understood. "Humanist" might be a little more precise. With man a measure of all things, religion is just a waste of valuable resources and time, at best. Atheism is just a normal part of humanistic, isn't it? Student7 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, apparently, such a thing as religious humanism - and describing the USSR as humanistic would seem odd to me. I'm hardly an expert on the term's useage, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Though officially atheistic, I think it's more appropriate to state that the USSR's official religion was an immense personality cult. Frotz (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And there is Christian humanism, too. In the past a "humanist" meant a scholar of Greek, Latin and Greek and Latin ethics. So, humanism is not inherently anti-religious. That would make the present Pope anti-religious, since he studied the humanities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

USSR was most definitely, not a humanist state. I would agree with the assessment of a personality cult for Lenin and Stalin.

Nemogbr (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased
This whole article just seems so biased. At no point is there mention of the conduct of christians and the actions that have led to such reactions that are being termed persecution. It is almost like a group of peaceful christians are being targeted for no reason without provocation other than their faith. This article needs some balance. This article is not only about christians beings persecuted for their faith but also opposition they face because of their conduct guided or misguided by their faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.10.201 (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Newstoday Link on the blasphemous anti-Hindu literature produced by the missionary and evangelical agencies in Karnataka: http://newstodaynet.com/col.php?section=20&catid=33&id=10790 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.55.120 (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian Persecution in India The Real Story http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_persecution_in_india.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.31.176 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give me some examples of such conduct? Frotz (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The top of the article says This article is about acts committed against Christians because of their faith. For negative attitudes towards Christians, see Anti-Christian sentiment. For criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity, see Criticism of Christianity. The idea is that this article is solely about persecution motivated by people's religion, whereas "opposition they face because of their conduct guided or misguided by their faith" belongs in the other two articles. Whether that distinction is achieved is another question - and suggestions for improvements are of course welcome - but that's the idea behind the three pages. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It may seem crazy, but yes, innocent Christians are brutally killed for their faith. Welcome to this planet. Uriah is Boss (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of www.catholic.org
See discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard Munci (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

{fact} tags
I've reverted an edit by 24.87.32.50 which added a load of {fact} tags to the Soviet Union section. Some comments: Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Multiple tags per clause is probably unnecessary: one at the end would do the job of drawing attention.
 * 2) The correct syntax is, or , giving  - the tags in the article were incorrectly formatted. (Obviously that's not a big deal and I wouldn't have removed them for that alone!)
 * 3) Most importantly: the sentence is cited, to World Christian trends, AD 30-AD 2200. 24.87.32.50, do you have reason to doubt that the source supports the statement? If so perhaps you could explain your concerns here.

If the source really claims everything I've tagged as being true, we might as well remove the source altogether. It's a bunch of ridiculous claims that you will not be able to find contradictory sources to because nobody ever thinks they will have to argue with that kind of ridiculous assertions and writes a book about it. Contradicting it with facts would be OR so, can't do anything about it by wiki rules. Consider this to have been a note of protest at a ridiculous lack of intellectual honesty. You seem to own this article to some extent, so maybe you will take that into consideration. 24.87.32.50 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely there have been lots of books about how many Christians were killed in the gulags, and how many of them if any were killed for their faith? Even if no-one's specifically debunked these claims further cites to confirm or belie them must be around. Would you know of any that might cover it? I don't have any information on this book itself, so I have no a priori opinion on its reliability.
 * Also, if the book is unreliable then it's perfectly possible that whoever cited it did so out of ignorance and not a 'ridiculous lack of intellectual honesty'. (Unless the latter was directed at me, or someone else other than the original author of the passage, in which case I don't really understand it.) Olaf Davis (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I do approve of the rm of the fact tags and the discussion here, I do kind of wonder about the 21 million assertion. I had not heard this figure before. Deaths in the past were all attributed to starving the kulaks in the Ukraine and west Russia, as I recall. I have never heard of other massive killings before. Not that the Stalin regime wouldn't have done it though! Student7 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, here was an opportunity for the Orthodox to complain, and they didn't. I'm just not finding this claim supported online. (I wish I could! :).Student7 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Material from Open Doors Watchlist
I've just removed a long section which was added (twice) by Primusall. It appears to be a copyright violation of this - Wikipedia can't accept material which is not public domain or available under a free license. I'm also not convinced that the site is a reliable source in a Wikipedia sense; in any event, it certainly shouldn't be written in the first person (the 'we' the article refers to is not Wikipedia, after all). If you still think the material belongs in the article, Primusall, perhaps we can discuss it here first. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Olaf - my first contribution, so I apologize. Open Doors content comes from Compass Direct News, a reliable source on persecution, even used by the US State Dept. http://www.compassdirect.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primusall (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise - most of us made mistakes when we were new to Wikipedia. I've had a look at Compass Direct News and am prepared to accept that it's reliable (see e.g. here for its use by the US State Department). That addresses the notability concern I raised, and the copyright issue can be avoided easily enough by summarising material instead of copying it. My other concerns with your addition were the tone, which didn't sound quite like an encyclopaedia, and the sheer quantity of stuff which you added in the middle of the article. Might I make the suggestion that you pick one (or a few) of the existing country-specific sections in the current article and add to it a short summary of CDN's report (either directly or proposing it here first)? Then I and other editors can help you check it for tone and integrate it more into the flow of the existing article.
 * Of course you don't have to take my suggestion if you don't want - the nature of Wikipedia means that there are no 'privileged' users who can tell others what to do - but in my experience this is often an easier way for new editors to get going on something than just jumping in at the deep end. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

