Talk:Criticism of Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Atheists are not the cause of 100 million deaths

I removed the information and reference from a Dinesh D'Souza article about his belief that Hitler and Stalin were atheists and they caused more deaths than religion. Has anyone ever read any of this guy's stuff? He's a complete joke, and has even been ridiculed for his ability to use misinformation.

Besides that - Hitler was Christian. Stalin was a Roman Catholic. If you want sources, wikipedia their pages and follow the links. 69.29.8.127 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Nathan

Hitler became extremely anti-Christian, but he wasn't an atheist. Stalin & Mao may have been though, and their regimes certainly caused 100-150 million deaths between them. rossnixon 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to clean up this talk page

This talk page is unworkably large and contains many personal comments about the subject matter, rather than the article itself.

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

In any event, some of these comments are years old. I propose we archive what's not necessary so we can concentrate on legitimate outstanding issues. Any objections? Nonplus (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

BE BOLD! You should always feel comfortable about archiving discussion pages. When very active keep the last two weeks; when less active keep the past month. We can't lose anything and it is easily returned should an editor feel like a specific point was not satisfactorily brought to conclusion. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement Storm Rider. :) I guess I'll go ahead and if anyone has issues we can discuss. Nonplus (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Salvation theology

The first block of text under this section seems to have a similar problem as the analysis section did, it says a few things, but never actually criticizes Christianity. It says that "Semetic religions" create the notion of the afterlife and whatnot as an explanation for what happens after death, but then never says why either skeptics, critics, or really anybody else see this as a bad thing. I haven't been very involved with this article, so perhaps this is supposed to relate to the sections below somehow? I don't understand its point. Homestarmy 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Hell section

It appears to be mostly OR, with so many weasel words with "many" and unspoken "who's" attached to "people consider" type things. I mean come on, "Most Skeptics"? Who's doing the criticism exactly? Homestarmy 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An attempt was made to accommodate the points you have raised above but you appear to be still unhappy since you have reinstated the "weasel" words header. If you could be so kind as to point out exactly the specific sentence and words then we can change or discuss the reasons why they should remain. GoldenMeadows 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, although it could of course be better, I suppose now that some skeptics have been named, the party of "skeptics" has now been defined, so i've removed the banner. Homestarmy 13:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This may just be because I'm used to reading the NIV translation of Romans 8:24 and not the KJV, but instead of the idea that "mere hope to Paul is an unacceptable sign of uncertainty," I think this verse may actually be saying that it doesn't make sense to hope for something that one already has. The NIV phrases it thus: (and I know the NIV is copywritten but it explicitly makes exceptions for brief quotations on the copyright page) "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?" Therefore, I think it may be possible that St. Paul is not condemning hope as being a sign of a weak faith, but rather he is encouraging hope as something that is the logical option when the promise of Heaven has not yet been fulfilled. In other words, if someone were already in Heaven, it wouldn't make any sense to hope to go to Heaven, but because the reader is not yet there, he or she is encouraged to maintain his/her hope in eternal life. I don't what the neutral point of view would be here, but I'm just trying to point out that there are certainly multiple interpretations of this verse, just as their are of most if not all Bible verses. WilliamJenkins09 07:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Clean Up Header

The article carries a "Clean Up" header along with warning headers tagged to the following sections:

Criticism of Christianity as irrational

Criticism of Christianity as intolerant

Criticism of Christianity as derivative.

