Talk:Religious offense

Against proposed deletion

The purpose of this article is principally to clarify traditional and modern definitions and to provide a link to other related articles.

Religion is almost universal and has probably has made some considerable contribution to human evolution.

Similarly, the article Development of religion currently lacks references because it too is a link to other articles as well as "see also" to Major religious groups, Sociological classifications of religious movements, Religious belief and Evolution of morality

Religion, especially monotheism also seems to have considerable military value in distinguishing friends (faithful co-religionists who obey their leaders) and enemies (everyone else), but I have no academic references to quote in support of this.

Divinity (belief in supernatural power) is common to all belief systems, including trivial ones such as my own (the WWII RAF Gremlins imortalized in fiction).

Religion is essentially the imposition or the enforcement of such beliefs, rather than simply allowing folk to exploit an idea which they find a useful (The idea of malicious Gremlins underpin independent check and peer review procedures used by aircraft repair teams).

Imposition of divinity thus requires punishment for doubters, disbelievers and turncoats (the traditional three religious offences). These are probably universal, but there seems to be little reliable research in this area.

The term has more recently been applied in hate crime such as of Muslims Filmmaker Ordered Bback to Prison story, so there is room for confusion between religious and secular use of the term Timpo (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs clarity

"Traditionally..."? In which religion's or countries' traditions? This article needs to be much more specific as to which religions it is discussing. As it stands it is unhelpful. It also does not clarify whether it is discussing "offenses" against religious laws or in national law. PamD 08:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarity

This is, I believe, the English version of Wikipedia written in the modern version of that living language: for example 'gay used in a traditional sense means brightly coloured as in gaily painted buses but the article gay reflects to the more recent (since about the 1970's) meaning of homosexuality, but which has a link to traditional use via Gay (disambiguation)

If you know of any human society whose legal system is not based on religion, please advise which. The purpose of religion is to survive - by cooperation where possible or else by war- remember "the infamous Nazi Gott mit uns"? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is philosophically Christian, and thereby in part (particularly in regard to sexual equality) is not acceptable to either Catholic Moslem academic traditionalists.Timpo (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That last sentence is particularly unclear. Even with the presumably missing "or" added between "Catholic" and "Moslem", it seems to suggest that Catholics are not Christians.PamD 17:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC) expanded 17:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Catholic is but one branch of a religion that claims to be Christian. Orthodox Catholics have a particular view of Christianity similar to the Moslem that requires pennance and differentiation of the sexes and so is different from humanist Christianity which advocates unconditional forgiveness and equality.Timpo (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can't frame a lead sentence in the usual Wikipedia format of "A religious offense is ...", then it seems unlikely to be an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article. PamD 17:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure why my writing style may make me an unsuitable contributor.

• Department of stones and glass-houses: As a librarian, remind me, is not the spelling encyclopaedia with a diphthong?

"actions which injure religion"?

This isn't at all clear - persecution, lack of freedom of assembly, censorship, ... ? The recently-added note doesn't really clarify the article at all. PamD 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible candidate for deletion

I am far from sure that this article, as it now stands, is appropriate for wikipedia. Yes, I see a few references, but it would be extremely useful to know if these are sufficient to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Basically, from what I can see of the article as it now stands, it seems to be, basically, the definition of a term or perhaps a disambiguation page for the possible uses of the term. However, I have yet to see, so far as I can tell, that the term itself is discussed at any length in any sources, which is more or less the requirement for an article here. This is not to say that the page might not be useful and appropriate for Wiktionary, which is basically our dictionary site for articles on terms which have little potential content other than the definition of the term itself. But I would need to see some serious indication that this subject, as a stand-alone entity, I think it reasonable to perhaps allow those who wish to keep the article to have some time, maybe a week or two, to try to establish through independent reliable sources that this concept and article has sufficient potential content for an article. Otherwise, perhaps turning it into a disambiguation page or perhaps transferring it to Wiktionary might be the best alternative. But I very much believe that it is in the best interests of those who wish to keep the article here to read WP:NOTNEO and do some of the things indicated there to provide evidence that this article should remain here. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Religious intolerance is a hot issue world-wide, and certain clerics (in Britain at least) are seeking to criminalize activities they consider to be blasphemy and/or heresy The article was started, as we lawyers like to say for the avoidance of doubt, which, according to me is the point of Wikipedia, is it not? Timpo (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Timpo, a word of advice for you: try not to sound like you're using Wikipedia as a soapbox. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Imbalance

I am reluctant to edit this article as it is such a hot-potato and now subject to an AfD. Religious offense is a topical subject that will, no doubt, increasingly appear in the media in culturally mixed countries.

However, it feels imbalanced and that racism is being conflated with religious offense. To criticise a belief or an idea is very different from judging a person by a negative racial stereotype - even if there are people who combine both practices. So I would be inclined to alter the following: "...Justifiable criticism of seemingly absurd beliefs that are culturally or religiously considered incontrovertible facts may be misinterpreted as either racism if made by outsiders..." Also "...religion essentially is a belief conveyed from generation to generation is, by such definition considered to be a truth."

This article has alerted me to the point that "Religious Offense" can be used as a cover for some some highly controversial practices that may be sanctioned by a religion such as female circumcision or for subjugating the role of women in society. I think any editor who wants this article to survive the AfD should try to bring some balance so it can be seen as having the potential to become an appropriate article rather than one that appears to promote one point of view. Kooky2 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment! Race and religious intolerance are linked but separate, so I have included both. I added what I hope is NPOV sexual equality sub-section. Biologically, men and women tend (statistically) to have different skills (spacial versus linguistic etc.) and different needs - notably time and facilities for mensuration, child-bearing and menopause; higher probability of widowhood from greater age expectancy and so on from which men are exempt.

