Jump to content

Religious censorship: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
I see no site the postumous editing isn't anything than normal editing. It's just not censorship.
Undid revision 821509421 by Smkolins (talk) See talk page
Line 61: Line 61:


== In the Bahá'í Faith ==
== In the Bahá'í Faith ==
The [[Bahá'í Faith]] has a requirement that any member who wishes to publish anything related to the religion first has to submit the material to the [[Bahá'í administration|Bahá'í Administrative Order]] and obtain approval prior to submission for publication. According the Administrative Order, the purpose of the [[Bahá'í review]] is threefold:<ref>{{cite book|title=Lights of Guidance|page=101|url=http://bahai-library.com/hornby_lights_guidance.html&chapter=2|editor=Helen Hornby}}</ref>
The [[Bahá'í Faith]] has a requirement that Bahá'í authors should seek review of their works by the [[National Spiritual Assembly]] of the country in which it will be printed. The requirement was initiated by [[`Abdu'l-Baha]] and intended to sunset when the religion grows in numbers. The publication review requirement does not apply to most online content or local promotional material. According to the [[Universal House of Justice]], the highest governing body of the religion,
*To ensure the accuracy of the presentation of the teachings of the religion
{{quote|The purpose of review is to protect the Faith against misrepresentation by its own followers at this early stage of its existence when comparatively few people have any knowledge of it. An erroneous presentation of the Teachings by a Bahá'í who is accounted a scholar, in a scholarly journal, would by that very fact, do far more harm than an erroneous presentation made by an obscure Bahá'í author with no pretensions to scholarship.<ref>{{cite book|title=Lights of Guidance|page=101|url=http://bahai-library.com/hornby_lights_guidance.html&chapter=2|editor=Helen Hornby}}</ref>}}
*To protect the religion from misrepresentation by its own followers
*To ensure dignity of the form
⚫
[[Juan Cole]], a [[List of former Bahá'ís|former Bahá'í]] who had disagreements with the Bahá'í administration in part due to the process of [[Bahá'í review]], describes it as "a system of in-house censorship" which "has provoked many conflicts between Bahá'í officials and writers over the years."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Cole |first= Juan R.I. | authorlink = Juan Cole | last2= |first2= |date= June 1998 |title= The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997 | url= http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm |journal= The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |publisher= |volume= 37 |issue= 2 |pages= |doi= |access-date= September 30, 2016 }}</ref> There have been several notable conflicts originating from the practice of review, and a number of prominent academics, including [[Juan Cole]], [[Denis MacEoin]] and [[Abbas Amanat]], have either been excommunicated or forced to resign due to academic disagreements with the religious hierarchy. Denis MacEoin has said that the review has stifled research in [[Bahá'í studies]].<ref>{{cite journal |last= MacEoin |first= Denis| authorlink = Denis MacEoin| last2= |first2= |date= 1990 |title= The crisis in Babi and Baha'i studies: part of a wider crisis in academic freedom? |url= http://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/Denis%20MacEoin,%20Crisis%20in%20Babi%20and%20Baha'i%20Studies.pdf |journal= British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies |publisher= |volume= 17 |issue= 1 |pages= |doi= |access-date= September 30, 2016}}</ref> [[Moojan Momen]], another academic in the field of [[Bahá'í studies]] who has called MacEoin and Cole "apostates," disagrees and states that "there is no more 'censorship' involved in this process than with any other academic journal."<ref>{{cite journal | title= Marginality and Apostasy in the Bahá'í Community | url=http://bahai-library.com/momen_marginality_apostasy| first = Moojan | last= Momen |authorlink= Moojan Momen | journal="Religion" | pages = 187–209 | year = 2007 | number = 37:3 }}</ref>