you are conflating three points, So, I would argue that the section on the contemporary situation would certainly benefit from citation of the Open Doors material, as long as the material is properly formatted and summarized. Regarding the huge scope of the article, and its almost comical arc of covering persecution in Roman antiquity to petering out in a bunch of recent press headlines added by drive-by editors, it definitely needs splitting. The best approach might be moving the whole "contemporary" stuff to Persecution of Christians (contemporary) where Open Doors and other current reports may be discussed in full. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * proper formatting (changing the "we" to "according to 'Open Doors'", that's a simple point of doing it.
 * copyright violation: as you say, the information should be summarized. But as 'Open Doors' publishes their material for the benefit of tertiary sources, it can be treated much like a press release. It isn't copyright violation to repeat a press release verbatim, but it is journalistic laziness.
 * the reliability of the source used. "Open Doors" is certainly quotable, and it is a source consulted by major news sources. It remains important to attribute the information, but I do not think the WP:RS concern is arguable.

How may christians died in Sudan
Does anyone have any figures which state what percentage of those killed in sudan were christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone did, it would not necessarily be relevant to this article unless it could be shown that they were killed for being Christian. Munci (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can put the same argument as how much percent of persons Sudan are Muslims by the Christians, albeit at a higher cost to themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.63.4 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This site says that 1.5 million christians were killed in sudan, how do we know, the link states that 2 million christains and aminists were killed, what percentage of them were christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoloney (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of religion?
An editor commented in his summary "Making laws that has the same effect on conversion from any religion to another must not be described under Persecution of Christians. They belong to freedom of religion article."

This is true where Christianity is the predominant religion. Where it is the minority religion, the intent is to prevent people in the majority religion, normally Muslims, but Hindus in this context, from converting to Christianity. Believers in the intrenched religion feel threatened by Freedom of Speech which they seek to curtail for fear of losing their majority position. This is clearly persecution since it is enforced as a felony.

There really are no other proselytizing religions besides Christians and Muslims. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that in India, specifically, the converts to Christianity are normally the lower castes. Castes are supposed to be illegal, but they are observed at times. Dropouts from Hinduism affects the upper castes by withdrawal at the lower level. This also affects lower castes when there are fewer of them to suffer whatever indignitites the upper class can mete out. It is not clear to a Westerner that this is a fun system to be part of. Some within the system obviously feel the same way. Believers, understandably feel threatened and fearful leading to legislatures restraint of freedom of speech. Student7 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about 'intent', then that's going into the motives which can be only gleaned from statements made by the lawmakers around the time the law was put into place, if that is possible. Anything else is assumption.

Other proselytising groups include for example ISKCON and, depending on whether you think it's a religion, Scientology. In fact, really, it's often only specific groups because religions on a whole don't necessarily have a policy on the matter.

So anyway Greece has missionary work banned. Is this surely not persecution of Muslims and ISKCON if you follow from the idea that Christians are persecuted in India from missionary laws? In Greece, there's actually a state church; it's not secular like India. Surely that means more likely for Greece to be persecuting if either of them is because they actually do have a properly entrenched religion rather than just one in the majority?

To try and explain the remnants of the caste system in India today, well, I'll try and give rough American counterparts. The caste system is abolished. This is the equivelant of slavery abolition. Some people do discriminate based on caste. This is the equivelant of racism. There are measures taken to improve the status of lower castes. These laws refer to 'backward castes', not 'lower castes'. This is the equivelant of using 'African American' rather than 'black'. Obviously, the comparison isn't perfect. One bit is I doubt people in America put their race in classified ads.

