Talk:Snake handling in Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

first amendment

That quote from the first amendment is pretty obviously not from the first amendment.... if it's from a court ruling that expounded on 1st amendment rights, that's cool, but could someone clarify that and cite it? --d

snake goddess picture

Does that fake statue of the snake goddess really belong here? ---User:Ihcoyc

I was just going to ask the same thing, especially because (fake or not) it has nothing to do with Christianity...isn't it Cretan? Adam Bishop 05:03, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

native americans

is there any evidence that this practice predates Columbus say amongst local Indians?

The Hopi traditional religion practiced "snake dancing" in an annual August ceremony. I believe they still do Unfortunately I must have deleted my paper on it so I'm not sure what sources I used on it. Here's some links from University sites though.

• WIU article on Hopi Snake Dance
• Involves man going to one
• Hopi Snake Dance A Question of Copyright

Enjoy--T. Anthony 03:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I was refering to East coast tribes grazon 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Well snakes appear in some East Coast tribal myths, but basically I don't know of anything like snake handling in their traditions.--T. Anthony 11:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies they did it every other August and poisonous snakes I guess weren't/aren't required.--T. Anthony 03:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation with regards to Calvinists originally bringing this ritual to America. I believe this is untrue.4.226.141.245 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)J. Hinton

Watch the History Channel then. There wasn't even any debate when they covered snake handling in the U.S. ~Friendly-Atheist

The History Channel? Really? You would need an actually reliable source for such claims. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relative time stat

The phrase "In the last 80 years" needs to be changed to an absolute time period. 216.75.170.81 05:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Only if you can provide a darn good reason why it needs to be given an absolute time. ~Friendly-Atheist

Because we want to have an accurate article and not total hearsayCoal town guy (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. "Citation Needed" on Everything Guy...

Come on... In the Risk area a lot of this stuff is a long donkey faced "Duh" and this stuff has been re-aired on the discovery network about a hundred times now. I almost suspect that someone with a religious bias may silmply take offense to any indication that snake bites can be harmful to believers or something. If someone feels a "citation needed" flag is needed on a specific point, go ahead and re-add it, but please post why on the discussion page. I won't object if you at least posit a good reason. ~Friendly-Atheist

In accordance with WP:PROVEIT, I have removed some unsourced statements from said section.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Snake handling among early Christians

One of the mainstream Church Fathers mentioned snake sects (in Syria?), second-fourth century. This should be tracked down and given a brief paragraph. --Wetman 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ophites! They deserve a mention and a See also. --Wetman 01:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Followers of Christ are zealously engaged in spreading their doctrine. Some of their members think their faith will let them handle snakes."----Winfield Courier(early kansas paper) May 23, 1878 also see Arkansas City Traveler(another kansas paper) June 5, 1878 ...I was going to make some changes to the main article but with this information you would have to revamp the whole of it.Elprofesordemente (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)elprofesordemente

Snake handling churches

The deacon of the Sand Hill Church in Del Rio contacted me and assured me his church was not a snake-handling church. I recommend removing the entire list of churches, except those with snake-handling practices documented in verifiable sources. Bms4880 23:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pentecostal Church of God referenced in the picture is not affiliated with the Pentecostal Church of God headquartered in Joplin, MO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.50.66 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

I'm requesting sources for most of these churches listed. I removed the Carson Springs church, as it apparently no longer exists. Without sources, we have no way of knowing when a vandal has randomly added a church's name to the list. Also, the Snake Oil page by "Brother Randall," from which part of this list was apparently copied, is not a reliable source, and has been wrong or outdated in the past. Bms4880 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

¶ To the segment on Risks, I added a couple of sentences on the Glenn Summerfield attempted murder case, this being a very well publicized event relatiing to snake handling and not otherwise mentioned in this article. Sussmanbern (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Occultic

The Church of God is officially recognized as a cult by Evangelical and Baptist Christians.

The practices of Snake Handling "churches" are occultic in nature, and no bible verse can justify them.

This is not a "Christian" group.

Mcapplbee (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To me, and I would guess to many other main-stream Christians, the first thing that comes to mind is the words of Jesus: "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." I don't think this make snake handlers occultic however. Borock (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 4, the temptation of Jesus by the devil;

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

The conceit of testing God (eg, snake handling) is a heretic error, but not an occult practice. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides which, Mcapplbee is misusing the term occult. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

They are a sect at least and a cult most likely. They are not recognized anywhere outside the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.63.203 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad article in need of editor

.. but editors not wanted. --69.225.11.246 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions are appreciated, but good citations make them unimpeachable. Please don't be discouraged from contributing further. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to go as far as saying it's a bad article, but it's hard to see how you can claim there is a neutral point of view for something so stupid... I was actually looking for a simple chronological list of religious idiots killed by handling snakes. It doesn't have to be limited to Christians, however. Perhaps it would be best if the table included a column for religion? In particular, I think there are some non-Christian Indian sects that also play with poisonous snakes. Nothing in the article. Shanen (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Golly, it sure is swell to see a nice neutral phrase like idiots who have gotten killed doing this. I know its all the rage to pick on what you call dumb hicks, but in the guise of pretending to be encyclopedic, could we stop being insulting about spiritual beliefs....I do not think it would be wise to pick on religions anywhere...So lets put on our wiki mutual hug and move on shall weCoal town guy (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of File:George Went Hensley preaching.JPG