In a separate process, distinct from Bahá'í review, a number of prominent works of Bahá'í literature have been posthumously edited after the authors deaths. Works subject to this practice include [[John Esslemont]]'s ''Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era'', from which references to the early Bahá'í historian and later apostate [[Abd al-Hosayn Ayati|Avarih]] were removed, and [[John Ferraby]]'s ''All Things Made New'', in which references to "The First [[Guardian (Bahá'í Faith)|Guardian]] of the Bahá'í Faith" was changed to simply "The Guardian" and other references to "the Guardian" replaced with "the [[Universal House of Justice]]."<ref>{{cite web |last = Bahá'í International Community | first = | authorlink = Bahá'í International Community | title = "Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era" editions and printings held in Bahá'í World Centre Library Decade by decade 1920 -2000+ | work = General Collections | publisher = International Bahá'í Library | url = http://library.bahai.org/gc/bne.html | accessdate = 2009-04-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://bahai-library.com/salisbury_critical_examination_literature |title= A Critical Examination of 20th-Century Baha'i Literature |last= Salisbury |first= Vance |date= 1997 |website= Bahá'í Library Online |publisher= |access-date= December 8, 2016 |quote=}}</ref> This practice has been criticized by observers,<ref>{{Cite book |first = Francis |last = Beckwith |authorlink = Francis Beckwith |year = 1985 |title = Bahá'í |publisher = Bethany House |location = Minneapolis, MN, USA |isbn = 0-87123-848-9|pages = 37–38 }}</ref> but has been defended as an integral part of maintaining the integrity of the texts.<ref>{{cite web | author = The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States | title = Dates in ''Baha'u'llah and the New Era'': A response to Francis Beckwith | date = 1992-09-24 | url = http://bahai-library.com/nsa_beckwith_esslemont | accessdate = 2006-12-22 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author = The Universal House of Justice | authorlink = Universal House of Justice | title = Beckwith's allegations | date = 1995-06-25 | url =http://bahai-library.com/uhj_beckwith_allegations | accessdate = 2006-12-22 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author = The Universal House of Justice | authorlink = Universal House of Justice | title = Access to materials at the Bahá'í World Centre | date = 1999-05-04 | url =http://bahai-library.com/uhj_access_sources | accessdate = 2006-12-25 }}</ref>
⚫
The review requirement has been criticized by a few academic Bahá'ís as censorship. [[Juan Cole]], professor of history at the University of Michigana, had conflicts over the issue and withdrew his membership as a Bahá'í, claiming that it "has provoked many conflicts between Bahá'í officials and writers over the years."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Cole |first= Juan R.I. | authorlink = Juan Cole | last2= |first2= |date= June 1998 |title= The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997 | url= http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm |journal= The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion |publisher= |volume= 37 |issue= 2 |pages= |doi= |access-date= September 30, 2016 }}</ref> [[Denis MacEoin]] similarly resigned his membership and said that the review stifled research in [[Bahá'í studies]].<ref>{{cite journal |last= MacEoin |first= Denis| authorlink = Denis MacEoin| last2= |first2= |date= 1990 |title= The crisis in Babi and Baha'i studies: part of a wider crisis in academic freedom? |url= http://fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/Denis%20MacEoin,%20Crisis%20in%20Babi%20and%20Baha'i%20Studies.pdf |journal= British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies |publisher= |volume= 17 |issue= 1 |pages= |doi= |access-date= September 30, 2016}}</ref> [[Moojan Momen]], another academic in the field of [[Bahá'í studies]] who has called MacEoin and Cole "apostates," disagrees and states that "there is no more 'censorship' involved in this process than with any other academic journal."<ref>{{cite journal | title= Marginality and Apostasy in the Bahá'í Community | url=http://bahai-library.com/momen_marginality_apostasy| first = Moojan | last= Momen |authorlink= Moojan Momen | journal="Religion" | pages = 187–209 | year = 2007 | number = 37:3 }}</ref>


==Other examples==
==Other examples==

Revision as of 16:25, 21 January 2018

Religious censorship is a form of censorship where freedom of expression is controlled or limited using religious authority or on the basis of the teachings of the religion. This form of censorship has a long history and is practiced in many societies and by many religions. Examples include the Edict of Compiègne, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books) and the condemnation of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Overview

Religious censorship is defined as the act of suppressing views that are contrary of those of an organized religion. It is usually performed on the grounds of blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege or impiety - the censored work being viewed as obscene, challenging a dogma, or violating a religious taboo. Defending against these charges is often difficult as some religious traditions permit only the religious authorities (clergy) to interpret doctrine and the interpretation is usually dogmatic. For instance, the Catholic Church banned hundreds of books on such grounds and maintained the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books), most of which were writings that the Church's Holy Office had deemed dangerous, until the Index's abolishment in 1965.

