Talk:Persecution of Christians in the post–Cold War era/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NOTE On December 19, 2005 User:JHCC moved Christianophobia to Anti-Christian prejudice. Much of the material below relates to the original article's name and placement.

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christianophobia

Added Possible reasons section

Thought the article was quite biased, so have added a "Possible Reasons" section. Feel free to improve / link citations or any comments...

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if "Christianophobia" is meant as a Christian analog of Anti-Semitism, then it should refer to only to an deeply ingrained fear and/or hatred of Christians, specifically because of their Christianity. This may be a legitimate problem in some cases, but, in my opinion, the writers of this article seem to be applying this definition to many things that the term really shouldn't apply to:

• Anything expressing even remotely anti-Christian sentiment, or even simple disagreement with the tenants of Christianity. Even Apostasy seems to fall under the author's definition of Christianophobia.
• Things that aren't specifically against Christians/Christianity, but are targetted against ANY belief system other than that of the group in question. These are cases of general Religious intolerance, not Christianophobia.
• Placing blame for events like the Crusades on Christianity. It might be unfair to personally blame a modern Christian for these, but the Christians of the time were responsible for these, so it's hardly unfair to call this Christianophobia. Mind you, some of these events might be a contributing cause of some culture's properly-labeled Christianophobia, so it could be a legitmate point to bring up in the article.

Personally, I'm not sure if this article is savable. Other than the term itself, it doesn't seem to be saying anything that isn't already covered on the Persecution of Christians page. While that page has it's share of controversy, it at least seems to -try- to be neutral. The best thing to do might be to reduce this page to a short description of the term, and then link to the Persecution of Christians for details.

This article is really POV, but it includes some valid content along with a lot of misattributed/opinion-as-fact stuff. Could it be merged with 'Persecution of Christians' into a 'modern discrimination against Christianity' section or something similar? I don't see how they aren't two articles on the same topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.144.60 (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

- Pacula 12:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

"Christianophobia is very intense in Muslim countries" - what kind of blanket statement is this? This page needs to be purged of its major POV, if it needs to exist at all. --Padraic 19:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

This article has gotten notably better recently, but still has a long way to go. The new opening and the "Causes of" sections are good and I think pretty fairly neutral. However the 'Effects of' section seems pretty biased, and I still think the whole 'history' section is Persecution of Christians material at best, and could very well deserve to be dumped entirely.

- Pacula 10:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

i agree that the history could go. how would you suggest fixing the "effects of" section to make it more neutral? Ungtss 15:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

How about deleting it entirely? Most of the points are practically unsubstantiatable. The phrase "many Christians perceive' comes up in half the points, which alone should invalid them as valid 'effects'. The last point wants to blame a whole slew of things on "Christianophobia" - while some of these might fall under Persecution of Christians (ie the attempted purging of the Russian Orthodox church), I wouln't blame ANY of them on "fear/hatred of christians" - Pacula 20:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

i understand that you wouldn't blame it on christianophobia, but many christians do. do a quick google search on "christianophobia" and "christophobia" and you'll read a lot of opinions to that effect. there's a lot about media portrayals, the exclusion of christianity from the EU constitution, and a lot of stuff from canada. it's a widely used term used by christians to describe their experiences. it doesn't qualify as persecution per se -- because it's more subtle and culturally based. i don't see the purpose in deleting those views as long as they're attributed -- if you'd like balance, there are a lot of "christianophobia is a bunch of crap" articles other there too you could summarize ... Ungtss 01:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, your recent additions to the 'effects of' section are making it worse POV-wise, not better. Calling stuff like keeping nativity scenes off public property 'fear/hatred of christians' is silly - at worst it could be considered political correctness gone too far. Also, the idea of there not being any positive portrayals of Christians in seven year's worth of film is laughable - and using a quote like that from a non-christian to turn 'many christians believe' into 'many people believe' is a pretty dishonest way of dodging my earlier complaint. - Pacula

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I suggest that the solution here is to keep in mind the structure of npov -- it doesn't mean that all readers have to think that all views expressed in the page are good -- it means simply that all views be relevant and attributed to those who hold them -- pro AND con. the bit about nativity scenes (although often seen as laughable) is seen by others as quite serious -- particularly the person who wrote the linked article. I would be thrilled if you would add a "criticism of christianophobia" section that summarizes the many criticisms of this concept, in order to add balance. I'd gladly do it myself, but i think that given my "christianophobia exists" bias, i wouldn't be as qualified to do it as you. would you be willing to do that to add balance to the article, rather than simply deleting the views which you find to be groundless? the purpose of wikipedia is to provide the sum of human knowledge. christianophobia as a concept exists -- and there are arguments pro and con for whether it exists in reality. would you be willing to provide the "con?" Ungtss 00:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I had been avoiding editing the article myself directly, because in all honesty I don't really know THAT much about the subject - just that my 'BS-detector' went off when reading the original article. But in all fairness, since I'm the original complainer, I should at least make an attempt. I'll read it over carefully and see what I can do, mainly with the 'Effects of' section, which I might turn into a 'count-vs-counterpoint', which probably will end up being biased too far the other way... :) - Pacula 20:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

sounds good to me:). a quick google search will turn up a dozen articles by people who agree with you that this is nonsense:). Ungtss 23:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like this article or anything about it. Unfortunately, I'd say the same thing about Paris Hilton or Ebonics. This is a valid, encyclopedic article whose topic is fundamentally (no pun intended) different from both Religious intolerance and Persecution of Christians. Religious Intolerance deals with an attitude where particular religious beliefs or acts are either prohibited, abhorred or suppressed. Persecution refers primarily to a governmental or societal attack upon a particular religious belief system. The term Christianophobia deals with a personal revulsion, fear or prejudice felt by individuals or groups toward an individual based solely on the knowledge of the target's Christianity. It is not intolerance because the feelings are toward the practitioner not the practice; it is not persecution because it is personal, not societal. I think this is a valid topic. On the other hand, that does nothing to solve the fact that the article is POV-saturated. It will be very hard for anyone, especially any North American, to find a NPOV from which to write. We are so steeped in religion that neutral ground is difficult to find. Also, the article needs to dump a lot of the martyrdom references, since few resulted from Christianophobia. Stick to things that are NOT state-sponsored or resulting from overt acts contravening local custom or law. A good example would be the killing of missionaries in India. PS: Neologism was a neologism in 1800, and Wikipedia is one today. We make up words constantly to describe new, newly recognized or newly differentiated concepts. To knock articles out on this basis is, at best, arbitrary and an attempt to "nail down" a living language (with nods and obeisance to the WikiGods). Kevin Wells 18:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Whomever (untss?) has been making the most recent changes has been doing a reasonbly good job - I'm still not sure what to do with this whole article, but it's looks less and less like something that deserves to be deleted. The mostly-new 'critisism of' section definately seems fair and helps to counter out some of the bias in the previous sections - except the 'effects of' which while improved a bit still needs major work or a trip to the bitbucket. Still though, I think the word is too much a neologism to deserve it's own article - perhaps after the current 'delete' situtation settles (which I must emphaize I did NOT initiate - I had considered it,but I'm still too much a 'n00b' here to make that kinf of descion), the good parts of this article (quite a few now) could me merged to a 'modern persecution' section of the 'percectution of chrtisians' page (perhaps even calling it something like christianophobia - fear and persecution of christians in the modern world), and the current page redirected there. My own 'deleteion' vote is currently remains 'delete', though if the article improves significantly more, I'd be more than happen to change my vote to 'merge' with POC.

- Pacula 18:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks ... feel free to develop the criticism section more fully as well! Ungtss 18:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: deletion: So, the entry Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians recently got cast into the Lake of Fire by the Tim LaHaye lobby... why not this one? Or did I just "phobe" on anyone? (Just keep reading the praise chorus lyrics off the JumboTron and hold those hands up and you'll feel better.) I was present, as a teenager, at the 1980 Southern Baptist Convention so I both know what I'm talking about and, obviously, lack a neutral POV on the topic. Bridgman 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute closure

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm starting to think that this page is getting close to where is should be. A quick reading-over showed no overtly biased sections or workings (mind you it's late at night at the moment here and I probably should be in bed hours ago. I'll look it over with a clearer and more critical eye as soon as I can. - Pacula 03:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Neologism?