If anyone has specific concerns relating to these sections could they please raise them here with a view to resolving the issues, cleaning up the article in the process, and removing the warning headers. If no objections raised within two weeks then the headers, with agreement, will be removed. GoldenMeadows 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to start with, everything above "This committed belief is sometimes called "faith based on zeal"." in the irrationality section isn't addressing Christianity directly, just theism and religion in general. Homestarmy 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Since an article already exists dealing with "Criticism(s) of Religion" in general, I think everything that does not deal specifically with Christianity should be taken out. The intro to the section can mention that Christianity is also subject to criticisms that are common to other religions and lead the reader to that article. GoldenMeadows 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The intolerance section starts off pretty terrible, "Claims that Christianity is the one true religion have led Christians to fight wars to enforce their belief in an "unwilling, heathen world". Critics have also noted the prevalence of warfare in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Linguist and political writer Noam Chomsky has argued that the Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history.". First of all, where's the quote coming from? Second of all, it's more or less just a single claim repeated a bunch. The Old Testament is also definently a humungous stretch to use, as Christianity did not exist at all in the Old Testament, at best, that would belong in Criticism of Judaism or Criticism of the Bible. Then, of course, it doesn't mention that the most notable of wars being fought were more or less limited to the crusades, and doesn't mention any other possible reasons for any of the particular wars.
The thing is, a whole bunch of these sections have these sort of problems, and alot of them just don't seem worth saving here very much. Looking into the rest of this section, there doesn't seem to be any attempt at all to present any point of view beyond the matter-of-fact accusations, and quite frankly, I question their reliability period. For instance, "Christian fundamentalists often use passages in the Bible to criticize homosexuality, and because of the influence of such biblical teachings during the Middle Ages, for centuries, homosexual acts were punishable in Europe by death. Even today, Christian groups, particularly in America, are accused of being at the forefront of homophobia, with extremists such as the Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of murdered homosexuals.". First of all, the first sentence appears to be historically impossible, Christian Fundamentalism arose in the late 19th century or so, so its quite impossible for Christian fundamentalist teachings to of influenced anything at all in the Middle ages. "Are accused of being at the forefront...." has no attribution, and the Westboro Baptist reference fails to mention that whenever some more mainstream Christian group comments on their poor excuse of a church, they are pretty much compleatly denounced. It's not just "extremist", its more like "Not even recognized as Christian by pretty much every halfway notable Christian source from any end of the spectrum". I think the reason nobodies given more specific concerns about many of these sections recently is that, quite frankly, it would be really hard. Not because of some bad-faith effort to just censor criticism or something like that requiring us to wikilawyer like mad, but because there's just so many things wrong it takes quite awhile to examine this stuff in-depth.Homestarmy 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree the opening is not very good, especially with lack of source ref. However the assertion that wars have been fought with strong religious undertones, not just the crusades, can be backed with good authoritative refs. The sentence you mention about homophobia will need rewritten to eliminate the possible ambiguity you mention though the point about Christian antipathy in general towards homosexuality in the past is valid as is modern intolerance amongst some Christians who strongly believe in the inerrancy of the bible and what they take as as its explicit hostility towards homosexuality. I would balance this with authoritative Christian refs that denounce unjust discrimination and persecution against homosexuals that are more representative of the modern world. There appears to be undue weight given to the Westboro issue and this needs rectifying. Good refs can be given about the perceived genocidal behaviour shown in the OT. I don't think its wise to ignore these incidents solely because they take place outside the NT and is therefore not uniquely Christian. Mainstream Christianity teaches the trinity and that the God of the NT, Jesus, is one with the God of the OT and to suggest otherwise introduces polytheism. Citations also are generally lacking and this has to be rectified. Will wait for any more comments before embarking on any agreed rewrite. GoldenMeadows 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Chomsky's quote (too bad it has been removed), here is the reference:

Shawn, Wallace (Autumn, 2004), “Interview with Noam Chomsky”, Final Edition I: 10-25, <http://www.sevenstories.com/html/custom/images/Excerpt_FinalEdition.pdf> . Sfoucher (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and an antagonistic relationship with science

"Christianity has sometimes had an antagonistic relationship with science" --> I object to the usage of "Christianity". Some Christians had of course. But what is Christianity? Any Christian upholds a possible interpretation of Christianity. There are a lot of interpretations and none of which are "equal" to Christianity. --Aminz 03:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some edits to this section but it seriously needs to be reviewed (due weight etc etc issues). Please feel free to move stuff around and summerize quotes. --Aminz 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Some Christians" really isn't sufficient. If "Christianity" is too sweeping, what about "the Christian church"? "Christian religious authorities"? Just a random suggestion. Nonplus (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heresies

I think that there should be a section on Docetism and Arianism since they are very much alive today. Some people believe that Jesus Christ is only God, which is Docetism, and some believe that He is only man, which is Arianism. Also, in the "Example set by Christians" section, it says that behavior of Christians contradicts the belief that it is impossible to worship God and mammon at the same time. According to my beliefs, if you worship anything or anyone other than God, you cannot worship God at the same time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.247.167 (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Christianity and Women

Added new section to the article. Was only able to mention a couple of issues though there are many more. Any addition information would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerry1964 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I remember hearing that the acts of Paul & Thecla were excluded from the bible by a priest because Thecla was not acting "womanly" (i.e. refusing to marry, baptizing herself, and teaching christianity) but I have no source for this other than the History Channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Angelove (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Sourcing

This article (like many other Criticism Articles) suffers from poor sourcing. The first issue with poor sourcing is the lack of sources. Some of you might argue that a lot of this is commonly held knowledge, well it isn't for me or others, I want to see the sources where these criticisms come from. Second, much of the sourcing is primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). This is a very well studied topic and there are aggregations of criticisms, there is no need for the article to consist of OR with claims like "Most X do this" "Many Y do that" when there are sources which make those claims and can be cited. Any meta-criticism, that is aggregation of criticism, criticism of criticism should be cited to avoid OR in this article. --Quirex 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Additions

