Talk:Christianity and violence

Slavery

The only reservation I have is to possible overplay of the slavery issue. I remember reading some historical sources saying that the greatest majority of published material regarding slavery in the US is about slavery in the large plantations and other locations where there were multiple slaves, because those locations were both closer to the literary world and more generally more likely to appear in RS's. However, the greatest number of slaves in the US were held by those who owned only a few slaves, and that, partially because of the expense, those slaves tended to be treated better than plantation slaves, often on a par with "farm hands" in general, and sometimes even marrying/legitimately interbreeding with the owners. I acknowledge that this view is probably presented primarily in "slavery apologetics" sources, but those sources do seem to have the sources to verify their positioon. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What you say may be true... however, IMO, the discussion doesn't turn on whether or not slaves were treated well but rather turns on the question of whether or not slavery, even slavery on a par with being a "farm hand", is violence. If the slave could not leave of his own free will or have his children leave of his own free will, then some measure of coercion is in play. If the slave could be sold, then there is certainly coercion. A progressive might argue that serfs and workers in "company towns" also had restricted freedoms and so this is a slippery slope but the typical distinction is that slavery is different from other forms of employment servitude. This is characterized by many scholars as "systemic violence". (I prefer the phrase "institutionalized violence" but it's the same idea.) --22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian Pacifism

Some reference to the historic Christian resistance to war and military service, and the peace churches would seem to be relevant. I'm not yet convinced that we should omit all references to Christians who opposed violence.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you. Practically speaking, I'm not sure how we could add more material in that direction. The section on Christian teaching already has a section on Non violence as a Christian doctrine which links to the articles on Christian pacifism and Peace churches. Do you want to expand that section to discuss these topics in more detail? I'm open to the idea except I thought the idea was to reduce article length not increase it. If you think there are important points that are missing and need to be made in that section, be bold and add it. --Richard S (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that we have two short paragraphs on non-violence as a Christian doctrine, in an article which is over 20 pages long. I question that this is sufficient. I agree that the idea is to reduce the length of the article. This can be done by rewriting each section so that it actually analyses the relationship between violence and Christianity with regard to each topic, instead of just padding the sections with as many examples of Christian violence as we can find. For example, no witch hunting statistics need be included. The background is already covered in the witch hunt article, which can be linked. That section should instead discuss how changes in Christian doctrine contributed to the witch hunts, and how Christians who retained the original doctrine were not involved in the witch hunts and even protested them. It should also discuss how a later change in Christian doctrine contributed to the decline of witch hunts, and how their brief late resurgence resulted from the Enlightenment.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmmph... I think we need the very top-level statistics on approximately how many were executed as witches. It's important to communicate to the reader that this wasn't just a few hundred witches. (Of course, there are some sources who argue that the estimates of people executed is way over-exaggerated.)

It sounds like you know a lot more about the topic of witch-hunts and witch trials than I do. Perhaps you could rework the section to cover the points you raised above.

Similarly, I'm OK with you expanding the section on Christian pacifism. I wanted to do that but I was afraid of meeting resistance from other editors. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion on this before going too far down that road.

--Richard S (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Top level statistics certainly, we can mention the scholarly consensus of 40-60,000 killed, but we don't need the details of individual trials such as Salem and Torsåker. We can cover the duration and death figures in a single sentence. I'll see what I can write up.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find this discussion enlightening. I'm not saying that the treatment of the topic in the current version of the article is perfect. However, you might find it useful to review what other editors have said on this topic. I believe we should mention pacifism but other editors think it is weird to discuss the topic in an article about violence. --Richard S (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If the topic of this article is the analysis of the extent to which Christianity is violent, then Christian pacifism must be mentioned. If I want to determine if A is more B or more C, I can't start by excluding all evidence for C and select all evidence for B, then conclude "Yes, 100% of the evidence supports the idea that A is more B than it is C". Similarly, if this article is analyzing the extent to which Christianity is violent, then it not only needs to address systematically the essential way in which Christianity as a religion caused or contributed to acts of violence, it also needs to refer to Christian pacifism. As you said in that discussion, "we should discuss the tension between Christian pacificism ("turn the other cheek", "love your neighbor") and militant Christianity (e.g. the Crusades,"Just War Doctrine")".--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It was good to look back at that earlier talk thread, which applies very well today. I agree with Taiwan boi's analysis. I would also add that this is a big part of why I would advocate restoring to the See also section the links to pages about violence against Christians. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think that restoring the "See also" links to articles about "violence against Christians" should only be done in conjunction with a discussion of "violence against Christians". We need not say a lot but I think we need to say something. I have to confess that my personal perspective is that Christians have had a persecution complex which affects their attitudes towards violence. That is, a focus on being persecuted can sometimes blind them to the fact that they themselves are persecutors. I've seen some hints along these lines in my research but not much and so, to avoid being accused of original research, I have not introduced this idea into the article. If anyone can recommend sources that make this argument more explicitly, I would appreciate hearing about them. --Richard S (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Military orders

