Talk:Ethnoreligious group

Other groups

Old Order German-Russian mennonites that live in South America could also be descibed as an ethno-religious sub-group because i've heard they do not mixs, and do not want to mixs with other religions, cultures, and races.

Also some fundamentalist mormons ("not all") consider themselves a tribe and will not mixs with other religions or races.

There are also Black Israelites who are united by race and religion.

Some Old Russian believers that normally stay with their own religion and culture.

Hutterites are another group which normally stays with their own even though they are very liberal on allowing groups, and people into their religion even if it has nothing do with their culture. But even with that said majority of Hutterites stay with the same culture, and language.

Even among Jews there are different sects of Jews are even more ethno-religious then their counterpart.

In the Arab world The Bedouin are mostly united by a traditional culture and Islam, though the community of this group has slowly been intergrating.

There are probably dozens of African, Central Asian, and Native American groups which are united by race and religion.

So I think a few more groups could be added, probably to many groups out there that fit the entho-religion discription. Just thought I would give a few more groups and a few more areas like Africa and among Natives where these type of groups exist many times more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenthere (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbs

Serbs aren't an ethnoreligious people. There is quite a number of atheistic(like myself)/catholic/muslim Serbs, which(catholics/muslims) do not consider themselves Croats or Bosniaks. I realize that it's much easier to distunguish these 3 ethnicities via the religion, but in reality it isn't like that. --PrimEviL 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• The list is a mess, do whatever you want with it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed combination with Folk religion

I felt that this article and the Folk religion article could benefit from combining the two and work on expounding/developing them. Any thoughts? Der.Gray (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they should stay as separate articles. Folk religion (now that it's been cleaned up a bit) is about religious practices outside of the "official" practices of a religion. This article is about groups of people who are united by a common religion and a common ethnic background. They're separate things. --Alynna (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing sources

This article does not have solid sources for a general definition or description of the term. The few sources that are present are almost completely based on UK law. There were a couple sources used outside the British law section but they either did not support the content or again referred to UK law.

If wider and more scientific sources can't be found, then the page should be deleted, or moved to Ethnoreligious group as defined in UK law or something like that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The term is definitely used outside UK law, as shown by a quick Google Scholar search for "ethnoreligious group". So it's definitely a real concept, and therefore worth having an article on.

None of the first few results is obviously a definition, but I'll look for one. --Alynna (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had any luck in finding a definition in those sources? It seems to be a real term, but this article is not based on those sources and as it is now has no support for the ideas it presents.

I've now reviewed all the sources in the article and found that none of them even mentions the term "ethnoreligious" or "ethno religious", and all three of them are about specific situations in UK law. The sources are:

1. A UK legal document, primary source, not satisfactory for general definition, only for describing the particular event
2. A book on UK legal definitions of ethnic and racial groups. It's a reliable source, but not for the topic of the article since it does not use the term.
3. A blog about a particular UK legal decision that blog discusses how recognition of Jews as an ethnic or racial group may affect admissions policies in schools in the UK. It's a blog, so it's reliability as a source is marginal. But even if it were reliable, again, it is not about the topic of the article, it's about a specific legal decision.