In Christianity

The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440 changed the nature of book publishing.[1] As of the 16th century, in most European countries both the church and governments attempted to regulate and control printing. Governments established controls over printers across Europe, requiring them to have official licenses to trade and produce books.[2][3] In 1557 the English Crown aimed to stem the flow of dissent by chartering the Stationers' Company. The right to print was restricted to the two universities (Oxford and Cambridge) and the 21 existing printers in the City of London. In France, the 1551 Edict of Châteaubriant included provisions for unpacking and inspecting all books brought into France.[4][5] The 1557 Edict of Compiègne applied the death penalty to heretics and resulted in the burning of a noblewoman at the stake.[6]

A first version of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books") was promulgated by Pope Paul IV in 1559, and multiple revisions were made to it over the years.

Some works named in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum are the writings of Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic scholar who argued that the Comma Johanneum was probably forged and De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, a treatise by Nicolaus Copernicus arguing for a heliocentric orbit of the earth, both works that at the time contradicted the Church's official stance on particular issues.

The final (20th) edition appeared in 1948, and it was formally abolished on 14 June 1966 by Pope Paul VI.[7][8] However, the moral obligation of the Index was not abolished, according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[9] Furthermore, the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that bishops have the duty and right to review material concerning faith or morals before it may be published.[10]

In 1992 José Saramago's "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" entry in the Aristeion European Literary Prize was blocked by the Portuguese Under Secretary of State for Culture due to pressures from the Catholic Church.[11]

In Islamic societies

Main article: Censorship in Islamic societies
See also: Islamic religious police

Although nothing in the Qur'an explicitly imposes censorship, similar methodology has been carried out under Islamic theocracies, such as the fatwa (religious judgment) against The Satanic Verses (a novel), ordering that the author be executed for blasphemy.

Some Islamic societies have religious police, who seize banned consumer products and media regarded as un-Islamic, such as CDs/DVDs of various Western musical groups, television shows and film.[12] In Saudi Arabia, religious police actively prevent the practice or proselytizing of non-Islamic religions within Arabia, where they are banned.[12] This included the ban of the film, The Passion of the Christ.

Examples of Muslim censorship:

A page from a 15th-century illustrated copy of a book by Al-Bīrūnī, depicting Muhammad at the Farewell Pilgrimage.[13] This image was the subject of a 2008 petition to have it removed from Wikipedia.

In Judaism

Throughout the history of the publishing of Jewish books, various works have been censored or banned. These can be divided into two main categories: Censorship by a non-Jewish government, and self-censorship. Self-censorship could be done either by the author himself, or by the publisher, out of fear from the gentiles or public reaction. Another important distinction that has to be made is between the censorship which existed already on manuscripts, before the printing press was invented, and the more official censorship after the printing press was invented.

Gentile government censorship

Many studies have been written on censorship and its influence on the publishing of Jewish books. For example, studies have appeared on the censorship of Jewish books when they were first starting to be published, in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Other studies have been written on the censorship of the Czarist government in Russia in the nineteenth century.

Many of the "official" Christian government censors of Jewish books were Jewish apostates. The main reason for this was due to their knowledge of Hebrew, especially Rabbinic Hebrew.

In Czarist Russia in the nineteenth century, it was decreed that Jewish books could only be published in two cities, Vilnius and Zhitomir.

Censorship by Jewish religious authorities

See also: Heresy in Judaism § Jews accused of heresy

The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) prohibits the reading of extra-biblical books (ספרים חיצונים). The Talmud explains this to mean the book of Ben Sirah (Sirach). In the early thirteenth century the philosophical book The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides was prohibited to be read until one was older by some French and Spanish Jewish leaders, because of the perceived danger of philosophy. Philosophy was prohibited to be learned until the age of forty. The same restriction was later applied to Kabbalah, in the fifteenth century. In the 1720s, the kabbalistic works of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato were banned by religious leaders. In the 1690s, the book Pri Chadash was banned in Egypt for arguing on earlier authorities.[14]

In the modern era, when government censorship of Jewish books is uncommon, books are mainly self-censored, or banned by Orthodox Jewish religious authorities. Marc Shapiro points out that not all books considered heretical by Orthodox Jews are banned; only those books on which there is a risk that Orthodox Jews may read them are banned.[15] Some examples:

  • The Reconstructionist Siddur (1945), revised by Mordecai Kaplan.
  • Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues (1990), by Rabbi Leo Levi, was banned by Rabbi Elazar Shach. It was banned because it discussed the value of studying subjects other than Torah.
  • My Uncle The Netziv (1988), an excerpt of the book Mekor Baruch by Rabbi Baruch Epstein, was banned by anonymous Rabbis in Lakewood, New Jersey. It was banned because it was perceived to have said unflattering things about the Netziv.[16]
  • HaGaon (Hebrew, 2002), a biography of the Vilna Gaon, by Dov Eliach, was banned by Chassidic leaders for its attacks against Chassidus.[17]
  • The Science of Torah (2001), by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, was banned by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and others. It was banned because it explained how the theory of evolution can fit with Judaism; evolution is opposed by many authorities. Slifkin's books Mysterious Creatures (2003) and The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax (2004) were also banned, because they brought down opinions that Chazal could be incorrect in their scientific knowledge.
  • Making of a Godol (2002), by Rabbi Natan Kamenetzky, was banned by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and other Orthodox Jewish authorities because of its sometimes unflattering portrayals of Jewish leaders.
  • The Dignity of Difference (2002), by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, was banned by Rabbi Elayshiv and others. It was banned because it was perceived to equate Judaism with other religions.
  • One People, Two Worlds: A Reform rabbi and an Orthodox rabbi explore the issues that divide them (2003) by Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch and Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Reinman, was banned by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudath Israel of America and the heads of Beth Medrash Govoha, Lakewood, New Jersey.
  • Kosher Jesus, by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, was banned in 2012 by the Chabad rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet, who labelled the book as heretical and stated that it "poses a tremendous risk to the Jewish community," and that "I have never read a book, let alone one authored by a purported frum Jew, that does more to enhance the evangelical missionary message and agenda than the aforementioned book".[18]

In the Bahá'í Faith

The Bahá'í Faith has a requirement that any member who wishes to publish anything related to the religion first has to submit the material to the Bahá'í Administrative Order and obtain approval prior to submission for publication. According the Administrative Order, the purpose of the Bahá'í review is threefold:[19]

  • To ensure the accuracy of the presentation of the teachings of the religion
  • To protect the religion from misrepresentation by its own followers
  • To ensure dignity of the form

Juan Cole, a former Bahá'í who had disagreements with the Bahá'í administration in part due to the process of Bahá'í review, describes it as "a system of in-house censorship" which "has provoked many conflicts between Bahá'í officials and writers over the years."[20] There have been several notable conflicts originating from the practice of review, and a number of prominent academics, including Juan Cole, Denis MacEoin and Abbas Amanat, have either been excommunicated or forced to resign due to academic disagreements with the religious hierarchy. Denis MacEoin has said that the review has stifled research in Bahá'í studies.[21] Moojan Momen, another academic in the field of Bahá'í studies who has called MacEoin and Cole "apostates," disagrees and states that "there is no more 'censorship' involved in this process than with any other academic journal."[22]

In a separate process, distinct from Bahá'í review, a number of prominent works of Bahá'í literature have been posthumously edited after the authors deaths. Works subject to this practice include John Esslemont's Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era, from which references to the early Bahá'í historian and later apostate Avarih were removed, and John Ferraby's All Things Made New, in which references to "The First Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith" was changed to simply "The Guardian" and other references to "the Guardian" replaced with "the Universal House of Justice."[23][24] This practice has been criticized by observers,[25] but has been defended as an integral part of maintaining the integrity of the texts.[26][27][28]

Other examples

See also: Religious controversies
Ryan McCourt, pictured with his sculpture "Destroyer of Obstacles," in front of the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada August 2007, a month before the work was ordered removed by Mayor Stephen Mandel.