This seems to be a neologism -- even though a very famous and influential person coined the word, it's still just a neologism. I suggest redirecting it to Persecution of Christians. -Rholton 12:24, May 1, 2005 (UTC) (a committed Christian)

I disagree. It should stand on its own, as Christianophopia is not only expressed in persecution. Other "-phobia" terms are of recent invention also. Pollinator 13:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

---

After reading through the deletion policy pages, I'm in complete agreement that this is a neologism and that this page should be at least considered for deletion. I'm not completely convinced that deletion is the best idea though - even though it is almost unarguably a neologism, perhaps the page itself should be kept because of the term's origin. In this case, the page should be reduced to a quick description of the term and where it came from. In either case, anything unique on the current page worth keeping (if there is anything worth keeping - I'm doubtful myself) should be moved to Persecution of Christians or Religious intolerance. Pacula 12:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

i think there's precedent for this page staying full and separate in the tradition of Islamophobia and Persecution of Muslims, and homophobia and homosexual panic. Homophobia is explicitly identified as a neologism, but has its own article. i don't see why the status of christophobia as a neologism means it should be reduced to stub status. this word has been used in specific contexts by specific published authors to mean a specific thing. don't we need an article to describe that? Ungtss 13:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the article as written has NOTHING to do with any 'real' christianophobia, which as I understand it is a relatively recent issue, or even if it really is a real issue at all. This entire article is about historical percecution of christians and general religious intolerance, and has nothing at all to with 'irrational fear (and possible persecution) of christians because of their christianity', which is what I understand the word is supposed to mean. Also, I would not consider 'irrational fear of western civilization in general' to be the same thing as christianophobia, since though christianity is common and traditional in most 'western' countries, it is far from universal. - Pacula 21:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. i added some instances of christophobia. is that better? Ungtss 21:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I wish to throw my weight behind deletion. First, it is a neologism. Second, the article is clearly biased. Among other errors it follows the rights current path of arguing that somehow underrepsented minorities have become some powerful that they are oppressing the majoirity. To argue, as this article does, that only christians are capable of democrat government is racism of the worst kind. The article devalues the views of Islamic countries which oppose Christian mercanaries, but not Christian practice. The Shari'a is clear prohibiting prosletizing of all religions, except Islam, so why is this anti-christian. It is pro-Islamic, not a good thing, but not anti-chrisian specifically.

The article is bigoted, biased and should be deleted.--24.126.240.60 02:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion is not a solution to a "bigoted, biased" article. The solution to that problem is to fix the article. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -Rholton 12:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that deletion isn't the solution to a POV issue, but I had been thinking that the original article was SO bad that it needed to be started over from scratch. Also, 'christianophobia' arguably is a neologism, which is a possibly valid reason for deletion - though I am unsure if this is the case here. Some of the new material added since my original complaint is actually quite good and unbiased (the opening and the 'causes of' section) but the 'effects of' section is extremely biased, and (as I've already said multiple times) the whole 'history' section belongs on Persecution of Christians or Religious intolerance, if not deleted outright. - Pacula 12:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I would argue this is indeed a neologism and is, thus, eligable for a VfD. Given that a google test only gives 965 hits[1] compared to islamaphobia which returns 119k hits[2]. POV or useful content can be merged into other documents if this page is deleted so the work will not be wasted. Axon 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Why don't we create the article Naziphobia and have done with it?

go ahead. it's a computer virus. no books or statements from the pope about it tho. Ungtss 15:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks like somebody did :) - Pacula 17:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

...And, a bit ironically but not unentirely unexpected, that page itself is now up for a deletion vote.... - Pacula 10:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Meaning what - that Christians are Nazis, I suppose? There's a tidy illustration of what the article is talking about, I suppose! But, I have a strong suspicion that it took someone a lot of work to dig up this term. Personally, I would be profoundly disappointed to hear the words, Christianophobia, or Christianophobe, slipping into common use. The article is overblown given the rarity of use, it substantially overlaps Persecution of Christians (at least in principle - that article is now a horrible mess, too), it doesn't provide the a better venue for discussing, and the article quickly runs out of real material and devolves into a recursive examination of how the word might be applied. Like other "-ophobe" concepts it has a political and rhetorical payload which it hopes to spread by popularizing the use of the terminology. I don't think it is encyclopedic to publish usage guides for politically charged neo-logisms. A brief history of the origins and meaning of the word, and the phenomenon it symbolizes, is the most that it deserves. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove POV notice?

I aggressively reduced the content of this article, but I think that in doing so the sound to noise ratio went way up. If you agree, may I remove the POV notice? Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking through the Talk above, it seems as though the POV issues that were raised no longer typify this article. I've removed the notice; but of course, await review. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of causes

1. Guilt by association with the political policies of the United States and West in general, particularly colonialism and the war on terror.
2. Association of Christianity with ideologies of homophobia, heterosexism, and patriarchy--as well as the Christian Right's efforts to deny the rights of women and homosexuals.

These last two in the list don't sound like what I'm reading in what I can find of Weigel on-line. I don't have his books, though. Were they added to balance his list? In that case, they should go with, "other writers point to ..." Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved into a new paragraph. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weigel

While Weigel may have written on a book on this subject, I have to take issue with whether some of the things he lists are actually causes of christianophobia.

George Weigel attributes christianophobia today to a number of causes:

• The rejection of Christianity in favor of secular humanism by many European and American intellectuals in the 19th century.

The link between this and an "irrational fear of Christians" seems tenuous to me. This is an example of individuals making personal choices, and given they the fact they were intellectuals, the presumption should be that it was a rational, not an irrational choice. One can choose to be a secular humanist without having an irrational fear of Christians. To compare, would you say that "the rejection of the Jewish faith in favor of secular humanism by many European and American intellectuals in the 19th century" was inherently anti-Semitic?

After the article makes a distinction between a phobia of Christians, and simply not being one, this claim blurs that distinction. The article is not self-consistant. FireWeed 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• The experience of the Holocaust, which many European intellectuals concluded was the logical outcome of Christian bigotry through the centuries

I have not heard this claim much, but if intellectuals made this claim, then even if they are wrong, it's not an irrational fear...regardless of whether the link is warranted or not, they are citing verifiable historical events, so the claim that this is an irrational conclusion doesn't hold up (it may be an incorrect rational claim, but that's another matter)

• Europe's present associations of "religiosity" with "America," and in particular with George W. Bush, who still scores reliably high negatives in opinion polls across the continent

There are many reasons Europeans have a negative opinion of Bush, religion is just one among many.

Revolver 21:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Do these bullet-points accurately reflect Weigel wrote, though? Is there a published rebuttal to what he's written? Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

not surprising

45 million, or two-thirds of all Christians killed on account of their beliefs in the last 2000 years, were killed in the twentieth century, according to The New Persecuted: Inquiries into Anti-Christian Intolerance in the New Century of Martyrs.

This is hardly surprising, given the population density of the world over the past 2000 years. Most people that have lived in the past 2000 years have lived in the past 200. Revolver 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a very, very dubious statistic. That means that 30 odd million people have been killed specifically for Christian beliefs in the last century. I suspect that a lot of very dubious inclusions have to be made to sustain that figure. Paul B 13:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Has it ever come across both your minds that the number of Christians killed might actually be larger than you percieve or are even told, especially considering the difficulty and inaccuracy of body counts? And that doesn't even count any instances of suicide by the persecuted. 'Dubious' indeed. In addition, the source of the data is cited, so the reader can verify for her/himself the validity of the claim.

Please sign (and date) your posts. It seems this discussion happened two years ago, but it's not entirely clear when you replied.

In line with the question you asked, has the thought occured to you that many of the people included in your statistic were killed for their ethnicity and not their religion? Normally that would be splitting hairs, but when you say "... killed on account of their beliefs ..." you've already made the distinction. In any case, I'm making a drive to improve this page, so any help is appreciated. FireWeed 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

comparison to "crimes of Islamic terrorists"

A sentence that has been replaced, that compared the Christian right to Islamic terrorists, and argued that it is unjust to blame all Christians for the crimes of a few, in the same way that it would be wrong to blame all Muslims. A sentence like that has all kinds of problems, which I hope all can see. I replaced it with "(writers argue) such a view is unjust". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Where's theofobia?