I have removed this file as it does not meet WP:NFCC for use on this article, mainly because it does not depict the actual act of snake handling, thus failing #8. Even if it did depict the act of snake handling, there are free equivalents available (e.g., the photo currently in use on the article), thus failing #1. The only articles where it would have a chance of meeting the criteria would be on George Went Hensley or an article about the trial itself. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. The image is specifically used in a section about the founding of the snake handling movement by George Hensley. It is used to show the person being discussed, during his protest of a snake-handling court case, so I do not believe it violates NFCC #8. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree also. The article should address the religious context of the snake handling movement - the ambiance - which the image so perfectly conveys. (Otherwise, its on par with roadside parks and alligator wrestling.) MathewTownsend (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree also. George Hensley is individually important to the snake handling movement, even in other churches than his own. I would agree though that it warrants adding to his article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. The image is both a picture of George Hensley, a person vital to the movement's development, and also relates to allegations of persecution of the practice. It is the most "famous" image of Hensley and illustrates the passions involved. The image is highly relevant to the subject's context. • Astynax ^talk 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Keep in mind, we're discussing whether or not the photo meets non-free content criteria, not simply whether or not the photograph is relevent to the article. Does it meet all 10 points at WP:NFCC? Bms4880 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Only #8 really seems to be at issue here. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

I would contend that Hensley was not only a snake-handling preacher, but was instrumental in encouraging the practice by others too. This photo of him preaching outside a courthouse during a trial against snake handling is important for the history of snake handling, the repression of it by the state, and Hensley's part in resisting this.

For use of the image on the Hensley article, it's also significant to show the literate assistant reading the Bible for the illiterate Hensley. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see

• Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_File:George_Went_Hensley_preaching.JPG
• Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Went_Hensley/archive2

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Legality" of snake handling in West Virginia

Snake Handling is NOT specifically mentioned in any WV law. The freedom was derived from the VA state Constitution and it was a product of Jefferson. The WV Constitution spells out religious freedon in Article 3, Section 15. The wording of this current article conveys the idea that oh, yes, in WV, there is a snake handling law, no.Coal town guy (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply saying "is legal" does not amount to "there's a law about it." That said, if you know of a source that actually ties the legality of snake handling to the WV constitution, that would be a very good addition to the article. Any court records or books on that subject that you know of? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert Bastress and his "The West Virginia Constitution: A Reference Guide: is tyhe best IMO...I will ref the articleCoal town guy (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Scripture refs

Most of the snake handling churches I have atteneded only refer to the Gospel of Mark, just a FYI for those who have not gone to such a serviceCoal town guy (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Risk, revisited

Hello all- Can anyone here, tell me the source, the verifiable source that there are people who snake handle in the Appalachians who have survived multiple snake bites by venomous snakes??? Hoe many, what number etc etc. Otherwise, this is reading no better than a badly written news article.Coal town guy (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

-Removing the bit about the crazy guy in Scottsboro. It doesn't really make sense to categorize such a specific incident as a risk. Is attempted murder a common risk associated with snakehandling? Of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.247.238 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

editing for class project

hi there all, I will be editing this page for a class project over the next few weeks, in conjunction with the wikiproject Appalachia page. Before I make any edits, I will outline my suggested improvements in my sandbox. If you're interested, please have a look and give me your suggestions. Thank you Emgiunta (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)emgiunta

WHY is there a list of churches

Am I to understand that there is a list of churches in this article that allow snake handling? WHAT is the source for this? ANY fundamentalist interpretation of the gospels could lead to such an activity in ANY church or revival or retreat etc etc. Whats the point honestly?Coal town guy (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have never been particularly comfortable with including that list, but they are all reliably sourced. BrineStans (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the provided are reliably refed. NOT ALL CHURCHESCoal town guy (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

WHY is there a list of churches

Am I to understand that there is a list of churches in this article that allow snake handling? WHAT is the source for this? ANY fundamentalist interpretation of the gospels could lead to such an activity in ANY church or revival or retreat etc etc. Whats the point honestly?Coal town guy (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have never been particularly comfortable with including that list, but they are all reliably sourced. BrineStans (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the provided are reliably refed. NOT ALL CHURCHESCoal town guy (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Death from snakebite=lack of faith?

The article currently contains the following sentence:

Those who die from snakebites are never criticized for lack of adequate faith; it is believed that it was simply the deceased's time to die.[19]

However, over at Church_of_God_with_Signs_Following, it says:

Over sixty cases of death as the result of snakebites in religious worship services have been documented in the United States. If a handler is bitten, it is generally interpreted as a lack of faith or failure to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. But individual incidents may actually be understood in a variety of ways.