I saw this page didn't do a very good job of being neutral or presenting Christian defenses, so I tried to maintain a neutral voice while presenting the alternative side. However, the Afterlife section now clearly contradicts itself unfortunately. I don't however, believe this my fault, since I think the original author had some faulty information. I don't know of many scholars, let alone most, who believe the Old Testament fails to teach a Resurrection. As the section now shows, there are plenty of verses that show directly otherwise. --Jzyehoshua 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but many of your edits are just interpretations of scripture or quotation of scripture with no analysis whatsoever. These criticisms I lay forth are to both Jzyehoshua and Ecto Multiple problems: primary sourcing of the bible, lack of sourcing of defenses, poor quality links in defense and original research. Here are the texts of the revisions:
In Acts 17:11 it should be noted that the Bible specifically calls "noble" those that question what the scriptures say, so long as they do so "with all readiness of mind" to see "whether those things were so."(KJV)[1]
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." (I Timothy 2:11-15)
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (I Cor. 11:8-12)
It should also be noted, however, that Jesus showed in John 8:7 that for people to execute such death penalties they must be without sin themselves. And Jesus chose to forgive her, having the prerogative to do so, being without sin Himself. Since Romans ch. 3 states all have sinned before God (Jesus being the obvious sole exception since He is God), none have the right to render such judgements in the sense of condemning or punishing as a judge would do, save God.
The verses above depend upon several assumptions for an interpretation of the Second Coming occurring within 100 years. The assumption needed for Matthew 10:22-23 is that the cities of Israel could have been gone over within a century, even with ideal conditions where Israel's leaders would not persecute Christians (which was not the case).
The assumption with Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 is that those standing there must have died before they could see Christ's coming kingdom. As a reading of the book of Revelation shows, John in his "Revelation" saw Christ's coming, perhaps physically, because God gave him a revelation of the future and things to come, thus making this seeming contradiction null and void.
The assumption needed for Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:29-34 is that "this generation" means what we think in terms of, a time period measuring roughly that of a human's life span. However, the Greek word genea which we have translated generation can mean simply "age, generation, nation, or time" according to Strong's Greek dictionary.[2]
The assumptions required for Matthew 26:62-64 and Mark 16:60-62 are several, namely that Jesus was speaking to those specific leaders rather then the nation as a whole, and that if so the leaders could not see His coming after they had already physically died.
Everything in psychology
Christians believe these select few prophecies are yet left to be fulfilled in the future upon Jesus' return, as evidenced by this list of Messianic Prophecies[3] labeling them as "Future Unfulfilled." Many Jews today have rejected Jesus as their Messiah because of those specific yet-unfulfilled prophecies.
Claims of what skeptics believe - cite it!
Joan of Arc edits - cite it!
Also if you are going to cite something try using the {\{}} templates in WP:CITE.
Related policies to these edits include WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS --Quirex 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Joan of Arc content is just common historical knowledge cited in her article. We need an image for that section, and it's about gender, so Joan of Arc is relevant. The current caption should be agreeable to everyone. It's factually accurate and doesn't imply any POVs. As for the rest of your criticisms directed toward me: Huh?

  • Primary sourcing of the bible. I didn't put in ANY Bible quotations with original research commentary AT ALL. NONE. That would be Jerry1964. All the quotations in there were put in by Jerry1964 with his own personal commentary. I think they should be removed altogether unless feminist anti-Christian sources can be found mentioning them.
  • Lack of sourcing of defenses. Maybe you should read that section again. Both the attacks (put in completely unsourced by Jerry1964) and the defenses (I put in for the sake of balancing the POVs) lack sources. Why not address Jerry1964's content with this criticism? Isn't it just as unsourced?
  • Poor quality links in defense and original research. Why not "no quality links in attack and original research"? The entire section is original research because neither attack nor defense have any sources at all. I'm just on NPOV damage control trying to present both sides in a neutral way until I have some time to find sources for either side. Until then, please get off my back, or at least get on somebody else's too. Ecto 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Well no, the Joan of Arc content is not "common knowledge". It should have a reference. It should be sourced! You have no defense, it is up to you the editor to provide backup to your edits! Just because someone who gets away with it doesn't mean you should do it too. If you posted well cited positions it would do more for improving NPOV for the article than anything else. --Quirex 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You're actually telling me there's someone out there who hasn't heard about Joan of Arc? Is that a joke? What country are you from?
I've heard of her, but those not from Christian dominated countries such as Asia have not, I even asked a student of mine and she did not know (perhaps they have a different name). --Quirex 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My defense, which I have, is this: Most of your criticism directed toward me has nothing to do with the edits I made, so you can kindly stow that criticism or apologise for addressing it to me. My second defense is that some of your criticism directed toward me is in no way limited to my edits, and I find that questionable. In fact, you seem to be dead set on ignoring the unsourced POV content that I sought to balance with my edits, even after I pointed that content out to you. That is to say, the unsourced POV content of that "someone who got away with it" (thank you for your acknowledgement of that, by the way) is the content my edits go toward balancing, even if my contributions lack sources. So, I have to ask, if your interest is in NPOV, which I hope it is, why ignore those other edits while attacking mine? Why are you not demanding sources for that content while demanding sources for the content that balances it? Now, please talk to Jerry1964 or stop talking to me. You are wasting my time, and that is time that I should be--and have been--spending looking for sources. Thank you. Ecto 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your edits appeared in the block of edits after my [citation needed] edits. Your edits were not really any better than Jzyehoshua's edits. Both were generally unsourced or poorly sourced. I'm demanding all content be sourced, and sourced well. There is no excuse in an article such as this one, there are huge bodies of work both for and against Christianity. Instead of wielding POV as your weapon why not wield proper sourcing. Require the editors to source their work. An example of how the bible can't be used. From WP:V, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I challenged the Joan of Arc paragraph, it should be attributed, especially the "political" remark. You can challenge things too. --Quirex 14:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I challenge your ability to read. Once again: I HAVE NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE IN THIS SECTION INTRODUCED A QUOTATION FROM THE BIBLE. I can write that again in case you didn't catch it that time either.
The Joan of Arc material will be sourced in a few minutes. Could I please use a grade eight public high school history textbook as a citation for this arcane jem of obscure knowledge? Or would that be too much?
Well, could just leave the information that agrees with my POV unsourced and then only challenge the material that disagrees with my POV as unsourced, but that would make me a flaming hypocrite, now wouldn't it? Ecto 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I was showing you how to combat direct bible quotations as an excuse for sourcing. I also enjoy your Western-centric attitude it is refreshing. I'm just asking that editors support their edits with actual evidence. There is really no excuse given the huge body of literature on the topic. --Quirex 21:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to work on your sarcasm skills ("Western-centric" is the weakest "zing" I've ever laughed off). Ecto 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ecto, perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I had to fix your citation, not only because it was a random link but because it also left random ]] characters on the page. --Quirex 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh heavens, not a typo! P.S. Full citations aren't mandatory so get off it. Ecto 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sex" more accurate than "Gender"