Anyway, the caste system is relevant to Indians of other religions just as much as to Hindus;the caste doesn't change usually when they change religion. Thus, it is maybe questionable if the caste system would be called something Hindu and Hindu believers of upper castes can only reasonably be worried about losing fellow believers, not losing people being lower caste. Munci (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if Greece restricts missionary workers, they are persecuting Christians. This is true in other Orthodox countries, like Russia, BTW. They are afraid of the incoherence of their own ideas in a free marketplace, as are Hindus.
 * Not sure where that "Americans put race in classified" ads comes from or how it pertains here. They don't put race in classified ads except for "personals." Probably illegal elsewhere. Or if it isn't the media would decline to accept the ad. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And surely, by such logic anyway, they are not only persecuting other Christians but also persecuting Muslims and ISKCON members who want proselytise too, right? Do you have any proof of this fear that you speak of Orthodox Christians and Hindus having anyway? As this is an encyclopedia, that's an important thing.


 * The bit about "Americans put race in classified ads" was preceded by "I doubt". I meant that Indians do occasionally put their caste in personal ads and I thought that Americans wouldn't put their race in such ads. In fact, it seems I wasn't clear enough on another part as well: I was only talking about personal ads. Not like jobs or anything. Maybe that's what you thought I had meant. But Indians don't put caste in for job ads; yeah, that would have to be illegal. It's only for personal adsSo, since you say Americans do sometimes put race in those, the similarities work even better than I had thought. Munci (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "fear" need not be mentioned in the article. The fact that a majority religion prevents a minority religion from proselytizing speaks for itself in Greece, India, and Russia, as the case may be. And yes, it pertains to Muslims proselytizing as well, though not really a consideration in Greece and Russia.
 * The "African-American" adjective now puts them on the same plane as every other immigrant group. Up to now, they have changed the adjective every 20 years or so, with the prior ones (which they suggested!) now being an "insult." Maybe this one will stick. Not sure how this applies to "lower caste." But the latter sounds less WP:POV than "backwards castes" which sounds like the old excuse in America that these people "brought it upon themselves" when they lacked access to educational opportunities and other amenities that the persecuting classes ("upper"?) denied them. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a majority religion prevents a minority religion from proselytizing. It is a government preventing all religions from proselytizing. And it certainly does not speak for itself. It's an assumption; original research. Someone could just as easily construe the legality of proselytising as being persecution:
 * "The largest religion clearly has the most manpower and resources to organise proselytising so they will obviously end up doing more. Thus, their numbers will end up increasing while the numbers of the minority religions would decrease. Eventually, the minority religions would reduce in number and what's more persecuting a religion than reducing its prescence in the world?"

- Hypothetical Person .
 * How are Muslims not really a consideration in Greece or Russia? Islam is the 2nd largest religion in both. It is especially pertinent to Russia, where Muslims are more than 10% the population.
 * My bad, there is also the term Scheduled Caste which is more used nowadays. Anyway, your idea of what is POV vocabulary seems to be different from the Indian.. Backwards Caste can be seen as similarly euphemistic as 'developing country'.
 * BTW, another country with such laws seems to be Israel. Munci (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right about Israel, which is ironic since it favors Judaism, which is rarely practiced there.


 * I predict that the term "backwards caste" will not survive as a general term except to explain that it was once used. I won't go into the reasons. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about persecution in formerly Christian countries? That is becoming a major problem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Which are the former Christian countries? Which countries do you mean? Turkey or the EU secular states? In most the European Union there are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So I don't see any persecution of Christians in the European Union. If it were, it would go up to the European Court of Human Rights and the member states would be massively losing such cases. Besides, Christians are the majority in some EU countries. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cathar Myths
I draw to people's attention that the infamous quote by Amalrac cited in the article is widely believed to be apocryphal. It is recorded by Caesar of Heisterbach who wasn't anywhere near there at the time. I would therefore suggest either deleting the following: 'This was the occasion when the papal legate, Arnaud Amalric, asked about how Catholics could be distinguished from Cathars once the city fell, famously replied, "Kill them all, God will know His own.").' or modifying it to: 'It was of this occasion that Caesar of Heisterbach described papal legate, Arnaud Amalric, as saying "Kill them all, God will know His own" when asked about how Catholics could be distinguished from Cathars once the city fell. Caesar of Heisterbach was not an eyewitness to these events.' 82.110.160.178 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox genocide in Croatia durind WWII
no single word??????? maybe Vatikan has some sources???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.13.113 (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Persecution outside the Roman Empire
This article lacks coverage of the persecution of Nestorian and Oriental Orthodox Christians east of Constantinople. Philip Jenkins's Lost Christianities is an excellent source on the decline/demise of these Christians under Byzantine, Arab, Mongol, Chinese, and Turkish oppression. The absence of these Christians from popular consciousness (and from the article) is an indication of the effectiveness of the persecution of Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic Christianity.Ben (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Persecution is "okay"?
An editor has added a preface (lead) about the history of persecution of Christians, some of which seems germane. However, it contains this:

"... " the earliest Christians routinely equated Christian identity with suffering persecution" as attested by numerous passages in the New Testament. As examples, she cites the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5.10-11). As another example, she cites the passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus warns his disciples with these words: “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you” (John 15.20)."

All this seems to suggest that Christians should be okay with being persecuted, or maybe readers should be. This does not seem germane to the article. It seems to deviate from the WP:TOPIC. I think it should be deleted. Student7 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Laughable picture needs to be removed
"A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids". There were no "druids" by the time of Christian missionaries, and stone circles had gone out of use at least 500 years earlier! This silly, Victorian fantasy-painting has no place in a serious article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk • contribs).


 * The article Druid says they were around until 800 or so. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This "silly" painting has its own article A Converted British Family Sheltering a Christian Missionary from the Persecution of the Druids. It's a rather well known work of art. The association of druidism with stone circles was very common in the era, but is, of course, unlikely to be histoerically accurate. But then, Raphael's depictions of the crucifixion are not "accurate" either. And Romans are inaccurately dressed in numerous painting by famous artists. Works of art are not "silly" because the artists were not miraculously aware of archaeological findings after their death. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Stretching to find offense?
An editor has insisted on inserting the following text:

"In January 2011, British singer Boy George agreed to return an 18th-century icon of Christ to the Church of Cyprus that he had bought from a London art dealer but had been looted, in 1974, from a church in the northern part of Cyprus." References: Boy George returns Christ icon to Cyprus church BBC.co.uk 19 January 2011 Representation of the Church of Cyprus to the European Union, The post-byzantine icon of Jesus Christ returns to the Church of Cyprus London, January 2011.

First off, what the heck is Boy George doing in an article about Persecution of Christians. This is fine in an article about Boy George to show what a compassionate person he is.

If we are trying to show that a lot of articles were looted, inserting one item hardly does the trick. Just the reverse, in fact. I do not believe a lot of articles were looted anymore. Documenting only one article seems to prove that few articles were looted. Where is the documentation for a lot of articles? If this were a court of law, and I was a judge,and this item was the only one, I would throw out the case for "general looting."

This is hardly persecution even if ALL icons were looted. It would be persecution if Cypriot Christians were beaten up. This is something less than violence IMO. It is perhaps stealing, which isn't nice and against the law but a lousy indication of persecution. Lame. It needs to be removed. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Boy George's return of an icon is incidental to this article.  Frotz (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That one icon, in that one piece of high-profile news, symbolizes the looting of all the christian churches in the occupied northern part of Cyprus and the truck-loads of church artifacts that were looted. If that is not persecution of christians and christianity then what is?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there were lots of icons looted, then find something that says that. Talking about a single item, especially including information about a celebrity as well, is irrelevant. Also need evidence that the thiefs did it because didn't like Christians rather than just having been trying to make money off selling the things they steal or so. Munci (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have remedied this.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to find no offense!
An editor removed the following:

"In response to the burning of a Koran by an American minister, over seven United Nations aid workers, presumed Christians, were murdered by a mob in 2011."

Does this, then, go under "Persecution of UN aid workers"? "Persecution of Westerners"? Must we wait for someone to locate the members of the mob and poll them to find out who they thought they were murdering?

So we have the same problem with the assassinated Afghan minister who was Christian? Maybe the assassin did not know he was Christian?