With 16,900 entries on Google, I'm surprised that the God-fearing don't have their own article. lysdexia 03:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A new suggestion

I've suggested on talk:Anti-Christianity that that page and this be merged into a new article called Anti-Christian prejudice, of which the Christianophobia material can be a distinct section. That eliminates the problem of a neologism as the title of an article, as well as giving a more specific and clearly definable subject. Thoughts? JHCC (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is an additional suggestion I made on the Talk:Criticism of Christianity page:

The nice thing about Anti-Christian prejudice is that it means exactly what it says. Christianophobia, like anti-Semitism and "homophobia", seems to suffer from a confusion between "unfavorable mental attitude" and "hate-motivated behavior", while the word itself means "fear of Christians" (and Christophobia would literally mean "Fear of Christ"!). The UN and the UNHCR use of the term seems to be fairly recent, so usage isn't yet settled. Until it is, I support moving Christianophobia to Anti-Christian prejudice, keeping Christianophobia as its own section (suitably edited), moving the material currently in Anti-Christianity into Anti-Christian prejudice, and perhaps making Anti-Christianity into a disambiguation page that can direct people to Anti-Christian prejudice, Criticism of Christianity, Persecution of Christians, etc, with some good, simple definitions of each. JHCC (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

?

Aren't kids NOT supposed to watch PG-13 movies in class? Heck, I'm in high school, and our school has never been allowed to watch PG-13 movies. Isn't this NPOV and stereotypical about Christians? I'm a christian and I'm allowed to watch PG-13 movies.Sargent Teff 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice.

NOTE:

My edit says something about a statement being NPOV. I actually meant POV. Sorry, it's really late at night and I'm not totally with it right now.

POV statements

My edits have been reversed (in some ways) twice now by Pollinator, and while I have (in my opinion, anyway) attempted to frame the section "Issues Concerning the American Government" in an un-biased way, the statements Pollinator has added are mildly to heavily biased, including the following:

"including the intelligent design, anti-abortion and opposition to the homosexual agenda."

It could be argued that a "gay agenda" does not exist. Thus, I propose that to make the statement less POV we add the phrase "opposition to gay rights" and link it to the article of the same name.

Also, we have this from the same section:

"while the ACLJ seeks to define separation of church and state in the same way as the founding fathers, and that policies designed to foster religious tolerance are actually intolerant of Christians. A large part of the ACLJ caseload involves defending the first ammendment rights of Christian students who are denied freedom of speech or assembly by school administrations, while other groups do not encounter this same discrimination."

Which, unlike the questionable stauts of the last statement, is blatantly POV. If anyone would like to discuss this, feel free. I also think that we might want to expand some areas of the article concerning discrimination against Christians in other nations.

Mister Mister 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally have encountered many Christians who have been discriminated against (speech-wise) in school administrations and colleges, but I think that though this is more publicized (and maybe even more common), other groups do encounter discrimination in this way as well. That was a good comment by Mister Mister. --Feline

Vandalism

Does anyone know who this 64.122.203.173 individual who keeps vandalizing the article is? I'd really like to know, as this is getting a tad ridiculous. Any suggestions on dealing with this problem or finding out exactly what's going on would be appreciated.

Mister Mister 11:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just standard Wiki vandalism crap, and we can deal with it in the usual fashion:

1. I just edited 64.122.203.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s "talk" page to give them a "final warning" against vandalizing Wikipedia.
2. If they do it again soon (within 24 hours or so), report them at WP:AIV. A Wiki Administrator will look over the situation and issue a short-term ban if warranted.
3. If they come back and do it again, lather, rinse, and repeat. The bans will grow longer and longer.

Atlant 15:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Another vandal 71.112.58.77, has been trashing this article as well. I reverted his hate-mongering vandalism. I'm going to warn him now and report him if he continues. Jtpaladin 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice?

I have to say that whoever wrote this article is obviously another idiot christian who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is just pure unintelligent prejudice. Mate...get stuffed.

What? All 70 odd people? :-) --GunnarRene 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

~~I agree- this is bull crap- the article is so chock full of anti-semitic references it makes me want to track this shmuck down and beat him up. But I won't...~~ I completely agree with the above, this article was written by and is for stupid right wing jackasses....

I also agree, I find this whole article to be biased towards conservatives and absolutely lacking in substance.

While I prefer to speak a little more eloquently, I must agree basically with the point of view expressed above. This article seems to be the English Wikipedia's Christian equivalent of Islamophobia, which is a much more neutral term. I have plenty of anti-Christian sentiment, but I really don't like a supposedly neutral encyclopedia openly accusing me and those with similar views of "religious intolerance...stereotyping, discrimination, [and] persecution", when in fact my views are inspired by the obvious fact that Christianity has always promoted intolerance, bigotry and hatred. I am a universalist, in that I believe that all mythologies and philosophies ("religions" in common terminology) deserve to be allowed to exist and continue to flourish. Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam) has always sought to proselytize all others - paganism throughout Europe, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, etc. - into extinction. It's right there in their "holy" scriptures. I've researched it. I am not guilty of prejudice, as I believe any "Christian" who is not actually an intolerant bigot is about as good as a non-Christian. Whereby this article must be saved, for there is not salvation in any previous editor, it seems, for their names are not given under heaven. Or something. elvenscout742 01:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? The one I read might as well have said "Christians make trouble and then whine when people don't like them so here's their whiner persecution-complex word." It says little to nothing of majority non-Christian societies and the prejudice Christians still face their. Granted much of that fits Persecution of Christians, but some is just general prejudice. What you're saying of Christianity makes me think you think it's not clear enough that "Christianity is bad so it deserves it's intolerance and here's why." Also of course you are prejudiced. Your view on Christianity is nothing but prejudice. What matters is if you're prejudice is justified. You feel it is and you have that right.--T. Anthony 10:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Elvenscout, your views seem to be a bit prejudiced and so I wouldn't be surprised if someone did accuse you of being a bigot or intolerent. The very fact that you claim all Christians are intolerent (or Non-Christian) shows both your lack of understanding of teh scriptures you have read, or the fact that you have read a book and thought it was the Bible, and your intolerence. I am not intolerent, I agree with teh choice to belief what you wish, I think all good people will go to heaven, I have no problems with Homosexuality and I respect all other faiths...I also believe in parts of other faiths...but I am a Christian and I am slightly annoyed that you are making an attack on all christians. Please do not be a bigot, I will say again that Religious Intolerence is as bad as Racism, Homophobia, Sexism and all other intolerences. Idi Amin wouldn't have thought himself a tyrant! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

When Jews complain about prejudice, it's intolerant bigotry. When homosexuals complain about prejudice, it's intolerant bigotry. When Christians complain about prejudice, they just deserve it. Well folks, bigots always complain the prejudiced group deserves what they get.

when in fact my views are inspired by the obvious fact that Christianity has always promoted intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

Who was Christianity hating on in the first two centuries AD? Who did the Quakers or Mennonites ever oppress?--T. Anthony 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Secularism hasn't been much better going back to the French Revolution when people, including my ancestor, lost their heads because they were Christians. Secular regimes have murdered more Christians in the name of tolerance and equality in France, Italy, Spain, Mexico, Russia, China, Nazi Germany, etc., than all of the Inquisitions or religious wars combined. BTW, Germany of Hitler's time was largely secular. Secular regimes are responsible for the deaths of 10s of millions people in the name of tolerance, science, open-mindedness, etc.

Maybe Stalin, Mao and Robespierre are the typical atheist, or at least who atheists should look up to. LOL.

Maybe the Inquisition wasn't so bad after all, considering maybe 300,000 people were killed in all of Europe over its 800 year history, or roughly 375 people per year in a continent of 30 million people.

BTW, why is these same Christianophobic bigots always ignore the good Christianity has brought into the world. If it wasn't for the Catholic Church; universities wouldn't have developed in Europe; the learning of the ancient world would have been lost, and if it wasn't for the development of Scholasticismin the Catholic Church, modern science never would have developed. I guess the intolerant Catholic missionaries were real evil men when they allowed themselves to be murdered by the Spanish as they took up arms to prevent the enslavement of the Indians. Watch The Mission sometime.

I am a universalist, in that I believe that all mythologies and philosophies ("religions" in common terminology) deserve to be allowed to exist and continue to flourish. Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam) has always sought to proselytize all others.

