Talk:Religious intolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I took out Crusades and Jihad and put in Holy War, any objections?Yuber(talk) 00:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Holy War article is a re-direct, and poorly written. I think including all three is more helpful to the reader, which should be our primary concern. Also, your comment here is deceptive; you've removed Dhimmi as well. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page still protected?[edit]

It's been protected for over a month. So much for "protection is not permanent". And the admin who locked it edited it first so so much for "protection is not an endorsement of a particular version" too.-- 14:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please not such a litany of links[edit]

I condensed them by adding instead the categories where these links are collected - this makes better reading and easier lookup than a long list.

The link list also gives the (wrong) impression that religious intolerance and religious persecution are nearly the same thing - this is avoided by the categories, where religious persecution does not take most of the space. Moreover, you did not just restore, but you also deleted some relevant links which I added - this fast fast section revert is usually not the best thing, Zappaz. --Irmgard 20:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious intolerance and religion persecution are, of course, related. Note that I did not revert. I attempted to restore some links that I see as highly relevant. If I deleted sojme new ones you added, please restore. ZappaZ Yin yang.svg 03:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
links which are already in the box at the right top do not need to be again in the link list, so I removed those and added some others (avoid duplicate links on a page) --Irmgard 19:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. --ZappaZ Yin yang.svg 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary Attitudes and Beliefs[edit]

I felt that the second paragraph felt slightly out of place so I decided to make a section for it and put it into a wider context. As you can see that wider context became somewhat larger than I'd originally planned. I must admit to not being 100% sure about the title, if someone can think up a more appropriate one feel free to change it. The section is also a little on the large side, but I couldn't think of any obvious way to separate it. Any more general feedback or criticism is more than welcome. I also think that now we have a contemporary section a brief historical overview would be useful, however I'm no expert so I wouldn't wish to try myself. Daduzi 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Intolerance to New Age movements[edit]

A section/article should be on the religious intolerance and persecution of New Age Groups, or NRM's who are frequently persecuted by larger religions, especially in countries such as France, where many of the so-called "anti-cult" organisations are either directly affiliated with the Catholic Church, or Gouvernment sponsored. Sfacets 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Non sequitur[edit]

Why should a site like be allowed to place use this page to take a non sequitur shot at Calvin on a page supposedly devoted to religious freedom? No wonder people are accusing Wikipedia of having a liberal slant. This page really needs clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rexbobo (talkcontribs) 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

It's a quotation of Robert Green Ingersoll who is indeed a notable person. However its placement in the article is clearly not very wiki like and has the effect of picking out Calvin for particular attention in an article that's about religious intolerance in general. Suggest providing a link to the following page of quotations[1] that does cover religious intolerance in a variety of forms. If there are no serious objections will make the change in a couple of weeks time.GoldenMeadows 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rethink needed?[edit]

I think this article needs a rethink. Let's look at how well it sticks to the subject at hand, as defined in the initial sentence of the intro: "Religious intolerance is either intolerance motivated by one's own religious beliefs or intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices.

The article contains just a single body section, Contemporary attitude and practice The content of that section speaks almost exclusively of governmental restrictions on religious practices, or (mostly, by far) on lack of or constraints upon such governmental intolerance. All paragraphs but one have a strong focus on examples of governmental toleration of religion, rather than on governmental intolerance towards religion -- it seems to me that most or all of this material belongs in Religious toleration rather than in this article. Perhaps a refocus of perspective to speak of specific areas where various governments are intolerant of religion rather than speaking of specific areas where they are not intolerant might produce material which fits the article's subject better -- the third para of this section is the only para I see which speaks to the subject of religious intolerance, and it takes this approach.

The second sentence of the intro reads: "It manifests both at a cultural level, but may also be a formal part of the dogma of particular religious groups." Mindful of the focus of present subject matter on governmental tolerance/intolerance towards religion, it seems to me that it should perhaps read: "Religious intolerance may be manifested in governmental restrictions, in informal exercise of governmental power, in cultural attitudes and taboos, as a formal part of the dogma of particular religious organizations, or in formally stated or informally expressed attitudes and practices of organizations, groups, and/or individuals" (or something similar but less wordy). This might be reflected by separate body sections such as Governmental intolerance, Dogmatic intolerance, Cultural intolerance, Group intolerance, and Individual intolerance. There is not enough material present in the present article to populate these sections -- possibly each might have an intro and they might be initially sparsely filled with whatever on-topic material is present in the current article and mention of whatever other examples come to mind (e.g., religious intolerence by Nazis -- probably one example among many).