I have no especial comment to make regarding the use of citations (beyond that Wikipedia policy quite clearly bans original research and requires attribution) -- my main concern is with the use of the word "gender" in the context in which the article uses it. "Gender" refers to sociological or psychological traits, whereas "sex" refers to the simple delineation between the state of being male and the state of being female. Since the article is referring to the latter topic in its Gender subsection, the uses of the word "gender" ought really to be substituted with "sex". --Jacj 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is about criticism of the social gender roles proscribed by Christianity, not Christianity's views of sex. The title should remain Gender. Ecto 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought the title "Christianity and women" was the best title so far. Both "sex" and "gender" are too vague and have subtly different meanings that may or may not be applicable here. "Gender roles" might be a more fitting title, although the content of that focuses more on women.-Andrew c 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think gender roles would be perfect. Ecto 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite sources when you edit!

There are numerous editors who are repeatedly removing sources and adding unsourced content to this article. Please provide references related to your edits. If it is criticism it means someone has written about it. Otherwise it would be OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See WP:A. --Quirex 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of sources in this article

Some christian-loving maniac has seriously set about trying to destroy this article by adding 'citation needed' to every damn sentence in it. A lot of the ideas presented here are about beliefs and logical concepts, not things that have to be proved by research. For example, there are various points in the article that start 'according to critics...', and ask for a reference of those critics - this article IS the critic-it doesn't need any citation!!! 80.229.151.52 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with policy? You most definitely need citations for those sorts of statements, or else it may be 'original research'- which is not allowed on Wikipedia. All these critical assertions should cite verifiable secondary sources, or they are possibly nothing more than the musings of a random Wikipedia editor. Additionally, I'm not sure who this editor is, but what makes you assume he is a Christian loving maniac? If it is because of the addition of these fact tags, than maybe you should stop and take a look at Wikipedia's policies. --C.Logan 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully appreciate what you are saying, but I can't help feeling that the inclusion of so many 'citation needed' is a deliberate attempt to discredit this article - I have rarely if ever seen a page with so many, so frequently. If these were included through a genuine want for factual accuracy, then I think the level of thoroughness here is great and would like to see it applied to many more articles. However, I still have my reservations as to the motives, especially regarding this article's content.Sidthesloth 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if this is a deliberate attempt, it's opened the door to something that should be undertaken. I'm not here to comment about the state of the article, I was just responding to a comment which didn't display knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Whether the act was intended to discredit the article or not, citations should be added wherever possible.--C.Logan 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moses and Sargon?

This article seems riddled with mad theories and criticisms that suppose the events of the bible are true. Where are the real arguments against christianity? Is this page being run by angsty teens? Any philologist worth his salt can show you that the Bible is largely borrowed from previous religions and myths, and subsequently that those religions and myths are largely borrowed from those before them. Let me get you started: Read about the birth of King Sargon in Babylonian myth, and then read about the birth of Moses. Once you've done that, check out Oedipous and Judas. And so on. Rinse, repeat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.39.220 (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to contribute, snuggles. Just make sure you cite some reliable sources, as your personal theories have little value here. --C.Logan 05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't there anything about rational or atheist criticism

The majority of the criticism of Christianity that I read about is from Atheists, who dislike it on rational grounds. Why is there nothing in the article about this? Previously the section about Alistair McGrath etc. was longer than the part about Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins' criticisms (which covers one line or so). NPOV! 59.167.135.148 10:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection was an over-reaction

So... two different editors revert an anon editor, removing obvious OR. The anon editor then complains to an administrator. IMHO the administrator was wrong to protect the page. S/he should have just ignored the complaint (or explained why the reverts were justified). Peter Ballard 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the anon did not complain to an administrator (at least, his page emphasizes several times that he is not and administrator. I have pointed out that the anon's presentation of the events were rather unfair, and I've explained the reasons behind the reversions, which were all in line with policy and therefore were justified. As far as I was told, the editor whose advice had been requested agrees with my presentation of things. I believe the block was placed so that any edit-warring spirit can cool down.--C.Logan 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slavery

This line seems incorrect to me: "A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization in 1873, and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. " Slavery was ended in England far earlier (America too). How could the first abolition group form after slavery was over. See the "Slavery Abolition Act" entry to see that slavery ended in Britian in 1833.Bryandford (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the year altogether. If I was less lazy I'd find what the correct year was. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

The page should be changed back to what it was containing the material about the inquisition and the bible passages. Two editors continually deleted this material with the contention it was against wikipedia rules, but they didnt' demonstrate this so the changes could be made, they just reverted it.