Here's the fallacy of your perspective. If all religions are true, then Christianity is true. Therefore if Christianity is true, and Jesus taught that he was the only way to attain unity and peace with God, then the theory that all religions are true is also false. Logically speaking. Besides, how can you prove that all religions are the same or worthy.

Would those of you who hate Christianity because it teaches that it alone has truth consider the Aztec religion or Celtic religions that practiced human sacrifice to be just as good as others? Perhaps human sacrifice should return to Europe, just as it was practiced by the Druids and other pagan groups.

It's a contradiction in terms to say that all philosophies/religions should be allowed to exist, save one: Christianity. Secular fundies are so hypocritical because on one side they say everyone has to be tolerant, but that tolerance excludes Christians. In the malignant secularist viewpoint, in action not words, Christians are supposed to be second-class citizens who are supposed to sit in a corner and be quiet.[3]

• • That's a straw man argument. I don't know any secularists who say that all religions should be allowed to exist except for Christianity. Do you have counterexamples, or are you just stereotyping/exaggerating? Most secularists I know are happy for all religions to co-exist as long as their followers don't try to force others to follow the same religion. The often aggressive attempts by some Christians to force others to live by the same Christian rules (as they interpret them) is where the problems begin. (And most people who say Christianity shouldn't exist say the same thing about all other religions.) Goulo 07:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and secularism have a unique relationship. The West is secularism's home turf, and Christianity, as the dominant religion in the West, is the only religion that has faced secularism's constant and focused challenge, with the exceptions of Judaism and Shinto (and those cases are exceptional in other ways). No religion in the world has had to face secularism the way Christianity has. The Muslim world has been spared such a confrontation, and most religions of the Far East are by their natures seldom at odds with secularism. In the West, especially Eastern Europe, secularism has on occasion been more aggressive than any religion in history in forcing people to follow its rules, so the claim that aggression is foreign to secularism does not stand. Goulo, you have to admit that some secularists sometimes take up the defense of non-Christian religions thinking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and that others sometimes even take up the defense of non-Christian religions as a weapon with which to attack Christianity. That by no means happens often, but it happens. There are aggressive people in any belief system, including secularism, who will use, and have used, any means at their disposal to deal with their enemies. You seem to be sending one straw man against another. Ecto 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To quote GK Chesterton,"There is no bigot quite like an atheist."

Chesterton was also fond of pointing out just how narrow-minded the Pharisees of tolerance and indifferentism were because their open-mindedness was limited. It was limited by the fact, the admission the Christian God was real would undermine their universe.

"A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. But as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism has more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel. The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts."[4]

I love atheist tolerance, 100 million dead, 10s of millions whose crime was only being a Christian.--68.45.161.241 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I really did not want my view of Christianity to play a part in this, but to point out the systemic bias on English-language Wikipedia when this article is allowed to exist and there is no Anti-Hindu prejudice, Anti-Jewish prejudice, Anti-Buddhist prejudice or Anti-Muslim prejudice. There is no need for this article, and its name clearly indicates an assumption of bad faith - "prejudice" is an inherently derogatory term, accusing the target of ignorant bigotry, even when they could have rational reasoning. I included the broken link to Anti-Christian sentiment and the comparison to Islamophobia as part of this, and then (I admit) went off on an off-topic tangent. Please do not accuse me of "anti-Christian prejudice" - I am merely raising the valid point that this article is heavily biased, and my conflicting views (which I generally keep in check on Wikipedia) are irrelevant. elvenscout742 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Elven, we already have an article for positions that might be based on rational reasoning, Criticisms of Christianity. Irrational, ignorant, bigoted, and ill-informed views against Christianity--and I could point out an example for you--have a needed home in this article. If you plan to go off on any more of your "off-topic tangents" (I would use a different term), you should first revise your "research" methods. If you had done your research properly, you would know that secularism (your claimed "religion") drove Shinto to near-extinction, not Christianity, and that Buddhism (your example of a non-proselytizing faith) is actually one of the three great missionary religions, alongside Christianity and Islam. On a final note, I hope that the other editors' replies have made you aware that no religion in history has has ever used as much violence in asserting itself as your secularism has. I hope that knowledge lets you realize the shortcomings of relying on guilt by association. Ecto 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

this page just says to me (i am a proclaimed theistic satanist) that if you're anti-christian you're a bigot. but if i am correct the bible is set up on the same view just in an opposite tense. until we have a page that says that anti-satanists are bigots i think this article should be destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.185.198 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs serious cleaning up

This article is meant to be the equivalent of the page regarding anti-Semitism and yet whole portions of it are written in such a way as to actually blame Christianity for Christophobia. That's like blaming the Jews that died in Nazi concentration camps on their own actions. Absolutely absurd!!

I have to add this article to the list of articles that is so ridiculously skewed that it needs to be completely redone. --Jtpaladin 20:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really - the Jews killed by the Nazis could not change their race, and it was not a valid indicator of their political allegiances or any such thing. The Third Reich was just a racist institution that had no interest in real facts, while anti-Christian sentiment could quite reasonably be caused by narrow-minded televangelist bigots personally giving Christianity a bad name. (BTW, I think the biggest "Christophobes" are probably "God-fearing" Christians themselves;).) elvenscout742 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

People are resposible for their own actions, because they freely choose those actions. People who freely choose to persecute and discriminate against Christians are the only people responsible for that persecution and descrimintation. No one else could ever "cause" them to freely choose to do those things, only "give them cause". Being "given cause" by no means always means "being given good cause", and in my mind, there is NEVER good cause for persecution and discrimination (you seem to be of a different mind). If Christians do "cause" others to persecute and discriminate against themselves, as you claim, well, Christians must have their very own sci-fi mind control devices. On the other hand, if Christains give others cause to persecute and discriminate against themselves, the people who choose to act on that (which is faulty as hell anyway) are still the only ones responsible. Either way, your claim that the victims are to blame is at best illogical, and at worst...well...a lot worse. Ecto 18:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is looking much better than when I came by here a few months back. Kudos to the recent editors. Lots to do yet, though, at least on finding citations to support most of the "reasons" for Christophobia. By the way, the Pope used Christophobia, and since other references in this article appear to have been swept with a broad brush into this new Christianophobia standard there are likely conflicts with cited sources there (whether it seems grammatically correct to the editors or not). 64.111.226.46 11:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I wonder, why would anyone follow the "bad guy" who you can all see its obvious how bad he truly is, i wish to find out more about this why they do, but i dont in fear it may be a sin (i am a.. not exactly devoted... but i can not be diverged off my path to God, i am very faithful and loyal to God. i am Catholic)

So pretty much i want to know why people would worship the devil doing things immorally wrong and if even viewing that evil satanistic website would be a sin as i choose to just find out and not convert (HELL NO! i would never want to leave God and go with satan! My life is great the way it is with God!)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.167.252.194 (talk • contribs) .

Why? Because it bothers you. 71.56.215.109 07:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't go as far as to tell you why someone would turn to worship Satan because...there is none. Nor is there a God, so to speak, but that's just my point of view. I can, however, give you a list of reasons for turning away from religion:

-The person is adamant that there is no God, and that religion is a completely stupid concept
-The person looks at all the thousands of religions in the world, each one shouting that they're the ones that are right and everyone else is wrong. He begins to realize that they're all wrong.
-The person has never had an encounter with a God or a Satan, and has no grounds on which to believe.
-The person views religion as a restriction of body, mind, and soul.
-The person will not submit to a life of servitude to a God or a Satan.
-The person has had bad encounters with extremely devout Christians and Catholics.
-The person has a general hatred for conformity.
-The person believes in Nihilism.