Comments? Am I all wet here? -- Boracay Bill 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious Intolerance by Athiests[edit]

I think some attention and research needs to be done concerning how athiesm negatively effects a person's right to worship peacefully, without unjust interference from those who are blatently intolerant of one anothers religious freedom.

I mean, we talk about the Nazis, well...

RRM MBA (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's law. Discussion must end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Nazi analogy may not be helpful, but it doesn't negate the basic issue. Intolerance of religion by atheists is a legitimate subset of the broader topic of religious intolerance, and should properly be included. EastTN (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe "religious intolerance" is supposed to mean, intolerance towards people because of their religion, and worse is used to mean hatred towards a person or there religion (a complety different topic) most of the time. However, intolerance for religion, especially valid criticism of the beliefs, practices, history and churches is an entirely valid describable subset (as opposed to a separate academic topic) of the ideas of "talking", "discussion", "criticism" and "free speech", it has nothing todo with "tolerating" (and I'd hate this to turn into a discussion of the malformation of that valid feeling) people. If we made any focus on atheism to that extent, we'd be drawing judgement on valid comment about the absurdity of religions, despite the fact there is no inherent distaste for the religious in a lack of religion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the line between legitimate criticism and slander is often crossed. Atheisim by definition is little more than a lack of religion but in practice it often takes the form of religious intolerance. Most of the literature that comes out slandering religion is written by outspoken atheists. PeRshGo (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I hate to rob you of your delusions, but most slander of religions is made by ... other religions ... which would be the first thing an atheist would point out as one of the "stupid pet tricks" of Imputed righteousness. I myself am not an atheist, but might classify myself as being in the "Un-named Creator vs. 1000 Named gods" camp. See, by just talking about my religious beliefs, I've slandered yours, (I could not possibly have missed, hitting them all), and insulted and angered you. That's most monotheistic religions in a nutshell. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to this comment from April of 2010, though you misunderstand it entirely. Religions may argue amongst themselves about who have the superior beliefs but if you’re looking for a book that slanders religion as whole it is almost always going to come from an outspoken atheists. This isn’t to say that agnostics or deists haven’t written criticism of religion but outright slander is often left to atheists. The funniest part of your comment has to be that after using the “what someone else would call” method to call a religious concept a “stupid dog trick” you then go on to complain about how easy it is to be considered a slanderer. I take part in an interfaith discussion every week, and you know what? We all easily manage to get through every meeting without slandering one another. PeRshGo (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, was looking for something here. I have zero tolerance for religion as all extant religions are either naked superstitions or (the best of them, the East Asian ones) various more or less empty and archaic philosophical systems . Ayn Rand was. Hitchens was. Many others with what will be called pejoratively postivistic, rationalistic, or "scientistic" views could be named since d'Holbach. The attitude of rejection of all false belief systems as failures as objects with respect to the conceptual attribute of truth, and as a paramount evil, as Spinoza defines the term, in human affairs, appears to be excluded from the subject or else this article is trying to skirt the issue. In any case if only the intolerance of one superstition for another counts, this should be made explicit in the article. (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

a== Definition ==

Firstly, why does "Religious hatred" redirect here? Just because you can't tolerate a religious establishment doesn't mean you hate it. Secondly, the article starts by claiming that the definition of "Religious intolerance" is the act of not tolerating a religion, but goes on to discuss issues related to singular individuals. The ability to be intolerant of a religion is a good thing... hatred towards an individual purely because of their conformation to a belief is a separate issue. Especially as it seems perfectly valid for one to not wish to tolerate someone because of there opinions, that's where almost all less than friendly relationships stand. So not only is the relationship between religion as a thing and religious people absurd to equate equally, but the terms hate and intolerance are so far from similar, that I find this article Intolerable. Fortunately, I don't hate it, so I'm brining this silly and insulting definition to the attention of better editors who know the topic more extensively than myself. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

After seeing the 03:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC) comment from Jimmi Hugh in the section above I took a quick look at the project page. I see the lead sentence reads:

Religious intolerance is either intolerance motivated by one's own religious beliefs or intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices. It manifests both at a cultural level, but may also be a formal part of the dogma of particular religious groups.