Biblical1 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only restored the original content once. I don't normally patrol this page actively, but when I see blatant OR coupled with massive, undiscussed alterations suddenly happen to an article on my watchlist, I'll most likely do something. Considering that the alterations started by proclaiming that critics criticize the "contradictions in the Bible", with the presumption that contradictions definently exist, I really don't see how it isn't blatantly obvious that such content isn't neutral and never will be. Plus, a whole bunch of content was changed at once, is it too much to assume that someone should, I don't know, discuss with editors what they want to radically re-write before they radically re-write? Homestarmy 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The Bible passages had no secondary sources, so were as good as uncited (see WP:PSTS. It also appeared to be WP:Original Research (i.e., who says they are an appropriate list of passages to include). Besides that, it was in the wrong place, it belongs in Internal consistency of the Bible. The reverts were justified. Peter Ballard 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lay out

Hey everyone, its Biblical1. The page just incorporated material that existed prior but was cluttered. We need to reduce the clutter in some of the other sections and make the layout look nice. All comments are welcome. Help us out. Biblical1 (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, what prior material? Where exactly did you get it from? Much of it was deleted for good reason. I propose undoing your change, because for the last 4 days people have been trying to fix the mess. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Since these changes have been proven time and again to be controversial, why not instead of making one big change, instead make individual proposals here on talk. This way, we can see if there is a consensus to include any of this. I've already removed the biblical contradiction quotes, because that was already discussed before, and there hasn't been a new consensus yet to support inclusion. I'd support reverting the major edit, and I'd support discussing the merits of each issue here on talk. (but personally, I think I agree with Peter that much of it was deleted for good reason).-Andrew c [talk] 03:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Andrew C - There doesn't need to be a consensus over the material posted, it only has to be neutral, original research, and be attributed to some authors views. The Bible scripture passages are all referenced with 100s of manhours behind them. Just because some Christians find it controversial to their faith doesn't mean it's against Wikipedia.

Peter - The material needs to be reassessed. I've worked hard on lots of it, please realize that all of it is accurate according to the rules required by Wikipedia according to content. This page is dedicated to all criticism of Christianity, whether it's good or bad criticism doesn't matter.

-Biblical1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblical1 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to make a good quality article here. You dumped material in (from I don't know where), making the article a mess, with repetitive sections. A better way to go is incremental editing, a bit at a time. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
p.s. If you've worked 100s of hours on it, create your own web page and put it there. This article is a collaborative effort. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree- incremental changes are preferable. Also, I assume you mean "no" original research. And by the way, there seems to be some confusion over what "NPOV" means. Deleting non-critical books from the Further reading section is not NPOV, and it hurts the article. Deleting opinions to those "sympathetic to Christianity" is ridiculous and is a violation of NPOV again, unless one is willing to delete those who are opposed to Christianity as well; every one has a particular bias, and NPOV is meant to include opinions from all throughout the studies of the subject, not to eliminate sympathetic opinions. That sort of thinking is very troubling. This article, to adhere to WP:NPOV, should include opinions of those who are against Christianity, for Christianity, and who sit somewhere in the middle.--C.Logan (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Logan. The Science and Christiantiy section with information included by a book from Ted Peters violates the Verifiability rule, because it does not qualify as a "reliable source". To be a reliable source it must either have been approved by the scientific community or scientific journals. Ted Peters is a Christian Apologist and a philosopher who is publishing from a disputable publisher. Here are the rules for reliable sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Also, the debate centering around the antagonistic relationship between Science and Christianity is a fact not up for dispute. Galileo, Copernicus, and Giordano Bruno are three pertinent examples of the Pope's reluctance to accept evidence from the discoveries of the scientific community because they didn't accord with literal translations of the Bible. This area needs to be altered to to take into account these facts.

