Talk:Censorship by religion
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
- 1 Comments
- 2 move to "religious censorship"?
- 3 AFD debate link
- 4 NPOV
- 5 Badly-named topic
- 6 Rename article to "Censorship and religion"
- 7 Organizing and Improving List of Examples
- 8 Subject of article seems confused
- 9 "Religious controversies" article may address some of the previous concerns
- 10 Perfect Marriage
- 11 Acts 19:19
- 12 Evolution/Judaism
- 13 In Judaism
- 14 Move request
I think this should go up for VfD. At best, it should be redirected and/or merged. At worst, it should be deleted. Comments? -- A Link to the Past 09:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm.. maybe it should just be tidied up and merged with the "blasphemy law" section of blasphemy, as religiously-motivated censorship tends to be of things considered blasphemous. However, censorship links to this article, so perhaps it should be expanded? --StoatBringer 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
As written, this is nothing more than an anti-religous screed. None of the assertions are documented, and it is biased against the traditional mono-theistic religious of the western tradition. It should be removed, until someone can come forward to produce a scholarly analysis of the topic. --TheJeffMiller 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Pull the plug like you're startin a mower. DELETE! ToddCrowder 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
have removed some pov material, which may be re-inserted in npov form. do not think this article shld be deleted, but agree that it requires lots of rewriting and expansion.
do not think this shld be merged with blasphemy. while censorship of blasphemous material is certainly censorship by organised religion, the latter includes lots more, importantly, censorship of opposition/dissention to religious authority and leaders, which is not strictly blasphemy (as i understand).
this short list of examples shows the significance and scope of this article.
- heliocentric theory - conflicts b/w science and religion
- satanic verses - ditto arts
- taliban, iran ... etc. theocratic states' use of this form of censorship to suppress disssent
- the inquisition
- censorship of pornography ... etc, religious versus moral basis for.
- current debate on US TV censorship - profanity, sex ... etc and its link to the christian conservative base.
have voted to keep the article, and hoping that it improves considerably. Doldrums 12:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we ought to maybe add the suppression of Darwinism to this article.
move to "religious censorship"?
the "organised" qualifier is unnecesary, i think, especially with the rewritten definition the article starts with. Doldrums 04:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
If you want to include Salman Rushdie you'll have to. Islam is not an "organized" religion, despite common misconception. Or at least sunni Islam. I often find that the phrase "organized religion" is more often than not a weasle way of reffering to Abrahamic faiths despie the fact that numerous religions implied are not organized, there are plenty of smaller sects of Christianity which are not organized for example. Either define organized, or don't use it. I don;t recommend trying to define it either. Angrynight 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. The word "organized" in the title is a problem. "religious censorship" Or "censorship by religion"?DanielDemaret 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"Censorship by religion" is more appropriate since more general - it dosen't focus on why the censoring is done (which is clear in the expression "religious censorship"). / Abjad 23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
So let's put it up to a vote, then.Angrynight 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"Despite modern conservative Christian perceptions that there is a War on Christmas, " This statement should be removed. I agree with the renaming of the article. Android1st 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections I will move the article in one week. Angrynight 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Article moved Angrynight 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
This article seems biased against Christianity.The article in the first few paragraphs describes censorship but then goes on for the rest of the article to describe ways the Christian church has censored things.Serenacw 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don;t have the time or means to fix it, but I tagged this as POV because all it seems to do is focus on the Catholic church, and is extremely negative. I also added a globalize tag because of this. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And I have removed some off-topic stuff: as deplorable as the Albigensian crusades might be, they do NOT constitute a form of censorship. Also, the passages about the Inquisition were ill-informed, off-topic and POV. I also separeted the Gospel of Thomas bit from the Index, as that book was long lost before anybody thought up an Index. Still, there remain heavy problems of POV. Str1977 (smile back) 08:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Only an entity with political power can truly "censor"; meaning that each and every case of so-labeled "religious censorship" is actually government censorship. If the religious entity in question overtly controls a government, then to refer to it is (merely) "religious" rather than political is to withhold crucial context. OTOH, if the religious entity is enforcing its edicts, fatwas, etc., extra-legally, and violently forbids apostasy, then labeling them as anything other than terrorist also withholds crucial context.