I itch to change the word "another's" to "other", but I hesitate to make such a basic change in the lead sentence without seeking consensus. "Another's" seemingly focuses the intolerence on the individual. (Jimmi Hugh says, "I believe 'religious intolerance' is supposed to mean, intolerance towards people because of their religion"). "Other" would be intolerance for the beliefs themselves, but not necessarily towards the person(s) holding those beliefs. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously don't take me too much on face value, I was more trying to illustrate the contradictions in definition in the article as it stands than define the actual term; and there is a good chance, due to inappropriate use of the term, that it has developed a less than wanted meaning, which wouldn't support my statements. I do support the change to "other" though, as even by some of the more fundementally evangelical sites I found on the topic ([2] [3]) seem to, ostensibly at least, declare the term as a direction at individuals as opposed to belief systems. Of course any site that declares "putting up with" people to be in anyway similar to "peace and harmony", must be carefuly considered before being the basis of any definition. It is our Wikipedia duty to reflect use of the term, however much it promotes the end of the ability to make honest criticism and be openly intolerant of any system that preaches hate and death; however, the current contradiction does not represent the merging of many positions into a neutral definition, but more as a randomly spread amalgamation of misunderstanding. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The current definition reads "The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs are incorrect in itself constitutes intolerance (i.e., ideological intolerance)". That is a comparatively recent definition of intolerance, and I think far too strong a definition. In the past, and I think it should still be, the prior definition has been about not allowing other people to hold a contrary religious beliefs, even if one has contrary religious beliefs. The previous definition of religious intolerance did not include merely asserting that the other religion is incorrect while asserting that one's own religion is correct.

Indeed; I would expect that ascribing to a particular religious belief usually implies that one thinks it is correct and that any assertions that conflict with it are therefore, presumably, incorrect. (This may not always be true in practise; for example...well, is there a Wikipedia page that discusses religious beliefs contradict other beliefs within the same religion?) Mia229 (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me illustrate from football. I may vigorously shout in support of my team and tell you that your team will not win. Shouting such things is NOT intolerance. And this should be allowed as freedom of speech. However, if I physically attack you, then that is intolerance. This same analogy can be applied to political positions & candidates: people should be allowed to vigorously assert their positions and support candidates. But they should not be allowed to physically attack those who oppose them, nor discriminate against them for their beliefs.

I applaud your endorsement of tolerance in the realm of football. I'm not sure physically attacking someone on the other side is necessarily indicative of intolerance, though; from what I have read in the media it seems to be most likely to be a sign of alcohol intoxication. I would say that endorsing a prospective law which in some way favours members of one's own faction (in football or otherwise) or discriminates against individuals purely on the basis of membership in another particular faction would be a better example of intolerance. Mia229 (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If persuading others about the correctness of ones own religion is condemned as "intolerance", then this definition of intolerance is intolerant toward such a religion.
I would like to hear from others before I change the definition. What say ye?Pete unseth (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Religious intolerance against the occult[edit]

What about occult religions in general? What about Theistic Satanists? I am discriminated against so often. You can't tell me others aren't as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What about occult religions in general? The article is titled and references "Religious Intolerance", not "non-Occult Religiou Intolerance", what exactly do you consider missing? The article itself is in pretty bad shape from anyone's perspective, there is hardly a single comprehensive angle covered for Occult or even the Desert Religions. You're welcome to work on imporving the article "in general" though. Your own personal experiences with "discrimination" however, would not be welcome, and all edits should be based upon references from notable and verifiable sources. Of course, no one at Wikipedia is telling you anything, and certainly no claim has ever been made that any group is ever discriminated, or not discriminated against. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename title[edit]

Maybe Sectarianism should be included in the title e.g. religious intolerance/sectarianism. I would always have used the word and I've never heard someone use religious intolerance and sextarianism is referred to quite a lot from where I come from. Just a thought - mspence835 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious Discrimination vs Religious Intolerance[edit]

Suggest anything related to people being discriminated against due to their religion is moved to Religious_discrimination

Suggest anything related to religions discriminating against people (for whatever reason) stays under Religious_intolerance — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLane (talkcontribs) 13:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


This edit, which restored a section previously removed without explanation, caught my eye. The restored section contains an unsupported definition of Religious intolerance (the article topic). I didn't remove the section but I don't particularly like the unsupported definition given there. The definition doesn't really need support if it is defining the scope of the article's topic and if there is consensus to adopt that definition in this article on the topic. If the purpose of the Definition section is to present an assertion of what a general definition of the term might be, it needs support. See [4], [5], [6] for some possible definitions and supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

hebrew christain men on council of nicaeae[edit]

When the Roman King Constantine called the Bishops to write Christian law, creed , how many Christian Hebrew men were present? (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)James E Fletcher