It came to me that any discussion of Christianity and violence should include at least a mention of military orders such as the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller. However, because this article is already over-long, it seemed infeasible to say anything substantive about each group so I just wrote a single short paragraph describing what a military order was and mentioning these three groups as famous examples. If anyone thinks we need more than that, then please be bold and edit the section. We can discuss the edit afterwards if necessary. --Richard S (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely they should be included. However, the doctrinal basis on which they were founded needs to be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs)

Umm... other than the doctrine of "Holy War"? Should that be mentioned again in this section? I don't know a lot about this topic so any help you can give would be appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, other than the doctrine of Holy War. All three of these orders were initially formed to provide protection and medical care for pilgrims, nothing to do with Holy War (the Hospitallers in particular were initially a monastic order which did not even bear arms). It was only later that the Templars came to be used in the Crusades to attempt the recapture of territory (this was indeed Holy War), and the Hospitallers were later used even against other Christians (this was not Holy War). The history of these orders is complex. The Hospitallers were eventually divided into two groups, the knights (used for Holy War), and the monastic Hospitallers (whose only service was to provide medical care). So it was entirely possible to be a member of the Knights Hospitaller and not bear arms.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The doctrine of "Just War" is also relevant.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Witch hunts

I have completely reworked the section on the witch hunts. It is still a work in progress, and I am planning to move some of the material to the main witch hunt article, whilst adding a few more references. I have kept the focus of this section explicitly on the manner in which Christian doctrine contributed significantly to the witch hunts.--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the new text is an improvement over what was there before. I would like to suggest that the section explain why witch-hunts ended. Are there any reliable sources that propose any theories in this regard? --19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there's plenty of literature on the reason for the end of the witch hunts. Like the rise of the witch hunts, it's a complex combination of factors, and as with my previous work in this section I will only address those factors in which Christianity was directly involved (such as the return of Christian doctrine to skepticism of witches and witchcraft, and a diminution of the role of Satan).--Taiwan boi (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We should also add the recent cases of witch burnings. eg. [1]. There are many more recent/contemporary cases from different parts of the world.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if there are enough represented in WP:RS to make it notable. I'll go looking for all the witch burnings by Christians in New York in the last 10 years right now. The relevant scholarly commentary must be replete with such incidents.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, but we must be careful to avoid recentism. We also risk performing original research and synthesis by relying on anecdotal evidence from primary sources. Let's make sure to look for scholarly secondary sources. If you don't find significant scholarly discussion of modern-day witch-hunts as examples of violence by Christians, let's put more recent instances of witch hunts in the Witch-hunt article. --Richard S (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently reading the UNHCR report on witch hunts around the world. It's clear that the vast majority of the recent witch hunts by Christians have occurred in the last 20 years, almost all in Africa, and are attributed (by the UNHCR report itself), to social breakdown triggers (including war, famine, and disease), which locals are attempting to address using traditional means (witch hunts), and that some African evangelical churches are offering witch finding and exorcism services. However, I haven't found any reference yet to African Christian churches conducting witch hunts and burning people. I'll keep looking.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Would these be coatrack too?[2][3]. These incidents have been reported widely enough to be notable. (I could provide more reports of these incidents.) And news reports are not primary sources. Government/police reports are. As for recentism, I think, it should be sufficient to wait until next year before we include the report from Ghana in the previous link?-Civilizededucation^talk 13:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The UNHCR report I cited was published in January 2009, and makes reference to numerous news reports, government reports, and police reports, so it's a relevant WP:RS. I'd rather use that than point people to Youtube and give them a personal editorial.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course the UNHRC report is an RS. So are most news reports. I think we should use both. The UN report for some wordings, and then some news reports, to provide support to what it says.-Civilizededucation^talk 19:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Taiwan boi that the UNHCR report is likely to be more reliable than newspaper reports and Youtube videos.