"The Person" mentioned above just happens to be me. Icefox111 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

With all do respect, what is this discussion doing here? Everyone has the right to have opinions about their religion, but Wikipedia is not the place to debate it. This page is for discussing the article itself, so that we may improve it together. Listing all of your beliefs is something you should do in your own space. For more information, see Not a soapbox (this includes Talk pages).JosCol (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong pro-Christian bias

This article makes it sound as if Christians ( some 80 to 90 % of Americans ) are a persecuted minority. Nothing could be further from the case. Some of this article could be applied, say, to Iran, but not the modern, western world. FireWeed 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Christians make up 33% of the world's population. If they made up 51% they would be the majority, but that is not the case. Being the largest minority makes Christians neither the worldwide majority, nor a majority in every country of the West. America, with 85% of its population Christians, is an exception, not the rule. Most countries with such large populations of Christians are outside the Modern West in the Third World of South America and Africa. Europe, part of the Modern West, is largely secularist these days. Christians form minorities in Sweden, Albania, Denmark, Russia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic, for example, and larger minorities or slim majorities in a good number of other countries in the Modern West. Christians have suffered persecution in the Middle and Far East, but in the Modern West like nowhere else. The persecutions Christians suffered in Eastern Europe during the 20th century at the hands of Modern Western political ideology are staggering. The persecutions against Christians undertaken by the Communist states of the Modern West stand as the largest and most extensive religious persecutions in history--Modern, Western, or otherwise--and those carried on into our own lifetimes. Ecto 09:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Christians have suffered persecution in the Middle and Far East, but in the Modern West like nowhere else. The persecutions Christians suffered in Eastern Europe during the 20th century at the hands of Modern Western political ideology are staggering. This confirms the POV/bias I'm talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireWeed (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

How is that POV or biased? That the proponents of the Modern Western political ideology of Marxism in the Modern West have persecuted Christians like no one else in history is a matter of historical record attested to by numerous historians, scholars, and other acedemics. Read the article on Religion in the Soviet Union, and the sections about the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations in Persecution of Christians for descriptions of the things they did. If you still fail to grasp the historical concensus presented in those articles, I would suggest that you are the one with the POV and bias problem. You should now know that Christians are a minority worldwide and in many countries and have been persecuted in the Modern West. Your original statement does not stand to truth at all, as it reflects a mindset focused on the realities of the 19th century and America. Bring your knowledge up to date to include the history of the 20th century and expand its focus to include countries outside of America, and you will agree with me. Ecto 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the first person who's ever referred to the former Soviet Union as the "Modern West." Perhaps it's not just a POV you're suffering from, but a lack of education. Fortunately, you've found a wonderful site to learn from, but remember: like parachutes, minds only work when they're open. FireWeed 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This map shows the varying geo-poltical definitions of the western world.

You seem to have packed your silverware. Ecto 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

??? Aside from what you wrote not making any sense, I assume the map you show, with Russia being labed "Eastern Europe, Balkans, Caucasus" re-enforces your idea that the former Soviet Union is the "Modern West?" You do understand the distinction between east and west, don't you? FireWeed 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, when skydivers pull their ripcords and a bunch of cutlery comes out of their parachute packs, like in old cartoons?

The distinction between the East and the West:

• The West: European culture associated with Christianity, and, later, modernism, industrialism, and secularism.
• The East: Non-European culture that Westerners associated with non-Christian, premodern, and agrarian societies to the East of Europe.

• The Near East and Middle East: Arabian culture associated with Islam and, later, Islamism.
• The Far East: Oriental culture associated with Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.

Russia has long been considered part of the European cultural continent because it is neither Arabian nor Oriental, but Western. Eastern Europe is not the East, and Western Europe is not the West. The division between the Eastern Bloc and the Western Bloc during the Cold War was a divide within Western culture, not between Eastern culture and Western culture. That much larger divide existed for a long time before the last century, and still exists in a perforated form, unlike the Bloc division, which began following the Second World War and dissolved altogether with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

The Soviets, founded in the West, embraced modernism in its purest form, rationalism, as well as industrialism, marking them as decidedly Western. The Soviets took great pains to present themselves as the zenith of Western civilization, modernism, and science. The Soviets industrialized their territory at an amazing rate, owing to their embrace of industrialism. All of these features mark the Soviet Union as decidedly Western.

Marxism developed in Western philosophy as a hybrid of materialism and Hegelian dialectics, both developments in Western philosophy separate from their analogues in Eastern philosophy.

Marx was an atheist in Germany who read Hegel. If Marx had been a Muslim in Iran who read the Koran, Marxism would be Middle Eastern. If Marx had been a Hindu in India who read the Vedas, Marxism would be Eastern. For an example of Communism in the East, see Maoism, or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

When I think of Communism, I do not hear zithers, smell incense, or see Vishnu meditating. Nor do I see Communists laying out prayer mats or hear them reciting the Koran. Maybe you do, but most people do not consider Communism an Eastern phenomenon, but rather a Western.

I hope that explains it. You seem to be using the narrowest definition of the terms (The East=Eastern Europe, The West=Western Europe), and I seem to be using the broader (The East=The Eastern World, The West=The Western World). That is what I tried to demonstrate to you using the image, but you missed that. The broader use is the more appropriate, given our context. Once again, I have to ask that you try to broaden your view of the world. Ecto 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

From your text "The West: European culture associated with Christianity" - the Soviet Union was, officially, a nation of Athiests. Also, your graphic itself says its accuracy is disputed, and a much more widely held definition of "the west" in political terms would be "nations participating in the global capatilist economy," which, again, the communist Soviet Union was not. No amount of twisting of the facts, or hallucinations of the scent of insense will change the fact that by any definition the former Soviet Union was not a western nation. The only way that can be done is to invent a radically new definition for the word "western," which you're obviously trying to do. Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not the place for original research or neologisms. FireWeed 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Before state atheism was established, the countries of the Soviet Union were Christian with long histories of being Christian. You did know that, right? Did you neglect to read the part in my text about "later...secularism"? Did your eyes just skip over it, or did you read it and are just now ignoring it? The accuracy of the image is disputed over whether or not to have some countries in Eastern Europe blue (considered Western by all definitions) or yellow (considered Western by the broadest definition). That dispute in no way negates the yellow definition. Most countries in the Soviet Union participated in capitalism before the revolution, and, following the fall, now participate in it again. In both its history and its existence, the Soviet Union was part of Western civilization, not the Eastern world.

I am not "twisting the facts". You just do not know them, or you are ignoring them. The West is older than capitalism, and a lot older than communism. So how can either of these things provide the only definition of it? "Hallucinations"? So, you lack an imagination. I am sorry to hear that. Please read the article on Western culture that explains the different definitions and how they relate to one another. The one I have been using is actually the older and broader definition, not "radically new", nor any invention of mine, but of writers hundreds of years ago that still finds wide use.

What is happening here is you are trying to steamroll a certain definition used in certain contexts into being the only definition used in all contexts. You were unaware of other definitions, so you mistook my use of the term as "uneducated", and so have been trying to justify that mistake despite the information I have presented to you. You probably have heard of the older and broader definition before, if you have any history education past high school history of the 20th century, but you are ignoring it. Why?

Here are some articles that will give you the information you need to realize the definition I have been using is accepted:

• The West
• The East
• Middle East
• Near East
• Western culture
• Eastern
• Eastern culture
• Eastern world
• Western world

I hope these help you toward a realization that there are different considerations in the division between East and West than you might have thought. Ecto 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I just don't think these divisions are valid - they're arbitrary, ad hoc, original research, and in some cases neologisms. FireWeed 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY DOESN'T ANYONE FIX THIS ARTICLE TO ONLY INCLUDE NUETRAL FACTS AND PREVENT IT FROM TAKING SIDES WITH EITHER CHRISTIAN OR ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!!???

You're welcome ( and encouraged ) to do just that. And to sign your posts here. FireWeed 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Some people believe organizations such as ACLU are intentionally trying to prohibit freedom of religious expression in a veiled attempt to secularize America.

This has no place in an encyclopedia, and seems to have been lifted directly from a partisan think tank white paper. Despite the fact that the ACLU has defended the practice of all major religions, and is under attack for also defending freedom from religion, as well as the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment ... these are almost beside the point. It is completely anathema to Wikipedia policy to present a POV / opinion as fact by using terms like "Some people believe ..."

Also, attributing false ( or guessed at ) motivations is something children play at, not something that has a rightful place in an encyclopedia.

This is only the most succinct example; there’s far more that needs to be fixed here. But I’ll leave it to other editors to decide how this should be fixed.

FireWeed 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As no one has commented on this, I've gone ahead and begun to clean up the bottom section somewhat. In a first draft, I've tried to do three things: replace as many weasel words as possible ( some people -> specific examples ), make the text less biased, and improve clarity. There was an aweful lot of redundancy in the text, the same word being used several times in a paragraph, two sentances in a row beginning exactly the same way. I realize that's probably the lowest priority ... but bad writing bugs me.