As it stands now, the article is completely unreferenced for the title topic "Ethnoreligious group". Even the section about the Mandla v Dowell-Lee case has no sources for the use of the term. The article on that case only uses the term "ethnic group", not "ethnoreligious". That material should be deleted as off-topic and unsourced, or moved to the page about that court case where the text is at least directly relevant, though sources would still be needed for that use as well. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, I removed the section about the court case Mandla v Dowell-Lee because all of the information from the case decision, and specifically the list of criteria for defining the group, used the term "racial group" and did not refer to "ethnoreligious" at all. The one other sentence in that section was the text based on the blog footnote and again referred to the Race Relations Act 1976, not to the term "ethnoreligious". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ethnic religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This merge proposal has been tagged for almost 2 1/2 years now. Based on the discussion below, there appears to be significant consensus against merging. So I am closing the discussion and removing the tags. WTF? (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Someone has proposed merging this article into Ethnic religion. I oppose this proposal. Ethnoreligious groups and ethnic religions are completely different things. --Alynna (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, hmm. When "ethnic religion" is used to describe, for example, Korean Christians in the United States, that usage is probably synonymous with "ethnoreligious group". But when scholars describe Judaism as an "ethnic religion", they're talking about something else. I guess the difference I see is "a group that happens to share an ethnic and religious identity" vs. "a religion that is partially about belonging to a particular ethnic group". I think we should adjust the scope of the two articles so that ethnic religion is only about the latter thing. --Alynna (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be merged or not, but this article has a big problem, that is - the definition/description of the term has no sources. I've done a lot of searches, and I've found plenty uses of the term, but I've not been able to find even one definition in an academic work. Sooner or later, if the definition can't be sourced, it will have to be removed as original research. That would leave this article as nothing but a list. It could be renamed to List of ethnoreligious groups, but even that title has a problem. Lists require clear criteria for inclusion. What would that be for a list that has no sourced definition of the term? It would have to be something like - at least one author has described the group as "ethnoreligious". That doesn't seem like a good basis for an article.

Maybe we can find someone who has knowledge of this topic to help locate sources for the definition. I'll post a note at the various Wikiprojects that have their banners on this page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a good criterion for an article in the narrower sense, but it could be a reasonable one for a list.

If Alynna's suggestion is to be adopted, whcih seems reasonable, there should presumably be a hatnote on the other article saying it covers only one meaning, for the other meaning see ... Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to write decent articles about these topics on Wikipedia, as many people's brain simply shuts down as soon as they hear the term "religion". This concerns religionists and anti-religionists alike.

A merge suggestion does not imply that the two page titles to be merged are synonyms, for crying out loud. A merge suggestion is just that. It means that there are two broken articles on two roughly related topics, which given the current stage of article development would do better if they were treated in context on a single page. But many people when confronted with a completely pragmatic merge suggestion start ranting about A isn't synonymous with B, as if the merge suggestion made such an implicit claim. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the distinct but related topic argument does have some validity. When writing or editing other articles it is valuable to be able to refer to one concept as distinct from the other. In a well written merge, the lead would make the distinction and there would be separate sections which elaborated on each topic; however, where the original articles are "broken" such a merger results in a shambles. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see much potential benefit at present in merging these two articles. In fact, I see it as leading to more confusion, rather than less. Efforts now should be placed on improving each article. When that is done, the articles can be evaluated to see if a combined article would be more beneficial to readers. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Bejnar. Inamos (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian law

Ethno-religious is actually a legal term in Australian law. See for instance the definition of "race" in section 4 of Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (consolidated as at 8-Jan-2010), which reads:

"race" includes colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin.

The reference to "ethno-religious" was inserted by the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994. To quote what Attorney-General The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD's speech in Parliament introducing the Bill (4 May 1997, NSW Legislative Council Hansard, pages 1827-1828):

The effect of the latter amendment is to clarify that ethno-religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs have access to the racial vilification and discrimination provisions of the Act. At present, it is not clear whether such groups are covered by the racial vilification and discrimination provisions, although this would appear to be the position at common law. The amendment will make it clear that vilification or discrimination against a person on the basis of ethno-religious origin falls within the protections against racial discrimination and racial vilification currently contained in the Act. The amendment is in line with existing judicial authority from both New South Wales and overseas which indicates that ethno-religious background is included in the legal concept of race.

I should make it clear to honourable members that this amendment is not intended in any way to interfere with religious freedoms, and that the extension of the Anti-Discrimination Act to ethno-religious groups will not extend to discrimination on the ground of religion. At present, section 56 of the Act specifically exempts religious practices, in accordance with the Government's policy that anti-discrimination laws should not interfere with fundamental religious freedoms. The proposed amendment to the definition of race will not allow members of ethno-religious groups such as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs to lodge complaints in respect of discrimination on the basis of their religion, but will protect such groups from discrimination based on their membership of a group which shares a historical identity in terms of their racial, national or ethnic origin. Accordingly, the amendment will not prevent religious schools, for example, from employing suitable staff on the basis of their membership of a particular religion.