Not all reliable sources are equally reliable and they are often only reliable within a limited scope. A newspaper report about one witch being burned with gasoline is just that... anecdotal evidence about one incident. One swallow does not a summer make. You could string together 100 such news reports and still have only anecdotal evidence and you would be performing original research asserting that all 100 reports were equally reliable and that all 100 reports involved the same kind of incident.

What you need is people who are experts in the field with training in data collection and analysis. This is what makes the UNHRC report likely to be far more reliable than any number of newspaper reports. The newspaper reports only establish that a specific incident occurs. I haven't seen the UNHRC report but it presumably provides evidence that this is a phenomenon that is neither localized nor transient in time i.e. it's important enough to include in their annual report. (P.S. to Taiwan boi - can you provide a link to an online copy of the report?)

Now, I would guess that the UNHRC is mostly interested in violations of human rights and they might or might not assert a link between the witch-hunt and Christianity. If a Christian accuses his neighbor of being a witch and burns her, how can we be sure what role Christianity played in the incident? Now, if a pastor preaches against witchcraft and participates in a witch-hunt, we have a bit of a closer link but how do we know that this is not a renegade pastor? Can we indict Christianity on the basis of the actions of one, two even 50 pastors? What's needed is an analysis beyond just collecting data regarding number of incidents. I don't know how deeply the UNHRC report goes into these issues. My guess is that they are more interested in reporting and preventing human rights violations and less interested in the theology and sociology of the phenomenon. (But I could be wrong; which is why it would help to see the actual text of the report)

What would be great would be to find a scholarly book that discusses witch-hunts and Christianity in the modern era.

--Richard S (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's some sources from Google Books:

• Ashforth, Adam (2005). Witchcraft, violence, and democracy in South Africa. University of Chicago Press. p. 271.

• Tull, Denis (2005). The reconfiguration of political order in Africa: a case study of North Kivu. GIGA-Hamburg.

--Richard S (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The UNHCR report is here. There are far fewer cases of Christian inspired witch hunts than Civilizededucation would like to see, but unfortunately that's the reality. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians in Africa aren't hunting witches.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I like to see these things? And where did I try to make out that the vast majority of Christians in Africa are witch hunters? Please do not engage in strawman arguments, and please do not make preposterous suggestions.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you like seeing these things any more than I do, but I do actually believe it pleases you to see evidence of Christians involved in witch hunts, which is why you went looking for them so they could be included in this article. I didn't claim you tried to make out that the vast majority of Christians in Africa are witch hunters.--Taiwan boi(talk) 01:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking for reports of an incident which took place 3-4 years ago, at a village around where I live. A pastor had burned 6-7 women to death on charges of witchcraft. Instead, I ended up finding reports like these.[4] It's not that I like such reports.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That link you just provided shows how tenuous the connection is between these modern witch hunts and Christianity. It even identifies the people responsible as belonging to a renegade church.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@Taiwan boi - OK... thanks for the link. I skimmed it very quickly and, as I suspected, the author is more interested in identifying "risk groups" (i.e women, elderly, children and albinos) and says almost nothing about linking witch-hunts to Christianity. I did a search in the document for the word "Christian" and it only appears 5 times. The author does not seem to make any attempt to link witch-hunts to Christianity although some of the witch-hunts in her anecdotes do involve Christians.

I think my work on this article establishes that I have no problem "telling like it is" when the Church has fomented or supported violence. However, reading the UNHRC report and doing some Google searching (including in Google Books) has not shown evidence of a clear linkage between Christianity and witch-hunting in the modern world.

The author acknowledges that a belief in witchcraft is important in Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu contexts. She also asserts that the Salem witch trials occurred in a "broader context of military and political crisis". Some Christians (particularly in the developing countries) do engage in witch-hunts. However, the UNHRC report does not establish a linkage between such activity and Christian churches.