I broke the section on the American Government into two subsections - one on the government itself, and a second on the ACLU. While these are two sides of the same coin, it seems enough of the text was directed at the ACLU that it merits being broken into its own section.

Honestly, though, I think this entire section should go. We're simply repeating claims by the far right, that have little substance. Across eastern Europe, parts of Africa and Asia, anti-Christian prejudice means killing large groups of Christians, often in terrible ways. ( Remember the US war on Bosnia under Clinton? ) To suggest that not teaching intelligent design in science class ( because it doesn't follow the scientific method ) is anti-Christian prejudice when genocide is taking place belittles these crimes against humanity, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

FireWeed 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that these would also count as weasel words:

With the rise of conservative religious movements in U.S. politics, opposition to those movements has often been characterized by those movements as anti-Christian, since they oppose the imposition of that particular brand of rural revivalist Christianity into law.

My main concern is that it does not have any source cited, and it's making a seemingly unfounded claim that a large number of conservative groups actually directly advocate the imposition of Christian doctrine into American law. Although some fringe groups do, this section is referring to the movement as a whole, and if they are actually trying to get legislation that would violate the Non-Establishment Clause, those are heavy accusations being raised. That would certainly require an objective source to back up. I know it may often seem to be that way, but remember NPOV; we can't judge someone's motives at WP based solely on our own interpretations of their actions. JosCol (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it now, that probably is closer to a straw man than weasel words. JosCol (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In nations where Christianity is a minority faith...

As it stands, this article is a collection of talking points from the extreme right. There's more about how intelligent design isn't taught in science class and how students are allowed a moment of silence, but not forced to recite a Christian prayer in public schools. It would seem the people oppressing Christians through prejudice are the ACLU and those who say "Happy Holidays" when they walk past you on the sidewalk. Aside from the obvious POV issues this creates, and that it's missing the real prejudice being directed at Christians, it can easily lead one to conclude that anti-Christian prejudice is either not real, or whining by the US far right about not being able to force their religious views onto others.

The quote is accurate, though; prejudice against Christians is much stronger, and more likely to be acted on, in places where Christianity is a minority faith. ( Some 80 % of Americans identify themselves as Christians. ) Can somebody knowledgable about the subject add to this article, about atrocities in what's turning into a war surrounding Ethiopia, prejudice in Turkey, and so on? Some of what goes on in the Balkans? This article is very US-centric, but it's devoted to a subject that mainly happens outside the US. FireWeed 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Ecto and I are the only editors taking a strong interest in this page, and Ecto seems to be on holiday. ( Good for him! ) Still, in the absence of any objections, I've gone ahead and followed my own advice. I've added sections on Turkey, Sudan, and China, although I'm not finished ( more like halfway done ) with China. I left a stub notice under the China section to indicate this, however another editor came along and removed the stub tag, probably feeling that there was ample content explaining the issue. This is probably a good thing, for the reader, but still I wanted to make note of it here. Mainly, I'm concerned that at present, the China section could give an anti-Christian POV. So far I've had time to explain the background that lead to what's happening today, but I haven't had time to write about present day China. FireWeed 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wheres athiest-phobia?

Actually, your comments are not helpful and don't belong on the Talk Page. You are merely expressing a hatred toward Christianity and not adding anything to this conversation. Jtpaladin 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've been working to improve this article, without stepping on any toes; obviously there's a lot of controversy here. The article is still pretty slanted, although hopefully moving in the right direction. But "some people" is the text-book definition of weasel words. FireWeed 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My hat's off to your efforts, FireWeed. You have a daunting task. One of the many things I find remarkable is how George Weigel's opinion is used. Weigel is a fellow of the Discovery Institute possibly one of the most dishonest and clever organizations in North America. In fact you could credit the Discovery Institute, specifically their campaign to portray creationism as science (ala intelligent design), their efforts to undermine modern science (wedge strategy), and put ID in our public science classes (teach the controversy), as yet another reason people distrust Christians. He and his kind are the cause of the problem yet he's being touted as an expert on the subject. He and his kind a part of the cause. He's certainly not a neutral, leading expert on the subject. Anyhow, best of luck to you. Mr Christopher 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Where are the Branch Davidians?

I believe they are/were a persecuted group of Christians. In fact they were slaughtered by members of the federal government. Mr Christopher 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they were Christians (if a very small sect), and the building besieged and destryed by U.S. Federal authorities was considered a Church. Oddly, in this supposedly majority Christian nation, there was relatively little public outrage, and few seem uncomfortable with the continuing depiction of David Koresh as a "cult leader" alongside the likes of Charles Manson or Jim Jones.

Does this reflect widespread anti-Christian prejudice? General apathy regarding crimes against religious groups? General indifference to crimes of our government against any publicly villified group? The Branch Davidian massacre certainly is an important landmark in the modern American sociological landscape, but where would such an accounting of our reaction (or lack thereof) belong...? Under Waco Siege, maybe...? 64.111.226.144 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormons

First of all, Joseph Smith being killed was not the result of anti-mormonism as much as it was anti-Joseph Smithism. The man was clearly a law breaker, I'm not suggesting he deserved to die, just pointing out the "prohphet" was not an innocent kitten. However, anti-Mormonism continues to this day primarily from evangelical Christian groups who insist the Mormon church is a cult. Evangelicals get to make this claim only because they have a bigger membership (big groups are religions, little ones are cults). Maybe I'll add more when I have time. Mr Christopher 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of my knowledge here comes from Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer ( ISBN-13: 978-0385509510 ). It seems that wherever they went, Mormons made themselves unpopular through their xenophobia, and their claims of a divine right to act as they saw fit ... including building what was almost a seperate country at Nauvoo, Il. Being killed by a lynch mob is obviously pretty extreme, but Krakauer makes it sound as if the Mormon faith "brought it upon themselves." In fact he goes so far as to argue that the persecution they suffered bound them together as a group, solidifying a cult into a major world religion. The man has an unfavorable view of Mormonism, so this all needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

My reasoning behind adding anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic sections was that the article stinks of a particular POV, and needed to address the fact that a good deal of "Anti-Christian prejudice" in fact comes from Christians themselves, and not from a global ( or just American ) secular conspiracy. FireWeed 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fireweed, I was not clear. I was not suggesting the section did not belong, only he was not killed for his beliefs. I think I have clarified some of that section and added cites for support. It could stand some additional fine tuning I'm sure. And yes we agree the overwhelming majority of Christian persecution comes from within the Christian community (and not the ACLU) and yes that fact belongs in the article. Cheers! Mr Christopher 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, anti-Mormon prejudice does not belong in this article. Regardless of whether Mormonism has low membership or high membership, it espouses different beliefs than any Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox church. The fact that Mormonism claims to be a "church of Jesus Christ" does not make it Christian. Muslims believe that Abraham and Jesus were prophets, but this does not make Muslims Jews or Christians. [end of unsigned post]

I disagree with the above (unsigned) comment equating Mormons' distinction from Christianity to Islam's distinction from Christianity. While Muslims honor Jesus, Moses, Abraham as prophets, they give much more reverence to Mohammad (portrait withheld) and they don't commonly read Jewish and Christian texts. But Mormons read the Old and New Testaments in addition to Joseph Smith's lively and cautionary tale about losing data stored on shiny discs (the Book of Mormon, not a Symantec primer on backing up your hard drive onto CDs). Joseph Smith ought to be commended for relocating God's Promised Land to the United States of America and institutionalizing "any day now" prophecy countdowns---in effect inventing a patriotic American Gospel epic 150 years before his evangelical imitators in the Council for National Policy started doing the same thing.

Bridgman 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons some claim others have Christianophobia - tagged

I just tagged this section with the original research tag. Here's why. "-phobia" suggests a "fear of". It is often associated with a clinical meaning. So we're suggesting people "have" Christianophobia? Is this a new mental disorder? We don't even have a reliable or cited definition of the term yet our readers are lead to believe people suffer from this mental problem (fear of christ). Can you catch it? Is it hereditary? Is there a treatment cure for it?