In 2006, Ryan McCourt was the first artist selected to display sculpture for one year outside Edmonton's Shaw Conference Centre.[29] McCourt's exhibition, "Will and Representation," was an installation of four large sculptures based on Ganesha,[30] a deity from Hindu mythology. Ten months into the exhibition, then-Mayor of Edmonton Stephen Mandel ordered the works removed after reportedly receiving a 700-name petition complaining of the sculptures' "disrespectful" nudity.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] When asked for comment, McCourt stated that "Nudity seems like a rather quaint thing to get one's knickers in a bunch over, in the 21st century. Besides, there's lots of art that I don't like, I don't go around gathering signatures of people who agree with me, and try to force the art to come down. That would be truly offensive, especially in a democracy like Canada."[39]

Broadly, the public reaction to Mandel's censorship decree was one of disapproval.[40][41][42][43][44] In an interview with the Edmonton Journal's Paula Simons, David Goa, religious scholar, cultural anthropologist, and director of the University of Alberta's Chester Ronning Centre for the Study of Religion and Public Life, states "In India, Lord Ganesha is on everything -- playing cards, advertising signs, lotto tickets, even diapers, I suspect." Within the traditional Thirty-two forms of Ganesha in Hinduism, Ganesha is sometimes presented nude, in both infant (Bala Ganapati) and erotic (Uchchhishta Ganapati) forms. Simons concludes, "In his haste to appease a few protesters, the mayor, usually a champion of the arts, made a serious error in judgment. Instead of giving McCourt's divinely inspired statues the bum's rush, we should be celebrating this Canadian cross-pollination of cultures and aesthetic forms".[37] The Globe and Mail's columnist Margaret Wente agreed with Simons: "The mayor, of course, was quite wrong. Mr. McCourt's sculptures did not insult the Hindu community. They insulted a small but vocal conservative religious group that is about as representative of Hindus as Hassidic Jews are of Jews.... There's a big difference between respecting different cultures and caving in to illiberalism and superstition." [45]

Despite such negative responses in the media to visual art censorship in Canada, in 2014 the Edmonton Arts Council subsequently refused a donation of one of McCourt's sculptures, "Destroyer of Obstacles," evidently because the sculpture had genitalia beneath its clothes.[46] After meeting with seven Hindu community group representative to seek out their opinion of the donation, the Edmonton Arts Council received a response that McCourt's sculpture was "an offense to their religion" and that the ban enacted by Mayor Mandel should remain in place.[47] As a result of this consultation, "the Public Art Committee unanimously voted to decline acceptance of the gift, as the artwork did not meet "community or civic suitability" criteria." In McCourt's view, “It is not the purpose of a city’s public art collection to placate special interests,” he says. “I want Edmonton to build the best civic art collection that we can get, never mind the politics, the religion, etc. of the artists making the work.”[48]