Also the language must be changed. "Ted Peters points out" is what was currently in there. It must be changed to "Ted Peters claims", the words "points out" is in violation of the fact that the claim is up for dispute. Also your Christian works violate the neutral point of view policy because they are sympathetic in nature. See here: "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." Logan, I know your familiar with Wikipedia rules but it seems as if you're stretching them so you can add and erase material in order to present a favorable page for your Christian beliefs. This again, is in violation of Wikipedia rules. - Biblical1

[edit] C Logan and Peter

We can include your Christian views without you deleting critical information. You have to be careful that it is not 1) Sympathetic towards Christianity and Biased 2) That it's published research and not disputed by the Scientific community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset is a good place to start. I welcome you to add your disputed claims about science and christianity under the Christianity webpage - please refrain from violating wikipedia rules and seeing it as your mission to delete content against your Christian Beliefs. This is unacceptable and quite frusterating. Biblical1 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've already noted, point 1 is a misunderstanding of policy. As for 2, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It includes disputed views as well as generally-accepted ones. The point of WP:NPOV is so that all such notable views are included when discussing a subject. As important as scientific study is in the modern world, it is important to note that Wikipedia does not make any claim to the truthfulness of any particular view; it simply reports the scope of views on the subject. As such, the claims of the "scientific community" are about as valid as the claims of any Pope or Patriarch, or theologian, and so on. The relevance of a source or scholar to the topic must be addressed, but the removal of information because the sources are "sympathetic to Christianity" is a violation of NPOV, as I have explained below.
Additionally, I will ask again that you assume good faith in respect to editors such as Peter and myself. It's easy to blame any dispute on the involvement of perceived bias, when in reality we're going out of our way to explain the actual, valid problems we have with your edits. Additionally, try not to call the kettle black, as I am aware of your own POV from your posts on my talk page; as it is, I am not accusing you of making edits based on your POV, though the changes coincide enough that I could. The policy of assuming good faith means that I'll assume that you are misreading policy rather than deliberately violating it to push a particular POV.
Finally, the deletion of the added material is in accordance with Peter's request that you add information incrementally. Make individual changes, because overhauling the entire article in a single edit is bad manners; it makes it extremely difficult for observing editors to note your changes, and it makes the reversion/lookup of bad revisions essentially impossible. Additionally, one would ideally give an edit summary with each change, so as to provide reasoning behind each action. I ask again that you make changes in this manner, because it's the proper way to do things, and makes it easier for all of us to share our opinions concerning the direction of the article.--C.Logan (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the NPOV to save you from looking it up. "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject " The page must be devoted to the subject - criticism of christianity - , not information sympathetic to christianity and defending it. Biblical1 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. Quote: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article". Therefore this page must present both sides of arguments. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not embarrass yourself by misreading policy further. That is in regard to article presentation, and not the individual views or sources expressed therein. By your broken logic, almost every single bit of information in this article must be deleted- note "nor in opposition to". If this is how you read the policy, then it seems that we should say bye-bye to Bertrand Russell and the like.
Of course, we don't have to, because your reading of policy is incorrect. You confuse a statement in policy which refers to the written text put together by editors with the actual statements of the views and sources themselves. If you'd like to re-write WP:NPOV to suit your interpretation, I welcome you to try, but it should be clear to any experienced editor that you are not aware of what the policy is actually saying.
Note to Peter: unfortunately, his confusion is not only concerning POV forks, which would be a reasonable one. It seems that he misunderstands the core policy as well.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually my main criticism is not the POV material (that is easy enough to fix, at least in pricicple), but the wholesale dumping of material. Some of it duplicated existing sections. If Biblical1 retreived this from an earlier version of this article (which appears to be the case), then this is definitely against the spirit of WP, if not the actual rules. It is in effect overwriting many months or years of collaborative improving of the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking of his removal of material which ran counter to his own point of view, while citing WP:NPOV as his reasoning.--C.Logan (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's best I suppose to add information as I go along. However, the stipulation to this "discussion" agreement is the Science section devoted to the disputed claims of "one Ted Peters" be condensed. I will let you present his views, though they aren't true, though I wish they were, it would make life a hell of a lot easier! The overwhelming images used to support his disputed claims areridiculous. I realize most people see that section and disregard it because they realize a sympathetic person wrote it, they know that person hasn't read many books other htan Christian ones, but it is still quite annoying. Also Logan, it's very obvious you're not the type of person who goes out of his way to learn about things which stimulate your own curioisity. I've noticed you continually put the same material in the article, even after other sources have contradicted it (you even have the oppurtunity to read further and advance your knowledge), yet you delete the new material and stick with past edits because they limit the doubts that rise upon your beliefs.
Peter, I will add incrementally. If anything is disputed, do so in the discussion. Also delusions about "not being neutral" is insulting. My only concern above all else is the truth, if it so happens that all criticism of christianity is rubbish, so be it, but if it happens that much of the criticism is valid and much of the ignorant masses are unaware of this, the material must stand, whether it causes you to question your beliefs or not. I must admit, I've never crossd two more "contentious" people in my life. I wish you devoted your rigid behaviors into finding out how things are, rather than continually presenting your case without even stopping for a second to ask "Is what I believe true? What is the evidence against my beliefs? Shouldn't I search it out and read everything I can? Wouldn't that make me a smarter and better Christian? Think of all the power I can amass"?.
I don't have time to deal with you two now, but rest assured, the truth will be thrown in your faces. I can't make you accept it, but ignorance will always be your own ill doing. Have a nice sunday night. I wish you both emotional well-being even though I despise your beliefs and ways of understanding the world. Your Friend, Biblical1. 74.128.175.136 (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't make any assumptions about me, because you have a habit of making assumptions about me which are insulting. I haven't "added" anything, by the way, but I've only reverted your changes which I would say are misguided and unsupported by policy. Your removal of "Christian sympathetic" viewpoints is a violation of WP:NPOV, as is your removal of books under further reading for similar reasons. As far as everything else is concerned, I support Peter's request for incremental edits, and I'm glad that you're willing to accomodate this request.
What troubles me, though, is your blatant lack of concern for NPOV. Please read your above comment to yourself, and imagine how clear it is to everyone else that you feel that your own beliefs take center stage. Wikipedia does not make any claims for truth; it intends to report all notable views on the topic (assuming the sources comply with policy). I have the nagging fear that you're displaying article ownership and disregard for policy by removing or discounting views with which you disagree. Your last paragraph above is of an unacceptable tone. Please exhibit neutrality and a concern to work with others on the issue, and most importantly, to listen to users who are more experienced with Wikipedia.--C.Logan (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Biblical1: stop making assumptions about me. How do you know I am rigid or never read views opposing my beliefs? My concern is for a balanced and readable article. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compatability with Science