The Cairo declaration provides for equal respect, but not equal treatment. Many Moslem jurisdictions such as Turkey and Pakistan are trying hard to enfranchise women within Sharia, and in India, the Caste system prevails, similarly in Britain females statistically earn less and hold few posts of responsibility despite strong legislation, so the picture is extremely murky, and discrimination is not especially related to either sex or religion, but to culture.

As far as I know, only male circumcision is a commonplace religious practice, and female circumcision is more cultural, and I understand, African, but I am not very well informed about this, so omitted. In pursuit of NPOV I changed 'absurd' to 'satirize'. Timpo (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

References

A reference does not necessarily reflect the views of the author. Richard Dawkins is a well known agnostic, and in this article (Dawkins, Richard (January - February 1997). "Is science a religion?". The Humanist Magazine (UK). Retrieved 2012 12 13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)), he merely acknowledges that such a contention is widely held, so I restored the ref. If you know of some reason why such a belief is not widely held, add a ref - please don't simply delete refs you don't like - leave a note on the contributor's talk page, and discuss your concerns in detail on the article's talk pageTimpo (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I considered clarifying my edit on the talk page but decided against it. Guess I'll clarify now. The belief that "science is a religion" is unbelievably ignorant, completely stupid in fact. We need to attribute that belief. Who specifically has made such a statement? Dawkins in his article argues against some unnamed people, presumably some folks who aren't taken seriously enough to get anything published themselves. Are their opinions noteworthy enough to be written about in Wikipedia in all seriousness? What I'm saying is that we definitely can't just say "science may be considered to be a religion" and then cite that to Richard Dawkins. It's dishonest. We're making it look as it that belief is anything to be taken seriously. In conclusion: I think you need either a better ref, or to seriously rephrase that statement. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The opening sentence "Religious offense means offending religious sensibilities." needs attention. It doesn't seem to define the topic clearly, and isn't grammatical. Should it be "Religious offense is an action which offends religious sensibilities." or "Religious offense is an action offending religious sensibilities which is defined by religious or legal authorities as an offense."? PamD 09:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another confusing sentence

"Religious offense can be caused by belief in the freedom of speech and the absence of censorship.": needs clarification. What does it mean? "In some cases actions a person's belief in the freedom of speech, in the absence of censorship, can lead them to do an act defined as a religious offence"? Or "The absence of censorship in some societies can bring about a perceived need to define some acts as religious offense"? Or ... ? Please clarify. PamD 09:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't understand it either. I also want to add that I think the Science section is extremely poorly phrased and I don't understand what the point of it is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have worked on these areas, but for me, the article is becoming over wordy and far too complex - I try to KISS: Keep it straight and simple.

My original purpose was simply to clarify the phrase as used previously within most religious jurisdictions and the new slant introduced in British law by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. which I fear may be becoming buried in detail. Timpo (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I'm sure no-one will object if you strip the article down to simple, verified, statements clearly and directly sourced to reliable sources. My original concerns about this article still stand. Comments stating that references are available elsewhere are not acceptable as sources. PamD 21:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Science as a religion

I truly believe in the Big Bang and that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and that earth on which we live is the fourth rock out, but actually I personally have made no observations, so I have no proof, except to say it seems to hang together, and 'everybody says that Galileo Galilei....!

How is that different from somebody else truly believing some divine mind composed the universe and devised a handbook called scripture, and that was dictated to a holy man...? Timpo (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We're not gonna have a debate here. If you want to put something in the article, a reliable source must say it first. We can't figure out or debate out anything on our own. (I know this sounds like I'm saying, "Let's only trust big smart people who get books published," but what I'm really saying is, "This is Wikipedia, we have certain rules here.") — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The debate is already documented in Relationship between religion and science which I have now included as main article link Timpo (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Richard Dawkins is a notable person and although controversial and confrontational, hardly a 'wacko' See Talk Page for explanation, Timpo". In the article that you reference, Dawkins is arguing against some people who he doesn't name (because they're insignificant), that's who I called whackjobs. The statements that you wrote for the Science section are not supported by the ref. I already talked about this in this talk page earlier but you didn't reply to my concerns, but instead chose to go and remove the tags again. Your behavior is really not acceptable anymore. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Whackjobs is itself a religiously offensive term if used to describe people with a belief that conflicts with science, since it includes most profoundly religious people not to mention those scientists who do their duty and question received wisdom, which is what Dawkins is doing. Insignificant people sounds like Nazi talk of untermensch which is also offensive. Please take care with such expressions - they are easily misunderstood. IMHO: That the critics are not identified in this article is immaterial, since some of them at least are implicitly referenced in specific linked articles such as creationism. If any reader should disagree, then how about inserting some referenced material in support or in criticism to provide a better article (since, ans pointed out above, Wiki is not supposed to be a soap-box)? Timpo (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

since some of them at least are implicitly referenced in specific linked articles such as creationism -- that's not good enough.

then how about inserting some referenced material in support or in criticism to provide a better article (since, ans pointed out above, Wiki is not supposed to be a soap-box) -- I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. But I don't have to provide references to counter your original research. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please also be aware of Godwin's law. The step from people whose identity is insignificant in a particular context to "insignificant people" to "Untermenschen" is extremely contrived and might suggest someone who actively looks for an opportunity to be offended. It's certainly not a natural misunderstanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Paragraph means a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea.

Science

• Scientific ideas change
• Scientific ideas that are offensive to religionists
• Psudoscience particular to religion

Thus do not three clear short paragraphs rather than one complex block of text seems easier to digest?Timpo (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)