So the concept of "ethno-religious" refers to groups where there is an ambiguity between religion and ethnicity. I think Jews constitute the classic example, since they are both an ethnicity and also a self-consciously ethnic religion. I am less comfortable with the minister's reference to Sikhs and Muslims -- both religions view themselves as essentially universal rather than ethnic, and Muslims especially are found in varying concentrations among almost every ethnicity of the world. In the case of NSW law, there is a legislative intention to prohibit racial discrimination, without prohibiting religious discrimination. It is also desired to ensure Jews are protected against racial discrimination, but if religious discrimination is not prohibited there is the risk someone who engages in anti-Jewish discrimination might succeed in the argument that Jews are a religion not an ethnicity and therefore they are not engaging in racial discrimination. Hence the provision in the NSW Act.

s.3 Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) contains a similar provision - I have not researched the logic behind but I assume it is the same.

I know Australian law, I have not studied other legal systems, but I am sure other legal systems have faced the same issue. It is common to treat religious discrimination differently from racial discrimination, to not prohibit it to the same degree or at all, because it is rather different. Religion is seen more as a personal choice, ethnicity as more something inbuilt (even though in its non-biological aspects it still can be chosen to some degree.) And religion can be used to justify almost anything, so prohibiting religious discrimination is more fraught with danger than prohibiting ethnic discrimination. (My religion demands I wear this outfit/symbol/etc all the time, even when serving customers, even though it violates my employer's religion policy. My religion says I can't work Sundays or Saturdays or so on, even though my work needs me too... etc. My religion demands I'm allowed to discriminate in employment decisions...) Yet along come these groups which muddy the distinction between ethnicity and religion.

The import of all of this, is I am not keen on merging "ethno-religious" with ethnic group or any other article. The term refers to a particular issue, which is how in some cases the concepts of ethnicity and religion overlap in messy ways, as much as some would like to keep them separate - and especially in the case of the Jewish people. So I think on that basis this should be a separate page, and therefore oppose merger. --SJK (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reinstated British Law section

I have reinstated the British law section which Jack-A-Roe deleted. I understand his argument for deleting it was that the term "ethno-religious group" was not explicitly used. I would respond that the concept is certainly used whether or not the term is used. Referring to the speech I quoted from above by the then NSW Attorney-General, he says "The amendment is in line with existing judicial authority from both New South Wales and overseas which indicates that ethno-religious background is included in the legal concept of race", I think you will find it was the English lines of authority in particular he was referring to. --SJK (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a synthesis, prohibited by Wikipedia policy (combining comments made by different authors to make a point that neither source actually stated). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing sentence about Australian law from UK law section

I removed the following:

Both Jews and Sikhs were determined to be ethnoreligious groups under the Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Act 1994 (see above).

The 1994 Act referred to above is a NSW Act. The sentence being placed in the UK law section gives the misleading impression it is a UK Act; and its not clear what relevance the NSW Act has to UK law. (Possibly it has some relevance, but if it does that sentence does not demonstrate it.) Therefore I have removed this sentence. --SJK (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mormons

Mormons are not ethnoreligious. There are Mormons all over the world, from all different racial and economic backgrounds. They should be removed from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.247.40 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for Jews. Jews are no more an ethnoreligious group than Christians; Jews just want to be defined as such. There are Jews all over the world, and you can even convert to the Jewish faith...How does that magically change your ethnicity? 71.182.218.10 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jews don't proselytize, conversion to Judaism is discouraged, and by and large most people who are Jews had ancestors who came Jews before the Christian era. And there is a long history of people referring to the Jews as a distinct ethnicity. I've met plenty of people who are ethnically Jewish. Mormonism by contrast is a new religion, less than two centuries old, and still welcomes large number of converts into the fold. I've yet to hear of someone being referred to as "ethnically Mormon" or of groups of "secular Mormons." Of course it's not a clear line, which is why Wikipedia tries to go by external sources (and I'll admit the list is a mess). —Quintucket (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the "Example" section

Even with citations the list became too general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.243.166 (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 11:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion is part of ethnicity

In the real world religion is part or ethnicity. Ethnoreligious is an invention.