David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggests this view but these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex, according to Lindberg.[11]Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church."[12]Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority."[13]

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 14th century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).During the nineteenth century developed what scholars today call the conflict thesis (or the warfare model, or the Draper-White thesis). According to it, any interaction between religion and science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas. A popular example was the supposition that people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was round.

This notion of a war between science and religion (especially Christianity) remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[14] Similar views have also been supported by many scientists. The astronomer Carl Sagan, for example, mentions the dispute between the astronomical systems of Ptolemy (who thought that the sun and planets revolved around the earth) and Copernicus (who thought the earth and planets revolved around the sun). He states in his A personal Voyage that Ptolemy's belief was "supported by the church through the Dark Ages...[It] effectively prevented the advance of astronomy for 1,500 years."[15]Sagan rebukes claims that religion and science did not have an antagonizing relationship in the Medieval era by explaining the axioms of Copernicus' discovery:

This Copernican model worked at least as well as Ptolemy's crystal spheres, but it annoyed an awful lot of people. The Catholic Church later put Copernicus' work on its list of forbidden books, and Martin Luther described Copernicus in these words... People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strives to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun or the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

– Martin Luther, Tischreden, ed Walsch XXII, 2260

Ted Peters, however, points out that the above remark didn't come from Luther's authored writings but rather from students who were taking notes. Ted states that Luther had only heard tales of Copernicus' new idea and didn't really have any serious engagements on this issue. Regarding Copernicus' thought, he is said to "have quipped that this would be comparable to somebody riding on a cart or in a ship and imagining that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving." Peters concludes that "spoken in jest, such items ought not to be interpreted as indicating any general opposition to science."[16]

The framing of the relationship between Christianity and science as being predominantly one of conflict is still prevalent in popular culture, but the same is not true among today's academics on the topic.[17]Most of today's historians of science consider that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research[18]

Moreover, many scientists through out history held strong Christian beliefs and strove to reconcile science and religion. Isaac Newton, for example, believed that gravity caused the planets to revolve about the Sun, and credited God with the design, yet his religious views are generally considered heretical. In the concluding General Scholium to the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Other famous founders of science as we know it who adhered to Christian beliefs included Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal.[19][20]

Medieval scholars sought to understand the geometric and harmonic principles by which God created the universe.[21]Historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron,[22]Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg,[23]Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein,[24]and Ted Davis also have been revising the common notion — the product of black legends say some — that medieval Christianity has had a negative influence in the development of civilization. These historians believe that not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian," not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith.[25]Also, some today's scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have suggested that Christianity with its particular worldview was actually a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science.

{{editprotected}}

Everything I highlighted in Bold is missing credible evidence. I'm a neuroscientist. My domain is science. The reason people believe Science and Religion did not mix was because up until 400 years ago, the Earth was viewed as the Center of the Universe because of the literal translation of the book of Joshua where God commanded the Earth to stand still. Martin Luther rejected Copernicus' theory of that the Earth revolves around the sun on the very grounds of the book of Joshua. All of the above information highlighted is not true, and coincedentially, all of it is written by philosophers (historians of science are philosophers, i dont know if u know this) who are apologist Christians - the very goal of their works is to reconcile Christian faith with evidence that is uncomforting. None of these beliefs in Bold is true.
On another note, Issac Newton rejected Christianity outright, he did not believe in Jesus and thought people who did were ignorant. He thought Jesus was just another man. It's laughable that someone added him in here!

Biblical1 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Biblical1, as far as I can see you are removing scholarly sources from the article (e.g. Science and Religion article from Encyclopedia of Religion). Please review wikipedia policies like WP:RS, etc --Aminz (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It could well be that some of the material should be removed, or edited for balance, or refuted with counter arguments - that would require a more thorough examination than I have the time for. But you can't just go deleting material because its authors are sympathetic to Christianity. There is significant writing and study on both sides, so both sides of the argument need to be put. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
N Declined. There is currently no consensus for this edit request. Sandstein (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This user appears to have a habit of POV pushing, and either he is unaware or does not care that he is running against policy with his stated reasons. Most importantly, one of the most essential statements of WP:V, "The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", seems to be unknown to him, as his accusation that none of the bolded text is "true" makes clear.--C.Logan (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should be unblocked, and if Biblical1 removes the sourced material again (instead of balancing them out with other sources if he thinks they are biased), he should be reported to wiki admins and in case he continues I'd say he should be blocked. --Aminz (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Biblical1 has expressed a willingness to do changes incrementally, and is using this discussion page rather than trying to override consensus. So I see no need to block him/her at this stage. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading title?