Does counseling help? You can see where I am going with this. I have never met anyone in my life who had a fear of christ or christians, but perhaps I haven't met enough people. And then the section gives a Right wing Christian viewpoint of the so-called problem of Christianophobia. He's hardly a neutral party, and I have already pointed out some of the company he keeps are pretty shady to say the least. I am not suggesting we ignore the guy, but some balance is in order. Perhaps Richard Dawkins may offer some reasons why some folks are prejudiced towards Christians (sorry, I refuse to use the term christianophobic until someone can prove that term exists and provide a reliable definition of it). Mr Christopher 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

now I dont know too much buut I can think ofa reason or two ppl are afraid of Christians/ Christianity maybe because a fear of the LORD GOD almighty and his people OR because the influence of evil i nthis world. how about those things.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phillip1951 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Persecution vs. Prejudice

I just wanted to remind everyone that this article is about prejudice, not persecution. Some editors are using the terms as synonyms on the talk page, and I fear that such a lack of distinction may slip into the article, and perhaps it has. We already have an article about persecution of Christians. Contributions on that topic should go to that article. Thank you. Ecto 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Prejudice in US section

Among the 'prejudices' cited are:

• The lack of curricula including intelligent design in science classes as a possible explanation for the origins of human life, although critics reply that intelligent design is not science as it does not follow the scientific method.

• The federal government's ban on state-sanctioned school prayer.

• The ban on any religious expression by faculty in front of students.

These don't seem to fit under any definition of prejudice: The resistance to ID is because it is not scientific (In fact many Id supportters continually reject the fact that it is a religiously motivated "theory") and the other two are merely products of the first amendment that don't apply exclusively to christians: Practicers of Judaism and Islam are not allowed to do either of these and actually to saction any one would be prejudiced against the ones it did not endorse. And seeing as claiming a anti christian bias in these cases where there is no evidence to show that christians in particular are being singled out in the cases of alleged prejudice seems innapropriate for an encyclopedia without sources. Would anyone be opposed to deleting these three things?Zvyer 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since those are the three most popular examples of anti-Christian prejudice offered by the American Christian right-wing press, whether or not they really are, I think removing them would compromise the article's NPOV. They definitely need sources, but they should remain. Here's an example of a Jewish writer who has mentioned the prayer issue as an example of anti-Christian prejudice [5]. That wouldn't be a useful source, as the article is written now, but I'll look for some more. Ecto 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe the last one, since under a far stretch of imagination I could understand why someone would maybe think that it could be prejudicial, but in the first one as I said there has actually been attempts to distance christianity from ID in attempt to bypass the first amendment. I have actually never heard it as an example of anti-christian prejudice. As for the second one it actually has only been connected to religious leaders talking about morality rather than anti-christian prejudice. At the very least I think that it would be best to delete them if no one can find sources after a time because as it stands they seem to be unverifiable and actually even contrary to what right wing pundits even cite as prejudical.Zvyer 03:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections I would like to delete these uncited claims after one week unless I, or anyone else, can find sources to the claims as they seem to not be factual.Zvyer 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The added sentence seems to require a bit of cleanup or clarification, I don't know exactly what the editor was talking about so I don't want to rewrite something willy-nilly;

"The increased usage of BCE/CE, not just limited to strictly non-Christian studies but also to more general historical terms, even including Christianity or societies which eventually lead to Christianity (such as Greece and Rome)."

I don't quite understand how Greece and Rome "led to Christianity" or how a society in general leads to a religion, maybe it could be rephrased a little. Also does it seem to anyone else that the majority of these claims of discrimination are actually attempts to protect the rights or feelings of others? sorry about that, not pertinent to discussing the article.Zvyer 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Category to create?

Perhaps a category should be created called Category:Anti-Christianity or Category:Anti-Christian prejudice that is similar to Category:Anti-Judaism/Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Mormonism, etc. Category:Anti-Catholicism exists yet it seems that Wikipedia needs a broad umbrella category to deal with all of the disparate topics related to anti-Christianity. --Wassermann 12:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the category -- I do hope that I'm not opening a can-of-worms here (as if the category has already been created and then deleted?). It may need to be renamed, but I'll let people more familiar with the topic go ahead and figure all of that out. The category needs to be populated though, so have at it! --Wassermann 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I modified the section on Anti-Mormonism

I removed the comment "(where Joseph Smith says the Garden of Eden was)" as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. SLCMormon 06:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to add or cross-reference: Rational Response Society & The Blasphemy Challenge

This movement and their media stunt already have an article of their own on Wikipedia, but they provide a good example of how targeted bigotry and hatred toward Christianity is sometimes justified by association with intellectual criticism. Brian Flemming and RRS have received criticism from other atheist activists (cited in the RRS article) for "reinforcing stereotypes" of militant atheism. 64.111.226.144 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name change from "Anti-Christian prejudice" to "Anti-Christian discrimination"

It seems to me that the title "Anti-Christian prejudice" limits the scope of the article and that "Anti-Christian discrimination" might be better. The two terms are fairly synonymous, but in my understanding prejudice is a certain type of discrimination. Prejudice is pre-conceived discrimination, but discrimination is not always pre-conceived, if you see what I mean. "Discrimination" seems like a broader term than "prejudice," and so I think we should use "discrimination" instead of "prejudice" in the title. Could someone please change the name of the article, if there are no objections? 154.20.253.36 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks C.Logan! 154.20.253.36 03:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Janjaweed?

This is a remark regarding the accuracy of the part where Sudan and Darfur are discussed. All the sources I've read state that Darfur is majority muslim. So how could the Janjaweed be involved in anti-Christian actions, unless they were also involved in the civil war between the Sudanese government and the Christian South more than a decade ago? Could anyone check this? If what I think is right (namely, that Darfur is populated by muslims) then the terms Darfur and (probably) Janjaweed should be removed from this article. 213.118.140.244 22:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I belive that this [6] might help. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The POV problems of this article have been discussed a lot, so I'll just specify this one bit. The thing about the BA case is wrong and NPOV. BA said that the employee couldn't wear her Crucifix Necklace over her clothes because of health and safety issues. (I.E. someone could grab the necklace and attack the employee, it could get tangled up in the baggage she was required to wear). BA said that the employee could wear the crucifix under her clothes. Later it also said that she could wear a cross lapel badge. Both compromises were unacceptable to the employee in question. As to the issue of other religions, only symbols that couldn't be covered up were allowed, such as headscarves. Everything else was meant to be concealed.

I was raised by evangelicals and I know for a fact that nowhere in the bible does it say anything about wearing a cross. The crucifix is NOT an article of faith, nor is it necessary for a devout person to display it on their person at all times. In fact, some denominations even contend that wearing such a symbol is idolatry. I know of no denomination that says a cross must or even should be worn at all times. I have actually never even heard of a denomination that takes a position on it one way or another 62.49.23.145 12:25, 3 September 2007

Scrap it

This article seems beyond repair. You could probably transfer it straight to Conservapedia without anyone blinking. Most of the sources are biased, the author equates "not Christian" with anti-Cristian, satanic groups (a legitimate religion, like it or not) are counted as hate groups, and the sections on hate speech, hate groups, and hate crimes are a joke. This requires a total rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.172.17 (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

black metal

I took out the section below as it much more about black metal than anti-christian discrimination.

'Interestingly, the cover of Burzum's EP release, Aske, portrays a photograph of the Fantoft stave church after the arson. It is unconfirmed whether or not Vikernes himself may have taken this picture. In modern times, the church burnings have caused a major divide within the black metal community concerning the legitimacy of the actions. When interviewed for the film Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, Gaahl of the band Gorgoroth praised the church burnings as "things I support", adding "there should have been more of them, and there will be more of them"[6]. However, other artists don't support these actions. Necrobutcher, one of the founding and current members of Mayhem, was quoted in a mini-documentary that accompanied the same film, saying "I think it's ridiculous, especially the people that lit up our old ... churches. They don't realize that these were actually Heathen churches, before Christianity."' Afterforever 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of some content

On 17 December, I removed a paragraphs about:

• "In the U.S. hostility to mainline Protestantism comes from stereotypes of WASPs."

• An executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs against Latter Day Saints

• In 1991, the Vancouver Art Gallery purchased an (anti-Catholic) sculpture.

The removal of these paragraphs was because they are not relevant to the subject of "a negative categorical bias against Christians or the religion of Christianity." In the case of the gallery, my edit summary said "Removing incident involving an art gallery; per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. This article is not about specific actions by individuals.)" For the other two, my edit summary said "Removing two paragraphs about attacks on specific Christian groups; this article is about attacks on Christianity as a whole, not attacks by some". [cut-off from that edit summary - my error - was the rest of the summary: "Christians on others (LDS)".