So which is it? Only one case of the latter interpretation would be enough to refute the former wording with "never". Should we change it to "usually"? Str1977 ^(talk) 12:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge?

There also exists a rather strange article titled Church of God with Signs Following.

I say "rather strange" because that article covers two similar-named but distinct churches, though it is unclear whether these two churches still exist, as they are not mentioned in our list here.

However, the article bears the title of only of these churches, which ironically only gets three distinct lines in the entire article (concerned with George Went Hensley splitting from the Church of God (Cleveland). The other church, not represented by the article title, however gets three paragraphs of alltogether eight lines.

The rest of the article refers to "these churches" and pretty much threads the same grounds as this article here (beliefs and practices, deaths, legality, more doctrine, bible interpretation).

NB. The other article is mostly unsourced.

This propmpeted to ideas:

• either rename the article "Snake-handling churches" (or something along that line) - the List in this article (criticized above could then be moved there)
• or merge the entire [Church of God with Signs Following]] article into this article. This would mostly affect the history/origins section as most other material is already present here.

Thoughts? Str1977 ^(talk) 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WHY is there a list of churches

Am I to understand that there is a list of churches in this article that allow snake handling? WHAT is the source for this? ANY fundamentalist interpretation of the gospels could lead to such an activity in ANY church or revival or retreat etc etc. Whats the point honestly?Coal town guy (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have never been particularly comfortable with including that list, but they are all reliably sourced. BrineStans (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the provided are reliably refed. NOT ALL CHURCHESCoal town guy (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't archive this thread yet, Mr Bot! Str1977 ^(talk) 06:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Other religions

The article is titled "Snake handling in religion" - however it is almost exclusively concerned with Snake handling in Christianity, and more specifically in Pentecostal Christianity. Given the subject matter, that's fine but it doesn't well fit the title.

The "See also" links included links to the Ophites, a 2nd century Gnostic sect, and to Nag Panchami, a Hindu festival. Covering these would justify the current article a bit better.

I already included a short notice about the Ophites. Though their Christian credentials are questionable, they are at lest known from Christian sources.

But what about Nag Panchami? I see three option:

1. Create a section "Snake-handling in other religions".
2. include it into the intro (and move the Ophites up there too) and let the rest of the article be concerned with Pentecostal snakehandling. This would be basically be the same as option 1, just without a separate section
3. add a "This is about ... for ... see ..." note on the top. This would work best if the article was moved to "in Christianity".

Thoughts? Str1977 ^(talk) 12:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Christian serpent-handling tradition(s). JimRenge (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly you mean and why? I don't see right now how widening the scope of the article helps. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You wrote: "The article is titled "Snake handling in religion" - however it is almost exclusively concerned with Snake handling in Christianity, and more specifically in Pentecostal Christianity." I agree with you. Why? Because the title does not fit the content. Thats all I have to say. Good luck JimRenge (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is also linked from Orgia about ancient Greek rituals! 84.70.145.31 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge (implemented)

• ( User:Str1977 proposed this merge in February, 2021, but did not state their reasons )

• @HandThatFeeds: I did not propose this merge; Church of God with Signs Following already had a merge notice and I only put the template on the corresponding page where it was missing. I had assumed the proposer already started a discussion, but it seems not. Scyrme (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support (with caveats) - As a previous discussion on this page notes, the current article title does not reflect the content. The article is overwhelmingly about Christianity, not religion more broadly. I propose:

1. Church of God with Signs Following be first merged with this article;
2. the merged article be moved to Snake handling in Christianity;
3. the (scant) material irrelevant to Snake handling in Christianity be copied back over to Snake handling in religion which may have an excerpt and main article link to Snake handling in Christianity under a Christianity section heading.

I think this would be the best way to resolve the tangle here. Material from Church of God with Signs Following would not be out of place at Snake handling in Christianity. Scyrme (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Scyrme I agree with your proposals. Snake handling in Christianity is a better title for this article, and the (poorly cited) Church of God with Signs Following should be merged here. Your third proposal is also eminently sensible. Thanks for thinking this through, and making good, orderly, logical suggestions! Kind regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion died out in February with no consensus. Putting a template up with the February date was just inaccurate as it went no where, while implying that this discussion has gone on for months.

That said, since we're here and the merge proposal is on the table, I'll defer on the technical disagreement. I think the proposal to merge Church of God with Signs Following into here & rename to Snake handling in Christianity is a decent solution, so I Support it. That is, so long as there's no objection to the merge from folks on the Signs Following page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Given no objections were raised, I've now implemented the merge. Scyrme (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Scyrme, thanks for making the merge and for all the additional edits. (Wow!) I've located the book "Salvation on Sand Mountain" & plan to add page numbers to the Legal issues section, regarding Glen Summerford. There may be info to cite some other stmts in the article.

  I gather there are also legal issues regarding the capture of wild animals and animal cruelty concerns, so I will work on adding. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good; I split the legal issues into subsections since you plan on expanding it and it's already fairly long. Scyrme (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)