Rename article to "Censorship and religion"
Then it could incorporate both censorship by religious authorities and censorship of religion by non-religious authorities. 126.96.36.199 11:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Really? But who censors religion? As far as I'm concerned, religion is all around this fucking world and IT judges and censors everything else!!!
I would agrre, the title as it stands now sounds like it refers to a list, which isn't the case. And as mentionned by the above editor, it isn't only governments which censor religions. Sfacets 01:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Organizing and Improving List of Examples
While I know that some groups have advocated censorship against Brokeback Mountain and The Golden Compass that belong to Abrahamic religions isn't it a bit much to say Abramamic religions in general? Honestly, I was under the impression that only a few fundamentalist groups even bothered to speak out against the movies. Should references be given for the censorship examples? And also the example from the bible doesn't quite fit into the list. Should it be moved to a new section such as "Examples of Censoship in the Bible" or maybe a broader "Examples of Censorship in Religious Texts"? --Deepraine (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Subject of article seems confused
This article seems to be attempting to deal with several different things at once. There are a few internal conflicts in the article, which seem to me to be to its detriment.
The article names as "censorship" the condemnation of works of art or science by religious groups, irrespective of how powerful those religious groups may be. Hence the condemnation of The Satanic Verses, which bore with it a very real threat of murder backed by a national government, is set alongside the condemnation of the Harry Potter books by religious advocacy groups with no such power.
Likewise it treats similarly instances of "censorship" which actually led to the legally-mandated destruction or unavailability of works, and instances which merely amount to a group putting forth its opinion that the works in question are not morally suitable. This lends itself to one of the worst fallacies that arises in discussions of "censorship": the claim that disapproval of a work is morally equivalent to violent suppression of that work. --FOo (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Religious controversies" article may address some of the previous concerns
I have created the Religious controversies article. It should be used for both censored and controversial cases since they can be one and the same. Some of the items in the Example section may heave to be moved there - hence the disputed tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any record of a book entitled The Perfect Marriage, muchless it being considered banned. Is this confusion with the banned sex manual s:Married Love which was banned in the United States? I don't have a copy of the Index to check the veracity. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's apparently a Dutch book from the 1930's- the real title is "Het volkomen huwelijk". There's more detail at the author's article here, but it's still short references. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Note that the example in Acts 19:19 is new converts is bringing their own scolls to be burned. I can see how this could still be considered a limited form of censorship, but how is it a good example censorship, and thus one that needs to be in the article? --Carlaude:Talk 08:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - its more like burning your own flag. Some people might not like it, but they are your own books - its more a freedom of expression. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no censorship under Judaism concerning evolution yet the article reads:
- That is incorrect. Many Orthodox Jewish day-schools do, in fact, censor text books from anything saying "millions" of years old, and do not teach evolution. Take it from me, i've been to yeshiva. User:sanhedrinmakos 10:50, 3 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by עזרא משה (talk • contribs)
I think this page should be moved to Religious censorship which is currently an edited REDIRECT page, so the move can be done only by administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - This is a more common name for this concept, and would agree with the format for Corporate censorship & Political censorship. While at the same time not precluding this page from being the main for Category:Censorship by religion. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support - The phrase "censorship by religion" is used very rarely outside of Wikipedia. Jarble (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I support the move if the word "censorship" is retained in the title, but would like to point out a distinction in determining the scope of the article and organizing it coherently. There's a difference between a religious authority placing a ban or prohibition on a book or other work (of which a fatwa is an example) and having the power to censor a text or performance by successfully demanding that portions of it be removed or suppressing it altogether. The Satanic Verses wasn't censored; Rushdie got to publish the text as he wished. It was placed under a religious prohibition. As a user points out above, a religious authority can't censor (that is, actually suppress content) unless it also has the political power to do so. Examples might include the role of Roman Imperial authority in determining the canon of the New Testament, with several gospels relegated to apocryphal status; the Spanish Inquisition; Muslim countries that control the availability of books and movies based on whether they conform to the state's religious preferences; and perhaps (though this is only arguably religious in nature) the Israeli ban on imported Arabic books produced in enemy states. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)