Talk:Christianity and violence

Rewrite

Having removed all that I am comfortable removing, we need to start on the rewrite.

One of the issues we have beat around but not moved much on is the focus of the article, reading this it runs from Violence by Christians, Violence against Christians, Non-violent Christians, so we seem to lack a focus and the article wanders around without much of a purpose to the point of wondering why it is here at all? This looks to be the result of "oh that would be nice" instead of planning through the article to a conclusion and thus having a strong well written article with a central theme and supporting themes.

Given the title I am assuming that we want the central theme to be about Christian sanctioned or supported violence, with the non-violence thesis as a counter point. There are plenty of examples of both, and it should contain about four thick paragraphs is support of that theme.

I propose a second theme, Christianity based violence to expand the religion or denomination of Christianity. The primary example the beginning of the 30 year war. It morphed into something very different but that just means it can be used again later. The Crusades provide an excellent example though land grabbing nobles were also part if it see below.

A possible third theme, Christianity invoked as a Causus Belli, for war mostly as a cover for expansion of territory by Kings, Emperors, Nations and Clergy. Here again this can include the 30 years war, Charlemagne's campaign against the Saxons (his own clergy were disapproving of it). The Serbian wars of expansion a modern example.

A possible forth theme, Christianity invoked as a cause to confiscate and enrich certain classes and to enforce class/societal roles, hardly the only religion so invoked (IE modern Iran), but the Spanish inquisition certainly would fit here as well as the rest of Europe and the witch hunts.

I believe this would serve to organize the article around events and we can concentrate on a few examples and still have room for counter arguments leading to a more balance article.

Where is everyone else's ideas on the future of the article?Tirronan (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to answer that question the same way that I did about a gazillion edits ago (and, by the way, I was toying with the idea of requesting full protection for the article a little while ago). Find secondary sources, preferably scholarly ones, that self-describe as being about Christianity and violence (the sources by Volf and Weaver are examples that come to mind), and cover what they say is within the scope of the subject. Speaking in general terms, I think that the themes you describe above are not unreasonable, but I would approach those decisions in the way that I just described. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means please expand on what you are saying so that I may complete my understanding of what you are proposing?Tirronan (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's proposal. I would word it as follows: We should not create an outline and then fill it in. Instead, we should (1) find sources that associate violence with Christianity (as Trypto says: "self-described" sources are best: that explicitly acknowledge that their own topic is that association); (2) read the sources; (3) distill the source material into an encyclopedic summary; (4) put that summary into the article; (5) organize the sections of the article into a hierarchy, based on evident and sensible groupings. In contrast, it is a speculative and probably wasteful for editors to try to establish an outline here in the Talk page before the sources have been analyzed, collated, and summarized. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Noleander explained that very well. The reason it's a little hard for me to expand much more is that I still need to do exactly that kind of reading. (Anyone who wants me to do it sooner, I accept personal checks! (joke)). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I had written a longer reply but it just got eaten by my browser and I don't feel like rewriting it. In brief, I agree with Noleander if the intent is to go after sources like the ones in the sections on "Definition of violence" and "Christianity as a violent religion". I wrote these two sections and they are (IMO) well-sourced and NPOV.

If you guys think it will improve the article to have a meaty stub consisting of "Definition of violence", "Christianity as a violent religion", "Christian teaching on violence" and "Christian non-violence", I am willing to go with that as an interim version until we have the summary that Noleander proposes. This means we would delete or comment out for now everything after the sections on "Christian teaching" and "non-violence". --Pseudo-Richard (talk)