I think we would do better to focus on witch-hunts in the medieval and early modern eras. I think the UNHRC report might be useful as a source for the article on Witch-hunts in general.

--Richard S (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes the author is assessing current global witch hunts, not focusing solely on Christian inspired witch hunts. One reason why the report does not establish a linkage between witch hunts and Christian churches is that such a link is highly tenuous. Not only are there relatively few instances of it taking place, where they do take place is within a complex mixture of existing traditional non-Christian views on witchcraft which are simply retained when people are "Christianized". Even in Africa there aren't any witch hunts being caused by Christians in places where no witch hunts existed previously. One of the books to which you linked even makes the point that mainstream Christian missionaries in Africa "have long preached that witchcraft does not exist" and that people "know they ought not to believe in witches" ("Witchcraft, violence, and democracy in South Africa", p. 124), but that this has failed to overcome existing traditional beliefs. I have no problem telling it how it is either, but the fact is that there's no solid link between modern Christianity and modern witch hunts. Fringe Christian groups like extremist evangelical and Pentecostal groups certainly provide a theological environment in which such beliefs are encouraged, but they are hardly representative of Christianity as a whole. One of the links which Civilizededucation provided mentioned witch hunts in PNG, where 96% of the population is Christian. This supposedly establishes a connection between witch hunts and Christianity, but what wasn't mentioned is that in the PNG it is actually illegal to persecute and kill people for witchcraft. It wouldn't be difficult to establish a connection between Christianity and modern witch hunts if the evidence actually existed.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tenuous? The revivalist churches play a role in amplifying conflicts within the family. They offer no explanation other than child witchcraft.[5] Do you see a link here?-Civilizededucation^talk 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilized, I think the problem here is one of perspective. In this article, we are mostly talking about linkages between Christianity as a whole (or at least a major branch of Christianity e.g. the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc.) and violence. In the article from The Times, we are talking about a linkage between some African churches (revivalist churches) and violence. The question is not just about reliable sources (though I do have my doubts about the reliability of a single newspaper article) but also one of whether this particular topic (Christianity and witchcraft in the modern era) belongs in this article. I could imagine discussing the content of the article from The Times in the article titled Witch-hunt or a new article titled Christianity and witchcraft. However, putting it in this article seems like it would be a little out of place. It would be like discussing a local hill in a book that described the great mountains of the world. There has to be some kind of parity of the topics or else the article starts to seem like even more of a hodge-podge than it already is. --Richard S (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, tenuous. Remember, we're supposed to be investigating the link between modern witch hunts and Christianity, not just "revivalist churches". I already said myself "Christian groups like extremist evangelical and Pentecostal groups certainly provide a theological environment in which such beliefs are encouraged", but I also noted "they are hardly representative of Christianity as a whole". Looking at these modern witch hunts we find one primary common factor, which is Africa, and one secondary common factor, which is social breakdown. In other words we find exactly what we find in the Early Modern witch hunts; such hunts cannot take place without an existing belief in maleficium (in this case supplied by African tradition), an existing belief that witches must be hunted and punished (in this case supplied by African tradition), and trigger events such as social breakdown (in this case supplied by Africans). The fact that the churches involved are invariably indigenous African churches (not foreign-run churches), simply reinforces the point. Africans have been hunting and killing witches for years without any need for encouragement by Christianity, and the fact that a number of them continue to do so after becoming "Christianized" is hardly surprising. The fact that certain fringe Christian groups carry beliefs which foster the existing tradition is also not surprising, but there's no causative link here with Christianity as a whole. Out of around 2 billion Christians globally, how many are hunting and killing witches? Even if 20,000,000 Christians were currently involved in hunting and killing witches, that would still only be one percent of all Christians. I'm happy to include any statements from WP:RS that demonstrably link modern witch hunts causatively to Christianity.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Stark

Rodney Stark is identified in the article as a Catholic apologist. Do we have a source for this identification? Stark was raised a Lutheran and described himself in 2007 as an "independent Christian". When did he become a Catholic, and then an apologist? The reference to Stark in the "Christianity and violence" article is dated to 2003, while he was still an agnostic.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... that was pretty bad. Mea culpa. I've fixed it. Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and violence part of WikiProject Atheism?

Does anyone know why this article is part of the WikiProject Atheism and of mid-importance?