I note that Protestants and Catholics have said some very negative things about each other; this article isn't about fights within Christianity, and shouldn't be.

Before these are put back again, please discuss the matter here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up!

I'd like to rename this article Anti-Christian sentiment. For two reasons:

• The article combines the concepts of anti-Christian prejudice, discrimination, and persecution, as if they were all the same thing. They aren't. [www.persecution.org/ Persecution.org] does not list America, Canada, or the UK as hotbeds for Christian persecution. Christians outside of the United States who have to hide their beliefs for fear of violent retribution may in fact be insulted by Christian Americans who call it "bigotry" to not retain cultural predominance.
• The term, "Anti-Christian sentiment," is in far more common usage for this controversy than anti-Christian prejudice. And, in any case, the word "sentiment" captures both the perceived prejudice and discrimination. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed strike through text.[7] 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) 06:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Pew Study

How exactly does the Pew study—which states explicitly what percentage of American society is Christian—constitute original research as I have used it? Llor N' Kcor (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I said it was WP:SYNTH. There is a difference with plain old WP:OR. Synthesis in this case was take two perfectly innocent bits of information and combine them to create a new view. We can't usually do that. There is nothing wrong with the Pew Study except how you have used it. To get around this you need to find something closer to what you want to say in The Pew Study but on a quick read this document probably isn't it. It gives some good demographic data but doesn't contrast the perception of anti-christian sentiment with the demographics. That is your synthesis and you need the Pew Study (or some other group) to say this. Maybe littler steps e.g. the original claims -> contrasted with some other notable person that says this BUT doesn't quote demographics -> then The Pew Study to provide the facts. That would get around the straight jump from the anti-christian sentiment to the demographics.Ttiotsw (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Christians fired for refusing to work on Sunday"

I don't quite see how this applies as an anti-christian sentiment? Who wouldn't get fired for refusing to work?

This entire article has a serious POV problem, especially the "2 Discrimination against Christians by country" section. Junkupshowup (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Merges

On 20 and 21 February 2008 Treekids proposed merging Anti-Christian sentiment and Christianophobia and Persecution of Christians. He did not set up a discussion at any point, nor has there been any discussion on any talk pages. Christianophobia was deleted and redirected to Anti-Christian sentiment on 24 March 2008 by Brad the Raven. I am therefore removing both Merge templates from the article, as one is irrelevant and neither seem to have been serious proposals. Cheers, Lindsay 08:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

In my opinion, this page has severe POV problems, to wit it only considers anti-christian sentiments in the sense of criminal, biggotted acts. There are many people (my very much included) who have strong anti-christian sentiments for very rational reasons, but would never dream of physically attacking christians or their churches. These reasons range from the wars fought throughout history in the name of christianity, the propagation of philosophical thought outdated by two millennia of intelligent debated on the subject, or the arguments that christian belief leads to more harm than good in modern society.

I feel too strongly about this to add unbiased information myself, but if anyone is interested, refer to the works of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for more information. --216.86.105.213 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That’s because the article basically has been misname from the start. It’s the analogous article to islamphobia and anti-Semitism. Christophobia redirects here, instead Anti-Christian sentiment should redirect to Christophobia. Rune X2 (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets move toward less of a laundry list of one sides talking points

The current article reads like a laundry list of one side's (particularly the persecuted yet mysteriously in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth Religious Right) talking points, with loaded subject headers that only allow for negative examples of how bad Christians have it. I've changed the current "Anti-Christian Sentiment By Country' headline to 'Anti-Christian sentiment in politics and culture', so it can house discussions such as the use of the accusation as a political bludgeon and to give it a more realistic context.

We need to move onto more general themes with particular to back up in the references. The bullet points let someone take a series of very separate isolated incidents and make it seem like a serious conspiracy.

Setting standards of reporting.

The ref [8] titled, "No Prosecution for Anti-Christian London Gay Police Association Ads" doesn't appear to be very balanced. At the time of the event the UK had in place blasphemy laws which allow for inprisonment for making statements which, ..."During a private prosecution in 1977, the trial judge said blasphemous libel was committed if a publication about God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible used words which were scurrilous, abusive or offensive, which vilified Christianity and might lead to a breach of the peace." (see [9]). So in the UK there is a sufficient benchmark for what is considered "anti-Christian" (actually anti-'x') and this particular event isn't it. Wikipedia must set a standard (which should be different per country according to the standards of that country) within which we judge if an event is notable enough else every partisan source could be added turning this article into a blog. If not proven alleged events of anti-Christian sentiment are thus just wishful thinking and we can't use our personal views to push for inclusion. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the bit on "Once upon the Cross" by Deicide and Ralph Santolla, as he wasn't the guitarist when that album was recorded. 158.36.186.21 (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice vs. Sentiment

The page is called "Anti-Christian sentiment" but begins "Anti-christian prejudice is a negative bias...", which could give the impression of conflating prejudice with negative sentiment. I therefore suggest that one wording is picked and stuck to. Choosing which is a bit difficult, since the article doesn't make it abundantly clear which it's talking about: a lot of the material just lists things which have offended Christians or which have been done to harm Christianity, without discussing whether they resulted from prejudice or not. Anyone have any thoughts? Olaf Davis | Talk 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with article

This article seems to unfairly conflate several different phenomena.

Firstly, there are many people who criticize the Christian religion, because they disagree with its beliefs (at a philosophical or theological level), and/or they disagree with its attitudes towards social issues (e.g. women's rights, gay rights, etc.) Many of these people will criticize other religions as well for the same reasons; however, given the fact that many of them live in traditionally Christian societies, and come from Christian backgrounds, it is natural they will focus this criticism on Christianity. Many of these people are atheist; others are deists, pantheists, or have adopted non-Christian religions (e.g. Eastern religions, neo-Paganism, etc.)

Secondly, there are people who believe that religion ought to be kept out of the public sphere, e.g. separation of church and state, etc. Some Christian conservatives have painted this as animus or discrimination against Christianity. Often, this is the same people as in group (1); but some will also be liberal-minded Christians, who have a positive attitude to Christianity, but still do not feel it belongs in places like public school, legislative chambers or the workplace.

Thirdly, there are some people in historically non-Christian countries which seek to persecute Christians or Christian missionaries. These people generally often feel that Christianity is something alien and a threat to their culture. They tend to be diametrically opposed to the liberal world view of people in groups (1) and (2).

Fourthly, there are some people in Christian countries which associate themselves with movements like Satanism, death metal, etc. This group overlaps to some extent with group (1), but this group tends to use stronger language, and often seeks to deliberately offend Christians rather than simply criticizing them at the level of reasoned debate. A minority of this group seems to be involved in vandalism of churches or cemeteries. Compared to group (1), it might be fair to say that some members of this group have moved beyond mere reasoned criticism to blind hatred.

These are four largely distinct groups of people. They all oppose at least some expressions of Christianity, if not Christianity in general, but that opposition varies from reasoned criticism to blind hatred. The reasons also widely differ: Osama bin Laden and a Satanist might both have bad things to say about Christians, but their motivations are radically different.

Given this article's inherent propensity to conflate largely unrelated phenomena, I don't think it can ever be NPOV. In particular, I suspect that the intention of a unitary concept of "anti-Christian sentiment" is to unfairly smear those who make rational criticism of Christianity as a belief system, and/or of conservative attempts to impose it into the public sphere, with the brush of those who have a visceral hatred for it (and who on occasion, engage in violence as a result.) --SJK (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC) [Oh, I should mention a fifth distinct group as well: avante garde religious art, for example Piss Christ. Some Christians believe this is a form of anti-Christian sentiment, but I'm not sure the proponents of this form of religious art share the view that it is anti-Christian. --SJK (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)]

Calendar

The whole world once considered Sunday as the first day of the week. In an apparent anti-Christian move most countries with the exception of the United States apparently use Monday as the first day. This was rather deliberate on Europe's part (creation of an ISO) and rather obviously anti-Christian. Reference anyone? (I suppose this is anti_Jewish as well since the Sabbath was the last day and now is officially anonymous as the "next-to-last." Student7 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3