I was expecting something far more critical, after reading the first sections, I've "learned" that Christianity loves and nurtured Science and is in fact great for women! some sections are in fact counter-criticisms directed toward skeptics and the anti-christian viewpoint! this article is lacking NPOV. Sfoucher (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

To be NPOV, the article needs to present all sides of the argument. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#POV forks. If you want to read an article which argues only in one direction, then Wikipedia is not the place. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
fair enough, but the article title suggests otherwise, "Debunking Criticisms of Christianity" would be a more appropriate title. Sfoucher (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There's far more text dedicated to countering the criticisms than to describing them. Look at the Slavery section ([4]), for example. It doesn't even bother with the criticism! It just jumps straight to the apologetics. Ilkali (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Sfoucher's point about the title is dead on target here. It's rather Orwellian. The most significant social (as opposed to theologically-oriented) criticisms are missing or are relegated to sub-articles. Some sections don't feature any criticism at all. (Just compare this to Criticism of Islam, for example!) Some specific comments:
  • Eurocentrism The section begins "Christians have answered the charge of Eurocentrism by ..." and then continues to debunk these charges of eurocentrism for the entire section. The actual criticism is never even articulated! It should read something like "Some critics of Christianity argue it is eurocentric in that ..." and then go on to summarize this line of argument and its most notable proponents for most of the section. Finally, it should provide a concise summary of the major responses to this line of criticism.
  • Slavery does just the same thing. Roughly all of it is a rebuttal to arguments about Christianity and slavery - arguments which are never even specified.
  • Christianity and women is a bit better in that it actually contains a few of the criticisms in question, but it is still largely a rebuttal of the criticisms, instead of an encyclopedic summary of them.
  • Origins doesn't seem to contain criticisms of Christianity. What is the criticism being made? It seems to be surrounding the question of whether Jesus is a real historical figure. This is pertinent to some degree if we can identify people who have criticized Christianity on the basis of historical innacuracy. The subsection could then perhaps be renamed Historical accuracy or something.
  • I don't think it makes sense to have Christians as a subsection of an article on criticisms of Christianity. Of course people are going to disagree about whether or not the Spanish Inquisition or the clerical sexual abuse scandals, or what have you, are the fault of just a few particular Christians or Christianity itself. So you can't decide from the outset that you're going to divide the article into bad things that some Christians have done and bad things intrinsic to Christianity. It's an impossible situation. The criticisms in this section should be moved to other sections based on their topic. E.g. Persecution of non-Christians, Persecution of gays and lesbians, or what have you.
  • Compatibility with science is a bit of a loaded heading. The idea that Christianity is inherintly incompatible with science is only one of many criticisms relating the two things. More commonly people argue that the church has persecuted scientists, hindered the growth of science, or the scientific worldview. Presumably this section would include historical stuff as contemporary stuff like creatonism vs. evolution, stem-cell research, etc.
  • Random point: It seems like there's a large-scale distinction between theological, historical, and sociopolitical criticisms of Christianity. It's a little confusing to have them all mixed together. Maybe these should be top-level headings? Just a thought. I have other comments but I'll stop there. Nonplus (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I largely agree with your points. Like many articles on issues with sharply divided opinions, it has suffered from bits-and-pieces editing, often by overzealous editors - e.g. editors who apparently chopped out the entire argument one way before putting in their rebuttal. Other sections, and their organisation, seems rather ad hoc. To get it into shape, the only solution I see is lots of hard work. I think the first step is organising the article properly, and your suggestion under "random point" might be useful. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also having trouble seeing where the criticisms are in the article. I realize that to conform with WP:NPOV, the article should provide rebuttals, but now entire paragraphs are devoted to apologetics without even attempting to rebut a specific criticism. I suggest that in order to conform to NPOV, apologetics which do not attach to a specific criticism should be removed. Furthermore, criticisms also need to be precise and sourced. I will hopefully post more details here in the next few days. silly rabbit (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual abuse scandals

Why is there no mention of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases? I would fix it myself but I am currently involved with other projects right now... just thought I'd mention it. Seems like a glaring omission. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume sexual abuse would be mentioned if it was specified as being a Christian thing. But it is not. It belongs in individual denominations articles - Catholicism, Mormonism or wherever it occurs more frequently than in the general population. rossnixon 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, catholics were christian. Also, there is no Criticism of Catholicism page... I assume this page covers criticisms of every denomination of christianity. Therefore it belongs here. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Try Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church and link near bottom to Catholic Sexual Abuse Cases. rossnixon 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Touché! I looked for that page, couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Suggestion withdrawn! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)