It appears to have been invented by atheist Jews who still want to be considered Jews. Whereas The Invention of the Jewish People by Sand lays to rest the idea that people can be Jews without the religion by showing the idea was invented by Zionists in the late 19th c.

I can cite a legal decision in Israel by a jewish judge saying there are many different ethnicities which comprise Jews.

The entire idea of ethnoreligious is like taking about jewish Mormons or atheist Jews. There is really no difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

First, we actually have a category Category:Jewish atheists because there are people who consider themselves proud ethnic Jews, and would never dream for a moment of denying their ethnic Jewish historical origins, while at the same time they do not have any particular religious beliefs, and certainly do not follow traditional Jewish ceremonial practices.

The reason for this is that in the United States, "Jewish-American" functions as an ethnic group identity on the same level as "Italian-American", "Mexican-American" etc. Probably the majority of ancestors of American Jews came from current-day Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, but most Jews would NOT consider themselves to be German-American, Polish-American, or Ukrainian-American (nor would they generally be considered such by self-identified German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, except in a few special cases). Similarly, Jewish was defined as an official ethnic identity or "nationality" on Soviet identification cards, even though the Soviet government encouraged all Jews to become atheists. If an ethnic Jew became an atheist in the Soviet Union, the nationality line on his identification card was not changed, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

religion was part of ethnicity, before the rise of the universalist world religions, oh, just about 2000 years ago. so the claim is not wrong as such, it is just unbelievably outdated. The rise of universalist religions are related to the rise of super-ethnic imperialism, of course. Since the Roman Empire, a state does not necessarily need to be a nation, and religion does not necessarily follow ethnic lines. This was the entire project and secret of success of Christianity. So you may say that "ethnic religion" is a retronym and the term really designates the historical default case, only, after the spread of Christianity and Islam it is no longer the majority case (well, it holds for the majority of distinct religions, i suppose, but certainly not for the majority of religionists).

This isn't the article on "ethnic religion" though, it is on "ethnoreligious groups". I.e. on ethnic identity which is overwhelmingly correlated to religious adherence. This includes Christian groups, just as long as they are surrounded by groups of different confessions, it holds for Armenians just as much as for Irish Catholics. It does not hold for Swedes, because Swedes are Lutherans surrounded by Lutherans, so their Lutheranism didn't turn out to become important in defining their ethnic identity. --dab (𒁳) 13:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Example groups

I removed several uncited groups based on my understanding of the meaning. My understanding is that it's not merely language, religion, or geography that define an ethnoreligious group, but rather the fact that these groups coexist with other ethnoreligious groups, and yet maintain endogamy and a distinct identity on the basis of their religion. The Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks are of course the prime example: they speak the same language and inhabit the same area, but have three identities based on Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim religion. The Hui (who would be Han Chinese if not for their Muslim religion and customs) are also examples of this. Same for the Jews and Armenians, who might once have had homogeneous nation-states, but historically mostly lived in diaspora among other ethnicities; often speaking local languages but always distinguished by religion and ethnic identity.

Using my own understanding as a definition, I removed the Bahrainis, Tibetans, Uighurs, Persians and Georgians because these groups have historically been defined by geography and language. Though the religion may be distinct from their neighbors, that's incidental. I also removed the Germanic neopagans because they haven't been around long enough to form an ethnic identity. —Quintucket (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lurs an ethnoreligion?

How can the Lurs be an ethnoreligious group when the article for the Lurs says: "The Lur peoples are diverse and individualistic in their religious views and practices. Religious views can differ immensely, even within a family group. While the overwhelming majority of Lurs are Shia Muslims, some practice an ancient Iranian religion known as Yaresan which has roots in Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and Manicheism. Traditionally the Lur people outwardly profess Shia Islam, and the religion of some is a mixture of Ahl-e Haqq involving a belief in successive incarnations combined with ancient rites." Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some sections are questionable

Someone mentioned the Lurs, the Pagans are also quite irrelevant to the topic.Domsta333 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)