Why did anyone in the news media bother to report this? Maybe there is no connection whatever. Why were the Westerners murdered? Student7 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree on the manipulation. These people are so aggressive and illiterate, and just murder whoever they THINK is insulting their faith, even if it's their father. No-one talks when they kill a Muslim, but the media starts publishing it as soon as they hear that a non-muslims was killed.  AdvertAdam   talk  21:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Woman condemned to die for offering water to thirsty workers
On the section a lot of us have worked on, a section of which reads:

"violating Pakistan's blasphemy law. The accusation stemmed from a 2009 incident in which Bibi offered water to thirsty Muslim"

It would be nice, if available, to footnote applicable Pakistan law (Probably not in English, though it would be nice if if were) and applicable Koran or religious verse that applies. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Blasphemy law is used in many countries, including Israel, and was recently abandoned by UK; however, the Pakistani people are overrating the law with pushing their claims against whoever they personal dislike. Anyways, it's a cultural and political influence, having nothing to do with religious text  AdvertAdam   talk  06:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't intending to suggest that other countries did not have blasphemy laws. My question was rather, what section of the penal code in Pakistan applies to blasphemy (which probably merits and article in Wikipedia)?
 * Of course blasphemy is strictly religious. Nothing but religious.
 * What chapter and verse of the Quran applies? Does anyone know? Student7 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, but I just wanted to clarify that the subject is more like faith-based politics: claiming to be protecting their faith, but up-side down. The Pakistani penal code is between 295-->298. I study most religions and have read the Bible and Quran at least 10-times, each; however, I haven't seen hints of any punishment like that in both. Hope anybody else has more details  AdvertAdam   talk  08:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference. I searched for "woman" and found nothing that would apply to anyone touching something touched by a woman or relating to talking to an unbelieving woman (did not search under "belief" since the section didn't seemed aimed at belief, per se). There is nothing here that isn't understandable to Westerners, though we would word things differently. Ideas? Student7 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume that it's based on LOCAL illiterate CULTURE teachings, relating to the prophet's saying, of not touching the Qur'an when un-pure--with exception to children, and Quranic translations as they're not strictly God's words. Purity in Islam is the same as Judaism, washing your hands and face..etc, which is mentioned in the Bible, too, before contact prayer: explained in the Contact Prayer section of my blog. It's crazy to consider Christians un-pure in-general while the Qur'an (2:62) states that they're going to heaven. Many cultures are building hate between brothers and sister in recent generations, which I try hard to explain to people that it's all nonsense. Anyways, Hope that helps for a connection  AdvertAdam   talk  22:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize that you don't have the specifics and presumably the media either doesn't or doesn't want to bother to explain it because it would just come out a muddle.
 * So the higher authorities ("judicial") will sit on this until it "goes away" at the local level and then allow the woman to leave for parts unknown?
 * It would be nice to have specifics from the media to report here. Even if it is a muddle. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The alleged blasphemy has nothing to do with "touching something touched by a woman or relating to talking to an unbelieving woman". It concerns what she is supposed to have said during an argument about religion after the water was refused. She energetically defended Christianity, having been accused of being an unbeliever, and during the course of that defence is alleged to have denigrated Islam. The reports are not clear about exactly what she is supposed to have said, but they are clear about the context. The water incident was just the spark. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it in perspective. I've tried to tidy it up. See what you think. Student7 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor
Stalin's Holodomor genocide in Ukraine from 1932-1933, in which ten million Ukrainian Christians were killed by forced famine, should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.101.10 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibleverse citations
We have long made an exception for template "bibleverse" citations, that they could be internal for quickly checking material. But the template "bibleverse-nb" takes us to a list where I may choose from a very lengthy list, that looks to be in alphabetical order. So AArdvark bible comes first, etc. Nevermind that no one has ever heard of the AArdvark bible! Very politically/religiously correct.

I am a Catholic. For general references, except when we are arguing over the bible translations themselves, I would much rather see a default to the King James Version (KJV), despite its occasional shortcomings. Going to a list is a waste of time IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Waco?
For most of these items, a rather provably "innocent" Christian was usually minding his/her own business when they were persecuted by someone. Not quite the case with Branch Davidians. However, they believed that the spiritual held sway over the secular. They lost! Also lost the media.

This case was rather similar to the incident Twelve_Tribes_communities except for a couple of factors: A Republican (Snelling) was in power, not Democrats (Reno and Clinton), and the Twelve Tribes did not resist. Liberal judges aided by the ACLU sneered the case out of court. Predictably the media thought this outcome was "wonderful."

Not too clear why the Branch Davidians are not considered persecuted. They are mostly dead! And the Twelve Tribes were considered persecuted. Pretty much the same issue for both: potential child abuse. I agree that the Davidians were uncooperative but they didn't think they had to cooperate. While I take the governments (and media's) side on this one, I kind of wonder whether the label "persecuted" would nevertheless be accurate. Student7 (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think its %100 clear who shot first (but I know What shot second), and that it's generally assumed the ATF (accidently) shot first, so... I guess they may be worth including. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)