(Edit conflict) I should comment that, if memory serves me, Volf and Weaver do not really look at the specific examples of violence much at all. They are more interested in providing a theological defense of Christianity than a historical analysis of the violent incidents. Those who do perform a historical analysis are much more likely to have what you guys would consider to be an anti-Christian POV. In general, those sources with an anti-Christian agenda are more likely to get into lists of specific examples where as Christian apologists are more likely to say "OK, the examples are well documented. We stipulate to those facts. Now, let's talk about whether Christianity is actually to blame for these evil actions." --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would concur with deleting all but the 4 sections Richard lists, but I'd like to hear from other editors before we take that step. I think such a "fresh start" would be of benefit to the article. All the material is in the history, so we can always retrieve it. --Noleander (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it matters that much. Everything is in the edit history, so we can always get things back. Sometimes it's better to just let it sit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK... I removed all but the sections that we agreed to keep. My major heartburn had been around Tirronan's deletion of the sections on "Definition of violence" and "Christianity as a violent religion". Even those are not that well-written although they are adequately sourced and NPOV. If someone wrote a more concise summary, I'd be happy to see that replace the current quotefarmy text. I'm not wedded to the specific text of those sections. I just think we need to establish that this topic is not just POV OR that someone thought up as anti-Christian polemic. There is real scholarly debte over whether Christianity is a violent religion. We should present that debate. I'm more than willing to discuss and negotiate the specific examples and how they are presented. Personally, I'm OK with Tirronan's categories but I'd like to see at least one source that uses that breakdown before we go forward with it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was the text on capital punishment for blasphemy and the mention of Thomas Aikenhead deleted? He was the last person in Britain to be executed by the Christian authorities for blasphemy. I would've thought that was worth a mention in an article on Christianity and Violence. Josh Keen (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Iron Guard relation too marginal

The article Iron Guard says: The Iron Guard (Romanian: Garda de fier) is the name most commonly given to a far-right movement and political party in Romania in the period from 1927 into the early part of World War II. The Iron Guard was ultra-nationalist, anti-communist who promoted the Orthodox Christian faith. It is also considered an antisemitic organization, an ideologist of which even going as far as to demand an introduction of “state anti-semitism”[1]. and Historian Stanley G. Payne writes in his study of Fascism, "The Legion was arguably the most unusual mass movement of interwar Europe."[3] The Legion contrasted with most other European fascist movements of the period in its overt religiosity (in the form of an embrace of the Romanian Orthodox religion). According to Ioanid, the Legion "willingly inserted strong elements of Orthodox Christianity into its political doctrine to the point of becoming one of the rare modern European political movements with a religious ideological structure."

This describes a political movement that just happens to be Christian. That is, the movement "promoted" Christianity and "embraced" Christianity; but Christianity was not the source of the group; nor did Christianity's texts or doctrines play a role in the group's violence (the group was, indeed, violent). Did Christian leaders play a role in this political movement? No. Did Christian texts serve as a major focus of the political movement? No. Many, many wackos embrace religion: criminals, etc. We do not attribute such embrace to the religion itself. I suggest replacing the section with a "See also" link. --Noleander (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is another way to consider the point I'm making: the sources must make a direct association with Christianity and violence:

Christianity <---> Violence

It is not sufficient that the sources make an indirect linkage that involves a double leap:

Christianity <----> Iron Guard <----> Violence

In the case of Iron Guard, we have a group that is associated with violence; and the group is also associated with Christianity. But the sources discussing the Iron Guard do not explicitly say things like "The Iron Guard used Christian doctrines to justify torturing their enemies". Therefore, including the Iron Guard in this article is OR and POV because it implies to the reader that there is a direct association, when there is not. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point, there are way too many things being evaluated for me to keep up, but let me just note by way of a sort of placeholder, that I think I remember reading something that would support the identification of these groups as being actually Christian in motivation (although I could be misremembering). But let me caution against ruling out content on the basis that the parties were (in the opinions of editors) wackos, criminals, etc. The fact that the interpretation of Christianity as supporting violence may be "incorrect" in some cases does not make it out of scope for this page. Down that road lies the argument that "Christianity teaches nonviolence, so this page shouldn't exist, because any such violence wasn't really Christian". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if someone can provide a source saying "This group's motivation was Christian; and they were a violent group; and their Christian motivation contributed to their violent attitude because blah, blah, ..." then I would support inclusion of this material. But there were only 2 sources, and neither made a claim like that. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to go back and check the archives but I think I proposed deleting the Iron Guard section a few months ago and someone argued that it should be kept so I dropped the point because there were (IMO) bigger fish to fry. I still think it should be deleted but I'll let you guys hash it out. I would like to ask how this differs from the killing of abortion doctors. If those who kill abortion doctors are using their Christian beliefs as their motivation and justification, then wouldn't that also qualify that topic for inclusion in the article? (NB: I don't have a particularly strong desire to include anti-abortion in this article; I'm just suggesting that the "Christian motivation" criterion doesn't seem to be applied consistently here.) I thought the criterion was that Christian leaders had to be involved. I seem to remember that there was an archbishop who was quoted as approving and even inciting the violence of the Iron Guard. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

