 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Postsecularism edit
There isn't a single fact or source on this page. Speedy deletion?
"One has interpreted the rise of Fundamentalist Evangelicalism in the Bush era[citation needed], conservative Catholicism in the eras of Pope John Paul II[citation needed] and Pope Benedict XVI[citation needed], the late 20th century New Age movements[citation needed] with their branches of quasi religious Esotericisms[citation needed], and the rise of Islam since the late 1980s as signs of the end of Western secularism[citation needed]."
Who is this "one" who interprets these non-occurrences this way?
The rise of Fundamentalism is in the 19th century, the contemporary politicization of evanglicals predates Bush by decades, "late 20th century new age movements" basically don't exist. New Age movements nearly all predate the 20th century, or come into being at the turn of the 20th century. The Rise of Islam was in the 7th century AD, not the 1980s.
It's clear that this author is writing from his/her own perspective. by "the rise of", s/he means "my increasing awareness of." This is ideological drivel, patently biased, and factually inaccurate.
One interprets this to herald the speedy deletion of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slorrin (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
PROD edit
The prod claims that there is no sources, but there seems to be a list of sources in a bibliography section on this article... 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Needs Work edit
This article/stub deserves to be developed, as postsecular(ism) is a concept increasingly used in a wide range of fields, as a quick internet search can show.
Poorly written edit
- "Berger's concept of “desecularization” cannot be taken as a serious “countertheory” to secularization as long as it does not respond to the original theoretical formulations made in [Berger's 1967 book] The Sacred Canopy."
Which says...? Useless mention of book not introduced here.
Initially even worse, it read
- "... formulations made in The Sacred Canopy."
The poorest copy-and-paste type of "editing", to hell with making sense & the user. Arminden (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)