See also

References

  1. ^ McLuhan, Marshall (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1st ed.), University of Toronto Press, ISBN 978-0-8020-6041-9 page 124
  2. ^ MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde; Graeme T Laurie (2007). Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. Oxford University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-19-926339-4.
  3. ^ de Sola Pool, Ithiel (1983). Technologies of freedom. Harvard University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-674-87233-2.
  4. ^ The Rabelais encyclopedia by Elizabeth A. Chesney 2004 ISBN 0-313-31034-3 pages 31-32
  5. ^ The printing press as an agent of change by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein 1980 ISBN 0-521-29955-1 page 328
  6. ^ Robert Jean Knecht, The Rise and Fall of Renaissance France: 1483-1610 2001, ISBN 0-631-22729-6 page 241
  7. ^ Cambridge University on Index.
  8. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica: Index Librorum Prohibitorum
  9. ^ "Haec S. Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, facto verbo cum Beatissimo Patre, nuntiat Indicem suum vigorem moralem servare, quatenus Christifidelium conscientiam docet, ut ab illis scriptis, ipso iure naturali exigente, caveant, quae fidem ac bonos mores in discrimen adducere possint; eundem tamen non amplius vim legis ecclesiasticae habere cum adiectis censuris" (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966), p. 445). Cf. Italian text published, together with the Latin, on L'Osservatore Romano of 15 June 1966
  10. ^ "Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals. §2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God. Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published. §2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident." 1983 Code of Canon Law, Instruments of Social Communion and Books in Particular (Cann. 822 - 832)
  11. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/books/19saramago.html?pagewanted=2&src=mv&_r=0
  12. ^ a b SAUDI ARABIA Catholic priest arrested and expelled from Riyadh - Asia News Archived 23 March 2015 at the Wayback Machine
  13. ^ "Le Prophète Mahomet". L'art du livre arabe. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Retrieved 03-02-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  14. ^ http://www.thejewisheye.com/gedolimb34.html%7Caccessed 4 August 2011
  15. ^ http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/3_2_Shapiro.pdf | Accessed 4 August 2011
  16. ^ http://download.yutorah.org/2011/TU2_Schachter1.pdf (PDF)|Accessed 6 August 2011
  17. ^ "Tradition Seforim Blog : HaGaon". Seforim.traditiononline.org. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
  18. ^ Boswell, Randy (30 January 2012). "'Kosher Jesus' book ignites skirmish between Jewish scholars". Canada.com. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  19. ^ Helen Hornby (ed.). Lights of Guidance. p. 101.
  20. ^ Cole, Juan R.I. (June 1998). "The Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997". The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 37 (2). Retrieved 30 September 2016.
  21. ^ MacEoin, Denis (1990). "The crisis in Babi and Baha'i studies: part of a wider crisis in academic freedom?" (PDF). British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. 17 (1). Retrieved 30 September 2016.
  22. ^ Momen, Moojan (2007). "Marginality and Apostasy in the Bahá'í Community". "Religion" (37:3): 187–209.
  23. ^ Bahá'í International Community. ""Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era" editions and printings held in Bahá'í World Centre Library Decade by decade 1920 -2000+". General Collections. International Bahá'í Library. Retrieved 4 April 2009.
  24. ^ Salisbury, Vance (1997). "A Critical Examination of 20th-Century Baha'i Literature". Bahá'í Library Online. Retrieved 8 December 2016.
  25. ^ Beckwith, Francis (1985). Bahá'í. Minneapolis, MN, USA: Bethany House. pp. 37–38. ISBN 0-87123-848-9.
  26. ^ The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (24 September 1992). "Dates in Baha'u'llah and the New Era: A response to Francis Beckwith". Retrieved 22 December 2006.
  27. ^ The Universal House of Justice (25 June 1995). "Beckwith's allegations". Retrieved 22 December 2006.
  28. ^ The Universal House of Justice (4 May 1999). "Access to materials at the Bahá'í World Centre". Retrieved 25 December 2006.
  29. ^ Edmonton Journal, "Artists Give Walls of Shaw Extension Lively Look," November 18, 2006
  30. ^ Avenue Edmonton: Top 40 Under 40
  31. ^ Edmonton Journal, "Scrap Sculptures, Mayor Says," September 19, 2007
  32. ^ 630 CHED, "Controversial Art To Be Removed, Says Mayor," September 19, 2007
  33. ^ CTV News, September 19, 2007
  34. ^ Global News, September 19, 2007
  35. ^ "Art Scrap," CBC News, September 19, 2007
  36. ^ The Globe and Mail, "Edmonton to Remove Statues After Hindu Protest," September 20, 2007
  37. ^ a b Edmonton Journal, "Sculptor's Use of Revered Hindu Deity Shows No Sign of Sacrilege," September 22, 2007
  38. ^ Glenn Weiss, "The Role of Censorship In Public Art," Aesthetic Grounds, October 2, 2007
  39. ^ Edmonton Journal, "Sculptor Finds Criticism "Rather Quaint," September 19, 2007
  40. ^ Bruce Dunbar, "Mandel Oversteps Bounds," Edmonton Journal, September 23, 2007
  41. ^ Donna McKinnon, "No Place For Censorship," Edmonton Journal, September 23, 2007
  42. ^ "Venting," compiled by Terry McConnell, Edmonton Journal, September 25, 2007
  43. ^ Joe Renaud, "Art's Message Isn't Always Pretty," Edmonton Journal, September 30, 2007
  44. ^ Krishna Bagdiya, "Sculptures No Threat," Edmonton Journal, September 30, 2007
  45. ^ Margaret Wente, "Why Are We So Afraid To Offend?," The Globe and Mail, September 29, 2007
  46. ^ PZ Myers, "Reaching For a Reasonable Justification for Censorship," Pharyngula, April 24, 2015
  47. ^ Edmonton Arts Council - Briefing Note, June 12, 2014
  48. ^ Donna McKinnon, "The Pleasures and Perils of Public Art," Curious Arts, November 27, 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Religious_censorship&oldid=821619464"