From previous text:

“ The Iron Guard, also known as the Legion of the Archangel Michael, was an Orthodox Christian anti-Semitic fascist movement in Romania. It splintered from the National-Christian Defense League, and was, unlike similar European fascist movements of the time, overtly religious. According to Ioanid, the Legion "willingly inserted strong elements of Orthodox Christianity into its political doctrine to the point of becoming one of the rare modern European political movements with a religious ideological structure." The Iron Guard justified their actions through claims that "Rabbinical aggression against the Christian world" was undermining society. According to Tinichigiu, the Iron Guard was a terror organization, which carried out terrorist activities and political murders. The Iron Guard were active participants in the Romanian Holocaust and carried out the Bucharest pogrom.

Nichifor Crainic, Professor at the Faculty of Theology, University of Bucharest, developed various theological justifications arguing "that the Old Testament was not Jewish, that Jesus had not been Jewish, and that the Talmud, which he saw as the incarnation of modern Jewry, was, first and foremost, a weapon to combat the Christian Gospel and to destroy Christians." Crainic played a critical role in the formation of the National Christian Party from the National-Christian Defense League, and became its general secretary. Between 1935 and 1937 the paramilitary division of the National Christian Party, the Lăncieri, were responsible for numerous acts of brutality against Jews.

The Romanian Orthodox Church had strong antisemitic leanings, both in its senior hierarchy and among local clergy. Conflict was encouraged by its leaders; Patriarch Miron Cristea said "One has to be sorry for the poor Romanian people, whose very marrow is sucked out by the Jews. Not to react against the Jews means that we go open-eyed to our destruction... To defend ourselves is a national and patriotic duty" and "The duty of a Christian is to love himself first and to see that his needs are satisfied. Only then can he help his neighbor... Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them."

”

Legion of the Archangel Michael - an offshoot from the National-Christian Defense League - with a "religious ideological structure", that officially justified it's violence with claims that "Rabbinical aggression against the Christian world" was undermining society. Not religious?

Lăncieri - the paramilitary wing of the National Christian Party. Official documents proclaimed Christianity and encouraged violence against Jews based on their religion. Not religious?

I don't understand how it can be argued that a group is not religious in nature, when its very name (Army of a Christian Angel) is inherently religious. Josh Keen (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OR tag on "Blasphemy"

I did not intentionally delete the OR tag on the "Blasphemy" section. If I did, it was collateral damage from my reversion of the massive deletion and I apologize if some valid tags or edits got clobbered in the process. FWIW, this is the point that I was trying to make about Tirronan's massive deletion. I think that deletion clobbered a lot of good stuff along with the bad. Also, for what it's worth, there are many sections that were in the pre-deletion article that were not mine. Much of my work was re-organizing existing text in the article along major themes such as suppression of heresies, slavery and anti-semitism. The blasphemy and homosexuality sections were already in the article when I started working on it. (Or they were in the version that existed at the time of the 2nd AFD; I'm not 100% sure right now). If there is a consensus to remove those sections, I will not object. I was never too happy with them. I just didn't want to delete the work of other editors without prior discussion.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No worriesTirronan (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins

Dawkins is quoted in the article. Dawkins is a great science writer/popularizer, though he really shouldn't be quoted even in science articles except for introductory material. He is a researcher, as we are, not a scientist per se. He hates religion. Doesn't really have any qualifications there at all particularly. Quoting him is like Quoting Osama bin Ladin on the Fed monetary policy or something. Or Rush Limbaugh, as an "expert", on Michele Obama's dietary habits. Bizarre IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I observe that those who accuse Dawkins of hating religion tend to hate Dawkins. All this hating is very un-Christian. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is about WP:RELY. What credentials does Dawkins have above all other commentators on religion except that he hates religion and writes about it? There are atheists out there who did not hate religion and who have actual credentials. Take Richard Feynman (a physicist and not a commentator on religion, I admit) for example. He was an atheist and commented on religion without hatred. It is possible to be npov and write on religion. Not possible for Dawkins in anything I've read. How is Dawkins npov? And what are his credentials on anything, including science. Great writer. Poor WP:RELY. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the debate regarding the relationship of Christianity to violence. There is a spectrum of viewpoints on this topic. At one end of the spectrum, you have Christian apologists who argue that Christianity is a peaceful religion and that acts of violence by Christians or even fomented by Christian religious leaders are incompatible and in conflict with the precepts of the religion. At the other end of the spectrum, you have critics of Christianity who postulate that Christianity is inherently a violent religion. Some argue that all religions are violent, others argue that monotheistic religions are more violent than pantheistic ones and some argue that Abrahamic religions, Christianity in particular, have violence in their philosophical DNA (i.e. violence is not an aberration, it's a natural result of the religion's worldview).

Dawkins is a leading proponent of atheism and a critic of religion, Abrahamic religions in particular. As such, his views are eligible to be presented in this article. Is he the best proponent for the "Christianity is a violent religion" POV? Perhaps not. We can debate the relative merits of Feynman (who is dead and not much in the public media) vs. Dawkins (who is alive and very much in the public media). However, "not hating religion" is not one of the criteria for inclusion in this article.

WP:NPOV does not say that all sources must have a "neutral point of view". It says that Wikipedia articles should take a "neutral point of view", presenting all significant points of view without giving any of them undue weight. NPOV means that the article must not take sides in the debate. We should not attempt to decide whether Christianity is or is not a violent religion. We should simply document the debate without attempting to resolve it.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree about pov. Disagree about scholarly. One problem with any "compilist" is that Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. So is Dawkins. We need scholarly secondary sources. Usually opinion sources are not useful. And some, being opinionated, are even less useful. I think it degrades the scholarship and quality of the discussion. A Feynman uplifts it. And if being alive were the major criterion for referencing, we would be missing many useful contributions. When it comes to theology or beliefs on religion, hardly anything is being written today that is much different than a century ago. Books on theology or philosophy never become obsolete. It's not like computer technology. The latest is not necessarily the greatest. Student7 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There are more than two sides to this issue and so it is not necessarily a situation where we have to choose between Dawkins and Feynman. We could use them both. If there is a substantial public debate over the topic, it is not necessary that all our sources be "scholarly". Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Barack Obama are not "scholars" and yet they have something to say about peace and violence (I'm not suggesting that we quote them in this article; I'm just saying that you need not be a scholar to be a source.) I'm not fixated on using Dawkins; I just don't think "non-scholarly" is a sufficient argument against using him as a source. There might well be better sources to use. For example, Bertrand Russell is a notable anti-Christian; if he said anything pertaining to the topic of Christianity and violence, we might consider using that. Find a better source and then be WP:BOLD and insert it. If there are any issues with your insertion, we can always discuss it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if you believe that Dawkins is on the same plane as Socrates, Epicurus, and Bertrand Russell, feel free. Too bad there isn't some criterion delimiting derivative, tertiary "reporting" from scholarly fact-based observations using primary material. Does "An Ancestor's Tale" make him a botanist or a paleontologist? Student7 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)