Talk:Religious censorship

Article Moved from Censorship by organized religion

April 16, 2006 by me. I have added the ta;k from the old talk page.Angrynight 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should go up for VfD. At best, it should be redirected and/or merged. At worst, it should be deleted. Comments? -- A Link to the Past 09:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe it should just be tidied up and merged with the "blasphemy law" section of blasphemy, as religiously-motivated censorship tends to be of things considered blasphemous. However, censorship links to this article, so perhaps it should be expanded? --StoatBringer 21:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this is nothing more than an anti-religous screed. None of the assertions are documented, and it is biased against the traditional mono-theistic religious of the western tradition. It should be removed, until someone can come forward to produce a scholarly analysis of the topic. --TheJeffMiller 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pull the plug like you're startin a mower. DELETE! ToddCrowder 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

have removed some pov material, which may be re-inserted in npov form. do not think this article shld be deleted, but agree that it requires lots of rewriting and expansion.

do not think this shld be merged with blasphemy. while censorship of blasphemous material is certainly censorship by organised religion, the latter includes lots more, importantly, censorship of opposition/dissention to religious authority and leaders, which is not strictly blasphemy (as i understand).

this short list of examples shows the significance and scope of this article.

heliocentric theory - conflicts b/w science and religion
satanic verses - ditto arts
taliban, iran ... etc. theocratic states' use of this form of censorship to suppress disssent
the inquisition
censorship of pornography ... etc, religious versus moral basis for.
current debate on US TV censorship - profanity, sex ... etc and its link to the christian conservative base.

have voted to keep the article, and hoping that it improves considerably. Doldrums 12:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we ought to maybe add the suppression of Darwinism to this article.

And let's not forget the attempts at censorship by the scientologists! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.4.141 (talk • contribs) .

move to "religious censorship"?

the "organised" qualifier is unnecesary, i think, especially with the rewritten definition the article starts with. Doldrums 04:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to include Salman Rushdie you'll have to. Islam is not an "organized" religion, despite common misconception. Or at least sunni Islam. I often find that the phrase "organized religion" is more often than not a weasle way of reffering to Abrahamic faiths despie the fact that numerous religions implied are not organized, there are plenty of smaller sects of Christianity which are not organized for example. Either define organized, or don't use it. I don;t recommend trying to define it either. Angrynight 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The word "organized" in the title is a problem. "religious censorship" Or "censorship by religion"?DanielDemaret 21:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship by religion" is more appropriate since more general - it dosen't focus on why the censoring is done (which is clear in the expression "religious censorship"). / Abjad 23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let's put it up to a vote, then.Angrynight 02:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite modern conservative Christian perceptions that there is a War on Christmas, " This statement should be removed. I agree with the renaming of the article. Android1st 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections I will move the article in one week. Angrynight 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved Angrynight 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems biased against Christianity.The article in the first few paragraphs describes censorship but then goes on for the rest of the article to describe ways the Christian church has censored things.Serenacw 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I don;t have the time or means to fix it, but I tagged this as POV because all it seems to do is focus on the Catholic church, and is extremely negative. I also added a globalize tag because of this. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 17:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed some off-topic stuff: as deplorable as the Albigensian crusades might be, they do NOT constitute a form of censorship. Also, the passages about the Inquisition were ill-informed, off-topic and POV. I also separeted the Gospel of Thomas bit from the Index, as that book was long lost before anybody thought up an Index. Still, there remain heavy problems of POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]